 |
 |
Hi Henry - It seems somewhat disingenuous to suppose there is no such thing as a "dominant logos-discourse". Perhaps a mistake might lie in thinking that such a discourse is fixed and immovable, even monumental; like all discourses, it is no doubt changing all the time, although it is probably defined by its maintenance of political and economic power. But it's surely a logical mistake, if indeed that connection is made (I really don't know what the background to this is), to leap from the assumption of a particular discourse being dominant to the idea that all discourse involves domination. Perhaps a shift from ideas of discourse to ideas of relationship might be interesting... At 1:57 PM -0400 8/8/02, Henry Gould wrote: >There is no dominant logos-discourse, only >attempts to describe things using faulty, imprecise tools. If there is no >dominant, there can be no assertion of canonicity based on an illusory >dominant/outsider binary. Best Alison -- Alison Croggon Home page http://www.users.bigpond.com/acroggon/ Masthead Online http://au.geocities.com/masthead_2/