+
From: Erik Hoogcarspel <jehms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
+
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 11:10:07 +0200
Everybody seems to think that there's only one way to read a text and
that there's only one true meaning which is there for everybody to graps
independend of the way you read it. This is a bit naieve. If you read
Plato as someone who's preoccupied with his sexual preferences, you get
something else then when you read him as a political activist. Another
matter is whether you want to honour Plato's intentions and read what he
wanted to communicate (in which case you just would have to know what he
thought his readers were familiar with) or whether you want to analyse
him (in which case his voice vanishes).
Nathan Goralnik wrote:
> Glen
>
> Ok, so what if sexual preference matters? I'm not sure where you're going
> with this. Perhaps it's relevant if we're critiquing a text (interrogating
> the conditions of its possibility) or studying sexual preference itself, but
> there doesn't really seem to be a reason why our use of a text has to in
> anyway be influenced by an understanding of its originative moment.
>
> ....Bricolage....
>
> Cheers :)
> Nate
>
>
>