Pearl jewelry for bridal and wedding tradition, bridal pearl necklace set for wedding ceremony, pearl jewelry for graduation and wedding celebration
I talked about the Buffon, of Cuvier, of Ricardo andetc. and allow those names to operate in some very difficultambiguous way. So legally could beformulated two sorts of objections - which is what happened. On the one hand,I said, You do not describe how to either Buffon or the totality of itsworks as well as what You say about Marx, to the ridiculousnot enough in relation to the thoughts of Marx. These objections were, of course,justified; but I don't think they were quite appropriate in relation towhat I had done, because the problem for me was not toto describing Buffon or Marx, and not to recover what theysaid or wanted to say - I was just trying to find the rules by which theyproduced a number of concepts or theoretical ensembles that canfound in their texts. Was raised another objection: You produce -told me - a monstrous family, You bring the names of suchthe opposite, as the names of Buffon and Linnaeus, Cuvier put You nearDarwin - and all this despite the obvious play of natural kindredlinks and commonalities. And here again, I would not say that the objection isit seems to me appropriate, because I've never tried to create a familythe table of spiritual individualities, I didn't want to form the intellectualdaguerreotype of a scientist or naturalist of the SEVENTEENTH or EIGHTEENTH centuries; I didn't wantto form any of a family: neither Holy, nor vicious; I was just looking for -that is a much more modest affair - functioning conditionsspecific discursive practices. Why was then - you tell me -to use the Words and things the names of the authors? It was necessary or not to usenone of them, or tell the way You do it.
Post a Comment