File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2003/bhaskar.0312, message 310


From: "jamie morgan" <jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: Voloshinov etc - response to Jamie/Marshall
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 15:22:43 -0000


No Steve I'm not suggesting that I'm suggesting that not all knowledge has
the same relation to reality and that assessing invented entities
presupposes reality therefore stating that we can never get beyond ideology
misses the point that the nature of 'ideology' can change in terms of other
aspects iof reality - the basis of critique of genetics - that we can do
things but should not - also entails the argument that some of the
explanations for why we do things we 'should not' can be opposed (we are
more than the sum of our genes - some would argue because RNA is also
signfiicant as are the amino acid combinations in proteins and also because
mutliple realisation in gene combinations is also significant - though one
m,ust also argue that little can be reduced to issues of biology alone). The
arguments against such things as applications of eugenics is self-defeating
if one states
eugenics equals ideology
alternatives equals ideology

because this raises the question why one is to be preferred to the other -
because it is 'ethical to do so' but what makes it wrong (other people are
real with certain powers and capabilities and commonalities that make
eugenics what?)For an ethical argument to be persuasive it must marshal
arguments against its alternative - this presupposes the possibility of
better argument - why should it be a better arguemnt if it is simply another
piece of ideology where the real (including the human and its potentials) is
ineffable, unknowlable and everything else

jamie

Perhaps you could also respond to the point re if you had leukemia


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: BHA: Voloshinov etc - response to Jamie/Marshall


> Jamie
>
> I have to insist on the difference between a 'scientific entity' and the
> everyday object of  my having 'TB'  - certainly I  can catch TB but only
> since the moment of it's invention, prior to that it would probably been
> some miasma or other. And I believe that you are both cheating and
> missing the point - I am not arguing that the 'Real' does not exist just
> that we cannot ever get to it through the reality which is completely
> and deeply ideological. Everyday objects exist (I never said they
> didn't) I am typing this on a Toshiba laptop, a logitech mouse, in my
> office, library and writing room - these multiplict objects exist but it
> is simply impossible to get through the ideology, the discourses that
> define them to the Real. These objects are constructions down to the
> very molecular and atomic level, which is in turn a construct. A
> scientific entity is different in  that all to often there is no
> manifestation,  it remains virtual and cannot undergo the process of
> actualisation. This of course never prevents the ideology, the discourse
> from engaging in murderous and disgusting acts. At some stage in say 300
> years time - they could dig my body up and invent a different disease
> say 'inertia plancks' which is, through the new social and medical
> effort then applied back into the history - but to do so requires the
> network of knowledges and disciplines.
>
> Too radical a break - oh really! this is a list that talks about
> 'causality', 'epistemic fallacies', 'psuedo-science' and suggests that
> 'Psychoanalysis/therapy' is a lit-crit discipline rather than the local
> psychodynamic counselling centre. Ultimately you are suggesting that CR
> as you are collectively representing it is more socially acceptable and
> understandable than suggesting to a student (or indeed to a person in a
> bar to keep it even more everyday) that things are not discovered but
> invented etc...
>
> Actually this might be testable.... what an interesting thought.
>
> regards
> steve
>
>
> jamie morgan wrote:
>
> >I see your point Steve but at some stage here you are accepting that the
> >discursive has extra-discursive dynamics - that there is naming as well
as
> >making - this is what makes science interesting:
> >
> >there is nothing inevitable about atoms as theory because no theory is
> >inevitable
> >we could've theorised quanta first or strings and produced ways of
talking
> >about and explaining the universe that work
> >what is significant is that they do 'work'
> >this is the issue of theory choice amongst constructed theories
> >it is rarely if ever a choice among equals (which is why Quine's 2 dogmas
> >rarely pertains)
> >
> >better explanation and more profound understanding are measures of
> >scientific change
> >this is where the non-arbitrary aspect of science is key
> >ask yourself honestly - if you were diagnosed with Leukemia tomorrow
would
> >the diagnosis be no more than a language game or other form of
construction?
> >would your illness be simply a matter of convention? would it be simply
> >convention that you made the decision to undergo radiotherapy,
chemotherapy,
> >receive platelets, have your red blood cell levels constantly checked? is
> >there no basis on which you can accept the case that your choice of
medical
> >science knowledge and practice over its 15th century equivalent or a
witch
> >Dr is raesoned in a way that tacitly at kleast accepts knowledge progress
> >whatever the risks in the medical procedure (which of course are great
with
> >chemotherapy) and is therefore rooted in a body and operation of the same
> >and a wider extra-discurisve world (that the basis of medical knowledge
> >seeks to command)?
> >what I'm suggesting is that the approach to anti-realism you are
propounding
> >that also accepts some kind of real (an unknwoable out there) but seems
to
> >disassociate the two is too radical a break to make sense of much of
human
> >experience
> >
> >Jamie
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message ----- 
> >From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
> >To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
> >Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 10:38 PM
> >Subject: Re: BHA: Voloshinov etc - response to Jamie/Marshall
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Jamie and perhaps Marshall
> >>
> >>This is difficult to respond to - I'll return to the network issue
> >>
> >>
> >shortly.
> >
> >
> >>Basically philosophjers and those working on the social study of science
> >>try as hard as scientists to not confuse the everyday objects with
> >>scientific entities, usually of course we fail. I think that its not
> >>hard to see the confusions and struggles that exist over everyday
> >>entities when realists and anti-realists, constructivists meet and
> >>debate the entity (see for example the Mt Fuji discussion). When it gets
> >>down into the realm of scientific objects things, positions tend to
> >>appear to merge and then disintergrate. But the underlying differences
> >>are it seems to me clear enough  A scientific entity can often take
> >>hundreds of years of empirical and theoretical effort to invent and
> >>locate, sometimes even to find them.  From an anti-realist understanding
> >>you state that a scientific entity is an invention, created within very
> >>obvious social and historical moments.  The moment may of course be
> >>cultural, economic, intellectual, institutional or indeed philosophical
> >>but what they are they are located in a given  time and location. This
> >>is a constructivist understanding of the universe with a tendency to
> >>think of any entity in terms of how it was invented, how it is
> >>historical. As a high energy physicist once said to me over espresso and
> >>vodka "... no no there is nothing inevitable about the atom...". The
> >>realist position, it seems to me (today), is to believe that entities
> >>are discovered,  if a scientific history believed in it is, what I would
> >>understand as the dominant majority position of scientific discovery.
> >>In general then for a scientific realist scientific theories about
> >>entities will develop, mutate and change but the entities that comprise
> >>the universe do not change. As such then the difference I percieve  is
> >>that given that an anti-realist sees an entity as something
> >>predominantly historical, cultural and not as something 'real',   (The
> >>term 'predominantly' representing of course the last instance referred
> >>to before....)  whereas the realist insists that an entity, the 'object'
> >>exists - even though the majority of objects remain 'virtual' (in the
> >>sense that Deleuze defines and uses the term).  The differend, the
> >>unbridgeable divide is that whilst we might understand the differences
> >>between the real and the constructed neither side can accept that the
> >>status they assign to scientific entities such as 'the biosphere' or
> >>'species' - namely socio-historical inventions or terms assigned to the
> >>pre-existing real categories - can never be resolved...
> >>
> >>If the above seems to avoid the issue of the concrete everyday objects,
> >>let me confess that it does, because the problem with the everyday is
> >>that it is very difficult to disentangle them from the social and
> >>historical context. And perhaps to use real existing objects doesn't
> >>help because the virtual objects that science litters the world with can
> >>only obscure the differences between the positions.
> >>
> >>I am hoping that the above explains why - the fact that Mt. Fuji exists
> >>as a 'real' mountain or not is irrelevant - as far as I can see
> >>'Mt.Fuji'  is a human invention - with a name, a label assigned to it,
> >>which for most of us defines it as an object. This process is almost the
> >>same for the scientitifc entities a 'gay gene' or the 'charm' particle
> >>with the usual level of  acceptance...
> >>
> >>regards
> >>steve
> >>
> >>
> >>jamie morgan wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>There is of course still the issues of:
> >>>
> >>>what makes a science possible?
> >>>what makes a scientific application work?
> >>>
> >>>the concept of network cannot be arbitrary nor simply an unmediated
human
> >>>construction:
> >>>there may be good reasons to prefer an explanation based on oxygen to
> >>>phlogiston
> >>>there may be good reasons why a computer is made of the materials it is
> >>>rather than candy floss
> >>>
> >>>science may vary in its 'construction' of entities:
> >>>cut up the world in certain ways that are discursively posited as
> >>>
> >>>
> >particular
> >
> >
> >>>entities
> >>>hypothesise particular (imagined/speculated) entities as necessary for
> >>>
> >>>
> >given
> >
> >
> >>>theories to pertain to how the world might be
> >>>apply its insights to create objects or technologies
> >>>
> >>>but it remains the case that science is more than a language community
or
> >>>
> >>>
> >a
> >
> >
> >>>set of practices of inclusion and exclusion
> >>>if it were not we could not have this Internet conversation (unless one
> >>>assumed that any and all media could be used to create the Internet)
> >>>
> >>>Jamie
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>----- Original Message ----- 
> >>>From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
> >>>To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
> >>>Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 9:21 PM
> >>>Subject: Re: BHA: Voloshinov etc - response to Jamie
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Jamie
> >>>>
> >>>>I tend to agree - when the argument is put in these terms - that the
> >>>>difference  resolves around the issue of the construction of
'knowledge
> >>>>formations' as you put it and secondly the tendency of realists to
want
> >>>>to 'clean up the world of entities that have been proved wrong too
> >>>>brutally...' (latour) [A tendency rather amusingly evident on this
> >>>>list].  Notwithstanding these differences the issue of uncertainty and
> >>>>construction is aptly put I suspect it would not be hard to identify
the
> >>>>concrete differences around specific scientific entities - Bruno
Latour
> >>>>for example puts it quite nicely with his discussion of  Pasteur's
> >>>>victory over  Pouchet.
> >>>>
> >>>>"... I live inside the Pasteurian network every time I eat pastuerised
> >>>>yoghurt, drink pasteurised milk or swallow antibiotics.  In other
words,
> >>>>even to account for lasting victory, one does not have to grant
> >>>>extrahisoricity to a reseach program that would suddednly at some
> >>>>breaking or turning point, need no further upkeep. One simply has to
go
> >>>>on historicizing and localizing the network finding who and what makes
> >>>>up its descendents..."  (Latour p 263 in Lorraine Daston's Biographies
> >>>>of Scientific Objects)
> >>>>
> >>>>One of the underlying points being that a scientific entity does not
> >>>>remain in existence without an instituitionalizing structure that
> >>>>maintains its existence.  Of course Latour cheats because he allows
> >>>>Science the luxury of  an entity that exists - and is primarily
> >>>>addressing the institutional discourses and institutional structures,
> >>>>which refers to as the networks, that support the Pasteurian network
> >>>>and I am obviously biased towards those entities that do not and can
> >>>>never exist but which nonetheless impact on our human and non-human
> >>>>societies.
> >>>>
> >>>>Under these circumstances - I think I am correct in assuming that
those
> >>>>knowledges and entities which a science claims are real and which
(from
> >>>>my perspective ) are ideological constructions would be understandable
> >>>>as real because they are human constructions?
> >>>>
> >>>>regards
> >>>>steve
> >>>>
> >>>>jamie morgan wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Steve, you're posiiton doesnot strike me as anti-realist in many of
its
> >>>>>assertions - you focus mainly on the unknowability of a base reality
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >and
> >
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>manner in which the human creates and is trapped within ideology -
you
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>are
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>anti-certainty, and pro-construction in knowledge formations - so are
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>most
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>realists - if these are part of the real which in the most truistic
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >sense
> >
> >
> >>>>>they must be since they are human activities within the world - you
are
> >>>>>asserting a form of realism, at least from a  CR perspective - the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>important
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>point of dispute becomes - to what degree is human knolwedge
uncertain
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>(how
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>does knowledge link to other aspects of reality?) to what degree is
> >>>>>construction enabled and constrained by the rest of reality
(including
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>powers and capacities of human?), and to what degree is the real
> >>>>>contingent/mutable etc. - these are not illicit questions that square
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >the
> >
> >
> >>>>>circle of realism i/e/ by tacitly introducing foundations - they are
> >>>>>presuppusitions of both your anti-realism and our realism - they
always
> >>>>>stand behind the rational position that neither you or we are
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >solipsists
> >
> >
> >>>>>----- Original Message ----- 
> >>>>>From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
> >>>>>To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
> >>>>>Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 11:59 AM
> >>>>>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 ---
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>--- 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 ---
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>--- 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 ---
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --- 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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005