Subject: RE: BHA: Voloshinov etc
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:34:49 -0500
From: "Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001-AT-gannon.edu>


Hi Steve,

I want to make sure that I get this right.  You regard your anti-realist assertions, as well as our realist assertions, as essentially ideological.  

Regards,

Dick

-----Original Message-----
From: steve.devos [mailto:steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 7:00 AM
To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: BHA: Voloshinov etc


Jamie

A difficult set of questions in an email form... and obviously I cannot 
give a comprehensive justification of an anti-realist position. However 
basically I would state that a more accurate understanding is that the 
Real is impossible to grasp or even encounter. That is to say that as a 
human being what we consider to be reality is merely 'ideological' and 
completely infected by the social - and that whilst we can in science be 
seen to be addressing the empirical real because our sciences can never 
be seen to avoid the ideological impacts of the social they cannot be 
said to be addressing the Real. The critical difference here is that I 
am not arguing that the human sciences are ideological, this is obvious, 
but rather that all sciences are. (To construct a rough model  then what 
we looking at is Human-Subject - empirical real - Real -  as opposed to 
an understanding that implies that in some sense a science can directly 
interact with the Real). The question of whether the 'Real' can actually 
be said to exist, which I think is implicit in your question, well I 
have severe doubts that it makes any sense to make such a claim.

My philosophical and cultural training, including the philosophy of 
science and scientific work has always been on the anti-humanist and 
non-realist side. I agree that as a consequence my understanding of what 
constitutes realism is probably strange if considered at from a realists 
position. But then when I read "...there is a need for concrete 
scientific utopianizing by socialist economists, architects and human 
scientists in general..."  I wince just as I do when some idiot 
scientist claims that a gay gene exists. I do understand that Bhaskar is 
not addressing those areas of science that I am most interested in 
understanding anti-realistically.  But from my position whenever a 
scientist speaks in utopian terms it is necessary to closely read the 
ideology underlying the statement and  immediately  work to reject it 
and I see no reason why Bhaskar should be an exception to this axiom.  
If the discourses of economics, psychology and architecture are to be 
regarded as sciences then they cannot be excepted from this and 
consequently Bhaskar is just wrong

To clarify then the underlying reason why it is wrong to be a 
philosophical realist in science is because science is predominantly an 
ideological activity. I suspect that to be a philosophical realist in 
relation to science is to accept science as being the best method 
available to interact with the 'Real' (which is impossible) - as in 
earlier days philosophers accepted religious myths as doing this.  
Science is not as scientists often claim about the expansion of 'human 
knowledge' but about  fulfilling an ideological vision. From Newton and 
later Max Planck through 20th C high energy physics and into psychology 
and genetics - it is an ideological activity. This is not say that in 
the last instance the real does not exist, but it is only in the last 
instance that can never arrive (to mutate a phrase from Althussar).  The 
Real will always be hidden behind the reality that is presented as as 
true. An individual theory may be presented with all the relativity of 
'probability' and 'experimental proofs ' but Science presents itself 
overall as a Realism, as the best means available to interact with the 
world. Consequently then a proper philosophical relationship to science 
is to severely question whether this is what science is doing, it is not 
to blithely accept that science is a realism. Richard Dawkins (who in  
most circumstances I'd support...) explains "There is a fashionable 
salon philosophy called cultural relativism which holds, in its extreme 
form, that science has no more claim to truth than tribal myth...." 
(after some spurious discuission about the moon he goes on "....Show me 
a cultural relativist at 30 thousand feet and I'll show you a hypocrite. 
Airplanes  built according to scientific principles work...." For a 
philosopher this is questionable as he is confusing science and makng 
things (aka engineering) but Dawkins then makes the more interesting 
cardinal error of assuming that science in general represents truth 
because "Scientific beliefs supported by evidence and they get 
results".   There is remarkably little evidence to support this 
statement, for  the majority of scientific beliefs are mere ideological 
statements made to support a given society at a given social-historical 
moment.

I realise that I have schematically  only responded to points 1 and 2 - 
I will respond to 3,4,5 somewhat less polemically...

rough notes for a wednesday morning...

regards
steve

jamie morgan wrote:

>Steve, you're notion of realism seems curious - perhaps this is a 
>failure caused by the nature of debate in this forum but: 1.are you a 
>'realist' in relation to the world-universe-outside your self? 2. If so 
>why is it misguided to be realist about science - is science about 
>something? Is this an ontological issue for philosophical dissection in 
>addition to whatever else we discuss about it? This matter of ontology 
>is what links people interested in CR, not their various political 
>persuasions and other commitments that are pursued in terms of forms of 
>realism. 3. What is the link in your notion of linguistics or semiotics 
>between representing and constituting? 4. What would you choose to 
>defend from Saussurian linguistics? What is plausible about it for you?
>5. Is there no defencible form of realist semiotics or linguistics? What
>does realist lingusitics mean to you and why must it be a blackhole?
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
>To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
>Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 8:53 PM
>Subject: Re: BHA: Voloshinov etc
>
>
>  
>
>>Tobin/all
>>
>>Being a 'realist' (in relation to science) is whilst misguided but 
>>probably understandable, but being anti-psychoanalysis as well as 
>>anti-(saussurian style) linguistics - quite probably we'd come to 
>>serious intellectual blows over such reactionary positions...
>>
>>The statement rather proves the point I was trying to make - to make 
>>your materialist linguistic theory dependent on a singular marxist 
>>position is to guarantee that the 'linguistics' will fail. To make it 
>>dependent on realism, dialectics is to reproduce the theoretical black 
>>hole I was condemnning Volshinov for. Curious that you mention Lacan 
>>who does precisely that in his adoption of Jakobson's linguistics, 
>>creating the unavoidable error of making his psychoanalysis dependent 
>>on a theoretically questionable science and ideologically bound 
>>science...
>>
>>yours laughing...
>>
>>steve
>>
>>Tobin Nellhaus wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Ah, gotcha.  I think the glitch is in what one means by "marxist."  
>>>If it refers only to Marx's analysis of capitalism, then yes, 
>>>founding a theory
>>>      
>>>
>of
>  
>
>>>linguistics on that would be, hm, clunky at the *very* best.  If on 
>>>the other hand one understands "marxist" as meaning a mode of 
>>>analysis (e.g. historical materialism, realism, dialectics, etc) 
>>>without any necessary direct connection to economics -- in other 
>>>words the philosophical underpinnings -- then I think a marxist 
>>>philosophy of language is intelligible.  That's the approach that 
>>>Voloshinov/Bakhtin was taking, I believe, as the title of his book 
>>>indicates; and it's what I usually have
>>>      
>>>
>in
>  
>
>>>mind by "marxist," given that I don't work on economics or political
>>>      
>>>
>theory.
>  
>
>>>As for Saussure, there are other reasons than CR or marxism for 
>>>rejecting him, but it's not an issue I can pursue right now (as I 
>>>have an article
>>>      
>>>
>due
>  
>
>>>in less than a week, eek!).  You might check out the poet and 
>>>essayist
>>>      
>>>
>Paul
>  
>
>>>Goodman.  FWIW, I have and always have had a visceral antipathy to
>>>      
>>>
>Saussure,
>  
>
>>>and also Lacan and Richard Schechner (who you've probably never heard 
>>>of, and just as well).  But that may be because I have a visceral and 
>>>quite possibly erotic relationship with language.  Saussure will 
>>>never
>>>      
>>>
>understand.
>  
>
>>>Cheers, T.
>>>
>>>---
>>>Tobin Nellhaus
>>>nellhaus-AT-mail.com
>>>"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>
>>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>  
>


--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---


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


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