Mon 18 Mar 2002 14:15
With Joanna went to Hayden concert in St. Patrick's cathedral last night, and with Joanna, walked through central park yesterday. Much could be written, but I am in suspense for her next communication. The basic issue, perhaps rationalization vs. it's opposite, the question vs. it's opposite, appears to have been a recurring theme, both in sociological theory and since that being meeting when reason was realized a tool to be used to achieve quality of experience, that reason is not an end in itself. The use of reason in structuring relationships may be offensive. Joanna does have much of what I value, responsive to others, incredibly responsive, intense emotional attachment to traditions, perhaps beliefs, and able to, and perhaps continually expressing of emotions including love, but others too. But can I express and explore myself in relation to her, and remain/continue to be an experience of interest to her, or can I only appreciate as a tree/nearly passively, not...

I laugh, but, I realize my fear, at this moment, I do not feel need for her, but do value interaction with her. I am remembering that once I felt that way about rebecca, and then, well she became an addiction of sorts. Because joanna has expressed that she is not interested in more than friendship, I am thinking the greater risk is that she should no longer value the effects of interacting with me. Perhaps too much thought has already been devoted to this.

And this thought is so unstructured, so poorly thought out.

Questions that have come up, since I had an opportunity (perhaps she wasn't as interested as I was) to attempt to explain some of the sociological theory I've been reading to Joanna.

The issue also of using her real name-but I guess I'll be running with it until that bites me.

I'm currently waiting in the doctors office for some sort of cardio sonogram to better determing the nature of some sort of heart murmer. There are two pharmacological sales agents here plotting on how to peddle their 'better lipid profile' drug to the doctors here. It is rather-

The questions that came up were the differences between substantive and ??? logic/systems in weber's theory.

I also made the comment that she sounded like a postmodernist- which

I have been defining an approach a research paradigm (perhaps incorrect words) that could prove satisfying to both academic and experienceartist orientations. It is looking at Wilber, Foucault, Giddens, others as if they shared the experienceartist perspective on their work on life. Work does need to be done in defining the experienceartist perspective.. Also addressing the question as to why these people have chosen to focus in the area of social theory, (my current area of choice), or why others who might be seen as sharing the perspective are working in different areas.

In the immediate present, I will probably continue to work over this modern social theory book, because I continue to want to do so. But perhaps I'm getting closer to the point where so many options/books/directions are appealing to me that some strategizing would be valuable to plot out the most effective direction for the future.

I've been waiting 42 minutes.
p460 Modern Soc Theory, Ritzer, Ch 13 Structuralism, poststructuralism, postmodernism

another question: should I be separating the commentary from the notes in the book? Perhaps if the value of doing so becomes apparent.

the interesting of this decompression writing prior to /emptying writing prior to focusing on longer term task?

the thought that I could be here to further enrich an md.

Foucault sees history lurching from one system of domination (based on knowledge) to another.

Faucault is "writing the history of the present" (Foucault, 1979:31)

In _Madness and Civilization_ (1965; Foucault, 1995), Foucault is doing an achaeology of knowledge, specifically of psychiatry.

He begins with the Renaissance, when madness and reason were not separated.

"Not so long ago, it [madness] had foundered about in broad daylight: in _King Lear_, in _Don Quixote_. But in less than a half-century, it had been sequestered and, in the fortress of confinement, bound to Reason, to the rules of morality and to their monotonous nights." (Foucault, 1965:64)

Another Pharm sales person- male this time, and obnoxious (like the others).

A "broken dialogue" between reason and madness (Foucault, 1965:x)


o different kinds of reasoning?

.