Defining the THE?

G'day Nate,

Hmmm, if absolutes are not possible then everything matters, yeah?
My assertion is, it is only with absolutes does it not matter who is
speaking, only what is being said. Genealogy of intent, anyone?

My trajectory is of a belief that everything is contingent, nothing is
certain, that what is right just happens to be the best fitting piece of an
ever-changing puzzle.

Therefore.... what cannot change is history, but what can change is our
understanding of it (so maybe history does change?). And history is being
produced all the time, including when present day theorists publish work.
Therefore to understand their work, a context must be produced (however
limited) to place the understanding the reader has of his/herself relative
to the theorist, to extrapolate an understanding of the work relative to
that which was intended.

What do you mean by "our use of the text"?

Ancient Greece, is not, umm, my biggest concern, it is the sophistry
encountered in present everyday life. Academia is just one 'formation'
amongst many. A bricolage of beliefs feeding extremist behaviour and state
repression... maybe everyday life will get better if we keep on redefining
things in the name of THE good.

'Intent' seems to be a dirty word around the traps at the moment, I am
trying to figure out why.

Glen Fuller.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathan Goralnik" <rhizome85@xxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: if -- And

> Glen
> Ok, so what if sexual preference matters? I'm not sure where you're going
> with this. Perhaps it's relevant if we're critiquing a text (interrogating
> the conditions of its possibility) or studying sexual preference itself,
> there doesn't really seem to be a reason why our use of a text has to in
> anyway be influenced by an understanding of its originative moment.
> ...Bricolage....
> Cheers :)
> Nate

Partial thread listing: