>At 08:22 AM 2/19/01 -0500, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
>>>it appears we are back to the Yoshie and Carrol attack Routine.
>>
>>Pointing out a circular reasoning, in my opinion, does not
>>constitute an "attack." This being a "free country," however,
>>naturally you are free to say that it does. Perhaps Doug should
>>make it part of the rules of discussion here: "Pointing out
>>circular reasoning & other logical problems is a flame & should be
>>avoided." :)
>>
>>Yoshie
>
>no, you didn't simply point out circular reasoning, you could only
>do so by 1. ignoring catherine's other discussions here and, worse,
>2. ignoring what catherine said from the outset. so, you avoided
>acknowleding what catherine had actually typed, because she gave you
>quite enough of an indication that she was not asserting an
>ahistorical interpretation of dependence and that she was indeed
>suspicious of the bourgeois billiard model of
>identity/self/subjectivity. to accuse her of advocating it despite
>all that and to then, twice, accuse of her an incapacity to read
>was, yes you're right, not an attack. rather you were both grinding
>an axe on her head: deliberately ignoring what she'd written just
>so you'd have a convenient platform from which to hone your claims,
>arguments, positions.
It is possible that Catherine -- in her _mind_ -- is "not asserting an ahistorical interpretation of dependence and that she was indeed suspicious of the bourgeois billiard model of identity/self/subjectivity." Her _writing_, however, doesn't make her argument historical. She wrote: "[T]he concept of dependence is about hierarchy -- something leans on, hangs from etc, is defined entirely by because it presumes the existence of something else." There is no explanation -- historical or otherwise -- here as to why if X presumes "the existence of something else," the relation between X and "something else" is necessarily hierarchical & therefore objectionable.
Yoshie