From: Wynship Hillier <whi@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 10:38:34 -0600
malgosia askanas wrote:
> Hmm, I seriously doubt that Foucault considered Reich "bourgeois ideology".
> But I may be wrong. However, I am not sure what relevance that has to the
> preceding discussion.
"....Thus between the two world wars there was formed, around Reich, the
historico-political critique of sexual repression. The importance of this
critique and its impact on reality were substantial. But the very possibility of
its success was tied to the fact that it always unfolded within the deployment of
sexuality, and not outside or against it. The fact that so many things were able
to change in the sexual behavior of Western societies without any of the promises
or political conditions predicted by Reich being realized is sufficient proof
that this whole sexual 'revolution,' this whole 'antirepressive' struggle,
represented nothing more, but nothing less -- and its importance is undeniable --
than a tactical shift and a reversal in the great deployment of sexuality. But
it is also apparent why one could not expect this critique to be the grid for a
history of that very deployment. Nor the basis for a movement to dismantle it."
-M.F. _The History of Sexuality_ Vol. 1, An Introduction. p. 131.
You do read this stuff, don't you?
> Why does it have to be a "computer scientist"? Just to shift ground?
> OK, I consider it shifted. My poor house was built on sand.
Very well, then, find an example of any scientist whose work evinces any sort of
application of any of the work of any 20-th century French philosopher.
> It's true that my sarcasm is churlish, but the temptation is just too great,
> because you're so unbelievably stiff. I have a hypothesis that you were
> born as a logical positivist, and then born again into the Postmodern.
> See, here I go again; it's irresistable. If one is me, that is.
Hey, with a name like "Wynship West Hillier", how could I be anything other than