This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF1CF3.19260FFE Content-Type: text/plain Matt: > Perhaps they haven't taught you much of anything about language in general. I don't think Foucalt, Derrida, etc. have taught anybody much of anything, except perhaps how to come off as pat and pretentious. This thread only confirms my belief. I propose two explanations for their appalling failure. Either their work is so dense that it has collapsed into a black hole from which no information could possibly escape, or it is simply void of any information. > The typical response here goes something like "don't knock > it till you've tried it." Whence the assumption that I haven't tried it? Because I'm knocking it? > I'm not saying you should go out and read > "literary theory" (whatever it is), but as it is, your comments are > rude, dismissive and, well, naive. I was aiming for blunt, contentious, and, yes, "dismissive", but I regret it if I've managed to be "rude". Look, if you think repeated, careful readings of Saussure, Derrida, or Freud combined with a bit of high-minded introspection is going to tell you the exact nature of language, or whether thought precedes emotion, or whether the Whorfian hypothesis is true, or what are the capabilities of the unconscious mind, that's an unmistakable sign that it's time to put the sacred books down, slip out of the Academic compound when your thesis advisor has turned his back, and run like hell to the nearest investment bank or insurance company to plead for a job. -Sean ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF1CF3.19260FFE Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
Matt:
> Perhaps they haven't taught you much of =
anything about language in general.
I don't think Foucalt, Derrida, etc. have taught = anybody much of anything, except perhaps how to come off as pat and = pretentious. This thread only confirms my belief. I propose two = explanations for their appalling failure. Either their work is so dense = that it has collapsed into a black hole from which no information could = possibly escape, or it is simply void of any information.
> The typical response here goes something like =
"don't knock
> it till you've tried it."
Whence the assumption that I haven't tried it? = Because I'm knocking it?
> I'm not saying you should go out and read
> "literary theory" (whatever it is), =
but as it is, your comments are
> rude, dismissive and, well, naive. =
I was aiming for blunt, contentious, and, yes, = "dismissive", but I regret it if I've managed to be = "rude".
Look, if you think repeated, careful readings of = Saussure, Derrida, or Freud combined with a bit of high-minded = introspection is going to tell you the exact nature of language, or = whether thought precedes emotion, or whether the Whorfian hypothesis is = true, or what are the capabilities of the unconscious mind, that's an = unmistakable sign that it's time to put the sacred books down, slip out = of the Academic compound when your thesis advisor has turned his back, = and run like hell to the nearest investment bank or insurance company = to plead for a job.
-Sean
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF1CF3.19260FFE--