Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Victors Mature

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    What would be the connection between Decons. and Exist.? Althusser and Sartre were criticized for touting a political philosophy (verboten!). Heidegger s
    Message 1 of 69 , May 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      What would be the connection between Decons. and Exist.? Althusser and Sartre were criticized for touting a political philosophy (verboten!). Heidegger's existentialia (B&T) were ridiculed (see especially Margins); Jaspers and Scheller were ignored; Nietzsche was shown to have a self-effacing incongruence, etc... ("Spurs" is the worst take on Nietzsche I have ever read.) Derrida was interested in concrete action.

      WS

      -----Original Message-----
      From: jaime.denada@...
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tue, 1 May 2007 12:03 PM
      Subject: [existlist] Victors Mature

      Existentialism heralds a thumbs up to the individual and his
      revolution away from conventional predigested meaning. If I still
      want mama and papa bird to chew and vomit their worms and bugs into
      my mouth, that's immaturity. To insert your meaning into another is a
      a childish fantasy. I prefer intellectual promiscuity and still don't
      see how existentialist thought is incompatible with the D approach
      which seems only slightly more intense.

      JD

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
      >
      > TC,
      >
      > Well put, and on a difficult subject.
      >
      > Yeah, "Deconstruction" was heralded as the ultimate nose thumbing
      of chronic immaturity towards Daddy (the French Academy and the
      French CP). Lacan (who actually came up with the term deconstruction,
      if in another connection altogether) called the trendy malcontents
      a "gauchist disorder" (usually rewndered as an infantile disorder),
      and he was correct.
      >
      > I have no dog in that old fight. Hegel was never an institution
      here, so I have no authoritarian resentments toward him, and the
      CPUSA was never an institution either, so I have no hostility towards
      politics as an extension of philosophy. I side with Foucault and
      Badiou.
      >
      > WS
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: TriniCruz@...
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Tue, 1 May 2007 9:47 AM
      > Subject: [existlist] ggggg gobbledygook
      >
      > Deconstruction as a literary concept is a joke; really little
      more
      > than an infatuating fad about the equivalent of the study of navel
      > lint. It is not scientific except in a folk-science kind of way. I
      > grasped it in first grade. "See Spot run said Jane." I was reading
      > "Treasure Island", "Kidnapped", "Tales from the Arabian
      Nights", "Lord
      > Jim" and the "Britannica". It is amazing to me that academics have
      > anything to do with it at all. Meaning is not the central
      > philosophical issue for people fascinated with deconstruction. Oh
      no,
      > and Dog Boys understand this all to well: the central philosophical
      > issue in deconstruction is authority. Existentialism defines this
      > authority over meaning as altogether personal and individual. This
      > authority is a personal burden on the existentialist as he must
      use it
      > to keep it. The existentialist must decide what things mean when
      they
      > intrude into his experience of existence and act. It is the
      > existentialist who dirties his hands with meaning and writes what
      he
      > thinks things mean. Deconstruction is no argument against such
      > writing, and perhaps that is where deconstructionists fail to
      > understand. You'll have that.
      >
      > When the post-nervous breakdown Heidegger attempted to define his
      > differences with Sartre for Derrida he argued his purpose was to
      > understand whether or not man was even necessary to being; a clear
      > abandonment of any human responsibility for authoritative decisions
      > about meaning. In a clearly messianic statement he declares man the
      > "shepherd" of being, the mere caretaker of any possible authority
      > about meaning. Even Hegel with his proposition of human thought as
      a
      > transcendental future and teleological force cannot be stretched to
      > such a level of abandonment of authority over meaning. How could
      the
      > man who was arguably responsible for "existence precedes essence"
      have
      > come so far from existentialism? I think he viewed Sartre's
      > existentialism as a failed philosophy because of the failure of
      > dialectical materialism, when it was really Sartre who failed to
      see
      > the Hegelian interpretation of civilization in dialectical
      > materialism. But Sartre acted politically, and purely for human
      > rights, and it is he personally who should be blamed for his
      naivete
      > and forgiven - not his ontology or philosophy. It is predictable
      that
      > Derrida ends with a transcendental justice that teleologically
      makes
      > men aware of justice in snitches and snatches throughout history.
      He
      > needed to propose an authority of some kind since he took none upon
      > himself. Heidegger argued for the end of metaphysics and the
      failure
      > of the language of philosophy. It is predictable that he derive a
      > secondary purpose for man, akin to Hegel, such as the caretaker of
      > authority over meaning; as with the failure of the language of
      > philosophy comes the failure of man to be. What he could not see
      that
      > Sartre did is that human being is a synthetic fact now utterly
      > responsible for its being and utterly stuck with its physical
      world.
      >
      > What I fail to grasp is how such self-styled "intelligent" people
      here
      > could possibly argue that deconstruction is something I do not
      > comprehend. I find these constant protestations to be very similar
      to
      > the proselytizing effort of a bible belt preacher, or perhaps more
      to
      > the point in this case "yellow journalism." As a matter of fact, I
      > understand the rhetorical method of "post-modernism" and recognize
      it
      > immediately when I see it and can deconstruct it to its agenda
      ridden
      > facts. Some of you here are quite skilled at the method. (Knott)
      > However I really feel that some of you derive a sense of bliss in
      > destruction much like a child knocking down blocks. Why not go and
      > start a "deconstruction" list. I'm sure my grandson would join and
      > regularly best you in wordplay. It is afterall a child's game. So
      > where does deconstruction belong in the average academic hierarchy?
      > I'd say about third of fourth grade. It's pretty damn hard to
      confuse
      > the philosophy of an eight year old. Try it sometime. About then
      > you'll realize what a silly thing it is you are infatuated with.
      There
      > you have it.
      >
      > What did I stutter?
      > Trinidad
      >
      >
      >
      __________________________________________________________
      __
      > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's
      free from AOL at AOL.com.
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >


      ________________________________________________________________________
      AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Exist List Moderator
      A few years ago there was a man we called President. He knew the power of words. He declared he would be the Real Environmental President and vowed to
      Message 69 of 69 , May 29, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        A few years ago there was a man we called President. He knew the
        power of words. He declared he would be the "Real" Environmental
        President and vowed to protect "wetlands." (We won't dwell on his
        vice-president, since that might contradict his current persona.)

        Anticipating a change, the Department of Agriculture, the Department
        of the Interior, and (separately) the Bureau of Land (mis-)Management
        set forth to define "wetland" since this term lacked an official
        definition. As a result, scientists and activists attended policy
        forums and started to get a definition of "wetland" codified. This
        upset farmers and developers, who then demanded more hearing and
        public forums. These hearings were during the presidential campaign,
        so there were sob stories from farmers who had lost their land to
        lizards and shrimp.

        In academic circles, the definition of "wetland" had been set in
        works by Tripp (1991, p. 203) and Golet (1991, 635) as "areas
        sufficiently saturated by water that only specially adapted plants
        can grow there. Saturation with water prevents oxygen from working
        its way into the soil and therefore creates conditions of no
        oxygen" (Tripp's definition).

        In 1989, under a different President (who must not have been an
        environmentalist since he was marked with the Red R), the Interagency
        Committee for Wetland Delineation published a precise manual on how
        to map wetlands and protect them from human activity. This was deemed
        good by many, but not trusted because of his Red R.

        Ah, but the "Real" Environmental President promised no net loss of
        wetlands during his administration. The scientists were happy. They
        trusted him. Unfortunately, to win an election in the United States,
        you must promise farmers in Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Minnesota,
        Illinois, Kansas, and so on, more land and more subsidies.

        Let us cut all of the boring dates and federal papers... you already
        know what happened. "Wetland" was redefined and there were hearings.
        The definition began to change. A "Revised Manual" was developed and
        "wetlands" as defined by Congress (1992) according to Francis Golet
        "disregards more than 15 years of scientific research."

        By the time the New Improved Environmental President took office,
        legislation was ready to be passed and there are now two definitions
        of wetlands: the one in academic texts and the one maintained by the
        federal government.

        Politicians don't care about science unless they can control the
        terms. Scientists are not very good at public relations, it seems --
        until there is an emergency and people have to listen to them.

        Science and politics -- without a discussion of stem cells or
        anything controversial.

        - CSW
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.