G'day,
Okay, I just happen to have my copy of the Republic right here...
Although I thought what I was saying was pretty obvious, and I think it is,
so maybe you misinterpreted my point. My point is that the speaker has a
context that has meaning, yep? That is as important as the meaning of what
is being communicated, hmm?
So are you saying to understand the allegory of the cave does not require
understanding of Plato-the-person? Of course not because that would be
ridiculous, yeah?
Hang on a second! My copy (Penguin Classics 1987) has a Preface, then a
Translator's Intro. The first section of the T.I. is Plato's Life and Times.
Gee whiz! I wonder why that is...
Specifically what I would look at in this case would be some of the
particular social arrangements within the society as Plato knew it (the
hierarchy, slaves, serfs, aliens, females, citizens, and all that jazz),
also, maybe, he would have been very unhappy with the "tyranny of the
commission of thirty" that put his mate Socrates to death...
So maybe his (Plato's) conception of Evil as an absence of truth could have
been gleamed from his experience of seeing someone he had thought of as
virtuous being killed, and the perpetrators of which behaving in such a way,
maybe, due to an absence of truth (or what he held to be 'truthful). Eh?
I am not a student of Plato, although I like his bit about Democracy (the
section under 'Imperfect Societies'), and perhaps in that section he can be
forgiven for thinking that it would be a bad thing for slaves to rise up
against their masters, for what else did he know? (Other than merely his
version of the 'truth', therefore he wasn't evil...)
If someone reading the allegory of the cave did not know of Plato, then what
exactly would they understand of it? I can't answer that question because I
have some understanding of Plato-the-person...
But this is obvious, yes? So why should the knowledge of Plato being, say,
an ancient Greek, be any different than some present day theorist's
sexuality (or ethnicity, or 'class', or gender, or age)?
Is this a phenomenological question that I am poking? Hmm...
I don't think knowledge can be objective (that comment in itself is a
subjective truth), therefore it requires an understanding of the
subjectivity of the speaker communicating (or attempting to communicate) the
knowledge. Which requires knowledge of the speaker... only if, of course,
there is a disagreement over meaning of what is being communicated, if there
is none, then the relative perspective of the 'listener' and 'speaker' are
similar enough to communicate meaning.
The poor buggers looking at shadows know of nothing else, therefore they
cannot be communicated with, until they understand that the subjectivity of
the speaker incorporates a little trip to the outside of the cave. In terms
of the allegory of the cave, there is more than one exit, for there is no
(singular) 'sun', or maybe just multiple caves linked together.
I mean you assume to assume knowledge of Plato when reading his work (I
assume). Like he is dead, from a long time ago, etc, so as to place what you
are reading in a context, so why the hell not do that now? I mean there is
more than one language being spoken, and more than one way a language can be
understood. I merely think people should be more aware of the 'intent' of
the speaker, rather than just the supposed meaning of what is being
communicated.
Yours (hopefully:) meaningfully and significantly,
Glen Fuller.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Crosby" <pcrosby@xxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: if -- And
> Alright, time to put your "logic" to the test. Take Plato's well known
> allegory of the cave. Explain to me and the other readers of this list
> how any of what you say below has bearing whatsoever upon its meaning
> and significance.
>
>
>
> Glen Fuller wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > >
>
Okay, I just happen to have my copy of the Republic right here...
Although I thought what I was saying was pretty obvious, and I think it is,
so maybe you misinterpreted my point. My point is that the speaker has a
context that has meaning, yep? That is as important as the meaning of what
is being communicated, hmm?
So are you saying to understand the allegory of the cave does not require
understanding of Plato-the-person? Of course not because that would be
ridiculous, yeah?
Hang on a second! My copy (Penguin Classics 1987) has a Preface, then a
Translator's Intro. The first section of the T.I. is Plato's Life and Times.
Gee whiz! I wonder why that is...
Specifically what I would look at in this case would be some of the
particular social arrangements within the society as Plato knew it (the
hierarchy, slaves, serfs, aliens, females, citizens, and all that jazz),
also, maybe, he would have been very unhappy with the "tyranny of the
commission of thirty" that put his mate Socrates to death...
So maybe his (Plato's) conception of Evil as an absence of truth could have
been gleamed from his experience of seeing someone he had thought of as
virtuous being killed, and the perpetrators of which behaving in such a way,
maybe, due to an absence of truth (or what he held to be 'truthful). Eh?
I am not a student of Plato, although I like his bit about Democracy (the
section under 'Imperfect Societies'), and perhaps in that section he can be
forgiven for thinking that it would be a bad thing for slaves to rise up
against their masters, for what else did he know? (Other than merely his
version of the 'truth', therefore he wasn't evil...)
If someone reading the allegory of the cave did not know of Plato, then what
exactly would they understand of it? I can't answer that question because I
have some understanding of Plato-the-person...
But this is obvious, yes? So why should the knowledge of Plato being, say,
an ancient Greek, be any different than some present day theorist's
sexuality (or ethnicity, or 'class', or gender, or age)?
Is this a phenomenological question that I am poking? Hmm...
I don't think knowledge can be objective (that comment in itself is a
subjective truth), therefore it requires an understanding of the
subjectivity of the speaker communicating (or attempting to communicate) the
knowledge. Which requires knowledge of the speaker... only if, of course,
there is a disagreement over meaning of what is being communicated, if there
is none, then the relative perspective of the 'listener' and 'speaker' are
similar enough to communicate meaning.
The poor buggers looking at shadows know of nothing else, therefore they
cannot be communicated with, until they understand that the subjectivity of
the speaker incorporates a little trip to the outside of the cave. In terms
of the allegory of the cave, there is more than one exit, for there is no
(singular) 'sun', or maybe just multiple caves linked together.
I mean you assume to assume knowledge of Plato when reading his work (I
assume). Like he is dead, from a long time ago, etc, so as to place what you
are reading in a context, so why the hell not do that now? I mean there is
more than one language being spoken, and more than one way a language can be
understood. I merely think people should be more aware of the 'intent' of
the speaker, rather than just the supposed meaning of what is being
communicated.
Yours (hopefully:) meaningfully and significantly,
Glen Fuller.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Crosby" <pcrosby@xxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: if -- And
> Alright, time to put your "logic" to the test. Take Plato's well known
> allegory of the cave. Explain to me and the other readers of this list
> how any of what you say below has bearing whatsoever upon its meaning
> and significance.
>
>
>
> Glen Fuller wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > >
>