-----Original Message-----
From: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bryan C
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 7:24 PM
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: enough
*
*list. THATS WHY I'M HERE!!!!! Like I said before. If your dying of
*thirst and you find water, you drink it you don't worship it, Nathan
*doesn't understand this either! If I only listen and don't challenge,
*everyone is just reciting and no one is learning anything new.
*
It may be, that to some, you don't appear to be drinking so much as
insisting "that's not water, it's just a mirage." In other words, issuing
challenges without accepting them. Maybe that's not "true." But it does
sometimes seem to be the case. For example... you've said that you believe
homosexuality is immoral, but then claim that this belief isn't
exclusionary. For some, such a claim doesn't hold water especially well.
(Oh, and it's "if you're dying of thirst," no offense, just a pet peeve,
everyone I know has them.)
>I don't want to silence anyone. But this list can only survive if we don't
>have people post 10 e-mails of nonsense per day, and this is something that
>Bryan clearly either doesn't recognize or has too much pride to respect.
*
*Everyone I've talked with seems to think its a good thing that there
*have been more conversations. Again Nathan reveals his revulsion at the
*mere thought of being challenged and having to learn.
*
>Let's stop making people want to unsubscribe.
*
*There has been one person ask about that the entire time I've been on
*the list, and I did a search. That guy had never posted before! He
*just wasn't interested, I make him want to unsubscribe.
*
Not posting, I'll venture, doesn't mean that one isn't interested. I very,
very, rarely post, but am quite intersted. But I think the point is that the
use of homosexuality/homophobia as an exemplary case ignores the fact that
it's inflamatory, ignores the fact that people, some of whom (however small
the minority) subscribe to this list, are in situations that make it less
than ideally suitable for 'detached' consideration. No one's really at all
likely to beat you up for thinking that homosexuality is immoral, possible,
but not something you have to be concerned about on a day to day basis.
Perhaps something else could be found that would allow you to continue the
learning process without so much consternation for those who are less
interested in these specific issues regarding Foucault's work than you and
some others are would be appropriate? It would certainly have the virtue of
avoiding all the distractions from whatever the 'real' issues you're
interested in are by averting opportunities for the name calling you say you
aren't interested in.
*
*I can't help it if your a bigot. If your not here to learn then
*god it go somewhere else! I don't know what the hell your problem is
*that you had to bring a private matter like your fear of learning out
*into the forum. Just make an argument or SHUT THE HELL UP!
*
Would it be at all useful to point out that your personal beliefs about the
morality of homosexuality are private matters that any number of subscribers
might not want to learn. Or that this doesn't sound very much like an
argument? Probably not.
*
*I'm sorry to all you who had to read this but Nathan has been pissing
*me off alot lately and this was the straw that broke the camel's back.
*He brought it here, where it didn't belong, not me. I'll write back
*to the thinking individuals on this list tomorrow, I'm to pissed to
*think coherently right now. Again, if alot of you don't want to talk
*about Kant, that's fine!
*
Please do talk about Kant. Please don't continue to use homosexuality as the
case in point as it has proven to be inflamatory. Maybe genocide would be
more useful? For example: Very few people seem to have any difficulties with
the prospect of 'ending polio' or smallpox etc if one geneotype is
considered to be as good as another for raising abstract questions of the
ethics of extermination - including the possible ethical/moral implications
of insisting that one genotype is -not- as good as another for that purpose?
(Is the Cistine Chapel Good? Is Ebola Bad? to swipe a pairing from something
I heard on the radio earlier.) Or, perhaps some consideration of the
possible ahistorical assumptions of some definitions of universality - that
something could be universal Here, but only for Now? These probably aren't
very good suggestions, but I felt that I should make an effort to offer some
alternatives since the posts that I read as being pleas to drop the
homosexuality aspect have been interpreted by some others as pleas to drop
the Foucault-Kant thread. I may well be the one who's missed the point
Regards,
RF
___________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com