Not sure I understand you correctly. Assume for the sake of argument
that the last sentence of your last posting was completely
unintelligible and made absolutely no sense whatsoever (I'm not saying
this is in fact that case, I'm just saying, assume for the sake of
making an example, that it is). Are you saying that this is a result of
Plato's sexual activity, 2500 years ago? And are you saying that if he
had behaved differently, you might then, as a result, today be capable
of writing intelligible sentences? Furthermore, are you saying that you
gleaned this insight through a reading of Foucault, and that if it were
not for "his own scandalous behavior," you may not have gleaned this
most amazing insight?
charmaine driscoll wrote:
> 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
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: if -- And
> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:25:39 -0700
> From: Patrick Crosby <pcrosby@xxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> References: <77.16f55570.287236ef@xxxxxxx>
>
> 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?
>
> TekUtopia@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> Here's the real question: is the personal really political? Is it
>> possible to
>> separate a thinker's sexual life from their political discourse via
>> some
>> "public/private dualism?" I would think that the answers on the list
>> to this
>> would be interesting, in light of the Rorty bashing we saw earlier
>> this year.
>>
>> One Love,
>>
>> Aaron J. Lyttle
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> --------
>> "The voice told her when and where and why,
>> She said, 'I've lost control.'"
>>
>> -Joy Division
>>
>> In a message dated 7/2/2001 2:33:04 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
>> pcrosby@xxxxxxxx writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> > I don't know and couldn't care less. Have you ever thought of
>> > starting a
>> > discussion list of your own, such as "sex lives of famous
>> > academics," or
>> > "top academics get down and dirty," or something like that? Just
>> > think
>> > of it: you could be the founder of a yahoo club! (Yes, that is with
>> > a
>> > small 'y').
>>
that the last sentence of your last posting was completely
unintelligible and made absolutely no sense whatsoever (I'm not saying
this is in fact that case, I'm just saying, assume for the sake of
making an example, that it is). Are you saying that this is a result of
Plato's sexual activity, 2500 years ago? And are you saying that if he
had behaved differently, you might then, as a result, today be capable
of writing intelligible sentences? Furthermore, are you saying that you
gleaned this insight through a reading of Foucault, and that if it were
not for "his own scandalous behavior," you may not have gleaned this
most amazing insight?
charmaine driscoll wrote:
> 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
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: if -- And
> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:25:39 -0700
> From: Patrick Crosby <pcrosby@xxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> References: <77.16f55570.287236ef@xxxxxxx>
>
> 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?
>
> TekUtopia@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> Here's the real question: is the personal really political? Is it
>> possible to
>> separate a thinker's sexual life from their political discourse via
>> some
>> "public/private dualism?" I would think that the answers on the list
>> to this
>> would be interesting, in light of the Rorty bashing we saw earlier
>> this year.
>>
>> One Love,
>>
>> Aaron J. Lyttle
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> --------
>> "The voice told her when and where and why,
>> She said, 'I've lost control.'"
>>
>> -Joy Division
>>
>> In a message dated 7/2/2001 2:33:04 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
>> pcrosby@xxxxxxxx writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> > I don't know and couldn't care less. Have you ever thought of
>> > starting a
>> > discussion list of your own, such as "sex lives of famous
>> > academics," or
>> > "top academics get down and dirty," or something like that? Just
>> > think
>> > of it: you could be the founder of a yahoo club! (Yes, that is with
>> > a
>> > small 'y').
>>