On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Clare O'Farrell wrote:
> I was not actually asking here about what Foucault originally said
Yeah, I know, but I just thought it should be pointed out, for those
unfamiliar with the issue, that it's not exactly a matter of
interpretation, except insofar as everything is a matter of
interpretation. McNay et al.'s claim isn't a misinterpretation, it's
simply false.
Anyway, I didn't mean to tell you something you already know as if you
didn't know it. Sorry.
Matthew
---Matthew A. King---Department of Philosophy---York University, Toronto---
"Whatever we have words for, that we have already got beyond.
In all talk there is a grain of contempt."
--------------------------------(Nietzsche)--------------------------------
> I was not actually asking here about what Foucault originally said
Yeah, I know, but I just thought it should be pointed out, for those
unfamiliar with the issue, that it's not exactly a matter of
interpretation, except insofar as everything is a matter of
interpretation. McNay et al.'s claim isn't a misinterpretation, it's
simply false.
Anyway, I didn't mean to tell you something you already know as if you
didn't know it. Sorry.
Matthew
---Matthew A. King---Department of Philosophy---York University, Toronto---
"Whatever we have words for, that we have already got beyond.
In all talk there is a grain of contempt."
--------------------------------(Nietzsche)--------------------------------