...and, for matt

The history of "A conversation about the work of Michel Foucault"

>>the beautiful possibilities filtering through

Stage setting:

The following sentence will give us the content of the argument to follow the following sentence. The content of the 'argument' to follow, is as follows:

1. Miscellaneous Identity #1 holds that Foucault's historical analyses (Madness and Civilization, Discipline and Punish, etc.) are sorts of cautionary tales/a call to arms. They are, at the very least indicative of a greater liberatory project.
2. Miscellaneous Identity #2 holds that this is not so; that, in fact, Foucault's analyses give no indication of such a liberatory project and that to ascribe such a project to these analyses is to superimpose one's one political agenda upon them. As an example of such a superimposition, Miscellaneous Identity #2 cites Charles Taylor's interpretation of Foucault's work.
3. It seems that, in the 'end' Miscellaneous Identity #1 may have made a stronger case, especially given later remarks made to a third party, to whom this "History" is, in itself, 'addressed' (the use of the term 'addressed' is here meant to be ironic, as the author (who?) is somewhat aware/cautious of what it might 'entail' (if anything)).









...and, for matt: here is a prolonged argument about 
Foucault that i had with cletus the foetus from e2
one thing i learned from this is that arguing made me 
realise that i know a fair bit about foucault..or at least 
i can talk like i do to someone that knows something about 
him....
heres the whole conversation (in its entirety, as "whole" would indicate):

but first he said to you much later after first

(r) Cletus the Foetus says 1) Find the interview. Get it through the interlibrary loan system of your school's library. 2) You say that my position is that "does see the possibility of liberation by resistance to power." This is not what I said at all. What the

(r) Cletus the Foetus says heck does "resistance to power" mean, when all resistance *is* power? You're confusing power (ie., the capacity to get someone do what you want them to do) with domination (ie., the capacity to *force* someone do what you want them to do)

(r) Cletus the Foetus says Domination is one form of power, but not the only one. Love is power, for example. Furthermore, in the context of the Anti-Oedipus preface, he's not talking about the "individual" as a being, but the individual as a "person" with

(r) Cletus the Foetus says distinct "feelings" that are part of a regulated world. This world is constituted by power (NOT just domination -- it also involves emotional coaxing, convincing, etc. on top of threat and fraud). The "multiplication" and "displacement"

(r) Cletus the Foetus says psychological self-transformations, part of a new ethic of "care for self" that F. envisions. They are forms of resistance against power, but they ARE power as well -- we can't "oppose" power, we can only oppose UNDESIRABLE outside power

(r) Cletus the Foetus says with our own, internal, care-of-self power. 3) What are you saying about the preface? That it doesn't provide any insight to Foucault because he'd lie about the context of his own work as a favour to friends who are talking about

(r) Cletus the Foetus says completely different from his own work? (And no, I don't think he was getting paid, and in any event even if he was, remember that Deleuze would later go on to write a book about Foucault, so I don't think it's unreasonable to say there

(r) Cletus the Foetus says is a certain copacetic vibe there.)

(r) Cletus the Foetus says 4) Find the interview.

(r) Cletus the Foetus says What did *you* take Foucault's overall theme as being? Renunciation to the state?

To be fair to my friend Frankdeluxe, I don't think he would ascribe any sort of overall theme to Michel FoucaultFoucault...

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Howdy.: Miscellaneous Identity #2: hey so yeah, what kind of stuff you read? and: postgraduate? so you are doing graduate stuff now then?
MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Yeah, see, simply going by what I could get from what you were saying about JD., I must say that I don't like the sounds of graphocentrism any more than I like the sounds of phonocentrism. What stuff do I read? Well, I'm a big Nietzsche fan, and I'm getting all into Deleuze right now. (Plus I'm teaching myself economics.): Miscellaneous Identity #2: yeah he doesnt really endorse it as much as i lead on but i havent read the book right now, so i just made it somewhat facile. its more like he is saying graphocentrismis the trend now (ie 1960's 1970's) deconstruction is not grapho or phono centric though which is what he is more about
MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: I'm in my last semester of my undergrad degree (BA), with a double major in phil. and english (since my school doesn't offer an honours program in philosophy. Well that might be ok then. See, in addition to Nietzsche and Deleuze, I'm also totally all about Chuang tzu. And William Blake.: Miscellaneous Identity #2: cool im in my third year of a combined honours in phil and contemporary studies sort of interdisciplinary deal what school do you go to? hows Deleuze anyway? i read a few of his joints, but i dont know shit about psychoanalysis so it mostly went over my head hes got a good essay on lewis caroll though
MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: But see, with Chuang tzu, and Lao tzu even moreso, it's about learning to use language without getting tangled up in the idea that there's an essential connection between language and experience. And for the Taoists, experience is the primary focus.

Commentary:

Arguing about nothing is never arguing about nothing. Even when I seem to be holding no position whatsoever, the act of arguing still holds some intentional sort of content. I'm still trying to reach some sort of goal. What is the goal in this case? What will happen in the end? Where will the conversation go? If I want to talk to someone about "academic"-esque topics (re: Michel Foucault) does that mean an argument of sorts will inevitably ensue? It seems to be almost always the case, even if I hold a lot of the same opinions as the other person, I will, in the "heat" of discussion flip flop, even arguing for something I see as 'incorrect'. The thing is, when I argue a position, I "believe" it as much as I ever believe in anything. The entire paragraph leading up to this sentence is poorly written, and not at all something I would agree to. I argue with people for no reason, and for the reason that it helps me work out things about subjects that I didn't realise I knew. I guess a socio-biologist would say that it was a survival instinct. My instinct to survive usually doesn't seem terribly automatic. I'm just a walking courtship display. _{I reject my work, I reject your work.}

Argumentisargument.

the great soup kitchen explosion of ought four

Miscellaneous Identity #2: yeah a lot of eastern shit seems to be pretty phenomenology-y im more into language itself :)

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: I go to the University of Prince Edward Island. Deleuze is cool -- "Capitalism and Schizophrenia" is pretty heavy, though you can almost track where it is Deleuze is speaking and where Guattari. Though it's never quite concrete, and besides it's irrelevant. They have a chapter on the sociology of black magic and lycanthropy, which turns into music theory halfway through.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: ~~haha~~!!! i go to dal/kings i was looking into pei's non-existent grad programmes thats funny that we are so close

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: No shit! I've got friends who're over there. Wow, it's a small world.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: quite. thats funny.

yeah i read capitalism and schizophrenia. i just dont know much about freud/lacan et al so it wasnt that exciting to me i like their literary criticism stuff though

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: It's only half about the psychoanalysis, though. It's also half about economics; it's basically a revision of the theory of desire, in a radical way that alters the perspectives of both sciences.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: so how do i get rid of these square brackets? &91?

((Commentary))

Textual Note regarding the striking through (~~striking through~~) of typographical laughter in the conversation. This decision (incision)/revision has been made for the following reasons:

One

Time

Too

Many

We

Fled

For

Their

Lies

For further information on this curious editorial procedure, see *'s.

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: [ and ] See, in economics, desire was always characterized negatively. Desire was want, as in, you wanted something you didn't have and you acted to make the desire go away. In psychology, desire was something that was teased out by circumstances, and then repressed back against itself, because oh golly gee, it's just all too titillating. Well, you've read Foucault, right?

* (0.015): Laughter is that disease peculiar to the human condition. Laughter is (or has become) that paralysing fear of one's own death.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: so i put one after and one before then? thats annoying. ~~haha~~ yeah, i just dont get all the father/son circumcision etc. metaphors that much ive been reading some lacan lately for a class so im getting it a bit more but its not really my thing i guess

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Yarp, [ is [ and ] is ]. (For reference, \ is | -- ceci n'est pas une pipe.) Lacan is another one of those dudes who's just too far out for me.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: ~~haha~~>/so> he's alright i dont really like him that much i dont know, psychoanalysis is funny to me

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: But Deleuze and Guattari totally revised the theory of desire, using the idea of a Body without Organs as a controlling metaphor. Foucault's as anti-psychoanalytic as Deleuze & Guattari. Their stuff represents criticism of the methods, perspective and content of psychoanalysis.

* (0.0175): Coins are all flipped the same way. (There is no advice here, nor has there been or will there "be")

Miscellaneous Identity #2: yeah i know, its just that its hard to understand critiques of something you dont know anything about :) ~~haha~~a

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Yeah I bet. That's probably one of the main reasons I couldn't quite get my head around Derrida.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: yeah, it just takes some getting used to.

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Guess so. I was always paranoid that there was something substantial that I was missing, that if I knew it I might totally revise everything I thought about everything, but since I didn't know it I'd live forever in ignorance. Glad to know that isn't quite the case.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: ~~haha~~ well i wouldnt say that derrida does have a lot of importnat things to say my wu's are actually pretty crappy glosses of a lot of what he says you really do have to read what he says to get most of it he's big into the 'performance' of writing/reading

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: See, I reckon that with stuff like what he's doing, a great deal will get lost in the translation. And my french isn't as good as I wish it were. But on the other hand, I can't entirely relate to the idea that we're becoming any less of a verbal-oriented culture, or a verbal-oriented philosophical tradition.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: yeah, he is pretty finicky with his translator's though and a lot of the hard parts are given in both languages (doesnt help me because i dont speak french) that is true though

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: (Hey, did you know Derrida is a noder? Check out the user jderrida.)

************************************************************

"BREAK!" _{said in break-dancing 'call to arms' voice}

2002.02.10  16.37
forgetting/amnesis/anamnesis/remembering

well i forgot about this journal
in some ways
but it was in the back of my mind
the advent of everything has not yet destroyed my "need" 

(not really a need, more of a benefit caused by) of this journal

everything is moderated, but this isn't moderated
its just what i want to write
so i still have use for this

fitting everything nicely into (marxist)/economist terms 
right there

"use"

((thats why i like george bataille))

or why i think i like him
exploding the notion of use/disuse
the productivity of waste?
how can political economy deal with waste/art
etc.

nothing is a closed or open system
nothing is anything

im so fucking clever.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: ~~haha~~ha that would be funny if it was him i think e2 is ridiculously derridean

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: I was always skeptical of jderrida -- I mean, look through his w/u's. There'll be these incredibly cunning "impersonations," and then there'll be some crazy piece on American indiepop.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: ~~haha~~

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Seriously had me messed up for a while. I kept /msg'ing the dude, trying to extract hints as to the true nature of his game. Was it Derrida, an old man with bizarre musical tastes? Was it Derrida, with his grandson using the same account? Or was it an amazing impersonation? I needed answers.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: im surprised you are into the sort of thing you are, upei seems like a very analytical philosophy department (like the rest of north america) or...it was just a nerd like me that chose a bad user name.

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Yeah, Neb Kujundzic, the chair, is from Croatia, so he's well-versed in the Slavic logical tradition (they all had to be, it was perceived as the least subversive form of philosophy), and Malcolm Murray is a contractarian. Tony Couture is an old-school (Godwinian) anarchist with Habermas-sympathies (total reformed Heideggerian). The new guy, Louis Groarke, he's an Aristotelean (as far as I can tell). I'm just a free-thinker. I read for myself, and I won't let my professors tell me I'm wrong when I know I'm not.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: im always wrong i rarely realise it though

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: ~~Hah~~. Unpositive attitude dude. I've been reading Nietzsche since high school, and none of the other profs read much of him, so I'm used to having a niche of knowledge. I just expanded from there.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: well its positive in that it doesnt bother me that im wrong

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Yeah, that's good. Been there too. So what are you going in to? Canada's got a strong tradition of media studies, and as you probably have the dubious honour of being one of the few people in the country who can extract something useful out of it, you could probably do a lot of creative stuff there. (Sorry, out of Derrida.)

* (1.00000034): I will relent. I'm convinced by (his)(its?) argument. The reason I've struck all the laughter from this "record" (awful contractual) is because of laughters explosive disregard for the argumentative style. What can laughter mean in a debate? Doesn't it automatically render any appeal to rationality absurd? Or at least, absurd within the range of the laughter itself. Importantly: the range (band-breadth) of this laughter multiplies itself out of all control if it finds a 'permanent' home (dwelling) on the internet. Thus: if I leave the traces of this once-original laughter to remain here, am I not already invalidating the possible seriousness of the questions that may (or may not)(more likely the 'may not') follow. More on this later.... back to the breaks.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: i dont know waste my life doing silliness :) some grad school some where probably western i dont know

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Blah. See, I couldn't handle it if I thought that what I was doing wasn't useful in a larger context. Like, media studies in general I can understand. But these scholars who devote their entire lives to minutiae -- it drives me crazy just thinking about it.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: im not really into helping my fellow man so it doesnt bother me so much nothing changes live/die

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: See, I'm a closet altruist. I present the veneer of disinterested egoism (it's a religious thing for me) but deep down inside I'm a total pathetic softy. It's kinda embarrassing.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: that being said: its not like i have contempt for philosophy i think its useful for something, me etc. i like other people somewhat i just dont think there is anything to do that will "save humanity" and i think thinking in terms like that is pretty dangerous a lot of the time. so i just do my small things

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: I'm on this whole "World Peace" kick lately. I've been reading too much William Blake lately, maybe.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: h~~haha~~ people fight that is.

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: I used to believe that there would always be war and destructuion and hate and conflict and fighting, but then I realized that, at least, there's no longer any need for actual WAR. But of course, if I ever said as much I'd be laughed at. Because I'd be an idiot to maintain such a thing. Unless I was a prophet, in which case *most* people would laugh at me but *some* people would begin the infection-like spread of my credibility.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: yeah maybe but: if there is no war, then there will be other things you read foucualt... and: just because there is no NEED for war (has there ever been?) doesnt mean it wont happen society is not fundamentally economic.. YO ~~haha~~

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: If there's no war, there will be insane boredom and psychological cruelty. There will also still be crime. But I don't think Foucault's point is quite so pessimistic. I mean, there was a point to his writing.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: not according to him fuck charles taylor :) i dont see liberation in foucault ~~haha~~

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: 1) Charles Taylor promoted kindness to workers. Happy workers are more efficient. Why do you think the Roman Empire ended slavery? 2) Yes, fuck charles taylor. 3) There's liberation written all over Foucault! "Where there's the exercise of power, there's the possibility of resistance." Always.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: resistance=power there is no outside of power... at least for foucault all relations are power relations and i didnt mean fuck charles taylor entirely, just him pretending that his views are found in foucault i like his other stuff hes a good writer

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Resistance is power, yes. But power over self is different from power over others. In fact, it's more powerful. That's why he became interested in the technologies of the self later on -- these are techniques for becoming a better person, society be damned. Ahem, sorry, I had the wrong Taylor. I don't even know who Charles Taylor is.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: ... well considering his views on the subject i don't think he would EVER say that one could become a "better" person and power isnt something that one can have, power constitutes subjects, and subjects are its vehicle its not like you can hoard it and then you will be happy ... or thats what i get anyway

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: No, I totally disagree. You can become a better person by your own standards. He would never say that there was some abstract "betterness" you could discover and strive for. But there's such a thing as art. (Which is different from pretention.) Power is something you exercise. When you resist, you exercise power. When you transform, you exercise power. When you create, and when you destroy. Nonetheless, some forms of power are good for life, and some are bad.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: well he specifically says that our own standards are entirely limited by the epistemic system we are currently in, which you cant escape... so its hard to see how you could become better if the notion of better is limited by outside standards... not for foucault foucault never says that forms of power are good or bad he just says they are you may disagree but foucault doesnt say that

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: But that's only for abstract, metaphysical standards. If you believe in some "Good" (like G.E. Moore). What I see in Foucault, and this is his inheritance from Nietzsche, is the emphasis on the aesthetic. No, he never says that forms of power are good or bad. But you've got to read between the lines. His theses are almost always insinuations. It's all about *personal* standards, for oneself, that have little or nothing to do with what other people think.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: no its not just abstract: foucault says that all categories of good and bad are constructed through power relations, which we cant escape if our categories of good and bad are constitued through and by power relations then how can we be a better person? personal standards ARE power relations, but not of your own creation...

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: But you can have a self-relationship. An identity. Power over oneself.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: well its hard to read between the lines when he states PRECISELY and repeatedly the obvious no you can't because any self-relation is constituted by external power relations ie: the self is historical we can only relate to ourselves in specific, historical ways which are enforced on us by the llarger epistemic regime

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: No, nothing is "constituted" by the outside relations. It's strategic, not mechanical. There are concrete ways in which people are personally repressed by others. It's always specific people being mean to each other in specific ways. When you recognize those, that's the beginning of empowerment. That's the whole point of Foucault's career.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: it was metaphorical i just mean that any standards you have are entirely dictated by what standards the epistemic regime you are in allows you can only relate to yourself in certain historical ways, which are dictated not by your self, because that self is dictated by your time! i cant believe you think that you can be "empowered" in foucault! that seems to me to be the exact OPPOSITE of what he says!!

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Yes, of course. But what it all boils down to is that there are only two basic epistemological systems; Either you adhere slavishly to what other people tell you, or you rely on yourself. The technologies of the self are all about the latter. Aesthetic standards are all about the latter. Do you know anything about Foucault's life, personally?

Miscellaneous Identity #2: no there arent only two epistemological systems ack nevermind we obviously disagree on our readings of him...i cant see how you could possibly say that and yes i do, but im not going to fall into the trap of relating a biography to a persons work

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: No, I think it's totally important. (Especially given his Nietzschean bent -- I think he'd want us to understand his writings in the context of his life.)

Miscellaneous Identity #2: ~~haha~~ read "what is an author" and tell me that again. foucault is not nietzsche

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: No, he's not. "What is an Author?" is not quite the same thing as what I want to do.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: well, it disintigrates any notion that foucault would have wanted us to relate his life to his work, ill say that much.

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: "WiaA?" is about the relationship of the author, qua "authority," to the specific content of the words. But what I'm talking about is understanding the spirit in which they were uttered.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: note how much he talks about himself in his interviews/articles/books what is an author is about disintegrating the notion that the author has privilged access to the meaning of his words (ie: like derrida) he would disagree that the "spriit" is important

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Fine then, but by those standards even my reading isn't wrong. Mine is just more interesting, and more hopeful.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: ...? how so? thats not to say that IN THE TEXT there isnt anything more interesting to you and more hopeful but less plausible im just saying foucault does not want us to look at him as the privileged viewpoint on his own work he doesnt "own" the meaning in his work

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Not less plausible at all. His whole corpus generally focuses on one theme: How the individual can resist the general tide of a society in which people have the impunity to be complete dickheads to one another. His genealogical works focus on the society. His "technologies of the self" works focus on the individual within that society. Together they form a hopeful picture.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: it is less plausible in that all his texts either dont say what you are saying they say, or directly deny it his TEXTS not him as an author they arent like that at all, though it might be nice for people like you and charles taylor to look at them and come up with that ON YOUR OWN but that isnt in foucault

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Tell you what: Why don't you find a point where he directly denies something that I've said.Editorial incision("People like me?" This is becoming not fun anymore.)Editorial decision

**cut**MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: ("People like me?" This is becoming not fun anymore.)***















What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
ratiocination

What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?
What happened here?

* (21.3469) The following thirteen phrases contributed to (I would say 'led up to' but that would be to teleological for my anti-Hegelianism) this "upset" in the regular process of semi-rational argumentation:

1. Well, you've read Foucault, right?

2. ... im surprised you are into the sort of thing you are
3. Unpositive attitude dude
4. i dont know waste my life doing silliness :) some grad school some where probably western i dont know

8. There's liberation written all over Foucault! "Where there's the exercise of power, there's the possibility of resistance." Always.

9. ... i dont think he would EVER say ...

10. No, nothing is "constituted ...

12. Mine is just more interesting, and more hopeful.
13. Tell you what: Why don't you ...

Miscellaneous Identity #2: if i had all of foucault's books in my room and NOT at a library maybe i would ~~hahahaha~~ people like you just means people who are socially hopeful its not an epithet i agree with you i just disagree that foucault says any of it

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Seriously, look at what he's written. Discipline and Punish is about how we treat prisoners horribly. Why would he write a book like that?History of Sexuality, volume one, is about how the Victorians came up with a system whereby they pinned down for themselves *exactly* what kinds of perverts they were, and then used that to mount an attack on anyone who wouldn't play the game.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: who knows? maybe as an example as to how we should treat them or how we shouldnt? we cant say that he tells us either way!

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: An example of how we *should* treat them? I really don't think that's what the book is about.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: i just think you are ascribing a message to him that isnt there thats all in the texts think what you want about him its about how prisoners WERE treated he doesnt assign value to it its nice to look at it that way though dont you get my point?

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Hist of Sex volumes 2 & 3 are all about how the ancient Greeks and Romans (some of them, anyway) thought of ethics in terms of taking care of oneself, considering things in terms of personal regimen and taste. I think he clearly thinks this is a better way of thinking about matters of "the good." No, it's only ostensively about how prisoners "were" treated. It's really about how prisoners *came to be treated* as they are today. And I think he assigns value in his insinuations. Read his debate with Chomsky.

* (self technologizing; rap referent; 0.0110): well, painted today STOP and realised that i dont really enjoy painting pieces that much anymore STOPN or with certain people STOPO i dont know STOPT i just didnt like the atmosphere today STOPA it was too antagonistic STOPL it felt like a prolonged attack or something STOPK whatever STOPI my style needs work too STOPN i was generally displeased with the whole affair STOPS i also missed me some ~~XXXXXXXXXXX~~ STOP 1 its funny sometimes i dont see her for two days or whatever, and now its only been a day, and it feels longer STOPR bah STOP she'll have fun STOPR murderin fools etc. STOPA mackin suckas to get free (non-roofinated) drizinks or some shizzle, you know how we do in the 902 FULLSTOPH, REVERSE.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: its the "its really" thats the problem read what is an author see him debunk the "its really" that is a good way to look at it but its not in the book! thats all im saying ive read/seen it

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: No, I don't think that's what "WiaA?" is about. Or if it is, it was a lapse on his part. Because if that's how he really wanted his books to be treated, there would never have been a point to writing them in the first place. If he really didn't care about sides, he would have answered those questions in the debate *completely* differently.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: ~~haha~~ha see what you are doing? a lapse on his part you are assigning your own views to foucault ! its good to use his arguments for your puproses but admit you are doing it HE did care, his books do NOT give us his political opinion! hes saying that he doesnt give us the point to writing his works just are

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Yes fine. But his books are useless if not for use with my opinion! And he knew it. And he liked it.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: ~~HAHA~~HAA i suppose. that was my argument though so i win! ~~muahah~~ ~~haha~~

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Kinda.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: ?!?! oh come on!

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: But do you see my point? Although it's true that his works exist, divorced from him forever, for use as raw materials for our own social changes, it's clear he had particular sides and social issues in mind when he wrote the books. And it comes out in the books.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: i always saw yer point but i disagree that it comes out in his books at all. but: there are other uses for his books, ones that would disagree with your politics, i think. although i agree with your politics does that make sense? im a bad arguer ~~haha~~

"Using the 'contest' as a model for life can be dangerous in some ways. For instance: in contests, there are opposing sides. If you are treating your own life as a contest, you are either opposing/competing with yourself, or competing with the world/those around you. So, in order to achieve your goal (in order to 'beat' your opponent) you must separate them from yourself. This means either separating yourself from yourself (alienating yourself) or separating yourself from your community/friends/family/coworkers or your environment."

*****

***** (349.012311): This passage is struck through for its remarkable (functional) similarities to the meme "~~haha~~". For more on this editorial procedure, see the sentence immeditaley following this one. Sentence: The above 'quotation' (cited here surreptitiously) has been deemed humours due to the presence of the word "beat". For more on this editorial procedure, see the sentence immediately preceding this one.

Back to the (serious) topic at (hands) hand...

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Perhaps. I suppose someone could plan out a whole engine of destruction and misery using his books as guidelines.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: exactly

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: But I still see those books as empowering.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: i like that engine of destruction

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Because if you know what you're up against, there is the possibility of resistance.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: i dont wanna argue anymore :) ~~haha~~ so what grad school you plannin on going to? or do you know?

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: (I've been reading a lot of Blake lately, that's a very Blakean phrase. Or maybe he'd say "Satanic millwheels.")

Miscellaneous Identity #2: ~~haha~~ its funny my thing about author in foucault is terrible and not at all what i was saying but its from a paper from like 3 semesters ago im glad you didnt call me on it ~~haha~~ha

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Hm? Which thing was that?

Miscellaneous Identity #2: a writeup on e2 its terrible i shouldnt have put it on there im gonna re-write a nice one i just havent done it yet i dont want it destroyed cause im gonna redo it w/ the same title anyway so i might as well just edit it

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Oh, for grad schools, I dunno. I'm graduating this semester, and then I'm taking a year off to prevent burn-out. Then in the fall I'm going to shop around. I've got a really strong application (or so my profs are all telling me) so I'm just going to have to see who gives me financial assistance.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: nice i dont know what im gonna look like i want to go to the centre for theory and criticism at western pretty snotty but what im into the other names sound familiar

Miscellaneous Identity #2: ~~haha~~h notedxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

...and none that are important enough anymore that come to mind...




om
com
.com
2.com
g2.com
ng2.com
ing2.com
hing2.com
thing2.com
ything2.com
rything2.com
erything2.com
verything2.com
everything2.com
.everything2.com
w.everything2.com
ww.everything2.com
 www.everything2.com
  www.everything2.com
   www.everything2.com
    www.everything2.com
     www.everything2.com
      www.everything2.com
       www.everything2.com
        www.everything2.com                 Everything began with OM
       www.everything2.com
      www.everything2.com
     www.everything2.com
    www.everything2.com
   www.everything2.com
  www.everything2.com
 www.everything2.com
www.everything2.com
ww.everything2.com
w.everything2.com
.everything2.com
everything2.com
verything2.com
erything2.com
rything2.com
ything2.com
thing2.com
hing2.com
ing2.com
ng2.com
g2.com
2.com
.com
com
om

matt is so excited "its the only thing ive ever been excited about on the internet"
im pretty excited about it now too internet nerdery factor: +10 agility: _-10 even stephen? 2002.02.05 17.40

separate existences, at no cost.

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: Well I gotta take off. Sleep beckons. It's been fun nerding out with ya; I rarely get a chance to butt heads with anyone who's actually *read* Foucault.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: ~~haha~~h have a good night that was a hilariously vehement argument

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: (Oh and by the way: If there are more than two epistemological theories-- authority and criticism -- then why do you say in Feminist standpoint epistemology that there are only two epistemologies -- objectivism and subjectivism?) heh heh -- that's just my parting shot. I'm far too tired to take it seriously, so you shouldn't either.

Miscellaneous Identity #2: not epistemological THEORIES epistemic regimes ie: historical periods when certain kinds of claims count as knowledge

MISCELLANEOUS IDENTITY #1: G'night man. If you ever need any noding help, just /msg ctf (all lower case).