Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (48436)	8/2/1999 3:31:00 PM
From: Edwarda	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Thanks for that link. BTW, have you ever tried to read Lacan? ("But is it art?")

To: Neocon who wrote (48436)	8/2/1999 3:43:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

In comparing the public scrutiny of Clinton's sex life vs. that of Jefferson, I think you miss the larger issue. Had Clinton not broken laws or had he not been sued for sexual harassment, his sex life would not have been examined so thoroughly. His more recent dalliances would have been in the Gennifer Flowers category, hot for a week then gone. Jefferson neither broke the law nor sexually harassed anyone.

To: Neocon who wrote (48436)	8/2/1999 7:22:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Very amusing article, and well written, too: >>>>>Step 5 - Derive another reading of the text, one in which it is interpreted as referring to itself. In particular, find a way to read it as a statement which contradicts or undermines either the original reading or the ordering of the hierarchical opposition (which amounts to the same thing). This is really the tricky part and is the key to the whole exercise. Pulling this off successfully may require a variety of techniques, though you get more style points for some techniques than for others. Fortunately, you have a wide range of intellectual tools at your disposal, which the rules allow you to use in literary criticism even though they would be frowned upon in engineering or the sciences. These include appeals to authority (you can even cite obscure authorities that nobody has heard of), reasoning from etymology, reasoning from puns, and a variety of word other games. You are allowed to use the word "problematic" as a noun. You are also allowed to pretend that the works of Freud present a correct model of human psychology and the works of Marx present a correct model of sociology and economics (it's not clear to me whether practitioners in the field actually believe Freud and Marx or if it's just a convention of the genre). You get maximum style points for being French. Since most of us aren't French, we don't qualify for this one, but we can still score almost as much by writing in French or citing French sources. However, it is difficult for even the most intense and unprincipled American academician writing in French to match the zen obliqueness of a native French literary critic. Least credit is given for a clear, rational argument which makes its case directly, though of course that is what I will do with our example since, being gainfully employed, I don't have to worry about graduation or tenure. And besides, I'm actually trying to communicate here.<<<<<