This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0111_01C103FB.9021E6A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Patrick
Back off. If you're so sure that there's no connection to the author =
and the text, then stop implying that Glen is stupid. Do you ever =
seriously philosophize? If you do, where does it come from? Do you =
really expect me to believe that Judith Butler's texts could have been =
written just as easily by a Protestant wealthy white heterosexual male? =
Do you really expect me to believe that Julia Kristeva has never been =
depressed? Blindly getting rid of the author sounds *hauntingly* like =
the benign discourse of "objective" inquiry. You seem to be too ready to =
efface the question of standpoint and thus seriously complicate =
critique.
Nate
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Patrick Crosby=20
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: if -- And
Glen,
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 can 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 can 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 that with authority! Nobody can put out crap any better than I can!"=20
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.=20
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'sbackground) does not =
matter, then what we are saying is that what thattheorist is =
'communicating' (and how we 'listening') is unaffected by =
theaforementioned sexual preference (or, again, any facet of a =
theorist'sbackground)? Yes?I can imagine some of you are about ready to =
crucify me with my implicitsuggestion that it is important we know what =
the sexual preference is of atheorist 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'sbackground) then we =
are assuming that what is being communicated (and how weare listening) =
is above (unaffected) by sexual preference, as it probablyis... but how =
do we know?We have made a critical assumption regarding the nature of =
the relative (tothe listeners - us) speaking position of the theorist, =
maybe? Perhaps?And if we are suggesting that what a theorist is =
suggesting is unaffected byhis/her sexual preference (or any other, etc) =
then what is the implicitsuggestion there? Like, what, when it is =
communicated, is unaffected by therelative speaking position of the =
'speaker'? Well, nothing. Nothing withinthe social that is...Therefore =
the implicit assumption being made when any element of atheorist's =
personal background is trivialised as unimportant, is that whatis being =
communicated is outside of the social, and that is impossible.Sexuality =
isn't necessarily one of the foundations on which I base muchtheoretical =
currency, unless of course what is being theorised ISsexuality... And I =
am not suggesting we have a mini autobiography with everyword =
uttered...What I am suggesting is that awareness of such personal =
details of theoristsmay affect and eff!
ec!
t their theories may lead to a greater understanding ofthe what they are =
trying to communicate.E.g. if someone is university educated, or if they =
stopped their schoolingin the third grade.And THAT is the essential =
point I am trying to make, we should judge thetheorist's work, not the =
theorist, but to judge his/her work requiresknowledge 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 AMSubject: Re: if -- And
Now we are getting somewhere. As a matter of fact Foucault initiated =
thisproject. With his life and ideas; for instance;The Lives of Infamous =
Men;his writing about the hermaphodite,the one about Pierre Riviere, =
andnaturally his own scandalous behaviour. And whether Plato was =
homosexualmakes 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 =
thedifferences in the political philosophies of Plato and Aristotle,one =
needs to understand that Plato was gay and Aristotle was straight. =
Andwhether Foucault was a top, a bottom, or liked tobe in the middle =
position of a 3-way just naturally makes all the
difference
in the world when you want to understand "TheOrder 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
------=_NextPart_000_0111_01C103FB.9021E6A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Patrick</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Back off. If you're =
so sure that=20
there's no connection to the author and the text, then stop implying =
that Glen=20
is stupid. Do you ever seriously philosophize? If you do, where does it =
come=20
from? Do you really expect me to believe that Judith Butler's texts =
could have=20
been written just as easily by a Protestant wealthy white heterosexual =
male? Do=20
you really expect me to believe that Julia Kristeva has never been =
depressed?=20
Blindly </FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>getting rid of the author =
sounds=20
*hauntingly* like the benign discourse of "objective" inquiry. You seem =
to be=20
too ready to efface the question of standpoint and thus seriously =
complicate=20
critique.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Nate</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Dpcrosby@xxxxxxxx href=3D"mailto:pcrosby@xxxxxxxx";>Patrick =
Crosby</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
title=3Dfoucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
=
href=3D"mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>[email protected]=
e.virginia.edu</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, July 03, 2001 =
9:39=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: if -- And</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Glen,<BR>Come on dude, this is all a bunch of bullcrap =
and you=20
know it. Plato's texts, like all texts, stand on their own. Your claim =
"to=20
have known Plato the person" is laughable. I've been subscribed to a =
number of=20
lists, but I've never seen such psyco-babble in all my life. Some of =
you are=20
even worse than the Ayn Rand followers, and they're some of the =
dumbest people=20
on the planet. The reason why you and a large number of other people =
are doing=20
what you do is obvious: it's all you <I>can</I> do. And the reason =
it's all=20
you can do is because you haven't yet educated yourselves to the point =
that=20
you can read and understand the texts involved, and comment upon them=20
intelligently. In essence, what a number of you are saying is this: =
"Well,=20
maybe I can't understand the text, but I <I>can</I> understand that =
the author=20
liked to have sex just like I do! And that the author pissed and =
crapped just=20
like I do! I can talk about all of <I>that</I> with authority! Nobody =
can put=20
out crap any better than I can!" <BR>Well, it was fun making light of =
you=20
pseudo-intellectual morons for a while, but the novelty of it has worn =
off. In=20
fact, I now find it disturbing to see that ability of so many people =
to think=20
in this "post modern" era has eroded to such an extent. Go buy =
yourselves some=20
Foucault love-dolls and have your fun. I want nothing further to do =
with this=20
silliness. <BR><BR><BR>Glen Fuller wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=3D"mid:DAV42p7pD5kKCw5zQQS00001929@xxxxxxxxxxx" =
type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">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 eff!
ec!
t 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=3Dmoz-txt-link-rfc2396E =
href=3D"mailto:missplateau@xxxxxxxxxxx";><missplateau@xxxxxxxxxxx></=
A><BR>To: <A class=3Dmoz-txt-link-rfc2396E =
href=3D"mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";><foucault@xxxxxxxx=
llage.virginia.edu></A><BR>Cc: <A class=3Dmoz-txt-link-rfc2396E =
href=3D"mailto:deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";><deleuze-g=
uattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx></A><BR>Sent: Tuesday, July 03, =
2001 11:02 AM<BR>Subject: Re: if -- And<BR><BR><BR></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">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=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">From: Patrick Crosby <A =
class=3Dmoz-txt-link-rfc2396E =
href=3D"mailto:pcrosby@xxxxxxxx";><pcrosby@xxxxxxxx></A><BR></PRE></=
BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=3D"">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=3D""><!---->difference<BR></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">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=3Dmoz-txt-link-freetext =
href=3D"http://explorer.msn.com";>http://explorer.msn.com</A><BR><BR></PRE=
></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0111_01C103FB.9021E6A0--
------=_NextPart_000_0111_01C103FB.9021E6A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Patrick
Back off. If you're so sure that there's no connection to the author =
and the text, then stop implying that Glen is stupid. Do you ever =
seriously philosophize? If you do, where does it come from? Do you =
really expect me to believe that Judith Butler's texts could have been =
written just as easily by a Protestant wealthy white heterosexual male? =
Do you really expect me to believe that Julia Kristeva has never been =
depressed? Blindly getting rid of the author sounds *hauntingly* like =
the benign discourse of "objective" inquiry. You seem to be too ready to =
efface the question of standpoint and thus seriously complicate =
critique.
Nate
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Patrick Crosby=20
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: if -- And
Glen,
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 can 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 can 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 that with authority! Nobody can put out crap any better than I can!"=20
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.=20
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'sbackground) does not =
matter, then what we are saying is that what thattheorist is =
'communicating' (and how we 'listening') is unaffected by =
theaforementioned sexual preference (or, again, any facet of a =
theorist'sbackground)? Yes?I can imagine some of you are about ready to =
crucify me with my implicitsuggestion that it is important we know what =
the sexual preference is of atheorist 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'sbackground) then we =
are assuming that what is being communicated (and how weare listening) =
is above (unaffected) by sexual preference, as it probablyis... but how =
do we know?We have made a critical assumption regarding the nature of =
the relative (tothe listeners - us) speaking position of the theorist, =
maybe? Perhaps?And if we are suggesting that what a theorist is =
suggesting is unaffected byhis/her sexual preference (or any other, etc) =
then what is the implicitsuggestion there? Like, what, when it is =
communicated, is unaffected by therelative speaking position of the =
'speaker'? Well, nothing. Nothing withinthe social that is...Therefore =
the implicit assumption being made when any element of atheorist's =
personal background is trivialised as unimportant, is that whatis being =
communicated is outside of the social, and that is impossible.Sexuality =
isn't necessarily one of the foundations on which I base muchtheoretical =
currency, unless of course what is being theorised ISsexuality... And I =
am not suggesting we have a mini autobiography with everyword =
uttered...What I am suggesting is that awareness of such personal =
details of theoristsmay affect and eff!
ec!
t their theories may lead to a greater understanding ofthe what they are =
trying to communicate.E.g. if someone is university educated, or if they =
stopped their schoolingin the third grade.And THAT is the essential =
point I am trying to make, we should judge thetheorist's work, not the =
theorist, but to judge his/her work requiresknowledge 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 AMSubject: Re: if -- And
Now we are getting somewhere. As a matter of fact Foucault initiated =
thisproject. With his life and ideas; for instance;The Lives of Infamous =
Men;his writing about the hermaphodite,the one about Pierre Riviere, =
andnaturally his own scandalous behaviour. And whether Plato was =
homosexualmakes 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 =
thedifferences in the political philosophies of Plato and Aristotle,one =
needs to understand that Plato was gay and Aristotle was straight. =
Andwhether Foucault was a top, a bottom, or liked tobe in the middle =
position of a 3-way just naturally makes all the
difference
in the world when you want to understand "TheOrder 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
------=_NextPart_000_0111_01C103FB.9021E6A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Patrick</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Back off. If you're =
so sure that=20
there's no connection to the author and the text, then stop implying =
that Glen=20
is stupid. Do you ever seriously philosophize? If you do, where does it =
come=20
from? Do you really expect me to believe that Judith Butler's texts =
could have=20
been written just as easily by a Protestant wealthy white heterosexual =
male? Do=20
you really expect me to believe that Julia Kristeva has never been =
depressed?=20
Blindly </FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>getting rid of the author =
sounds=20
*hauntingly* like the benign discourse of "objective" inquiry. You seem =
to be=20
too ready to efface the question of standpoint and thus seriously =
complicate=20
critique.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Nate</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Dpcrosby@xxxxxxxx href=3D"mailto:pcrosby@xxxxxxxx";>Patrick =
Crosby</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
title=3Dfoucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
=
href=3D"mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>[email protected]=
e.virginia.edu</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, July 03, 2001 =
9:39=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: if -- And</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Glen,<BR>Come on dude, this is all a bunch of bullcrap =
and you=20
know it. Plato's texts, like all texts, stand on their own. Your claim =
"to=20
have known Plato the person" is laughable. I've been subscribed to a =
number of=20
lists, but I've never seen such psyco-babble in all my life. Some of =
you are=20
even worse than the Ayn Rand followers, and they're some of the =
dumbest people=20
on the planet. The reason why you and a large number of other people =
are doing=20
what you do is obvious: it's all you <I>can</I> do. And the reason =
it's all=20
you can do is because you haven't yet educated yourselves to the point =
that=20
you can read and understand the texts involved, and comment upon them=20
intelligently. In essence, what a number of you are saying is this: =
"Well,=20
maybe I can't understand the text, but I <I>can</I> understand that =
the author=20
liked to have sex just like I do! And that the author pissed and =
crapped just=20
like I do! I can talk about all of <I>that</I> with authority! Nobody =
can put=20
out crap any better than I can!" <BR>Well, it was fun making light of =
you=20
pseudo-intellectual morons for a while, but the novelty of it has worn =
off. In=20
fact, I now find it disturbing to see that ability of so many people =
to think=20
in this "post modern" era has eroded to such an extent. Go buy =
yourselves some=20
Foucault love-dolls and have your fun. I want nothing further to do =
with this=20
silliness. <BR><BR><BR>Glen Fuller wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=3D"mid:DAV42p7pD5kKCw5zQQS00001929@xxxxxxxxxxx" =
type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">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 eff!
ec!
t 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=3Dmoz-txt-link-rfc2396E =
href=3D"mailto:missplateau@xxxxxxxxxxx";><missplateau@xxxxxxxxxxx></=
A><BR>To: <A class=3Dmoz-txt-link-rfc2396E =
href=3D"mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";><foucault@xxxxxxxx=
llage.virginia.edu></A><BR>Cc: <A class=3Dmoz-txt-link-rfc2396E =
href=3D"mailto:deleuze-guattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";><deleuze-g=
uattari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx></A><BR>Sent: Tuesday, July 03, =
2001 11:02 AM<BR>Subject: Re: if -- And<BR><BR><BR></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">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=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">From: Patrick Crosby <A =
class=3Dmoz-txt-link-rfc2396E =
href=3D"mailto:pcrosby@xxxxxxxx";><pcrosby@xxxxxxxx></A><BR></PRE></=
BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=3D"">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=3D""><!---->difference<BR></PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">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=3Dmoz-txt-link-freetext =
href=3D"http://explorer.msn.com";>http://explorer.msn.com</A><BR><BR></PRE=
></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0111_01C103FB.9021E6A0--