I find it very disturbing that you got every line in this paragraph to come
out exactly the same length.
>From: rick issan <rick_aei@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Problem With Descent: Performance Without Example
>Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 00:25:49 EST
>
>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
out exactly the same length.
>From: rick issan <rick_aei@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Problem With Descent: Performance Without Example
>Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 00:25:49 EST
>
>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