In a message dated 12/29/09 9:28:19 AM, [email protected] writes:
> > But if you "don''t like being told what to think", why do you care whether > "French post-structuralists" built a "redoubt of thought which has long > since > been taken." ? > You mistake the meaning here- different ways of attacking these problems have been designed in the last twenty years. They seem better tools. It has nothing to do with whether I like being told what to think. > > Wouldn't you be interested in assaulting that redoubt yourself? > No. > > And it may still have a loyal defender on this list - if Saul, with his > interest in "discourses", bothers to chirp in. > I don't think so. > > Nobody, including the "The newsletter of the Historians of Netherlandish > Art > has yet claimed that Berger poorly understands all that French theory that > he > wears as a feather in his cap. Have they? > That is probably because Berger is very very good at theory and has probably extended a lot of it. > > BTW - do you think that my discussion of the Introduction failed "to > read > with some care the description of Peirce ..covering almost all aspects of > post > modern cultural theory"? What did I leave out? > Any mention of Peirce. I have taken the liberty of abridging your spacing because it makes what you say hard to read. I do realize that it is a rh etorical device meant to add importance to what you type. KAte Sullivan > > > ........................................................................... > ..
