1. i am so glad you're having a positive experience with h.t.
2. wow. i read this stuff, and i had to reread it. and reread it. and i'm still not totally sure i understand it. is this how you feel when you read my writing?
3. yay judith butler studies.
4. i got a bryn mawr school of social work bulletin. i talked to an admissions person.
5. what i think you're saying is: it would be interesting to hold both text and person as subjects in our interpretive tasks, and subjects, we know, have no boundaries other than the ones they make up for themselves. there are, of course, the boundaries that are made for them. oh!! oh!!!! oh!!! THIS is the revolutionary task. so, there is the subject that is subjectified by outside processes - history, community, etc. and that subjectificiation is often oppression. or, in the case of biblical texts and histories, is in the service of oppression. but what if we treat subjects as autonomous agents and truly value self-determination? obviously a text can't, in and of itself, articulate its self-determination (in the same way people can, for example), but we can try to let texts tell us something on their own. not that they have innateness, but they do have something that is coherent about them that stands them up as a thing that is separate from other things. ummmmm. this is confused again now. i had it for a minute though.
but i think i'm on your page.
7. you are unbelievably fascinating and smart.
8. i really love that both you and my other seminarian friend are in school with mr. h.t.
2. wow. i read this stuff, and i had to reread it. and reread it. and i'm still not totally sure i understand it. is this how you feel when you read my writing?
3. yay judith butler studies.
4. i got a bryn mawr school of social work bulletin. i talked to an admissions person.
5. what i think you're saying is: it would be interesting to hold both text and person as subjects in our interpretive tasks, and subjects, we know, have no boundaries other than the ones they make up for themselves. there are, of course, the boundaries that are made for them. oh!!
oh!!!!
oh!!!
THIS is the revolutionary task.
so, there is the subject that is subjectified by outside processes - history, community, etc. and that subjectificiation is often oppression. or, in the case of biblical texts and histories, is in the service of oppression.
but what if we treat subjects as autonomous agents and truly value self-determination? obviously a text can't, in and of itself, articulate its self-determination (in the same way people can, for example), but we can try to let texts tell us something on their own. not that they have innateness, but they do have something that is coherent about them that stands them up as a thing that is separate from other things.
ummmmm. this is confused again now. i had it for a minute though.
but i think i'm on your page.
7. you are unbelievably fascinating and smart.
8. i really love that both you and my other seminarian friend are in school with mr. h.t.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment