Re: My problem, Dr Rovira ...

Thank you, Scottie, it's wonderful to be greeted to such a warm and effusive
welcome. It's great to be back but I am just sorry for having chosen the
wrong message to get back with.

Kim: I think the NYT review by Michiko Kakutani was rather generous, but
others were suitably scathing.

Jim, sorry: I really, truly, am so sorry, for being so tardy. I shouldn't
have. I have no idea what you'd been saying all along. I never read your
mails in general and whatever little I ever do, is purely whatever little is
quoted in other responses. So I did not know that you had already made what
I perceived was my pathetic attempt at a weak witticism. But I've realised
my folly, for since then I have actually been reading all your mails.

And to tell the truth, I am actually quite baffled now:

> But rather than argue my intent vs. the acutal meaning of my words, don't
you
> think it'd be both more fair and productive to compare the ideas in my
posts
> with the ideas Foucault actually expressed?

You mean your intent and what you call are 'ideas' in your posts are two
different things? I have another of my 'a-ha' feeling coming, but I suspect
it's all wrong, just as most of what I kid myself into believing are my
insights about you are.

Anyway, it's getting too long, and I am far exceeding any reasonable limit
on the number of posts per day, so I think I should just explain as best as
I can. As I recall, you said in your last response to me:
"Now, I don't go that far...I'm not a Foucauldian"

And I believed you. I thought that was what you meant. Or meant to mean. Or
intended to say. (Did you not? So are you saying you are not? Sorry, make
that: "you are not 'not a Foucauldian?" But that would be saying, er, that
you are? ) So why would I want to compare what you call are ideas in your
posts (which may or may not be different from what you claim is your intent,
appeals to which you said are useless anyway) with whatever Foucault may or
may not have actually expressed, not that I would ever know any one of them
if they got up and bit me? Unless, of course you were just being your usual
playful self and used the word 'Foucauldian' as an aural pun? No, you
couldn't have.

Would any post-modernist make such a claim, you ask. I have no idea. Are you
one? Or, heavens (not that I believe in one) am I one? Who are you
insinuating is making such a claim? You? Or, I?

Let me not even get into what claim.I think I should now just leave for home
with a new existential question. Many, actually. But only one mantra: no mo
po mo.

Sonny

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Fri Oct 25 13:59:43 2002