RE: if -- And

The work now possesses the right to kill, to be its author's murderer. The
writer must assume the role of the dead man in the game of writing.
The aspects of an individual which we designate as making him an author are
only A PROJECTION, in more or less PSYCHOLOGIZING terms, of the operations
we force texts to undergo.
In order to 'rediscover' an author in a work, modern criticism uses methods
similar to those that Christian exegesis employed when trying to prove the
value of a text by its author's saintliness.
What difference does it make who is speaking?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Nathan
Sent: 04 July 2001 05:06
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: if -- And


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.

----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Crosby
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: if -- And

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!"
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.

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!
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:
<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
in the world when you want to understand "TheOrder of Things." Of course!
Why didn't I think of
____________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

Partial thread listing: