Re: if -- And

I agree with Erik´s comment, there is not only one way to read a text.
I also beleive that sometimes authors make a text, a discourse, of their
whole lives. Others surround their text and define it with a smaller circle,
only as what is written.


>From: Erik Hoogcarspel <jehms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: if -- And
>Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 11:10:07 +0200
>Everybody seems to think that there's only one way to read a text and
>that there's only one true meaning which is there for everybody to graps
>independend of the way you read it. This is a bit naieve. If you read
>Plato as someone who's preoccupied with his sexual preferences, you get
>something else then when you read him as a political activist. Another
>matter is whether you want to honour Plato's intentions and read what he
>wanted to communicate (in which case you just would have to know what he
>thought his readers were familiar with) or whether you want to analyse
>him (in which case his voice vanishes).
>Nathan Goralnik wrote:
>>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.
>>Cheers :)

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

Partial thread listing: