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

Re: [existlist] Re: Victors Mate

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    Knott, Well, I m not sure that deconstr. actually accomplishes that task. Roland Barthes did more along those lines, and without all of the big claims and
    Message 1 of 69 , May 1, 2007

      Well, I'm not sure that deconstr. actually accomplishes that task. Roland Barthes did more along those lines, and without all of the big claims and horseplay. But I am not opposed to deconstr.; I just do not think it is an important feature in the philosophical or literary criticism landscape. For all of the texts in the 70s and 80s that went on and on about it, it just hasn't delivered anything even remotely close to the expectations it gave rise to.

      All signs are inter-referential, sure; but that does mean that all meaning is no more or less than a "game" of interplays. Derrida's claim that Einstein's cosmological constant was just part of a game was stupid and wrong. His inability to speak against apartheid in the 80s was reprehensible, and the revenge he took on the three grad students who criticized him for that was appalling. Derrida is the opitome of the Bourgeois dandy.

      But that's just me. In the day, I was very into his books, as well as Lyotard and the rest of the gang. These days, I am more interested in Badiou and Ranciere, as well as Lacan and Foucault.


      -----Original Message-----
      From: knott12@...
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tue, 1 May 2007 1:11 PM
      Subject: [existlist] Re: Victors Mate

      > What would be the connection between Decons. and Exist.?

      I think that would be abandoning the idea of blaming authors (which
      you do enthusiastically) for their poor judgement in trying to
      explicate ideas, and trying to see an idea in simpler form. I believe,
      for example, that the idea of Deconstruction puts the meaning in the
      hands of the reader. If I were existentialist I would willingly accept
      that responsibility.

      Crackalakka Boomboom

      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
        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.