From: "jamie morgan" <jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: BHA: Re: Re: The tall poppy syndrome within CR
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 17:34:48 -0000


Hi Mervyn

I don't see it as an idealized view of critique its the basic assumption of
scholarship - whatever position one comes from there is the assumptuion that
one is genuinely trying to udnerstand what somebodty said, why they said it
and what they mean - that this is always interpreted through someposition
not withstanding - otherwise progress is knowing would be impossible - any
realist project would be impossible - if we did not work in this way. Isn't
knowledge about truth seeking? Isn't that why we argue - surely it isn't
simply to impose or dominate or win, whatever that might mean. Sustainable
immanent discourse must ultimately be a better argument - if it is a form of
obfuscation, known deciet etc won't it eventually be uncovered or unravel or
simply be subject to further critique (which itself must assume truth
seeking or be nomore than a further discoruse in an infinite chain of
unlocated arguments)? As such it is not a liberal assumption or a toleration
it is the framework of dialogue of the possibility of commensuration of
arguments. One does not need to be Habermasian to accept this. If it were
not the case we could not have this discussion in any meaningful way - it
would be like the MOnty Python argument sketch - we would simply be
exchanging monosylallbic negations (No it isn't) or trading disparaging
comments on alternative positions rather than asking - show me your
argument, what are your assumptions, where is your evidence and what is your
authority?

I don't understand your comment on beside the point - if the answer is No
then one has still asked the question I asked in which case whether it is
difficult or not is not beside the point it is the starting point of your
argument. And of course I never said he was difficult, though, for the
record, I think sometimes he is, though aren't we all (you've edited enough
of my stuff to know I disappear up my own arse). There are definitely easier
ways to present sdome of the arguments on Hegel for example, and RB does
that himself in From Science to Emancipation. Perhaps he wouldn;'t have been
able to had he not already writen DPF.

Jamie
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 6:39 AM
Subject: BHA: Re: The tall poppy syndrome within CR


> >Whether Bhaskar is difficult to read or not cannot be beside the point
>
> Yes it can -- if the answer to your question about whether the
> philosophical content can be expressed in a much simpler way without
> loss is No, as it clearly is. (If it's doable, quick, do it to DPF--then
> we can throw the wretched book away, and there can be burning of books
> without loss).
>
> >that
> >they are violated is the basis of censor.
>
> Yours seems a very idealized model of critique - the mythical liberal
> 'community of scholars'.  In the present case, my original point about
> John's claim that Bhaskar's prose is extraordinarily verbose was that it
> breeches the rules of fair comment, because (whatever other defects the
> style may have) it's the opposite of the truth. With a couple of
> exceptions, the breech has been met with a chorus of approval or at any
> rate apology rather than of censor.
>
>
>
> jamie morgan <jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> >Interesting, but this seems a rather brutal reading of the broader
meaning
> >of the term critique - one that seems rather to echoe Frankfurt School
> >readings of instrumental discourse rather than the critical process
itself -
> >the reinvesting of ethics and of lived life as something valuable is
itsyelf
> >a product of 'critique' by them in Western discourse - there is therefore
in
> >your position a danger of hypostatising critique in terms of some kind of
> >occidentalised instrumentalism inalienably tied to markets. Critique is
no
> >more necessarily adversial than traditional discourse is harmonious.I
would
> >prefer the phrase immanent analysis amongst situated but also free
thinkers.
> >Whether Bhaskar is difficult to read or not cannot be beside the point -
no
> >more than it can be beside the point that 'critique' can reveal that
> >knowledge is wrong, inadequate, inconsistent, paradoxical etc. I'm not
sure
> >what you are saying about a non-Western tradition of responsibility to
the
> >speaker - all analysis in good faith starts by acknowledging the intent
and
> >strengths of an argument and by implication the arguer then seeks to deal
> >with it and them within rules of discourse or argument or rhetoric -
these
> >are not value free (as no discourse can be) and likewise they are not
> >without explicit ethics (truth seeking etc.) When they are confounded or
> >violated - which often they are even by great thinkers such as Newton -
that
> >they are violated is the basis of censor. The rules themselves are also a
> >subject of analysis - as are cultural forms - whatever their geographic
> >location. It seems that on one level you oppose an East-West dichotomy
and
> >on the other presume its reality in some traditionalist (good) modernist
> >(bad) split - is this the case?
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Radha D'Souza" <rdsouza-AT-waikato.ac.nz>
> >To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
> >Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 9:37 AM
> >Subject: BHA: RE: Re: Re: The tall poppy syndrome within CR
> >
> >
> >Jamie
> >You raise several matters in your email. I will leave out the Marxism
> >bit, that is a big debate and one that needs to happen.
> >You ask:
> >I'm not sure what the cultural issues have to do with whether Bhaskar is
> >difficult to read. Surely the central question is:
> >Can the philosophical content of Bhaskar's work be expressed in a
> >simpler
> >way without any loss of nuance or explanatory power?
> >"If the answer is yes then it would appear to be reasonable to suggest
> >that
> >he might want to work on his style because he would be guilty of over
> >elaboration or obfuscation. If the answer is yes then it would appear to
> >be reasonable to suggest that he might want to work on his style because
> >he would be guilty of over elaboration or obfuscation. Some might also
> >suggest he should work on illustrating and applying his own work since
> >thuis would make it less opaque."
> >
> >To me that question is itself an illustration of the cultural issues I
> >raise.
> >In many indigenous cultures, when debating, or speaking publicly on
> >issues, it is imperative that the speaker begins by acknowledging their
> >lineage/traditions/ancestry etc. It is not about not criticising but
> >about taking ownership and responsibility for the furthering of that
> >lineage/tradition/ancestry or whatever and locating oneself as part of
> >it even when criticising something. An adversarial mode of discourse
> >dislocates the speaker/writer from the discourse/tradition by (a) making
> >it an individual difference/disputation as if the individual views
> >materialised from nowhere; (b) by separating the moral/ethical
> >dimensions from the content/substance (words/text) of the disputation
> >and putting them into neat boxes with tidy labels as if the two are
> >unrelated matters; and (c) and in a bourgeois world by leaving it to
> >market principles i.e. as long as I cite the page number when using a
> >quote from Bhaskar or anyone else for that matter, as long as I don't
> >plagiarise, or reference the actual texts I use, and I don't steal the
> >book, I have no further responsibility towards that author/writer. But
> >all these issues have more to do with the publishing industry and
> >intellectual property than with the ideas themselves and our relations
> >to them. Can I truthfully say that everything I have learnt from reading
> >Marx or Lenin can be contained within such market ethics?
> >Viewed in that way, I could ask, is there a social contract of some sort
> >or some other obligation that Bhaskar has towards us, as his readers
> >that we should insist that he writes intelligibly and makes things
> >easier for us? If we did not take the trouble to pour over some really
> >difficult prose, be sure the magic of the market would have made him
> >invisible. We read it. Why? And, if we get something out of it, do we
> >not need to acknowledge it and give something back, perhaps by making it
> >more intelligible, if that is what we think should be happening? If
> >there is someone out there who can rewrite DPF in verse, in the eastern
> >traditions of poet-philosophers - hey, go for it, I would be thrilled to
> >bits.
> >The question is not about whether or not Bhaskar is difficult to read,
> >that is not even the point. This distancing of ourselves, is, I admit so
> >embedded in the public-private divide that is foundational in the
> >structure of western thinking that it often surfaces unintentionally,
> >unconsciously and permeates so much of our thinking that we are not even
> >aware of it.
> >Then, it takes a long spew like this, after which it becomes a huge and
> >potentially divisive issue. We simply have to find different ways of
> >doing and saying things. Having said that I am not sure if I have
> >adopted an adversarial approach, myself.
> >Radha
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: jamie morgan [mailto:jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk]
> >Sent: Tuesday, 28 October 2003 10:36 p.m.
> >To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> >Subject: BHA: Re: Re: The tall poppy syndrome within CR
> >
> >Hi Radha,
> >
> >Marxism was an attempt to describe reality in order to transform it - it
> >was
> >a description of an industrialised society at a particular time and
> >place -
> >are you surprised that it did not fit the two thirds world for which it
> >was
> >simply not designed, or is this itself a rhetorical device?
> >
> >I'm not sure what the cultural issues have to do with whether Bhaskar is
> >difficult to read. Surely the central question is:
> >
> >Can the philosophical content of Bhaskar's work be expressed in a
> >simpler
> >way without any loss of nuance or explanatory power?
> >
> >If the answer is yes then it would appear to be reasonable to suggest
> >that
> >he might want to work on his style because he would be guilty of over
> >elaboration or obfuscation.
> >
> >Some might also suggest he should work on illustrating and applying his
> >own
> >work since thuis would make it less opaque.
> >
> >Then again, criticising someone for their style of thought and mode of
> >expression which whilst not necessarily the most transparent is their
> >mode
> >of working and got them to the insights (such that they are) that others
> >are
> >interested in, may be a little on the ironic side. I'm not sure, I
> >certainly
> >find him difficult to folow sometimes but then I find lots of
> >philosophers
> >difficutl to follow. Hegel not the least.
> >
> >Jamie
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "r.dsouza" <r.dsouza-AT-waikato.ac.nz>
> >To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
> >Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 3:16 AM
> >Subject: BHA: Re: The tall poppy syndrome within CR
> >
> >
> >> Mervyn
> >> My spontaneous reaction to your mail was "why am I not surprised"
> >followed
> >> by "but why is Mervyn (the writer of the new age, new left article)
> >> surprised?" and are you surprised Mervyn? I don't mean this as a
> >rhetorical
> >> question in any sense. Surely, CR is not exempt from a sociology of
> >its
> >own
> >> and from its historical, cultural and political contexts that we talk
> >about.
> >> As someone from the so called "Third World" (which in my view, is the
> >> two-thirds world) it interests me that with so many radical "schools
> >of
> >> thought" in the so called "West", from scientific theories to Marxism,
> >> socialism et al, the problem for the two-thirds world is not so much
> >with
> >> the philosophy or theory per se (the text) but with the sociological
> >and
> >> cultural assumptions (the context) that makes the theory/philosophy
> >> problematic. There appears to be threshold beyond which the
> >> theory/philosophy is constrained by its own cultural and historical
> >context.
> >> It certainly happened with Marxism in the "West" and the ramifications
> >it
> >> had for the "Third World".
> >> Is it surprising at all that the so called "spiritual turn" should
> >have
> >> invited the kind of response it did, or, for that matter the reactions
> >on
> >> this list to the ad for a publicist recently (I don't recall how the
> >> position was described exactly now). And, do we not lapse quickly and
> >> comfortably into bourgeois norms of discourse or social practices for
> >that
> >> matter, even when critiquing those norms in the issues we talk and
> >write
> >> about?
> >> Calling it "tall poppy syndrome" is putting it too simplistically, it
> >is
> >> much deeper than that. I am reminded of Rumi's famous story of the
> >parrot
> >> and the merchant, (I don't know if you are familiar with it). Indeed,
> >like
> >> the parrot in the story, one has to give up things (die) to be free
> >and
> >> enlightened, and to "gain" new things. I am not sure the adversarial
> >and
> >> individualistic intellectual traditions in Western academic
> >institutions
> >> ably guided by the "invisible hand of the market" are the most
> >conducive
> >> places for an introspective approach that helps to locates oneself  in
> >the
> >> wider search for answers to the questions of our times.
> >> I am tempted to look into my crystal ball now to see what CR will look
> >like
> >> 25 years from now, but I think I will leave it for another time.
> >>
> >> Radha
> >>
> >>
> >>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >
> >
> >
> >     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >
> >
> >
> >     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---