Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:09:49 -0600
Subject: Re: Rahul's thread


All right, Jukka. I don't want to get into pointless name-calling and
tit-for-tat insults, either. I'll try to moderate my tone.

>Only basis was your postings. I can't read your mind. Your
>insulted (in my opinion) Leo. Besides, you didn't want to
>learn when he tried to tell some points of importance in
>contemporary political and social theory. I'm sorry that I
>interfered your discussion. That was my mistake.

I didn't say read my mind. I think it's clear that I'm not defending some
mindless absolutist view of science. I see no reason why you shouldn't have
"interfered" in the discussion -- that's what having a list is about.
However, I'm quite certain that Leo doesn't think I've insulted him.
Everyone should be aware, I hope, that my saturation bombing of the sacred
groves of academe is not directed at anyone here in particular. The
academics here on the list are much less prone to the kind of nonsense I'm
fighting.

>It's just frustrating to notice how same trashing has been
>going on again and again for nearly two years. There's a
>world outside of cyberia and it's changing, my friend. But
>paradoxically it's cybermarxists who doesn't seem to notice
>it.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

>
>"Second, without (I imagine) any knowledge of physics, you
>are ready to tell me what it can and cannot say about wider
>questions."
>
>Let's say: no knowledge at all - because I don't know what
>concept of knowledge you use. Exactly like you would and you
>should if I start to tell that in a matter of fact earth is
>pancake after all or newtonian physics makes no sense at all
>today under any circumstances..

This is a dodge. You seem to be implying that knowledge of physics is
irrelevant to the question of what physics is good for and what its
limitations are, but you don't come out and say it because then you would
have to defend it.


>
>"I personally find physics a much better background to
>enable one to logically dissect these au courant academic
>shibboleths than, say, comp lit or philosophy or cultural
>studies, etc."
>
>I've noticed that. Therefore you trashed your literary
>teacher. You already knew how things are and that she was
>talking crap (I refer your seminary example).

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. This is more of the kind of
trashing we should avoid if this discussion is not to degenerate.


 And me, I've
>noticed I do get angry when whether philosophers or
>scientists or political activists begin to trash, say,
>social theoretical discussions without grasping background
>and essential traits in that theorization. There are deep
>problems in social theory for sure. But that existing
>discussion and its background is the starting point for new
>discussions. We simply cannot throw all former research and
>thinking away and begin everything straight from the start.
>There's no clean table. Everyone's supposed to do his
>homework in order to know what's at stake in that theory. In
>my opinion, that is.

Again you're implying that I haven't done my homework. If it's relevant,
I'm quite widely read in the social sciences. I don't have time to read as
some of the more erudite members of the list, but my base here is quite
adequate. On the other hand, you claim that knowledge of science is
irrelevant to this discussion, so you can ignore it. Ask Ralph if a degree
is necessary in order to have a great deal of knowledge about the social
sciences and humanities. Unlike many people in the social sciences, I'm not
arrogant enough to make sweeping statements about fields I'm largely
ignorant of.


>Today one form of it is found
>in those radical democratic theories Leo has tried to
>clarify. The whole point gets lost if we trash his point of
>view in the middle of sentence, so to speak. And that, I
>believe, is a loss for all of us.

I'm not trashing Leo. 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. 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. 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.

Rahul




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