PREFACE

the quote Foucault begins with bears reproducing.  he wants to demonstrate how systems of organizing are cultural, even though ours may seem natural and objective to us.  he quotes Borges, who found the following classification system for animals in an old Chinese encyclopedia: "animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the Emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that form a long way off look like flies."  Foucault points out that this sheds light on our own rigid thought structure: "in the wonderment of this taxonomy, the thing we apprehend in one great leap, the thing that, by means of the fable, is demonstrated as the exotic charm of another system of thought, is the limitation of our own, the stark impossibility of thinking THAT."  And yet people clearly thought that at one time.  He then expounds on the fundamental "codes" of a culture, or the grid of characteristics or perceptions that we plot things on in order to classify them.  He sets out to conduct an archeology to discover the sets of conceptual tools used by Western cultures in the past few hundred years (the Classical period, Renaissance period, and the Modern period).  He will focus on three domains: language and grammar, biology, and economics.

with most of my time spent at CAW and a busted computer at home, i haven't much chance for writing.  but i've begun reading a library copy of The Order Of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences, which I can't take notes in.  so here will be some notes.


FORWARD
so Foucault is hypothesizing an epistemological system of discourse (over-arching paradigm?) in the 17th-19th centuries that affected all scientific thought.   "...one finds in the Classical sciences isomorphisms that appear to ignore the extreme diversity of the objects under consideration..." (xi)  He wants to reveal the unformulated rules of formation of: definitions of proper objects of study for a science, concepts, and theory building.

For example, certain wildly different sciences were known to have suddenly and thoroughly re-organized themselves in the same ways at the same time.  He does not really want to explain the causes of this, but rather wants to describe the process of this isomorphism without invoking a "spirit of the age" or "new technology" or "individual genius" argument.  In other words, what regularities might exist outside the customary boundaries of epistemological and scientist-biographical histories?  "I tried to explore scientific discourse not from the point of view of the individuals who are speaking, nor from the point of view of the formal structures of what they are saying, but from the point of view of the rules that come in to play in the very existence of such discourse: what did SCIENTIST X have to fulfil, not to make his discourse coherent and true in general, but to give it, at the time when it was written and accepted, value and practical application as scientific discourse?"  This is a very interesting question for someone who has had work published, given all the contortions a work has to go through to meet with approval - it can often become far divorced from the original trains of thought that made it possible.

At work today I won a contest for designing the best campaign to encourage canvassers to get lots of post-cards and hot contacts (non-monetary ways people can get involved in health-care reform).  My campaign takes the form of a Risk-esque strategy game called Citizen Action of Riskonsin.  Basically, when you get certain numbers of post-cards or hot contacts within a day, you can earn soldiers or "canvassers" which you place on the board the next day.  Then everyone gets one turn per day to move or attack counties on a map of Wisconsin.  So, the best way to grow your army is to do well at work during the day.  Winner gets a cool prize.  My collection of prizes for designing the game included a Disinformation book!!!  :D

Going to Camp Awesome this weekend, out in the middle of nowhere, WI.  If I don't come back, someone avenge my death.

facebook is cool because you can learn that the awesome hot girl from college you never actually had the balls to ask out on a date remembers this about you most:  "i remember the first time we hung out it was because you passed me a note in class that said 'do you want to come over and play video games, check yes or no.' haha. i have always remembered that. if that's not a sign of a cool person, i don't know what is. :)"

I'm liking The Nameless Mod of Deus Ex. It's free!

I got five phone calls before I even got out of bed this morning. It's gonna be an exasperating week.

this guy is totally awesome!



also THIS.

this is quite nifty. if the gothsicles were happy hardcore ravers perhaps.

Jeezy Creezy I ran for only 4 blocks this morning and then I couldn't even walk straight.  My cardiovascular system needs a serious bail-out.  Stupid office job.

Also, the clerk at the store, who was at least my age and plausibly older, said "Thank you young man."  I can no longer tell if people are serious when they say this, or facetious.

hey, is anybody on LibraryThing besides me and Rob?  you should be.

i wrote a love letter to the IRS today, in kind of frilly Victorian prose, explaining why my 2007 return was a year late and begging for mercy and succor.  i'm assuming they'll have a sense of humor.  i'm sending a cheque too, though, so they should be appeased even if unamused.  but i am amused.

Octopi have finally outwitted us.
I, for one, welcome our new betentacled overlords.

At first I thought Daleks were stupid, but they're growing on me.

hat tip to darknes .

my high school, 'Tosa East, totally just got referenced on the Colbert Report!

In your face, all other high schools!

so i had a rough day at work, went to the beer store afterward, and got a 12-pack to take home.  i chatted with the clerk at the liquor store, we talked about work, concluded the transaction, and i said, "Thanks, man!"

I like saying "Thanks, man!"
It's a satisfying way to end an interaction. 
But it irks me that there seems to be no equivalent for using with a female. 

"Thanks, man!" conveys respect, an acknowledgement that the subject is an adult male with all concomitant rights and privileges.  They are a significant entity in your day, the person from whom you purchased your beer or whatever.

But you can't say "Thanks, woman!"  It comes off as somehow derogatory.
"Thanks, chick" is patronizing.
"Thanks, miss" is too formal for the context of a booze dealer.
"Thanks, lady" is flippant.
Just "Thanks" is somehow insufficient, it does not imply that the person is a significant entity in your day.

Other suggestions?