Bryan C wrote:
>
> You spelled my name wrong, therefore your arguements do not apply ;)
> And my father is Daddy, not Satan.
Bryan
>
> Power has no "side". Power is everywhere, it will always be everywhere
> and it is not inherently evil or oppressive; it just is.
Then, what about power/resistence. As the subject of the recent postings
you are positioned on a side of this oposition. It doesn't even mean
that you're always there, because a subject is a discoursive
construction and it changes from one discourse to another and therefore
you may well be on both sides of that oposition.
> I think you
> are saying that I am on the side of existing power structures, but this
> deffinatitely isn't true. I agree with much of what F said, not all.
> I'm also an anarchist, deffinitely not for the establishment. (This is
> not an argument for anarchism it is meant to show that I am not for
> the establishment, nothing more.)
I think searching trascendental truth means to be on the side of
existing power structures. May be i'm wrong.
>
>> I can't believe that i read some of you arguing
>> in an aristotelic logic way. Logic, from Aristote to positivism is a way
>> of legitimation power is based upon and its pretension of beyond-time
>> validity the way to solidify and universalize temporary and epocal
>> values and norms.
>
>
> I disagree. Many philosophers have used syllogistic and positivist
> logic contrary to popular norms. Rand comes to mind.
That is a very metaphysical believe that claims the spliting between
form and content.
>
>
> Any system of logic can be manipulated to justify norms. The fact that
> many are arguing against norms with positivist logic is proof of that.
True. But the fact is the system of logic we have to deal with is
aristotelic. I think psichoanalysis emerged as a line of resistence to
that logic and epistemology, or as Deleuze would said, a
desterritorializacion (in spanish, please translate it).
>
>
>> Besides, it seems to me that you want to unify Foucault as a kind of
>> whole without holes. That's not Foucault at all. Foucault is *SOMETHING*
>> that changes after each new reading because his is not a closed
>> philosophical system. Indeed a list devoted exclusively to him is
>> perhaps against him. The way of taking F's thought seriously has,
>> perhaps to do with thinking F's discourse in the net of discourses wich
>> trespasses it.
>
>
> Why does it change?
>
>> Another thing: if sexuality is to be positioned as a place of resistence
>> we have to be able to deal with discourses that refer to it. Foucault is
>> something else than a contemporary Marquis de Sade. He told somewhere
>> that Sade was interesting for neither his philosophical claims which
>> were very weak nor for his sexual practice but for making that practice
>> become literature.
>
>
> I'm not understanding the petinence of this argument, please elaborate.
The above paragraph referred to a former post (i don't remember by whom,
i'll search it) that put F's thoughts close to those of the marquis
about power and strength. Power relations are not a kind of natural law
after wich the strongest subdues the weaker.
>
>
>> And of course if someone is about to shoot me i'd better shoot him
>> before. And a nazi is that one, except you are a nazi too, and even so
>> he'll shoot you.
>
>
> Please clarify, I don't understand what this is saying. The English
> didn't come out quite right :)
What i meant above is that with natzis it's a matter of nothing but
survival. Therefore you can't claim simetry is applicable to that case.
>
>
>> Apologies for my English.
>
>
> No problem, but if you could restate a couple of the arguments, that
> would be great.
I've just read that you'll stop posting. Don't worry about answering
this. I've enjoyed it the same.
Greetings
Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
>
--
Examinations are formidable even to the best prepared, for the gratest fool may ask more than the wisest man can answer. -Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
>
> You spelled my name wrong, therefore your arguements do not apply ;)
> And my father is Daddy, not Satan.
Bryan
>
> Power has no "side". Power is everywhere, it will always be everywhere
> and it is not inherently evil or oppressive; it just is.
Then, what about power/resistence. As the subject of the recent postings
you are positioned on a side of this oposition. It doesn't even mean
that you're always there, because a subject is a discoursive
construction and it changes from one discourse to another and therefore
you may well be on both sides of that oposition.
> I think you
> are saying that I am on the side of existing power structures, but this
> deffinatitely isn't true. I agree with much of what F said, not all.
> I'm also an anarchist, deffinitely not for the establishment. (This is
> not an argument for anarchism it is meant to show that I am not for
> the establishment, nothing more.)
I think searching trascendental truth means to be on the side of
existing power structures. May be i'm wrong.
>
>> I can't believe that i read some of you arguing
>> in an aristotelic logic way. Logic, from Aristote to positivism is a way
>> of legitimation power is based upon and its pretension of beyond-time
>> validity the way to solidify and universalize temporary and epocal
>> values and norms.
>
>
> I disagree. Many philosophers have used syllogistic and positivist
> logic contrary to popular norms. Rand comes to mind.
That is a very metaphysical believe that claims the spliting between
form and content.
>
>
> Any system of logic can be manipulated to justify norms. The fact that
> many are arguing against norms with positivist logic is proof of that.
True. But the fact is the system of logic we have to deal with is
aristotelic. I think psichoanalysis emerged as a line of resistence to
that logic and epistemology, or as Deleuze would said, a
desterritorializacion (in spanish, please translate it).
>
>
>> Besides, it seems to me that you want to unify Foucault as a kind of
>> whole without holes. That's not Foucault at all. Foucault is *SOMETHING*
>> that changes after each new reading because his is not a closed
>> philosophical system. Indeed a list devoted exclusively to him is
>> perhaps against him. The way of taking F's thought seriously has,
>> perhaps to do with thinking F's discourse in the net of discourses wich
>> trespasses it.
>
>
> Why does it change?
>
>> Another thing: if sexuality is to be positioned as a place of resistence
>> we have to be able to deal with discourses that refer to it. Foucault is
>> something else than a contemporary Marquis de Sade. He told somewhere
>> that Sade was interesting for neither his philosophical claims which
>> were very weak nor for his sexual practice but for making that practice
>> become literature.
>
>
> I'm not understanding the petinence of this argument, please elaborate.
The above paragraph referred to a former post (i don't remember by whom,
i'll search it) that put F's thoughts close to those of the marquis
about power and strength. Power relations are not a kind of natural law
after wich the strongest subdues the weaker.
>
>
>> And of course if someone is about to shoot me i'd better shoot him
>> before. And a nazi is that one, except you are a nazi too, and even so
>> he'll shoot you.
>
>
> Please clarify, I don't understand what this is saying. The English
> didn't come out quite right :)
What i meant above is that with natzis it's a matter of nothing but
survival. Therefore you can't claim simetry is applicable to that case.
>
>
>> Apologies for my English.
>
>
> No problem, but if you could restate a couple of the arguments, that
> would be great.
I've just read that you'll stop posting. Don't worry about answering
this. I've enjoyed it the same.
Greetings
Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
>
--
Examinations are formidable even to the best prepared, for the gratest fool may ask more than the wisest man can answer. -Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)