<html><head></head><body>Glen,<br>
Come on dude, this is all a bunch of bullcrap and you know it. Plato's
texts, like all texts, stand on their own. Your claim "to have known Plato
the person" is laughable. I've been subscribed to a number of lists, but
I've never seen such psyco-babble in all my life. Some of you are even worse
than the Ayn Rand followers, and they're some of the dumbest people on the
planet. The reason why you and a large number of other people are doing
what you do is obvious: it's all you <i>can</i> do. And the reason it's all
you can do is because you haven't yet educated yourselves to the point that
you can read and understand the texts involved, and comment upon them intelligently.
In essence, what a number of you are saying is this: "Well, maybe I can't
understand the text, but I <i>can</i> understand that the author liked to
have sex just like I do! And that the author pissed and crapped just like
I do! I can talk about all of <i>that</i> with authority! Nobody can put out crap any better than I can!" <br>
Well, it was fun making light of you pseudo-intellectual morons for
a while, but the novelty of it has worn off. In fact, I now find it disturbing
to see that ability of so many people to think in this "post modern" era
has eroded to such an extent. Go buy yourselves some Foucault love-dolls
and have your fun. I want nothing further to do with this silliness. <br>
<br>
<br>
Glen Fuller wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:DAV42p7pD5kKCw5zQQS00001929@xxxxxxxxxxx"><pre wrap="">Hi,<br>I agree with Charmaine. My logic is as follows:<br>If we are to say that sexual preference (or any facet of a theorist's<br>background) does not matter, then what we are saying is that what that<br>theorist is 'communicating' (and how we 'listening') is unaffected by the<br>aforementioned sexual preference (or, again, any facet of a theorist's<br>background)? Yes?<br>I can imagine some of you are about ready to crucify me with my implicit<br>suggestion that it is important we know what the sexual preference is of a<br>theorist so as to fully understand his/her work...<br>No, that is not what I am saying, not really...<br>If we discard the sexual preference (or any other facet of a theorist's<br>background) then we are assuming that what is being communicated (and how we<br>are listening) is above (unaffected) by sexual preference, as it probably<br>is... but how do we know?<br>We have made a critical assumption regarding the nature of the relative (to<br>the listeners - us) speaking position of the theorist, maybe? Perhaps?<br>And if we are suggesting that what a theorist is suggesting is unaffected by<br>his/her sexual preference (or any other, etc) then what is the implicit<br>suggestion there? Like, what, when it is communicated, is unaffected by the<br>relative speaking position of the 'speaker'? Well, nothing. Nothing within<br>the social that is...<br>Therefore the implicit assumption being made when any element of a<br>theorist's personal background is trivialised as unimportant, is that what<br>is being communicated is outside of the social, and that is impossible.<br>Sexuality isn't necessarily one of the foundations on which I base much<br>theoretical currency, unless of course what is being theorised IS<br>sexuality... And I am not suggesting we have a mini autobiography with every<br>word uttered...<br>What I am suggesting is that awareness of such personal details of theorists<br>may affect and effect their theories may lead to a greater understanding of<br>the what they are trying to communicate.<br>E.g. if someone is university educated, or if they stopped their schooling<br>in the third grade.<br>And THAT is the essential point I am trying to make, we should judge the<br>theorist's work, not the theorist, but to judge his/her work requires<br>knowledge of the social trajectory of the speaker as well.<br><br>yep,<br>Glen Fuller.<br><br><br><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: "charmaine driscoll" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:missplateau@xxxxxxxxxxx";><missplateau@xxxxxxxxxxx></a><br>To: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";><foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx></a><br>Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";><deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx></a><br>Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 11:02 AM<br>Subject: Re: if -- And<br><br><br></pre>
<blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">Now we are getting somewhere. As a matter of fact Foucault initiated this<br>project. With his life and ideas; for instance;The Lives of Infamous Men;<br>his writing about the hermaphodite,the one about Pierre Riviere, and<br>naturally his own scandalous behaviour. And whether Plato was homosexual<br>makes all the difference in how we, and how I, and how he wrote.<br><br><br><br></pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">From: Patrick Crosby <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pcrosby@xxxxxxxx";><pcrosby@xxxxxxxx></a><br></pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">Alright, let me see if I have this correct now. To understand the<br>differences in the political philosophies of Plato and Aristotle,<br>one needs to understand that Plato was gay and Aristotle was straight. And<br>whether Foucault was a top, a bottom, or liked to<br>be in the middle position of a 3-way just naturally makes all the<br></pre></blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->difference<br></pre>
<blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">in the world when you want to understand "The<br>Order of Things." Of course! Why didn't I think of that?<br><br>Regards,<br>C.Driscoll<br><br>_________________________________________________________________<br>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://explorer.msn.com";>http://explorer.msn.com</a><br><br></pre></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body></html>
Come on dude, this is all a bunch of bullcrap and you know it. Plato's
texts, like all texts, stand on their own. Your claim "to have known Plato
the person" is laughable. I've been subscribed to a number of lists, but
I've never seen such psyco-babble in all my life. Some of you are even worse
than the Ayn Rand followers, and they're some of the dumbest people on the
planet. The reason why you and a large number of other people are doing
what you do is obvious: it's all you <i>can</i> do. And the reason it's all
you can do is because you haven't yet educated yourselves to the point that
you can read and understand the texts involved, and comment upon them intelligently.
In essence, what a number of you are saying is this: "Well, maybe I can't
understand the text, but I <i>can</i> understand that the author liked to
have sex just like I do! And that the author pissed and crapped just like
I do! I can talk about all of <i>that</i> with authority! Nobody can put out crap any better than I can!" <br>
Well, it was fun making light of you pseudo-intellectual morons for
a while, but the novelty of it has worn off. In fact, I now find it disturbing
to see that ability of so many people to think in this "post modern" era
has eroded to such an extent. Go buy yourselves some Foucault love-dolls
and have your fun. I want nothing further to do with this silliness. <br>
<br>
<br>
Glen Fuller wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:DAV42p7pD5kKCw5zQQS00001929@xxxxxxxxxxx"><pre wrap="">Hi,<br>I agree with Charmaine. My logic is as follows:<br>If we are to say that sexual preference (or any facet of a theorist's<br>background) does not matter, then what we are saying is that what that<br>theorist is 'communicating' (and how we 'listening') is unaffected by the<br>aforementioned sexual preference (or, again, any facet of a theorist's<br>background)? Yes?<br>I can imagine some of you are about ready to crucify me with my implicit<br>suggestion that it is important we know what the sexual preference is of a<br>theorist so as to fully understand his/her work...<br>No, that is not what I am saying, not really...<br>If we discard the sexual preference (or any other facet of a theorist's<br>background) then we are assuming that what is being communicated (and how we<br>are listening) is above (unaffected) by sexual preference, as it probably<br>is... but how do we know?<br>We have made a critical assumption regarding the nature of the relative (to<br>the listeners - us) speaking position of the theorist, maybe? Perhaps?<br>And if we are suggesting that what a theorist is suggesting is unaffected by<br>his/her sexual preference (or any other, etc) then what is the implicit<br>suggestion there? Like, what, when it is communicated, is unaffected by the<br>relative speaking position of the 'speaker'? Well, nothing. Nothing within<br>the social that is...<br>Therefore the implicit assumption being made when any element of a<br>theorist's personal background is trivialised as unimportant, is that what<br>is being communicated is outside of the social, and that is impossible.<br>Sexuality isn't necessarily one of the foundations on which I base much<br>theoretical currency, unless of course what is being theorised IS<br>sexuality... And I am not suggesting we have a mini autobiography with every<br>word uttered...<br>What I am suggesting is that awareness of such personal details of theorists<br>may affect and effect their theories may lead to a greater understanding of<br>the what they are trying to communicate.<br>E.g. if someone is university educated, or if they stopped their schooling<br>in the third grade.<br>And THAT is the essential point I am trying to make, we should judge the<br>theorist's work, not the theorist, but to judge his/her work requires<br>knowledge of the social trajectory of the speaker as well.<br><br>yep,<br>Glen Fuller.<br><br><br><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: "charmaine driscoll" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:missplateau@xxxxxxxxxxx";><missplateau@xxxxxxxxxxx></a><br>To: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";><foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx></a><br>Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";><deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx></a><br>Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 11:02 AM<br>Subject: Re: if -- And<br><br><br></pre>
<blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">Now we are getting somewhere. As a matter of fact Foucault initiated this<br>project. With his life and ideas; for instance;The Lives of Infamous Men;<br>his writing about the hermaphodite,the one about Pierre Riviere, and<br>naturally his own scandalous behaviour. And whether Plato was homosexual<br>makes all the difference in how we, and how I, and how he wrote.<br><br><br><br></pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">From: Patrick Crosby <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pcrosby@xxxxxxxx";><pcrosby@xxxxxxxx></a><br></pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">Alright, let me see if I have this correct now. To understand the<br>differences in the political philosophies of Plato and Aristotle,<br>one needs to understand that Plato was gay and Aristotle was straight. And<br>whether Foucault was a top, a bottom, or liked to<br>be in the middle position of a 3-way just naturally makes all the<br></pre></blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->difference<br></pre>
<blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">in the world when you want to understand "The<br>Order of Things." Of course! Why didn't I think of that?<br><br>Regards,<br>C.Driscoll<br><br>_________________________________________________________________<br>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://explorer.msn.com";>http://explorer.msn.com</a><br><br></pre></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body></html>