>>> kwalker2 at gte.net 07/27/01 12:59PM >>>
At 09:59 AM 7/27/01 -0400, Charles Brown wrote:
>CB: Carrol was pointing to a bourgeois something , and I commented on
>Carrol's comment on that bourgeois something.
yeah, carrol was telling ken that his conceptualization of subjectivity/intersubjectivity/objectivity was bourgeois. you jumped in to concur and elaborate. the marxist against ken the wayward theorist.
i pointed out that you're both wrong about what ken was saying.
give people a break. he's writing his damn dissertation. some constructive criticism that he can actually use might be helpful. but tell ing him that he's bourgeois ain't getting him very far.
((((((((((
CB: Didn't just tell him he's bourgeois. More specifically said that it was more a characterization of a generic animal identity than a specifically human identity. It is not clear to me how what you said pointed out that we were both wrong or whether you succeeded.
It is you who use sarcastic terms like "wayward theorist" in contrast with "marxist", in this case not us. All Carrol and I did was argue with a point ; something that goes on constantly on this list; in fact is the m.o. of this list. To do so from a Marxist perspective is no less legitimate or dogmatic or whatever special category you are putting it in than when people argue from other positions - like yours.
For example, you have done many times here what you are doing now: criticized a Marxist perspective because it is Marxist, and because somehow you think Marxist criticisms are something people need a break from. Hey, maybe I think people need a break from your criticisms of Marxism. So, give _us_ a break from your policing Marxism