1/
From behind a block Karen Swallows Prior accused me of googling the Jonathan Culler I used in my article in Jesus and John Wayne.
I want to touch on something here, because this tells us a LOT about @KSPrior and the way she engages.
So briefly....
From behind a block Karen Swallows Prior accused me of googling the Jonathan Culler I used in my article in Jesus and John Wayne.
I want to touch on something here, because this tells us a LOT about @KSPrior and the way she engages.
So briefly....
2/
My piece quotes a John Searle article called "The Word Turned Upside Down" several times. The Culler quote @KSPrior accused me of "obviously googling" can also be found there. I'd have cited Searle's piece for the quote but he used it differently than me, so I cited Culler...
My piece quotes a John Searle article called "The Word Turned Upside Down" several times. The Culler quote @KSPrior accused me of "obviously googling" can also be found there. I'd have cited Searle's piece for the quote but he used it differently than me, so I cited Culler...
3/
I have read Culler's book and so while I was reading Searle's review and saw that quote, I remembered that I thought it would be an absolutely terrific quote to use to set up the final line of my piece.
Now, here is the point, and I want you to pay very close attention:
I have read Culler's book and so while I was reading Searle's review and saw that quote, I remembered that I thought it would be an absolutely terrific quote to use to set up the final line of my piece.
Now, here is the point, and I want you to pay very close attention:
4/
@KSPrior could have assumed I got the quote from Culler.
She could have assumed I got the quote from Searle given I quoted Searle's piece and he used the same quote (albeit differently)
But no, she asserts I had to have googled...the question is "Why does she assume that?"
@KSPrior could have assumed I got the quote from Culler.
She could have assumed I got the quote from Searle given I quoted Searle's piece and he used the same quote (albeit differently)
But no, she asserts I had to have googled...the question is "Why does she assume that?"
5/
Particularly when in context Culler is saying while Deconstruction leads to knowledge and feeling of mastery, the deconstructive analyses are themselves open to "criticism, analyses, and displacement."
The deconstructive analyses **can themselves be deconstructed***...
Particularly when in context Culler is saying while Deconstruction leads to knowledge and feeling of mastery, the deconstructive analyses are themselves open to "criticism, analyses, and displacement."
The deconstructive analyses **can themselves be deconstructed***...
6/
His entire point is that no deconstructive analyses eve gets to an objective, final, absolute, universaly true conclusion in spite of the fact that deconstructive analysis does lead to "feelings of mastery.
THATS WHY I USED THE QUOTE.
THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT.
I'll explain:
His entire point is that no deconstructive analyses eve gets to an objective, final, absolute, universaly true conclusion in spite of the fact that deconstructive analysis does lead to "feelings of mastery.
THATS WHY I USED THE QUOTE.
THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT.
I'll explain:
7/
The whole point is that Culler is actually correct about feelings of mastery. The problem is (as culler admits) deconstruction never allows for final answers because every analysis can be displaced using deconstruction.
Deconstruction has no endpoint...it CAN'T have one...
The whole point is that Culler is actually correct about feelings of mastery. The problem is (as culler admits) deconstruction never allows for final answers because every analysis can be displaced using deconstruction.
Deconstruction has no endpoint...it CAN'T have one...
8/
And thats why I followed the Culler quote with "nihilism and relativism are waiting for you at the bottom of the glass."
All of the deconstructive methods (whether they strictly follow Derrida or not) are like this, and they all have the same effect.
But the point is...
And thats why I followed the Culler quote with "nihilism and relativism are waiting for you at the bottom of the glass."
All of the deconstructive methods (whether they strictly follow Derrida or not) are like this, and they all have the same effect.
But the point is...
9/
I used that quote BECAUSE of it's context...not in spite of it.
@KSPRIOR say that quote is out of context, and that I must have found it in the cheapest laziest way possible.
I want you to see the gap between her assertion and reality...and just how sure of herself she is.
I used that quote BECAUSE of it's context...not in spite of it.
@KSPRIOR say that quote is out of context, and that I must have found it in the cheapest laziest way possible.
I want you to see the gap between her assertion and reality...and just how sure of herself she is.
10/
These people who want to go on and on about how no answer is ever final and yet they are very certain that they, and they alone, have a monopoly on the truth.
No.
Jesus was a carpenter, the disciples were fishermen, David was a sheppherd.
God uses the lowly.
These people who want to go on and on about how no answer is ever final and yet they are very certain that they, and they alone, have a monopoly on the truth.
No.
Jesus was a carpenter, the disciples were fishermen, David was a sheppherd.
God uses the lowly.
11/
God is so consistent in using the lowly that one day he may even use me.
God is so consistent in using the lowly that one day he may even use me.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
