Hi,
I agree with Charmaine. My logic is as follows:
If we are to say that sexual preference (or any facet of a theorist's
background) does not matter, then what we are saying is that what that
theorist is 'communicating' (and how we 'listening') is unaffected by the
aforementioned sexual preference (or, again, any facet of a theorist's
background)? Yes?
I can imagine some of you are about ready to crucify me with my implicit
suggestion that it is important we know what the sexual preference is of a
theorist so as to fully understand his/her work...
No, that is not what I am saying, not really...
If we discard the sexual preference (or any other facet of a theorist's
background) then we are assuming that what is being communicated (and how we
are listening) is above (unaffected) by sexual preference, as it probably
is... but how do we know?
We have made a critical assumption regarding the nature of the relative (to
the listeners - us) speaking position of the theorist, maybe? Perhaps?
And if we are suggesting that what a theorist is suggesting is unaffected by
his/her sexual preference (or any other, etc) then what is the implicit
suggestion there? Like, what, when it is communicated, is unaffected by the
relative speaking position of the 'speaker'? Well, nothing. Nothing within
the social that is...
Therefore the implicit assumption being made when any element of a
theorist's personal background is trivialised as unimportant, is that what
is being communicated is outside of the social, and that is impossible.
Sexuality isn't necessarily one of the foundations on which I base much
theoretical currency, unless of course what is being theorised IS
sexuality... And I am not suggesting we have a mini autobiography with every
word uttered...
What I am suggesting is that awareness of such personal details of theorists
may affect and effect their theories may lead to a greater understanding of
the what they are trying to communicate.
E.g. if someone is university educated, or if they stopped their schooling
in the third grade.
And THAT is the essential point I am trying to make, we should judge the
theorist's work, not the theorist, but to judge his/her work requires
knowledge of the social trajectory of the speaker as well.
yep,
Glen Fuller.
----- Original Message -----
From: "charmaine driscoll" <missplateau@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: if -- And
>
> Now we are getting somewhere. As a matter of fact Foucault initiated this
> project. With his life and ideas; for instance;The Lives of Infamous Men;
> his writing about the hermaphodite,the one about Pierre Riviere, and
> naturally his own scandalous behaviour. And whether Plato was homosexual
> makes all the difference in how we, and how I, and how he wrote.
>
>
>
> >From: Patrick Crosby <pcrosby@xxxxxxxx>
>
> >
> Alright, let me see if I have this correct now. To understand the
> differences in the political philosophies of Plato and Aristotle,
> one needs to understand that Plato was gay and Aristotle was straight. And
> whether Foucault was a top, a bottom, or liked to
> be in the middle position of a 3-way just naturally makes all the
difference
> in the world when you want to understand "The
> Order of Things." Of course! Why didn't I think of that?
>
> Regards,
> C.Driscoll
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
I agree with Charmaine. My logic is as follows:
If we are to say that sexual preference (or any facet of a theorist's
background) does not matter, then what we are saying is that what that
theorist is 'communicating' (and how we 'listening') is unaffected by the
aforementioned sexual preference (or, again, any facet of a theorist's
background)? Yes?
I can imagine some of you are about ready to crucify me with my implicit
suggestion that it is important we know what the sexual preference is of a
theorist so as to fully understand his/her work...
No, that is not what I am saying, not really...
If we discard the sexual preference (or any other facet of a theorist's
background) then we are assuming that what is being communicated (and how we
are listening) is above (unaffected) by sexual preference, as it probably
is... but how do we know?
We have made a critical assumption regarding the nature of the relative (to
the listeners - us) speaking position of the theorist, maybe? Perhaps?
And if we are suggesting that what a theorist is suggesting is unaffected by
his/her sexual preference (or any other, etc) then what is the implicit
suggestion there? Like, what, when it is communicated, is unaffected by the
relative speaking position of the 'speaker'? Well, nothing. Nothing within
the social that is...
Therefore the implicit assumption being made when any element of a
theorist's personal background is trivialised as unimportant, is that what
is being communicated is outside of the social, and that is impossible.
Sexuality isn't necessarily one of the foundations on which I base much
theoretical currency, unless of course what is being theorised IS
sexuality... And I am not suggesting we have a mini autobiography with every
word uttered...
What I am suggesting is that awareness of such personal details of theorists
may affect and effect their theories may lead to a greater understanding of
the what they are trying to communicate.
E.g. if someone is university educated, or if they stopped their schooling
in the third grade.
And THAT is the essential point I am trying to make, we should judge the
theorist's work, not the theorist, but to judge his/her work requires
knowledge of the social trajectory of the speaker as well.
yep,
Glen Fuller.
----- Original Message -----
From: "charmaine driscoll" <missplateau@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: if -- And
>
> Now we are getting somewhere. As a matter of fact Foucault initiated this
> project. With his life and ideas; for instance;The Lives of Infamous Men;
> his writing about the hermaphodite,the one about Pierre Riviere, and
> naturally his own scandalous behaviour. And whether Plato was homosexual
> makes all the difference in how we, and how I, and how he wrote.
>
>
>
> >From: Patrick Crosby <pcrosby@xxxxxxxx>
>
> >
> Alright, let me see if I have this correct now. To understand the
> differences in the political philosophies of Plato and Aristotle,
> one needs to understand that Plato was gay and Aristotle was straight. And
> whether Foucault was a top, a bottom, or liked to
> be in the middle position of a 3-way just naturally makes all the
difference
> in the world when you want to understand "The
> Order of Things." Of course! Why didn't I think of that?
>
> Regards,
> C.Driscoll
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>