--0-269887557-994272186=:43425
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Then specify what it means for something to "inform" a reading that the immanence of the text could not provide on its own.
Paul
"Patrick M. Krueger" <Patrick.Krueger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Paul Bryant wrote:
> Such a reading of Foucault is necessarily
> reductive and based on the premise that his texts can be *explained*
> by the fact that he engaged in practices often called "homosexual."
> But if it's true that Foucault's texts can be *explained* by the fact
> that he engaged in these practices, then it would seem to follow that
> we can dispense with reading these texts altogether and just look at
> "homosexuality" itself.
it seems doubtfull that any biographical (sexual) account can *explain* a
text, but that doesn't mean that biographical/sexual/cultural/contextual
knowledge can't *inform* the reading of a text in some ways.
pmk
---
By surgically removing a piece of
information from the brain of the test monkey,
researchers were able to extend the subject's life
by 34 years and 174 days, thus proving that
information is the most dangerous virus since
macaroni worm.
http://www.absurd.org
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year!
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
--0-269887557-994272186=:43425
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<P> Then specify what it means for something to "inform" a reading that the immanence of the text could not provide on its own.
<P>Paul
<P> <B><I>"Patrick M. Krueger" <Patrick.Krueger@xxxxxxxxxxxx></I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><BR>On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Paul Bryant wrote:<BR><BR>> Such a reading of Foucault is necessarily<BR>> reductive and based on the premise that his texts can be *explained*<BR>> by the fact that he engaged in practices often called "homosexual."<BR>> But if it's true that Foucault's texts can be *explained* by the fact<BR>> that he engaged in these practices, then it would seem to follow that<BR>> we can dispense with reading these texts altogether and just look at<BR>> "homosexuality" itself.<BR><BR>it seems doubtfull that any biographical (sexual) account can *explain* a<BR>text, but that doesn't mean that biographical/sexual/cultural/contextual<BR>knowledge can't *inform* the reading of a text in some ways.<BR><BR>pmk<BR>---<BR>By surgically removing a piece of<BR>information from the brain of the test monkey,<BR>researchers were able to extend the subject's life<BR>by 34 years and 174 days, thus proving that<BR>information is the most dangerous virus since<BR>macaroni worm.<BR><BR>http://www.absurd.org<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1><b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year!<BR><a href="http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=tagline";>http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/</a>
--0-269887557-994272186=:43425--
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Then specify what it means for something to "inform" a reading that the immanence of the text could not provide on its own.
Paul
"Patrick M. Krueger" <Patrick.Krueger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Paul Bryant wrote:
> Such a reading of Foucault is necessarily
> reductive and based on the premise that his texts can be *explained*
> by the fact that he engaged in practices often called "homosexual."
> But if it's true that Foucault's texts can be *explained* by the fact
> that he engaged in these practices, then it would seem to follow that
> we can dispense with reading these texts altogether and just look at
> "homosexuality" itself.
it seems doubtfull that any biographical (sexual) account can *explain* a
text, but that doesn't mean that biographical/sexual/cultural/contextual
knowledge can't *inform* the reading of a text in some ways.
pmk
---
By surgically removing a piece of
information from the brain of the test monkey,
researchers were able to extend the subject's life
by 34 years and 174 days, thus proving that
information is the most dangerous virus since
macaroni worm.
http://www.absurd.org
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year!
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
--0-269887557-994272186=:43425
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<P> Then specify what it means for something to "inform" a reading that the immanence of the text could not provide on its own.
<P>Paul
<P> <B><I>"Patrick M. Krueger" <Patrick.Krueger@xxxxxxxxxxxx></I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><BR>On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Paul Bryant wrote:<BR><BR>> Such a reading of Foucault is necessarily<BR>> reductive and based on the premise that his texts can be *explained*<BR>> by the fact that he engaged in practices often called "homosexual."<BR>> But if it's true that Foucault's texts can be *explained* by the fact<BR>> that he engaged in these practices, then it would seem to follow that<BR>> we can dispense with reading these texts altogether and just look at<BR>> "homosexuality" itself.<BR><BR>it seems doubtfull that any biographical (sexual) account can *explain* a<BR>text, but that doesn't mean that biographical/sexual/cultural/contextual<BR>knowledge can't *inform* the reading of a text in some ways.<BR><BR>pmk<BR>---<BR>By surgically removing a piece of<BR>information from the brain of the test monkey,<BR>researchers were able to extend the subject's life<BR>by 34 years and 174 days, thus proving that<BR>information is the most dangerous virus since<BR>macaroni worm.<BR><BR>http://www.absurd.org<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1><b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year!<BR><a href="http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=tagline";>http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/</a>
--0-269887557-994272186=:43425--