File spoon-archives/deleuze-guattari.archive/deleuze-guattari_1998/deleuze-guattari.9812, message 129


Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 13:18:50 +0000
From: Daniel Haines <daniel-AT-tw2.com>
Subject: Re: Deleuze and redemption..flowers of flight


Michael Rooney wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Daniel Haines wrote:
> 
> >
> > possibly the effect is "psycho-somatic" but I find that hard
> > to believe - whatever M. Rooney may think of the matter.
> 
> Yet you find Hahnemann's undetectable essences
> easier to believe?

is that what the idea of homeopathy is? this is news to me,  because -
as i have said already - i don't know anything about the theory of
homeopathy.  but who cares if the person who theorised it was right? You
are pulling an idea out of context - lots of people believed (and still
do, myself NOT included!) in such essences - possibly that was just the
only concept he knew to express what he meant.  who cares, IF IT WORKS!?
what, are we trying to establish some universal truth or something? 

> > I'm really not trying to make any grand claims.  I just
> > have noticed a prejudice against homeopathy in general (seen as
> > practically witchcraft or just nonsense by a lot of people) and was
> > annoyed by M. Rooney's idea that because he'd "read" about it he "knew"
> > about it and could prononuce judgment on it.
> 
> Your effort to rewrite the record is unworthy.
> Fortunately, it is easily disproven:
> 
> }> or possibly this critique of homeopathy is based on a
> }> philosophical/epistemological prejudice rather than any documented
> }> scientific experimentation?

is this mean to show that i am "rewriting the record"?? in both these
quotes i suggest the same thing - i think there is a prejudice against
homepathy based on something other than just "scientific facts".

> You made the claim of prejudice -- but have yet
> to substantiate this in the least.  When I pointed
> out that there is, in fact, plenty of documented
> experimentation supporting the skeptical assessment
> of homeopathy, you retreated to resenting my
> judgment of personal experience. 

no, i don't "resent" it, it's just one of your many little techniques
for dismissing what other people say  without actually commiting
yourself to either saying what you think or answering what the other
person actually says. shit. maybe i do resent it...  

 But you have
> in no way shown why my judgment is unfounded.

equally, you have not "shown" that MY judgement is unfounded.  you have
just appealed to the authority of conventional attitudes and knowledge. 
Don't you think that method of argument is a bit dubious? how do you
"know" that all scientific research in homeopathy - and I'm sure it
fills the libraries of many nations, overflowing with its accuracy -
will not, in 10, 20, or 100 years be "shown" to be inaccurate?

I'm sure you are aware that this is in no way an impossible scenario -
unless you really think that our scientific narratives as they exist now
are "the truth." 

You think if my own exerience doesn't fit with what "science" or
"medicine" tells me then i should just "put up and shut up"? That I am
therefore "wrong"?  My whole point when i said that you had only "read"
something and that you didn't necessarily "know" it on that account was
that you were arguing from "accepted knowledge" against something that
doesn't fit in with "accepted knowledge".  Like, nice argument, M. 

- "what I'm saying challenges the accepted truth, but I am wrong
"because" I'm saying the accepted truth isn't true - and you know it is
because you read it..." -

a bit circular, perhaps?

having said all of this - which no doubt will leave you as intransigent
as ever - I really don't think it matters whether you  or anyone accepts
that homeopathy can and does work as some abstract propositon.  whatever
the reason - and i am prepared to accept any number of possible
explanations - I am no longer subject to the symptoms I had before
having homeopathic treatment.  your objections don't actually matter, no
matter how well founded they may be in our conventional "wisdom" about
how the universe functions.

cordially,

dan h.


-- 
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/chupacabras/48/     
http://www.tw2.com/staff/daniel/

Ware ware Karate-do o shugyo surumonowa,
Tsuneni bushido seishin o wasurezu,
Wa to nin o motte nashi,
Soshite tsutomereba kanarazu tasu.

We who study Karate-do,
Should never forget the spirit of the samurai,
With peace, perseverance and hard work,
We will reach our goal without failure.

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005