Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 12:36:09 GMT
Subject: Re: Dave's ideal of theory
From: mindstorm-AT-usa.pipeline.com (crispin sartwell)


just to join the fray: i'm glad you exempt foucault, because his work is
very careful, empirical, and basically comprehensible.  and actually i
would be glad to provide a offline of *that* poststructuralist.   
 
i am also not sure what the hell a body without organs is.  but i'll tell
you overall why i like d&g: they're extremely playful.  they're having fun
opening up new lines of thought (and flight), making things (like language,
e.g.: the stuff on language in ATP is amazing) more complicated,
de-familiarizing them.  if they were *merely* responsible, careful etc.
they wouldn't be so much fun! 
 
so i'd say: lighten up.  if you don't enjoy it, don't read it.   
 
i agree, though, that a lot of the secondary stuff is slavish and boring. 
i read (and reviewed) a book called *thinking across the american grain* by
giles gunn that tried to bring pragmatism (and rorty) together with
poststructuralism.  names substituted for arguments: the whole thing was an
exercise in appealing to authority.  on the other hand, i don't necessarily
*demand* arguments.  the most profound texts i've read (say, *the gay
science,*  *concluding unscientific postscript,*  the *chuang tzu,* *their
eyes were watching god*) give no arguments at all, but aphorisms, sarcasm,
illustrations, stories etc. 
 
crispin

     ------------------