Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 12:17:55 +0300 (EET DST)
Subject: Re: Rahul's thread


OK

I was trying to write little more about meaning and history
with references to Husserl (phenomenology) and Dilthey
(early 20th century hermeneutician). But Leo posted so long
and clear thing (although from slightly different angle)
that I'm only relieved - and a bit jealous of his skills to
teach us.

I've hinted to phenomenology couple of times earlier but
refused to 'introduce' it because of two reasons: I'm not
totally at home with it, and I've noticed how shit flies
when one begins to talk about some form of non-marxism. In
the light of recent drastic changes in this marxologist part
of cyberia I'm reconsidering my former decision. We'll see..

Rahul wrote:

"I didn't say anyone else has to share this belief. And not
"therefore I trashed" her; I told the truth about what
happened. I read the piece, analyzed it, and found that it
was crap."

Well, that's your opinion.


"On the other hand, you claim that knowledge of science is
irrelevant to this discussion, so you can ignore it."

Then enlighten me, please. I do not see how science can
bring light to questions of meaning and history.
Unfortunately I've only wittnessed how scientists have
couple of times tried to oversimplify the whole issue.


"My main point is that the postmodernists have not only not
advanced understanding of the question of meaning, they have
set it back 50 years."

Who are the postmodernists in this case? Derrida's frame of
reference was originally phenomenology. He then believed he
had found some unsolvable problems in phenomenology and went
his way to 'deconstruction'. I'm quite ignorant of it so I
won't say anything about it. But from the point of view of
phenomenology it's surely unjust to say that Derrida have
set understanding of the question of meaning back 50 years.
I also find it hard to consider Deleuze and Foucault as
postmodernists. Both have some deep affinities in wholly
other directions. (About these should be discussed sometime
later?) That still leaves some figures, especially Lyotard
and Baudrillard who even have played with that very special
word. In what way they have set understanding of the
question of meaning back 50 years? I don't know them that
much.

I've wondered about 15 years what exactly postmodernism is -
it seemed to be just another invention of publishers (less
'dangerous' than marxism, yet somehow 'radical'). Perhaps
you could finally give an answer?


"My other point is that the study of history or literature,
say, is not an adequate base to extrapolate conclusions into
the sciences, and vice versa."

Hmm? That has to be considered.


"The question of meaning in these fields is utterly
different from what it is in science. I will explain some of
what I mean subsequently."

Please do so.

Yours, Jukka L



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---