> -M.F. _The History of Sexuality_ Vol. 1, An Introduction. p. 131.
> You do read this stuff, don't you?
Some of it I do. I've actually never read "The History of Sexuality" up to
p. 131. It still seems to me that your quote is far from classifying
Reich as "bourgeois ideology" in a way which would make it ironic to
mention him on a Foucault list. But if I can churlishly jeer at you,
you should be permitted to do the same at me.
> Very well, then, find an example of any scientist whose work evinces
> any sort of application of any of the work of any 20-th century French
> philosopher.
But let's poke this a bit. Do you think, for example, that science
evinces any sort of application of the work of any 19th century German
philosopher? Or, for that matter, of any 20th century Anglo-Saxon
philosopher? Or, to go back randomly, does science evince applications
of Hume, or Plato? Marx? I guess Marx has been tried, in a manner of
speaking, but that's because he was at the time a "state philosopher"
of the state that tried to do science that way. So I don't know about
your criterion of effectiveness, how effective it is.
-m, who thinks that "Winship West Hillier" is most sonorous, and not at all
stiff. Can sonority be stiff? Can a two-by-four be sonorous?