These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Personally, like you, I find the claim that you highight to be a huge reification. I think learning *not* to reify is one of the first tasks to be accomplished in this area. But the proposition is an interesting one nonetheless.
Do the writers mention the inversion that takes place in the notion of "subject" at the beginning of modernity?
Andy Larry Purss wrote:
I know this notion of "traditions" "having us" may be seen as reification but I believe it is worth reflecting on
_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca