Link: http://www.lehigh.edu/~amsp/2007/02/blogger-authenticity-vs-presidential.html
So Edwards is running for president... (anyone but Bush right?!!)
Anyways, as a form of publicity and to get his message across on all different types of mediums and employs a handfull of his witty, educated, hopefully cultured, supporters to go around and wander the Bloguniverse or whatever crazy name they give it these days, and start political debates, spread his message and plans as potential president, anything to produce posative influence. The key word there is posative. Supposedly one of these bloggers dipped a toe in some hot water when they made some not so well recieved comments regarding the Catholic Church.
Now im not much into politics - please dont jump down my throat for that, i am of recently making myself more aware and preparing myself for future elections - but i dont think employing people to spread your word via blogspot.com is the smartest idea considering you as the candidate or any advisers you might have and trust, do not get the oppertunity to supervise what gets posted. Whatever is said directly reflects on Edwards, and that can come back to bite you in the ass. Not to mention what other posts will follow, by supporters and non-supporters alike. Things could get nasty
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
death by Foucault
When i began to dive in to Foucault's What is an Author? i was extremely- extremely scepitcal. Not that i doubted his genious or took him for a quack or anything, but i have read some of us other stuff before - History of Sexualitiy to be specific... and im not at all ashamed to say that almost every word of it went over my head. I was mainly afraid of his language and his word choice, and was weary as to if i was going to be able to decipher what he was saying.
For instance in History of Sexuality i read the section Dr. M had assigned for last semester and struggled immensenly with it. However what it was all said and done i thought i at least understood the general idea or thesis of his argument. Low and behold Friday noon roles around and Dr. M begins her lecture, and about ten minutes in my head was going in circles. Apparently i had gotten it all wrong and Fouccault's argument was the exact opposite of what i thought it was. It took my the rest of the semester to understand it enough to answer the question pertaining to to Foucault on the final. Oh well.
Anyways back to the What is an Author, It seems to me that Foucault is saying that it does indeed matter, our image of the author that we get when we read his/her work. Shakespeare was a great example. he said that the individual of William Shakespeare- and the details of his life that are unrelated to his "work" (which i am slightly confused by, when thinking of it in Foucault's terms) are not important to the image of Shakespeare as an author. For instance if it were found out that Shakespeare has 18 brothers and sisters, and father 3 illigtimate children, that should effect his status and and image as an "author". However if we come to find out the "The Taming of the Shrew" was derrived from another story that was never published and written by an unknown person, that would then in turn force us to question his image as an "author". Now, he would still be considered an author- undoubtedbly. Foucault also makes the point that if we were to find out that Shakespeare was responsible for a dozen of other works that were first attributed to other authors - depending on the subtance of the material - this can in fact also change his status as an "author" and in turn give him a different image.
"Work". This term that Foucault throws around more or less confused me. I dont think he gave a clear definition of what should constitute as a "work". he did ask a bunch of questions - that i thought were going to be answered shorlty after they were proposed.. but i never found the answers.. perhaps they are hidden in his vast vocabulary - because once again i do struggle with his work. So if any of you bright english majors want to point out what constitues as a "work" according to Foucault - on confidant on my ability to understand your language - or you just want to throw some page numbers my way, i'd appreciate it very much.
For instance in History of Sexuality i read the section Dr. M had assigned for last semester and struggled immensenly with it. However what it was all said and done i thought i at least understood the general idea or thesis of his argument. Low and behold Friday noon roles around and Dr. M begins her lecture, and about ten minutes in my head was going in circles. Apparently i had gotten it all wrong and Fouccault's argument was the exact opposite of what i thought it was. It took my the rest of the semester to understand it enough to answer the question pertaining to to Foucault on the final. Oh well.
Anyways back to the What is an Author, It seems to me that Foucault is saying that it does indeed matter, our image of the author that we get when we read his/her work. Shakespeare was a great example. he said that the individual of William Shakespeare- and the details of his life that are unrelated to his "work" (which i am slightly confused by, when thinking of it in Foucault's terms) are not important to the image of Shakespeare as an author. For instance if it were found out that Shakespeare has 18 brothers and sisters, and father 3 illigtimate children, that should effect his status and and image as an "author". However if we come to find out the "The Taming of the Shrew" was derrived from another story that was never published and written by an unknown person, that would then in turn force us to question his image as an "author". Now, he would still be considered an author- undoubtedbly. Foucault also makes the point that if we were to find out that Shakespeare was responsible for a dozen of other works that were first attributed to other authors - depending on the subtance of the material - this can in fact also change his status as an "author" and in turn give him a different image.
"Work". This term that Foucault throws around more or less confused me. I dont think he gave a clear definition of what should constitute as a "work". he did ask a bunch of questions - that i thought were going to be answered shorlty after they were proposed.. but i never found the answers.. perhaps they are hidden in his vast vocabulary - because once again i do struggle with his work. So if any of you bright english majors want to point out what constitues as a "work" according to Foucault - on confidant on my ability to understand your language - or you just want to throw some page numbers my way, i'd appreciate it very much.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
"I think where I am not, therefore I am where I do not think" - i think....
Lacan's twisting of Decarte's famous phrase: "I think, therefore i am" into "I think where I am not, therefore I am where I do not think" is an interesting concept. to be honest i like Decarte's idea a little better, i find it inspiring and empowering. I read it as an ambitious romantic would read it: i could be whatever it is i want to be, if you put your mind to it.. yada yada yada... but I'm pretty sure that is not what Decarte was trying to convey considering he later reworded the phrase to read: "I think, therefore i exist". thats pretty cool too, but pretty confusing as well. Take an inatimate object - a rock for instance, it does not think, but it still exists.
Anyway, Lacan was working off of the Freudian concept of the unconcious mind when he distorted Decartes original qoute. He was saying that most of a person thinks, their train of thought that essentially makes them who the are, is going on in the unconcious mind - where the person "is not'. the second part of the qoute kind of confuses me, and if anyone out there wants to throw some insight this way it would be apprecaited... perhaps an enthralling conversation will ensue....
Anyway, Lacan was working off of the Freudian concept of the unconcious mind when he distorted Decartes original qoute. He was saying that most of a person thinks, their train of thought that essentially makes them who the are, is going on in the unconcious mind - where the person "is not'. the second part of the qoute kind of confuses me, and if anyone out there wants to throw some insight this way it would be apprecaited... perhaps an enthralling conversation will ensue....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)