Ahem.

We should call this the Incipit thread, as we sip the coffee _you_ brewed,
Dave, and served up with non sequituurs on Fish's career, for dipping.

As for the point I'm allegedly avoiding, I just reread Alison's post (still
tagged on below) and find no exception registered to Fish's rhetoric as
either "surreptitiously nationalistic" or "unthinking." Her exception had
something to do with "neo-liberalism," the "unthinking" nature of which I'll
readily grant (you), but its nationalist roots lie in a country of which
Stanley Fish isn't even a citizen.

Sleep tight,

Candice




> Er, Candice
>
> I don't think either Alison's coffee or the level of my interest in Stanley
> Fish's career were/are exactly the points in this, to return to what you are
> avoiding, the point was an exception to a rhetoric that was, is,
> surreptiously nationalistic, and unthinking.
>
> And that's all from me for now - as it is +way+ past my bedtime.
>
> Best
>
> Dave
>
>
> David Bircumshaw
>
> Leicester, England
>
> A Chide's Alphabet
> www.chidesplay.8m.com
>
> Painting Without Numbers
> www.paintstuff.20m.com/default.htm
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/default.htm
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Candice Ward" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 3:00 AM
> Subject: Re: FW Stanley Fish
>
>
>> Er, what? Disappointed in me for asking Alison to fill in "the gaps" now
>> that she's had her coffee, presumably? How very odd, Dave. The sources one
>> quotes in appealing to their authority for a critique (in this case on
>> Fish's text) are hardly "irrelevant," nor would they seem to have anything
>> at all to do with the "minutiae" of Fish's (enviable) career--whatever you
>> mean by that and however much you may or may not know about it.
>>
>> No need to come over all reproving and moralistic on me, though, in any
>> case, since I merely requested information. Whew, I need another
>> Twinkie--Candice
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Candice Ward
>>>
>>> I am disappointed in you.
>>>
>>> It's very clear from Alison's post that she was looking at these matters
>>> first thing in her morning, ie, not the time when any of us are at our
>>> sharpest, re definitions, but also at the essential point of Tim's post,
> to
>>> which she was responding, and with which I wholeheartedly concur, which
> was
>>> to question the rhetoric employed at a crucial point of S.Fish's post,
> to
>>> sidetrack things into minutae of whatever it may or not be that Mr Fish
> has
>>> made a career out of opining is quite simply irrelevant.
>>>
>>> And this is a me at a very late in my respective day, so bear that in
> mind.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>> David Bircumshaw
>>>
>>> Leicester, England
>>>
>>> A Chide's Alphabet
>>> www.chidesplay.8m.com
>>>
>>> Painting Without Numbers
>>> www.paintstuff.20m.com/default.htm
>>> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/default.htm
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Candice Ward" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 1:37 AM
>>> Subject: Re: FW Stanley Fish
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi, Alison,
>>>>
>>>> I don't think I've ever heard Fish identified with neo-liberalism
> before,
>>>> and it's a pretty bizarre notion, given his literary/legal studies work
>>>> (without even getting into his politics). But you don't give any
>>> definition
>>>> of neo-liberalism or say why you believe it defines Fish's
> postmodernism.
>>>> That notion too is hard to pin down here in terms of either your usage
> or
>>>> those of all these unnamed sources you quote. WHO "claims that
> Montaigne
>>> is
>>>> a 'post-modern author'"? WHO made the comment on Mina Loy?
>>>>
>>>> Also, what do you mean by "a certain kind of thinking, its sense of
> hyper
>>>> comfort, say, and the genealogy of its privilege" (neither of which
> would
>>>> seem to correspond to either pomo or poco theory)?
>>>>
>>>> Could you be more specific, in other words?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Candice
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Too early in the morning for me to be intelligent: but I agree with
> you
>>>>> Tim, it does look like neo-liberalism in light disguise, despite those
>>>>> parts I do agree with.  Mind you, post-modernism has been tottering
> for
>>> a
>>>>> while (who was that philosopher who said the sign of a decaying system
>>> of
>>>>> thought was when it spent all its energy in self definition and self
>>>>> defence?)
>>>>>
>>>>> PM's always been one of those amoeba-creatures, how do you argue with
> a
>>>>> contemporary critical phenomenon which claims that Montaigne is a
>>>>> "post-modern author"?  What can that possibly mean?  And there are
>>> certain
>>>>> strands of thought which might be called post modern which are of
>>>>> continuing value.  But certainly the September 11 events exposed the
>>>>> inadequacies of a certain kind of thinking, its sense of hyper
> comfort,
>>>>> say, and the genealogy of its privilege.  Lakoff's laughable essay,
> for
>>>>> instance.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's left in the crucible might be interesting: certain feminist
>>>>> questions which began to be grappled with in modernism for example,
>>> which
>>>>> were some of the things which post modernism both picked up on and
>>>>> obscured.  (It was said of Mina Loy for instance that she was a
> "modern
>>>>> woman" and that "some people think women are the cause of modernism").
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for all the gaps - back to my coffee -
>>>>>
>>>>> Best
>>>>>
>>>>> Alison
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Alison Croggon
>>>>>
>>>>> Home page
>>>>> http://users.bigpond.com/acroggon/
>>>>> Masthead
>>>>> http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/
>>