>In your message of 22:38 Jan 20 1997, you write:
>
>>
>> personally I like 2 use Foucault 2... his head makes a great place 2 store
>> office supplies-ya know pens, pencils, and so on also his severed handz
>> make damn good paper weights. I'd suggest using his skin 2 keep warm btw.
>> Don't 4get cream o'-Foucault 2... itz mm mm good.
>> +<=|:)
>>
>
>I suppose one could take you as being humorous; but I think you are
>unhumorous, and kind of twisted. What are you doing with your life
>beside this sort of inane commentary? Why this list? Obviously you've at
>least heard of Foucault. Why don't you say something less vacant. If you
>think he is full of shit, tell us why. If you don't have anything
>interesting to say, maybe you should push on to another list.
>
>--
F. = Foucault
No I don't think F. is full of shit although yr
finding "my" reply unhumerous only more proves
the point. What both the title and the text contained
in these e-mails shows is a careless disregard of peices
of a good deal of philosophy after Hegel & Neitzsche.
Wether it be Hegel's commentary on the preface &
introduction to F.'s ideas sorrunding a writer's relation to
the work what has become apparent is that so much of
thought is influenced HEAVILY by the language we speak.
By saying "Using Foucault" one implys literally that one is
using the man/body Foucault. Yet, all text contianed in these
messages has been about the text which Foucault wrote.
I understand that F. viewed the writer as having no relation
to the text, the text obgectified the writer. Then when one
progresses further n2 the path which F. traveled one reads
more recent thinkers such as Derrida. Granted that not
everyone here agress with Derrida's philosophy one must still
admit, unless yr extremely conservstive, that these seemingly
"inane" or "anal" critiques actually
hold more to them than I or perhaps you credit them. By
making mistakes such as this one consciously or uncoinsciously
moves backward in thinking. That is to say this entire thread should have
been called something to the effect of "Using the common
interpretation of" and then the name of the text instead of just
"Using Foucault" these seemingly harmless generalzation or
rationalzations ARE skrewing us up wether we like it or not.
I'd like 2 add here that I'm not sayin EVERY title should
be an exact label of the contents ,but that one needs to
make clear what the text is doing.
To me they are simply
using an interpretation ( and a fairly narrow interpretation @ that)
to further support thier ideas. While I do think everyone does that
they, the ppl who wrote in reponse to this thread, ignored peices of F.'s
philosophy. I don't shun thier using of certiant texts which F. "wrote"
to back up thier own ideas or "make sense" of things however I do shun
thier calling the texts Foucault. In the end please don't be lazy either
you take these ppl seriously or you don't. If you do take them seriously
then please take the time to phrase yr self in a manner the ideas
would approve of or at least the interpreation yr using would.
ppl speak as if they were certiant or able to determine things
personally I think if we'd just substitute a few words with
others we'd be able to better and more exactly express
things and naturally our thoughts would follow.
thank you & sincerely
some idiot
>
>>
>> personally I like 2 use Foucault 2... his head makes a great place 2 store
>> office supplies-ya know pens, pencils, and so on also his severed handz
>> make damn good paper weights. I'd suggest using his skin 2 keep warm btw.
>> Don't 4get cream o'-Foucault 2... itz mm mm good.
>> +<=|:)
>>
>
>I suppose one could take you as being humorous; but I think you are
>unhumorous, and kind of twisted. What are you doing with your life
>beside this sort of inane commentary? Why this list? Obviously you've at
>least heard of Foucault. Why don't you say something less vacant. If you
>think he is full of shit, tell us why. If you don't have anything
>interesting to say, maybe you should push on to another list.
>
>--
F. = Foucault
No I don't think F. is full of shit although yr
finding "my" reply unhumerous only more proves
the point. What both the title and the text contained
in these e-mails shows is a careless disregard of peices
of a good deal of philosophy after Hegel & Neitzsche.
Wether it be Hegel's commentary on the preface &
introduction to F.'s ideas sorrunding a writer's relation to
the work what has become apparent is that so much of
thought is influenced HEAVILY by the language we speak.
By saying "Using Foucault" one implys literally that one is
using the man/body Foucault. Yet, all text contianed in these
messages has been about the text which Foucault wrote.
I understand that F. viewed the writer as having no relation
to the text, the text obgectified the writer. Then when one
progresses further n2 the path which F. traveled one reads
more recent thinkers such as Derrida. Granted that not
everyone here agress with Derrida's philosophy one must still
admit, unless yr extremely conservstive, that these seemingly
"inane" or "anal" critiques actually
hold more to them than I or perhaps you credit them. By
making mistakes such as this one consciously or uncoinsciously
moves backward in thinking. That is to say this entire thread should have
been called something to the effect of "Using the common
interpretation of" and then the name of the text instead of just
"Using Foucault" these seemingly harmless generalzation or
rationalzations ARE skrewing us up wether we like it or not.
I'd like 2 add here that I'm not sayin EVERY title should
be an exact label of the contents ,but that one needs to
make clear what the text is doing.
To me they are simply
using an interpretation ( and a fairly narrow interpretation @ that)
to further support thier ideas. While I do think everyone does that
they, the ppl who wrote in reponse to this thread, ignored peices of F.'s
philosophy. I don't shun thier using of certiant texts which F. "wrote"
to back up thier own ideas or "make sense" of things however I do shun
thier calling the texts Foucault. In the end please don't be lazy either
you take these ppl seriously or you don't. If you do take them seriously
then please take the time to phrase yr self in a manner the ideas
would approve of or at least the interpreation yr using would.
ppl speak as if they were certiant or able to determine things
personally I think if we'd just substitute a few words with
others we'd be able to better and more exactly express
things and naturally our thoughts would follow.
thank you & sincerely
some idiot