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

Re: Vic Mate

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    You know Wil, in the past I used to argue points of view I did not even agree with here on purpose just to drum up some kind of intelligent conversation.
    Message 1 of 69 , May 2, 2007
      You know Wil, in the past I used to argue points of view I did not
      even agree with here on purpose just to drum up some kind of
      "intelligent" conversation. Hell I made up statistics which is
      difficult because CSW always catches you in that sort of thing. It
      seems to me after all this time, and I should give Fish a bit of
      credit for this, that deconstruction is arguably not critical
      thinking. The fact that it has jumped into (throwness, ha ha) literary
      criticism forces the critic to deal with it, but he cannot take it as
      critical thinking. When it is falsely transmuted into a function of
      critical thinking it can only be anarchistic because it seeks less
      than what there actually is to find. A single thread is never a fabric
      sure, but a fabric is never a single thread either. It has always
      seemed to me that Lyotard assumed it as an apparatus of criticism
      toward culture: that is assumed it as critical thinking and therefore
      "constructive" in effect upon civilization. Hell some of the dipshit
      physicists at Stanford have taken it so. My point I guess in this
      rambling is that "deconstruction" taken as critical thinking is
      actually constructive, but constructive of a lower level of
      contemplation. Taken as a simple fact that it is just part of the
      character of language; it is just an observation of a paradigm. It
      actually should not be classified in any way as literary criticism,
      and it cannot carry any critical weight in formal philosophical
      criticism. Those things for the existentialist are written in flesh
      and blood. The fabric is considerably larger than the book, let alone
      the page, the paragraph, the sentence, the clause, the phrase, the word.

      Trinidad

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
      >
      > Mr Knott,
      >
      > I studied deconstruction as the philosophical movement inaugurated
      by Jacques
      > Derrida. I studied for some years under one of Derrida's
      translators, and so
      > my entire reference for the term comes from philosophy and literary
      criticism.
      > Other writers had adopted that mantle of 'deconstructionist', like
      Fish and
      > others, but Derrida remains as the principle exponent of the effort,
      and most
      > of the other authors have mainly written "secondary" sources that
      sought to
      > explicate the matter. The notion of a deconstructive literature has
      never really
      > panned out.
      >
      > The 'names' that I cite are nearly iconic in academic circles. If
      you say
      > Levi-Strauss or Adorno, it opens up a frame of reference that is
      distinct. I
      > realize that that can be annoying if one isn't into the literature
      to that extent.
      > Derrida is a special case, as no one else has really taken his 'method'
      > anywhere, and so I use his name and the anarchical 'school' he
      sought to
      > (anti-)found as synonymous.
      >
      > Derrida said that deconstruction would come in two waves (in
      Positions). The
      > first was to be parasitic, destructive and thoroughly
      anti-dialectical. It
      > sought to destroy the entire epoch of Western philosophy, to expose
      it as a
      > pallogocentric regime based on the philosophy of presence, and
      privileging the
      > (male) voice over writing. The second wave was to be "positive". You
      know: A
      > specter is haunting Europe, the specter of ... of what?
      >
      > The revolutionary goals of decon. are laid out, so to speak, in
      Spivak's
      > intro to Grammatology. They are strident claims. I saw her speak
      many times, back
      > when she was a hottie by the way. To listen to her then, you would have
      > assumed that the masses were out front burning tires and manning the
      barricades. The
      > fact is that decon. was never a real political challenge to
      anything. Derrida
      > himself never outreached to any movements that I am aware of.
      >
      > So, in sum, I do not see what Derrida has contributed to the general
      > philosophical dialogue. I like some of his books, like
      "Disseminations", especially
      > Plato's Pharmacy, but my thoughts are engaged elsewhere. I
      personally find
      > current writers like Badiou, Ranciere and Zizek more interesting and
      challenging.
      >
      > I hope that makes sense for you.
      >
      > Wil
      >
      > In a message dated 5/1/07 8:20:28 PM, knott12@... writes:
      >
      >
      > >
      > > > Well, I'm not sure that deconstr. actually accomplishes that task.
      > >
      > > and why not? because you prefer that it does not make sense?
      > >
      > > You keep dragging an idea back to a personality (or personalities)
      > > associated with it (Barthes, Derrida, etc.).
      > >
      > > I don't see the point of that at all. Perhaps you can explain. And
      > > perhaps you can substantiate why it does't accomplish that task...Or
      > > does saying make it so for you as well as TC?
      > >
      > > Roundly Estimated
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > **************************************
      > See what's free at http://www.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.