A few comments again, not just to Josh but to the other people:
>Lionel:> The intensity of this rebuke is the same as I recieve when I confront
>
>
someone who is involved in Landmark Forum / EST. Drug cult / drug gaze ..
it is all a dangerous thing that is counter productive to normal society.
Aris: Brian, thank you for speaking for me before me: can you define
'normal society' Lionel? If you've read Foucault carefully, how do you
think he would react to this response of yours? As far as I'm
concerned, it only confirms what I wrote in the previous posting of
mine, even more my suspicion that you seem to identify totally with the
mainstream institutions and the 'medicial', 'judicial', etc. gazes that
you've been mentioning. As for the 'intensity' of my response, it
should rather make you think twice about how your own ideas - and the
way you've been expressing them to 'brain damaged' people - might be
responsible for this intensity. I'm not a member of any 'drug cult',
neither do I sacrifice virgins or eat human flesh, I'm an academic who
happens to be enjoying smoking cannabis - or however else you want to
call it guys, I'm sorry if the terminology is dated - and there's quite
a few of 'us' around Lionel - 'we' live among 'you'
And, Josh, one of the many things that Foucault is intersted in is how
power is dispersed across various different areas of culture and through
different practices, even those of everyday life - and we fellow
scholars do have an everyday life, or do we not? Unless we'd like to
see the university as a clearly-defined space, an instituition separated
from 'the rest of society' - according to the way I understand
Foucault's work, you can find elements regarding 'the body politic' in
these kind of discussion, since, at the end of the day, the politics of
everyday life is what all of us experience and practice - even
unconsciously - in our lives. If you find the anti-drug or
pro-legalisation campaigns 'equally ridiculous' (equally to whom? I'd
appreciate to find out the ridiculous element in my arguments), I have
nothing to say. Regarding what you say about 'binary polarities', I
agree and I do not side myself with any of the polarities, neither do I
believe that cannabis should be legalised and left out to be bought by
everyone and at any time - but since this is totally irrelevant to a
list on Foucault, I'll stop here. I guess that what I'm against is
people who do seem to reinforce these polarities (as in 'normal society'
versus 'brain-damaged pot adicts [sic]') and who seem to speak about
things they know very few things about and in a manner that is totally
incongruent to a Foucault mailing list.
Best regards
Aris
Josh Strawn wrote:
>this is all so out of hand--i've been subscribing to
>this list for over a year and i have been totally
>silent, using it as a resource for 'listening in' on
>conversation regarding foucault by folks who are
>considerably more knowledgable than i. the postings
>about 'pot' or 'cannabis'--whatever you want to call
>it--have served mainly to show how out of touch with
>the subject their authors are. i dislike 'pot', i
>don't smoke it--but i have before and i have
>acquintances who indulge. sure it's psychologically
>addictive, sure some people smoke it with tobacco.
>most people DONT smoke pot with tobacco. please, my
>fellow scholars, go back to talking about foucault's
>sense of state, the body politic or what have you, and
>drop this irrelevant, uninforamtive ranting. leave it
>for the anti-drug and pro-legalization binary
>polarities to duke it out with their equally
>ridiculous arguments and skewed statistics...
>
>
>--- francisfarrell <frankfarrell@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>>First of all, I think using the word 'pot' makes the
>>postings seems very
>>dated!
>>
>>I don't know if smoking cannabis damages the brain.
>>I know that most people
>>smoke it mixed with tobacco, so lung damage could
>>well be taking place. I
>>suspect that although cannabis may not be addictive,
>>people develop nicotine
>>addiction as a by-product. I wonder how many people
>>go through a phase of
>>smoking cannabis, perhaps as youths, leave off but
>>find they have developed
>>a cigarette habit. The tobacco companies must relish
>>every move that
>>increases the number of people smoking cannabis.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Frank
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
>
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
>Lionel:> The intensity of this rebuke is the same as I recieve when I confront
>
>
someone who is involved in Landmark Forum / EST. Drug cult / drug gaze ..
it is all a dangerous thing that is counter productive to normal society.
Aris: Brian, thank you for speaking for me before me: can you define
'normal society' Lionel? If you've read Foucault carefully, how do you
think he would react to this response of yours? As far as I'm
concerned, it only confirms what I wrote in the previous posting of
mine, even more my suspicion that you seem to identify totally with the
mainstream institutions and the 'medicial', 'judicial', etc. gazes that
you've been mentioning. As for the 'intensity' of my response, it
should rather make you think twice about how your own ideas - and the
way you've been expressing them to 'brain damaged' people - might be
responsible for this intensity. I'm not a member of any 'drug cult',
neither do I sacrifice virgins or eat human flesh, I'm an academic who
happens to be enjoying smoking cannabis - or however else you want to
call it guys, I'm sorry if the terminology is dated - and there's quite
a few of 'us' around Lionel - 'we' live among 'you'
And, Josh, one of the many things that Foucault is intersted in is how
power is dispersed across various different areas of culture and through
different practices, even those of everyday life - and we fellow
scholars do have an everyday life, or do we not? Unless we'd like to
see the university as a clearly-defined space, an instituition separated
from 'the rest of society' - according to the way I understand
Foucault's work, you can find elements regarding 'the body politic' in
these kind of discussion, since, at the end of the day, the politics of
everyday life is what all of us experience and practice - even
unconsciously - in our lives. If you find the anti-drug or
pro-legalisation campaigns 'equally ridiculous' (equally to whom? I'd
appreciate to find out the ridiculous element in my arguments), I have
nothing to say. Regarding what you say about 'binary polarities', I
agree and I do not side myself with any of the polarities, neither do I
believe that cannabis should be legalised and left out to be bought by
everyone and at any time - but since this is totally irrelevant to a
list on Foucault, I'll stop here. I guess that what I'm against is
people who do seem to reinforce these polarities (as in 'normal society'
versus 'brain-damaged pot adicts [sic]') and who seem to speak about
things they know very few things about and in a manner that is totally
incongruent to a Foucault mailing list.
Best regards
Aris
Josh Strawn wrote:
>this is all so out of hand--i've been subscribing to
>this list for over a year and i have been totally
>silent, using it as a resource for 'listening in' on
>conversation regarding foucault by folks who are
>considerably more knowledgable than i. the postings
>about 'pot' or 'cannabis'--whatever you want to call
>it--have served mainly to show how out of touch with
>the subject their authors are. i dislike 'pot', i
>don't smoke it--but i have before and i have
>acquintances who indulge. sure it's psychologically
>addictive, sure some people smoke it with tobacco.
>most people DONT smoke pot with tobacco. please, my
>fellow scholars, go back to talking about foucault's
>sense of state, the body politic or what have you, and
>drop this irrelevant, uninforamtive ranting. leave it
>for the anti-drug and pro-legalization binary
>polarities to duke it out with their equally
>ridiculous arguments and skewed statistics...
>
>
>--- francisfarrell <frankfarrell@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>>First of all, I think using the word 'pot' makes the
>>postings seems very
>>dated!
>>
>>I don't know if smoking cannabis damages the brain.
>>I know that most people
>>smoke it mixed with tobacco, so lung damage could
>>well be taking place. I
>>suspect that although cannabis may not be addictive,
>>people develop nicotine
>>addiction as a by-product. I wonder how many people
>>go through a phase of
>>smoking cannabis, perhaps as youths, leave off but
>>find they have developed
>>a cigarette habit. The tobacco companies must relish
>>every move that
>>increases the number of people smoking cannabis.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Frank
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
>
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---