From: "Juha Rainio" <Jrainio-AT-Sato.Helsinki.FI>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 17:35:17 +0200
Subject:  Re: michael's shit throwing



On 30 Oct 98 at 11:07, Widder,NE wrote:

> Gee, I took this to mean not that philosophy couldn't advance if
> practitioners couldn't make absurd and incomprehensable statements, but that
> it couldn't advance if others didn't attack these absurd and
> incomprehensable statements.

The relevant question is not really whether the statements are 
attacked or not, I guess, but how they are attacked, or whether 
_they_ are attacked or _the person_ who wrote them. There is a 
difference in saying "this is an incomprehensible statement" and "you 
are irrelevant". The latter statement just has to be irrelevant, by 
definition, because this mailing list is not about anybodys
relevance.

And do you think "philosophy advances" through propositions like
"person this and that is shit"?

> Protectionism is what is un-DeleuzoGuattarian.  Making absurd and
> incomprehensable statements is perhaps DeleuzoGuattarian (at least
> at the level of discipleship) but is often proven to be pompous crap
> as soon as some non-DeleuzoGuatarian disciple steps in and asks for
> explanation (note, of course, that this is a situation which applies
> to a great deal of "intellectual" thought).

Some people really tried to protect the unlucky clause which - in 
my opinion - wasn't too good nor very bad either. But I think
it's reasonable to point out every now and then that shit-throwing is 
worst kind of pompous crap. It spoils any discussion. (Even if I've 
seen some marvellous shit throwing.)

J.


 --

  Juha Rainio 
  email jrainio-AT-sato.helsinki.fi

 ---