Er...come again. I get the feeling that you are a) trying to say something
here but you have dressed it up in overly complicated logical jumps and
usuage of words or b) you are just stringing a bunch of commonly used terms
employed by pomos into meaningless sentences and are thus employing a
"lurking irony mocking the dead humor". Hmmm i favour the latter.
Doug.
>Over this past week I spent eleven hours on a portion of Foucault's
>_Madness and Civilization_, and I have preliminarily concluded that
>even though some tidbits are valuable, which are only so somehow in
>their own right, his genealogical method is worthless as philosophy
>and becomes a dead history up to which he does not write or examine
>both contingently as those tidbits are only fruitful buds along the
>way which would be pruned if he were more rigorous, and necessarily
>as there is an unacknowledged hermeneutics at work committed by him
>consciously or not or somehow necessitated (inauthentically) by the
>method itself with a power all its own. Concepts are reduced to the
>descent of the usage of words defined by their conjoined descent of
>practices or arbitrary collections of actions. Essences are at work
>in the genealogist's continuities in descent. The hermeneutics used
>is in surrender to self-interpretation, as a period's documents are
>granted the right to definitively mean what exactly their practices
>are. Even if this method is accepted by the genealogist, descent is
>of not only of concepts, words, practices, institutions, discourses
>but also of the elements being traces through them in descent. Also
>how is one to course through them as this must necessarily be crude
>as many elements are foreign to the genealogist's understanding, as
>meanings self-determined by the institutions under scrutiny so made
>by necessarily non-genealogical methods, that is, their history, or
>histories, must be included within descent. But the more pronounced
>problem is the meaning of the reduced element, the embodied actions
>as universally(?) understood. It seems that they are interpreted in
>the end through the world of the genealogist, and perhaps this just
>may be the point of the performance of genealogy in the first place
>(if such a place there is). If this is so then parody is indeed the
>way to go, and it is humor in the performance, but something on the
>order of a dead, dry humor. And what of the valuable tidbits, those
>unpruned buds? Are these lurking irony mocking the dead humor? They
>are the explicit repudiation of the genealogical method of descent,
>a clarified explication from the perspective of the genealogist and
>therefore signifies the salvation(!) from radical relativism as the
>essentially parodistic hermeneutics of self-interpretation, whether
>those discourses under scrutiny are histories within descent, being
>true genealogically, or descent within the genealogist's histories.
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com