Solving a Puzzle-- Understanding Some People's Reactions

[seymourblogger]

> I liked Moneyball a great deal; in fact, I watched it twice, even though I'm not much of a baseball fan. But I don't recall the "Foucauldian Grid of power/knowledge in linguistic action." I thought it was a just good sports movie that happens to be true. [GHS] Seymour, George can be a bit of a jerk sometimes and the quality of his intellectual offerings vary wildly, but he often makes good points and here his advice would probably be --> get rid of the jargon and explain things in simple English; we don't know the people you are quoting (like Foucault). At least that would be my advice, no offense. Keep it short, simple, and unambiguous. [Apologies to his majesty, podium boy king george if I'm putting ideas in his mouth.]

I would love to see Foucault translated into "simple English." But the moment that is done -- assuming it can be done, which I doubt -- Foucault will lose his aura of profundity and appear as the mediocre thinker he was.

I've seen this sort of thing before, both on Atlantis II and on OL. Someone with a smattering of philosophical knowledge will come onto an O'ist forum and throw some names around, figuring that O'ist types are philosophically iilliterate and will therefore be easily impressed and bamboozled. After my initial dismissal of Foucault, recall how Janet mistakenly assumed that I had never read anything by him and then told me that only an "expert" could legitimately criticize him. And then, when I suggested that Janet start a thread on Foucault and said that I would be willing to review some of his books in order to participate, notice how she called this a "trap" and came up with some other nonsense to rationalize her refusal.

I can spot an intellectual phony a mile away. If I am wrong about Janet, then she can easily set the record straight by beginning a thread on Foucault and outlining some of his ideas -- and we can go from there.

Ghs

You are one of those people who wants everything reduced to a ready-made word or sentence. Go wiki Judith Butler as she has a great answer for you.

I'm being baited again. I just took your bait but not the hook.

[9thdoctor]

And then, when I suggested that Janet start a thread on Foucault and said that I would be willing to review some of his books in order to participate, notice how she called this a "trap" and came up with some other nonsense to rationalize her refusal.

Yeah, but he wouldn't do debates*, so his devotees shouldn't either. For those who agree, no explanation is necessary; For those who don't, none is possible.

*except, of course, when he did:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WveI_vgmPz8

[seymourblogger]

While reading some articles about Foucault's fascination with the Iranian Revolution of 1979, I ran across a review of his book (a collection of articles) on the subject. I am posting this excerpt because the reviewer (Babak Rahimi, Literature Department, University of California, San Diego) typifies the kind of pretentious language that both Foucault and his followers use. Is there any wheat among the chaff here? Yes, in the sense that it is possible to extract a somewhat coherent meaning from all the verbiage, but this process quickly gets very tiresome. The strange thing about this summary is that it is actually more clear that Foucault usually was.

Whether studying his views on the history of madness or the practices of modern medicine, Foucault's main concern lay in the normative relations of experiences, the technologies of domination and the truth-seeking discourse of modernity, with its hegemonic (and self-applauding) claim to validity and its triumphalist vision of history that characterizes it as a break with tradition. Though his late texts from the 1980s offer a revised conception of modernity as an ethical-philosophical movement (Enlightenment), for Foucault, modernity (at least in its Western European form) identifies a regime of power relations that is constituted in the proliferation of discourses and various disciplinary practices through social institutions.

Transgression in terms of an act of disrupting certainties of conventional norms plays a central role in redefining the boundaries of modernity. "Problematization," as Foucault once told his research assistant François Ewald, is central to his thoughts as "the ensemble of discursive and nondiscursive practices that makes something enter into the play of the true and the false and constitutes it an object of thought (whether in the form of moral reflection, scientific knowledge, political analysis or the like)."[2] It is with the transgressive act of "problematization" that Foucault is able to engage in a conceptual game to challenge the history and ideas of modernity by questioning, disclosing, dislocating and interrupting discursive and nondiscursive practices so as to show the multiple and contingent trajectories that render unintelligible a monolithic model of sociopolitical processes.

Respective to this spirit of thinking, the Iranian Revolution (1978-79) provided Foucault a new opportunity to broaden his problematization of modernity. The mass-based revolution, with millions of participants (both men and women) and which in the course of fifteen months brought down the autocratic regime of Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (1941-1979), presented Foucault with the possibility of breaking down the binary logic of modernity that pits "tradition" against "modernity" and "religion" against "progress." During his two visits to Iran, one in September 1978 and another in November 1978, Foucault was able to advance his problematization of modernity by describing the Iranian revolution as a new form of "political will" to which no other revolutionary movement can be compared (p. 221)....

Perhaps it was this kind of muddled thinking that enabled Foucault to praise the Iranian Revolution to the extent he did. For the entire review, see:

http://www.h-net.org...ev.php?id=12437

Ghs

I remember there were lots of people I knew being joyous that the shah was going down. A mistake. Even the Iranian people acknowledged their mistake. Some of them. Foucault did too BTW, publicly. When he was wrong he changed his mind. Like Churchill. What do you do?

I agree Foucault sounds incomprehensible with the above excerpt. But that's what it is suposed to sound like. That makes the person who wrote it sound really really profound, doesn't it? Doesn't he I should say?

For a simple sound bi8te for you try my Moneyball: http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2012/01/moneyball-order-of-seduction-and.html This is the 2nd one and different. Try it you may even like it.

[seymourblogger]

I read your "review" of Moneyball, and I have seen the movie. What you call its "dominating discourse" and "Foucauldian Grid of power/knowledge in linguistic action," other people would call its theme, plot, and dialogue.

Shoot, I haven’t seen Moneyball. But I have seen Rollerball, and find it fits well into the Spenglerian civilization model grid, specifically, where Democracy transitions to Caesarism.

I liked Moneyball a great deal; in fact, I watched it twice, even though I'm not much of a baseball fan. But I don't recall the "Foucauldian Grid of power/knowledge in linguistic action." I thought it was a just good sports movie that happens to be true. Maybe the Foucauldian stuff happened during the locker-room pep talk. Not being versed in Foucauldian analysis, I may have missed the the complex subtleties that are previewed here:

Ghs

Well now that you have been suitably enlightened, can you see it. A rose is a rose is a rose.

Theme is OK but it does not open any more information to you, it just labels what you have seen. There are no resonances except what is like it in theme or not like it in theme, but a Foucault reading allows you to see the power/knowledge/capital relation in action, in it dynamics rather than stasis.

An object does not exist until and unless it is observed. - William Burroughs

Or as Rand says about the impossibility of seeing something everyone refuses to see. - Rand paraphrase so give me the correct quote one of you trivial pursuit people.

There's another famous one but I forget who. I forget a lot you know. Thank heavens for blessings.

[George H. Smith]

Mao and Foucault.

Hitler and Nietzsche.

See where this kind of thinking goes.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Here is part 2 of a debate between Foucault and Chomsky. (The first part can also be seen on YouTube). At 2:55 in, Foucault cites Mao's distinction between a bourgeois human nature and a proletarian human nature. (No other source is cited by Foucault throughout the discussion.) This typical leftist claptrap is followed, near the end, by Foucault's summary of his idiotic relativism -- something he also hawks in the first part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0SaqrxgJvw

Foucault has always struck me as a caricature of an intellectual in a Woody Allen movie.

Ghs

[seymourblogger]

Mao and Foucault.

Hitler and Nietzsche.

See where this kind of thinking goes.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Here is part 2 of a debate between Foucault and Chomsky. (The first part can also be seen on YouTube). At 2:55 in, Foucault cites Mao's distinction between a bourgeois human nature and a proletarian human nature. (No other source is cited by Foucault throughout the discussion.) This typical leftist claptrap is followed, near the end, by Foucault's summary of his idiotic relativism -- something he also hawks in the first part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0SaqrxgJvw

Foucault has always struck me as a caricature of an intellectual in a Woody Allen movie.

Ghs

"A pity," says Jane.

[seymourblogger]

Mao and Foucault.

Hitler and Nietzsche.

See where this kind of thinking goes.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Here is part 2 of a debate between Foucault and Chomsky. (The first part can also be seen on YouTube). At 2:55 in, Foucault cites Mao's distinction between a bourgeois human nature and a proletarian human nature. (No other source is cited by Foucault throughout the discussion.) This typical leftist claptrap is followed, near the end, by Foucault's summary of his idiotic relativism -- something he also hawks in the first part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0SaqrxgJvw

Foucault has always struck me as a caricature of an intellectual in a Woody Allen movie.

Ghs

"A pity," says Jane.

Well spend some time contemplating and you may figure it out.

[william.scherk]

After my initial dismissal of Foucault, recall how Janet mistakenly assumed that I had never read anything by him and then told me that only an "expert" could legitimately criticize him.

Yeah. Foucault was in my mom's bookshelf in 1972. I finished reading what she had (Madness & Civ, abridged) before I graduated, and got some very good things out of it. Later, I fell in love with the beautiful prose and humanity of Roland Barthes, and tried hard to shave off the bumf, jargon, hall-of-mirrors, navel-fucking of some of the latter big French fucks, and so could squeeze out a drop or two of sweet nectar from Deleuze (whose aphoristic style I liked at times; grimly ironic, self-defeating, containing contradiction in its utterances). By the time I was involved in the Memory Wars, I saw that the Lacanian infection had completely fucked up a few faculties in the humanities. I did not understand how anyone could fall in love with such a fucking shyster, liar, plagiarist and shitty, domineering therapist (Lacan). Once I got to the fully fucking crazed Julia Kristeva, I considered the worst of the religious devotion to the Great French Fucks as just another sad fact of life.

Then Frederick Crews saved me. He let me see that crashing through the Dominant Discourse of Freudian Bullshit was a dangerous job. Those who had peddled that shit all the years were deadly opposed to being pushed off their thrones, their departmental thrones, their kingdoms of influence and tenure and domination of undergraduates. You could not get above the basement level at UBC until you had been thoroughly fucked up the ass by Postmodernism.

That is what is such horseshit about Janet's pretensions. As if the Dominant Discourse was not her bag of muck, in academe. As if she was even competent in criticism.

I think what Janet has learned best along the way is obfuscation and dodge. She dumps her fucking bullshit on this list, and then turns her nose up at us.

Fuck off, Janet.

As the greatest Postmodernist of all said (Jayne County), "If you don't want to fuck me, baby, baby fuck off."

[George H. Smith]

I remember there were lots of people I knew being joyous that the shah was going down. A mistake. Even the Iranian people acknowledged their mistake. Some of them. Foucault did too BTW, publicly. When he was wrong he changed his mind. Like Churchill. What do you do?

As I understand it, Foucault's basic point was that it is inappropriate to judge Islamic culture -- including its horrendous treatment of women -- by Western standards. Correct?

Ghs

[caroljane]

After my initial dismissal of Foucault, recall how Janet mistakenly assumed that I had never read anything by him and then told me that only an "expert" could legitimately criticize him.

Yeah. Foucault was in my mom's bookshelf in 1972. I finished reading what she had (Madness & Civ, abridged) before I graduated, and got some very good things out of it. Later, I fell in love with the beautiful prose and humanity of Roland Barthes, and tried hard to shave off the bumf, jargon, hall-of-mirrors, navel-fucking of some of the latter big French fucks, and so could squeeze out a drop or two of sweet nectar from Deleuze (whose aphoristice style I liked at times; grimly ironic, self-defeating, containing contradiction in its utterances). By the time I was involved in the Memory Wars, I saw that the Lacanian infection had completely fucked up a few faculties in the humanities. I did not understand how anyone could fall in love with such a fucking shyster, liar, plagiarist and shitty, domineering bullshit therapist. Once I got the fully fucking crazed Julia Kristeva, I considered the worst of the religious devotion to the French Fucks as just another sad fact of life.

Then Frederick Crews saved me. He let me see that crashing through the Dominant Discourse of Freudian Bullshit was a dangerous job. Those who had peddled that shit all the years were deadly opposed to being pushed off their thrones, their departmental thrones, their kingdoms of influence and tenure and domination of undergraduates. You could not get above the basement level at UBC until you had been thoroughly fucked up the ass by Postmodernism.

That is what is such horseshit about Janet's pretensions. As if the Dominant Discourse was not her bag of muck, in academe. As if she was even competent in criticism.

I think what Janet has learned best along the way is obfuscation and dodge. She dumps her fucking bullshit on this list, and then turns her nose up at us.

Fuck off, Janet.

Once I read the nutcases of the Edinburgh School, the dreary Marxian reticulation in Anthropology

Language, William!

Janet is not the cause of these crimes but the hostage victim. Here she may be freed, who knows?

[George H. Smith]

Mao and Foucault. Hitler and Nietzsche. See where this kind of thinking goes.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Well spend some time contemplating and you may figure it out.

Yeah, right. Your cryptic gems are so profound!

My time would be better spent watching my hard drive defragment.

You have not been on this list nearly long enough to play these cat-and-mouse games. I'm getting very close to writing you off as a troll, and I suspect others are as well. Either get serious or bug out.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> "Also on thedailykos are my embarrassing awful posts on Obama that I wish I could gt back...But as long as past dirt is being scummed up I'll give you the worst. "[seymour]

Don't worry about it. The proper way to view posts is an -informal- form. Like emails, a bit. You are not writing for the ages and people understand (or ought to) that you will revise, change your mind, say things too strongly. Or not strongly enough.

> "I have read hundreds of biographies. Have you? I am fully qualified, although not by the Sorbonne, to read them and judge them as a reader. Are you?"

Carol, rather than judge her qualifications or compare credentials, it would be interesting to hear your answers to my questions about what makes a good bio and what were the best you've read. Your posts and opinions are always worth reading.

"> Foucault this > Foucault that >Foucault the other thing....> Foucault oui > Foucault non."

Fouc dat. I haven't read him. So I can't even Derride him, even in a Laconic way. I wish I were Mao knowledgeable so I could make my Marx in this discussion. I can't even find the meaning Heideggering in some of these posts, so I have to plead for Lenincy and a lack of Deconstructive criticism of my ignorance. I been Habermasing a hard time with all this jargon. But maybe that's because there is just nuttin' honey outside of da text?

[seymourblogger]

I remember there were lots of people I knew being joyous that the shah was going down. A mistake. Even the Iranian people acknowledged their mistake. Some of them. Foucault did too BTW, publicly. When he was wrong he changed his mind. Like Churchill. What do you do?

As I understand it, Foucault's basic point was that it is inappropriate to judge Islamic culture -- including its horrendous treatment of women -- by Western standards. Correct?

Ghs

Yes. Islamic countries are within the Sacred Order not the Order of Production, not a Secular order. You cannot judge them from within ours, tempting as that may be. I presume you are talking about genital cutting among other things. Stoning because of adultery, etc.

They are a culture that has a great fear of women. And women are the cornerstone of their culture /religion. Exchange and property. This is a total belief system. And I think you know about beliefs. You may suppress the behavior but you are not going to get rid of it. You may punish and try them as we do in the US, but thaat still is only going to suppress it, the belief will still be there. Maybe here after a few generations it will not happen. Ousmane Sembene's last film was on genital mutilation. He is a filmmaker, educated in France, from Somalia and has always done films on taboo subjects, exposing hypocrisy. It shows that other women in the village are the most adamant on the cutting, and the young girls want it as a ritual of feminine adulthood, otherwise they will not be marriageable and then what do they have if they cannot marry. It's complicated. Mothers often try to spare their daughters, but other women undermine them, grab their daughters and do it anyway against her wishes. Human rights belong to secular orders not sacred orders.

[George H. Smith]

I liked Moneyball a great deal; in fact, I watched it twice, even though I'm not much of a baseball fan. But I don't recall the "Foucauldian Grid of power/knowledge in linguistic action." I thought it was a just good sports movie that happens to be true. Maybe the Foucauldian stuff happened during the locker-room pep talk. Not being versed in Foucauldian analysis, I may have missed the the complex subtleties that are previewed here:

Well now that you have been suitably enlightened, can you see it. A rose is a rose is a rose. Theme is OK but it does not open any more information to you, it just labels what you have seen. There are no resonances except what is like it in theme or not like it in theme, but a Foucault reading allows you to see the power/knowledge/capital relation in action, in it dynamics rather than stasis. An object does not exist until and unless it is observed. - William Burroughs

And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar -- as the saying goes in Freudian folklore.

- Or as Rand says about the impossibility of seeing something everyone refuses to see. Rand paraphrase so give me the correct quote one of you trivial pursuit people. There's another famous one but I forget who. I forget a lot you know. Thank heavens for blessings.

Do you seriously think that Rand somewhere backs up the quotation from Burroughs? Or is this the result of a "Foucault reading" that enables us to see Rand in "dynamics rather than stasis"?

Ghs

[seymourblogger]

Mao and Foucault. Hitler and Nietzsche. See where this kind of thinking goes.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Well spend some time contemplating and you may figure it out.

Yeah, right. Your cryptic gems are so profound!

My time would be better spent watching my hard drive defragment.

You have not been on this list nearly long enough to play these cat-and-mouse games. I'm getting very close to writing you off as a troll, and I suspect others are as well. Either get serious or bug out.

Ghs

I tried being serious and you din't like that. Should I keep trying to go down that path in the maze to get the cheese when it isn't there and isn't going to be there? Shouldn't I try a different pathway? Jes askin'.

[George H. Smith]

Notice how ND only jumps in to post another brief insult.

Would you prefer a more lengthy insult next time? All you need do is ask, and ND would almost certainly oblige.

Ghs

[seymourblogger]

Mao and Foucault. Hitler and Nietzsche. See where this kind of thinking goes.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Well spend some time contemplating and you may figure it out.

Yeah, right. Your cryptic gems are so profound!

My time would be better spent watching my hard drive defragment.

You have not been on this list nearly long enough to play these cat-and-mouse games. I'm getting very close to writing you off as a troll, and I suspect others are as well. Either get serious or bug out.

Ghs

I tried being serious and you din't like that. Should I keep trying to go down that path in the maze to get the cheese when it isn't there and isn't going to be there? Shouldn't I try a different pathway? Jes askin'.

Does this mean you will really be gone from my comments? I can hardly wait.

[Brant Gaede]

I remember there were lots of people I knew being joyous that the shah was going down. A mistake. Even the Iranian people acknowledged their mistake. Some of them. Foucault did too BTW, publicly. When he was wrong he changed his mind. Like Churchill. What do you do?

As I understand it, Foucault's basic point was that it is inappropriate to judge Islamic culture -- including its horrendous treatment of women -- by Western standards. Correct?

Ghs

Yes. Islamic countries are within the Sacred Order not the Order of Production, not a Secular order. You cannot judge them from within ours, tempting as that may be. I presume you are talking about genital cutting among other things. Stoning because of adultery, etc.

They are a culture that has a great fear of women. And women are the cornerstone of their culture /religion. Exchange and property. This is a total belief system. And I think you know about beliefs. You may suppress the behavior but you are not going to get rid of it. You may punish and try them as we do in the US, but thaat still is only going to suppress it, the belief will still be there. Maybe here after a few generations it will not happen. Ousmane Sembene's last film was on genital mutilation. He is a filmmaker, educated in France, from Somalia and has always done films on taboo subjects, exposing hypocrisy. It shows that other women in the village are the most adamant on the cutting, and the young girls want it as a ritual of feminine adulthood, otherwise they will not be marriageable and then what do they have if they cannot marry. It's complicated. Mothers often try to spare their daughters, but other women undermine them, grab their daughters and do it anyway against her wishes. Human rights belong to secular orders not sacred orders.

Then why do they judge our culture?

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Mao and Foucault. Hitler and Nietzsche. See where this kind of thinking goes.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Well spend some time contemplating and you may figure it out.

Yeah, right. Your cryptic gems are so profound!

My time would be better spent watching my hard drive defragment.

You have not been on this list nearly long enough to play these cat-and-mouse games. I'm getting very close to writing you off as a troll, and I suspect others are as well. Either get serious or bug out.

Ghs

I tried being serious and you din't like that. Should I keep trying to go down that path in the maze to get the cheese when it isn't there and isn't going to be there? Shouldn't I try a different pathway? Jes askin'.

Go away, troll.

Ghs

[seymourblogger]

I liked Moneyball a great deal; in fact, I watched it twice, even though I'm not much of a baseball fan. But I don't recall the "Foucauldian Grid of power/knowledge in linguistic action." I thought it was a just good sports movie that happens to be true. Maybe the Foucauldian stuff happened during the locker-room pep talk. Not being versed in Foucauldian analysis, I may have missed the the complex subtleties that are previewed here:

Well now that you have been suitably enlightened, can you see it. A rose is a rose is a rose. Theme is OK but it does not open any more information to you, it just labels what you have seen. There are no resonances except what is like it in theme or not like it in theme, but a Foucault reading allows you to see the power/knowledge/capital relation in action, in it dynamics rather than stasis. An object does not exist until and unless it is observed. - William Burroughs

And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar -- as the saying goes in Freudian folklore.

- Or as Rand says about the impossibility of seeing something everyone refuses to see. Rand paraphrase so give me the correct quote one of you trivial pursuit people. There's another famous one but I forget who. I forget a lot you know. Thank heavens for blessings.

Do you seriously think that Rand somewhere backs up the quotation from Burroughs? Or is this the result of a "Foucault reading" that enables us to see Rand in "dynamics rather than stasis"?

Ghs

She does. Do I haffta go hunt for my quote link? Go to google Rand quotes and you will find it faster. Here I did it:

“The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see.”

―

Ayn Rand

,

The Fountainhead google/goodreads/quotes

[George H. Smith]

Mao and Foucault. Hitler and Nietzsche. See where this kind of thinking goes.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Well spend some time contemplating and you may figure it out.

Yeah, right. Your cryptic gems are so profound! My time would be better spent watching my hard drive defragment. You have not been on this list nearly long enough to play these cat-and-mouse games. I'm getting very close to writing you off as a troll, and I suspect others are as well. Either get serious or bug out. Ghs

I tried being serious and you din't like that. Should I keep trying to go down that path in the maze to get the cheese when it isn't there and isn't going to be there? Shouldn't I try a different pathway? Jes askin'.

Does this mean you will really be gone from my comments? I can hardly wait.

Why are responding to your own posts? Are you engaged in some kind of Foucauldian self-dialogue?

The answer to your question is: If you persist in troll-like behavior I will give up all hope of taking you seriously and probably ridicule you unmercifully. I'm good at that sort of thing. Just ask around.

Ghs

[seymourblogger]

I remember there were lots of people I knew being joyous that the shah was going down. A mistake. Even the Iranian people acknowledged their mistake. Some of them. Foucault did too BTW, publicly. When he was wrong he changed his mind. Like Churchill. What do you do?

As I understand it, Foucault's basic point was that it is inappropriate to judge Islamic culture -- including its horrendous treatment of women -- by Western standards. Correct?

Ghs

Yes. Islamic countries are within the Sacred Order not the Order of Production, not a Secular order. You cannot judge them from within ours, tempting as that may be. I presume you are talking about genital cutting among other things. Stoning because of adultery, etc.

They are a culture that has a great fear of women. And women are the cornerstone of their culture /religion. Exchange and property. This is a total belief system. And I think you know about beliefs. You may suppress the behavior but you are not going to get rid of it. You may punish and try them as we do in the US, but thaat still is only going to suppress it, the belief will still be there. Maybe here after a few generations it will not happen. Ousmane Sembene's last film was on genital mutilation. He is a filmmaker, educated in France, from Somalia and has always done films on taboo subjects, exposing hypocrisy. It shows that other women in the village are the most adamant on the cutting, and the young girls want it as a ritual of feminine adulthood, otherwise they will not be marriageable and then what do they have if they cannot marry. It's complicated. Mothers often try to spare their daughters, but other women undermine them, grab their daughters and do it anyway against her wishes. Human rights belong to secular orders not sacred orders.

Then why do they judge our culture?

--Brant

Whaaaat! What kind of question is that? How would I know the thousands of reasons they do. They do because they do, just as we judge them.

A question well asked is one half the answer - Bacon

Really if you ask questions like that you can never find out anything or know anything.

[seymourblogger]

Mao and Foucault. Hitler and Nietzsche. See where this kind of thinking goes.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Well spend some time contemplating and you may figure it out.

Yeah, right. Your cryptic gems are so profound! My time would be better spent watching my hard drive defragment. You have not been on this list nearly long enough to play these cat-and-mouse games. I'm getting very close to writing you off as a troll, and I suspect others are as well. Either get serious or bug out. Ghs

I tried being serious and you din't like that. Should I keep trying to go down that path in the maze to get the cheese when it isn't there and isn't going to be there? Shouldn't I try a different pathway? Jes askin'.

Does this mean you will really be gone from my comments? I can hardly wait.

Why are responding to your own posts? Are you engaged in some kind of Foucauldian self-dialogue?

The answer to your question is: If you persist in troll-like behavior I will give up all hope of taking you seriously and probably ridicule you unmercifully. I'm good at that sort of thing. Just ask around.

Ghs

Oh good a duel! I can't wait!

[George H. Smith]

Oh good a duel! I can't wait!

I thought Foucault prohibited such things. That's what you said after I suggested that you start a thread on his ideas so we could discuss them.

Ghs

[caroljane]

You are one of those people who .....

..who categorize, according to a system arduously learnt and ardently devoured, a system which assigns everyone and everything to its place in whatever universe you consent to exist.

There are too many of these people.

In related news, the DIM Hypothesis is coming out this year, for sure!