PoMo attack on justice and equality?
Michael
bona fide concepts of justice and equality, but I've never read
anything by a PoMo author to verify this. Is it true or a lie
meant to defame the philosophy?
Michael
Kater Moggin
> I've read that postmodernism is not shy even of deconstructing
> bona fide concepts of justice and equality
Read it in Anarcissie's post, you mean, or in one of those
idiot's guides you devotedly study?
> but I've never read
> anything by a PoMo author to verify this.
So what pomos _have_ you read? You gave me the impression
you stuck with second-hand accounts.
> Is it true or a lie
> meant to defame the philosophy?
At least you've narrowed down the possibilities -- but are
you sure those are the right ones?
-- Moggin
Michael
Read it in Anarcissie's post, you mean, or in one of those
idiot's guides you devotedly study?
**************
You got me pegged, Kater. I got the idea from one of the idiot
guides, one called Literary Theory, by a fellow named Eagleton.
I've only read a few essay by postmodernists. Kristeva, Derrida,
de Man, Foucault, and Jameson. Several by Barthes.
Michael
Kater Moggin
> You got me pegged, Kater. I got the idea from one of the idiot
> guides, one called Literary Theory, by a fellow named Eagleton.
O.k. I don't have the highest opinion of the book, but he
makes some points here and there, unless my memory is worse
than I think. If you want to talk, I'll find my copy. Can you
give me a page number?
> I've only read a few essay by postmodernists.
In my opinion a few well-chosen essays will beat a several
hundred page summary.
> Kristeva, Derrida,
> de Man, Foucault, and Jameson. Several by Barthes.
Cool. Barthes is by far the most readable, or at least he
can be.
-- Moggin
Michael
O.k. I don't have the highest opinion of the book, but he
makes some points here and there, unless my memory is worse
than I think. If you want to talk, I'll find my copy. Can you
give me a page number?
********************
Would love to discuss it. The obvious disclaimer is that I'm a
rookie to literary theory and philosophy.
When I referred to the willing deconstruction of ideologies involving
truth and justice I was deriving that from a few pages in Eagleton's
Literary Theory, beginning with the second paragraph in the second
section on Post-Structuralism. That's p.117 of my Second Edition
trade paperback. Paragraph starts off, "Language is Barthes's theme
from beginning to end..."
Barthes thinks that a healthy sign is one which calls attention to its
arbitrariness, and he distrusts those that are palmed off as being
natural. Barthes equates the naturalization of signs as ideologies,
and suggests that these ideas, purported to be the "only conceivable
way of viewing the world," are disagreeably authoritarian. Eagleton
writes, "Ideology seeks to convert culture into Nature, and the
'natural' sign is one of its weapons." As a footnote, this distrust of
ideologies parallels his attitude towards literary realism.
Also, I would appreciate recommendations on some good entry-level
postmodern texts. I've made my way through several generic texts
on literary theory and a couple on postmodernism, and I think I've got
enough of a bird's eye view to move on to the real thing.
I had mixed feelings about Eagleton's book. His contention that
literary schools of thought are all working off of their own specific
philosophical premises, and his explanations of them were enlightening.
On the other hand, although I don't expect any account to be 100%
objective, his obsession with Marx was trying at times.
Michael
Kater Moggin
[Terry Eagleton, _Literary Theory]
> Would love to discuss it. The obvious disclaimer is that I'm a
> rookie to literary theory and philosophy.
No problem. I play deep left field. Deep enough that I'm
sitting in a bar six blocks away.
> When I referred to the willing deconstruction of ideologies involving
> truth and justice I was deriving that from a few pages in Eagleton's
> Literary Theory, beginning with the second paragraph in the second
> section on Post-Structuralism. That's p.117 of my Second Edition
> trade paperback. Paragraph starts off, "Language is Barthes's theme
> from beginning to end..."
Hell, I've got a different edition. O.k., found it on 135.
Thanks.
> Barthes thinks that a healthy sign is one which calls attention to its
> arbitrariness, and he distrusts those that are palmed off as being
> natural. Barthes equates the naturalization of signs as ideologies,
> and suggests that these ideas, purported to be the "only conceivable
> way of viewing the world," are disagreeably authoritarian. Eagleton
> writes, "Ideology seeks to convert culture into Nature, and the
> 'natural' sign is one of its weapons."
Absolutely. But here's the thing. Eagleton's field-guide
explains that Barthes rejects authoritarianism and defends
freedom, for example in wondering whether it's truly
represented by Western democracy -- the opposite of the picture
you and Anarcissie are painting.
> As a footnote, this distrust of
> ideologies parallels his attitude towards literary realism.
A quibble to go with your note. Eagleton has scare quotes
on "healthy" -- he writes "'healthy' sign" -- which are
merited: Barthes wouldn't comment on naturalization in natural
terms unless he skipped his coffee. Not saying it's
impossible: just something he wouldn't do if he was wide awake.
> Also, I would appreciate recommendations on some good entry-level
> postmodern texts. I've made my way through several generic texts
> on literary theory and a couple on postmodernism, and I think I've got
> enough of a bird's eye view to move on to the real thing.
You asked the right guy. I've got a list of short, fairly
accessible essays I think make good starting-points. One
alternative, first: pomo covers _lots_ af ground, so you could
look for stuff on topics you're already acquainted with:
Derrida on Nietzsche if you know his stuff, de Man on Holderlin
and Wordsworth if you're into the Romantics -- you get the
idea. The advantage of standing on familiar ground. Something
to consider, anyway.
If that doesn't appeal to you, here are my own suggestions.
First, Barthes' "From Work to Text." To my thinking the
single best place to begin. Short, readable, intelligent, sets
out the themes, explains what's going on. de Man's
forbiddingly-titled "Semiology and Rhetoric." Much better than
it sounds: Archie Bunker vs. Nietzsche and Derrida, the
arche-debunkers. His essay "Resistance to Theory" is good, too.
For Derrida, try "Force and Signification," in which
structuralism washes out to sea. "Nomad Thought," Giles
Delueze. Wonderful. A battle-cry, a manifesto. And
Foucault's "We 'Other Victorians'" in his _History of Sexuality_
Vol. 1. Ain't about sex.
> I had mixed feelings about Eagleton's book. His contention that
> literary schools of thought are all working off of their own specific
> philosophical premises, and his explanations of them were enlightening.
> On the other hand, although I don't expect any account to be 100%
> objective, his obsession with Marx was trying at times.
Yeah, I know just what you mean -- I had the same reaction.
-- Moggin
Michael
Absolutely. But here's the thing. Eagleton's field-guide
explains that Barthes rejects authoritarianism and defends
freedom, for example in wondering whether it's truly
represented by Western democracy -- the opposite of the picture
you and Anarcissie are painting.
*************
Well, I'll have to think on that. I need to read some more and get
a feel for how he's differentiating between the freedom he is talking
about and that of Western democracy. With everything open to
deconstruction, is postmodern freedom a flavor of anarchy? One
thing I noticed rereading some of Eagleton is that he says it is a
mistake to think that postmodernism does not suggest a specific
political agenda. With multiculturalism and postcolonialism and
all, that would seem obvious, but I have had the impression for
some time that to an extent, these modes of thoughts represent
a twisting of postmodernism, rather than a valid political instance
of it, and that postmodernism is by its nature apolitical.
And thank you for all the great reading suggestions. It looks like
you stuck to essays for the most part, which, at the time, still feels
like a good way to go for me. I was a little surprised you didn't plug
Derrida's Of Grammatology. I noticed it came up quite often in
another thread. Perhaps it's not entry level.
Michael
Kater Moggin
> Well, I'll have to think on that. I need to read some more and get
> a feel for how he's differentiating between the freedom he is talking
> about and that of Western democracy.
Sure. But you've been going by Eagleton, you said, and he
claims more or less the opposite of what you reported.
According to him, Barthes supports freedom and democracy in his
understanding of those things.
More: Eagleton says that Barthes rejects authoritarianism
at the same he questions liberalism's pretences. He
distinguishes freedom from both diktat _and_ ideology according
your chosen guide.
> With everything open to
> deconstruction, is postmodern freedom a flavor of anarchy?
Pomo comes in more flavors than Baskin-Robbins, but that's
one.
> One thing I noticed rereading some of Eagleton is that he says it is a
> mistake to think that postmodernism does not suggest a specific
> political agenda. With multiculturalism and postcolonialism and
> all, that would seem obvious, but I have had the impression for
> some time that to an extent, these modes of thoughts represent
> a twisting of postmodernism, rather than a valid political instance
> of it, and that postmodernism is by its nature apolitical.
Eagleton's line is that pomo is what happened when the New
Left was defeated: a withdrawal, he argues, from the
barricades to the books, from political action to a paper-chase.
> And thank you for all the great reading suggestions. It looks like
> you stuck to essays for the most part, which, at the time, still feels
> like a good way to go for me.
All essays, on purpose, the chapter in Foucault's _History_
included, and none of them too long. Reading them will -- I
hope -- open up pomo much more easily than struggling with some
many-hundred-page tome.
> I was a little surprised you didn't plug
> Derrida's Of Grammatology. I noticed it came up quite often in
> another thread. Perhaps it's not entry level.
Exactly. If you want to sink-or-swim, _Of Grammatology_'s
a great choice. Deleuze and Guattari's _Anti-Oedipus_ is
another one. But Deleuze' "Nomad Thought" is a better entry to
his ideas. The same goes for Derrida's "Force and
Signification." The standard suggestion, I should tell you, is
"Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human
Sciences" (on Levi-Strauss) -- the one that make the big splash
-- and if you don't mind something more difficult, then
"Differance," in _Margins Of Philosophy_, gives you the most in
one place.
-- Moggin
anarc...@yahoo.com
I don't know what Eagleton says from reading it myself,
but if you've got him right there then I think that's a rather
peculiar way to put it. It appears that postmodernism, as
the word is being used here, is not retirement from the
barricades to books but from the barricades to bourgeois
institutions: it's an academic enterprise, is it not? We
don't have people withdrawing to books of philosophy
out in garrets or communes. Or maybe we do, but if so
they are very quiet about it. This casts a doubtful light
upon the supposed anarchism in postmodernism.
The bourgeoisie, as a ruling class, would certainly find
once-leftish talents useful in thinking about how to handle
the already existing facts of multiculturalism and post-
colonialism: how is power to be maintained under the new
and difficult conditions? The ex-New Leftists would need
jobs, the Revolution not having come off. Sounds like a
relationship.
I am not at all sure, however, that postmodernism
represents anything coherent, philosophically speaking.
As in the arts the suspects seem to constitute a
temporal category, an epoch, rather than a school or
party.
Michael
I don't know what Eagleton says from reading it myself,
but if you've got him right there then I think that's a rather
peculiar way to put it. It appears that postmodernism, as
the word is being used here, is not retirement from the
barricades to books but from the barricades to bourgeois
institutions: it's an academic enterprise, is it not? We
don't have people withdrawing to books of philosophy
out in garrets or communes. Or maybe we do, but if so
they are very quiet about it. This casts a doubtful light
upon the supposed anarchism in postmodernism.
********************
Like Kater has stated, Eagleton saw postmodernism as an intellectual
Phoenix risen from the ashes of the failed French student uprising
in the late 60's. Eagleton's conclusion to his Literary Theory is that
theory without specific political implications is effete, and his
accusal of the postmoderns of retreating from the bloody streets
into the relative safety of the text is meant as a slight. That was
then. Now postmodernism has either morphed or come full circle
back to its Leftist origins. There are very specific philosophical
implications of deconstruction. Individual rights are devalued in
favor of multicultural groups. In the criminal/victim binary, I see
the victim become the criminal. Sanity is decentered in favor of
poetic imbalance. Human rights play second fiddle to cultural
idiosyncrisy.
I might not be doing very well, here. It's late and I'm trying to
think this through as I type it. I'm going to bed. I enjoy reading
your posts, Kater and Anarcissie.
Michael
James Whitehead
feature of certain U.S. college lit crit depts - and some in the UK (and not
within philosophy depts!) it can be seen as you say below. But Marxism not
only failed on the streets - it failed elsewhere - in the bedroom - in
general economic terms - etc.
But postmodernism marks a more widespread failure of hegemony. Its
recognisable in Art, architecture, mass politics and consumerism. The only
big ideologies which remain appear to be fundamentalism Christianity and
Islam. (And within these ideologies the only folk who would rather not think
for themselves).
The annoying thing (perhaps) is that with the freedom given to the masses
they don't seem to do with this what the intellectuals thought they should..
Feminism = Spice Girls
Po-mo isn't anarchy but consumerism...
"Michael" <zsp...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:1142563150.6...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Kater Moggin
> > Eagleton's line is that pomo is what happened when the New
> > Left was defeated: a withdrawal, he argues, from the
> > barricades to the books, from political action to a paper-chase.
> I don't know what Eagleton says from reading it myself,
> but if you've got him right there then I think that's a rather
> peculiar way to put it. It appears that postmodernism, as
> the word is being used here, is not retirement from the
> barricades to books but from the barricades to bourgeois
> institutions: it's an academic enterprise, is it not? We
> don't have people withdrawing to books of philosophy
> out in garrets or communes. Or maybe we do, but if so
> they are very quiet about it. This casts a doubtful light
> upon the supposed anarchism in postmodernism.
You'll be interested to learn there are books all over the
place in academia: piled up in libraries, discussed in
classrooms, and frequently produced in factor^H^H^H^H^H faculty
offices.
> I am not at all sure, however, that postmodernism
> represents anything coherent, philosophically speaking.
> As in the arts the suspects seem to constitute a
> temporal category, an epoch, rather than a school or
> party.
All those and more. The meanings of "post-modern" vary in
every single detail -- the "post," the "modern," and the "-"
-- and they change with context: "pomo" denotes one thing here
but another there. If you're disturbed by language's
instability (you said something about that before), then pomo's
a word you'll want to stay away from.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> Like Kater has stated, Eagleton saw postmodernism as an intellectual
> Phoenix risen from the ashes of the failed French student uprising
> in the late 60's. Eagleton's conclusion to his Literary Theory is that
> theory without specific political implications is effete, and his
> accusal of the postmoderns of retreating from the bloody streets
> into the relative safety of the text is meant as a slight. That was
> then. Now postmodernism has either morphed or come full circle
> back to its Leftist origins. There are very specific philosophical
> implications of deconstruction. Individual rights are devalued in
> favor of multicultural groups. In the criminal/victim binary, I see
> the victim become the criminal. Sanity is decentered in favor of
> poetic imbalance. Human rights play second fiddle to cultural
> idiosyncrisy.
> I might not be doing very well, here.
You might be doing very well at describing your hobgoblins.
Not so good on deconstruction.
-- Moggin
anarc...@yahoo.com
> > > Eagleton's line is that pomo is what happened when the New
> > > Left was defeated: a withdrawal, he argues, from the
> > > barricades to the books, from political action to a paper-chase.
anarc...@yahoo.com:
> > I don't know what Eagleton says from reading it myself,
> > but if you've got him right there then I think that's a rather
> > peculiar way to put it. It appears that postmodernism, as
> > the word is being used here, is not retirement from the
> > barricades to books but from the barricades to bourgeois
> > institutions: it's an academic enterprise, is it not? We
> > don't have people withdrawing to books of philosophy
> > out in garrets or communes. Or maybe we do, but if so
> > they are very quiet about it. This casts a doubtful light
> > upon the supposed anarchism in postmodernism.
Kater Moggin wrote:
> You'll be interested to learn there are books all over the
> place in academia: piled up in libraries, discussed in
> classrooms, and frequently produced in factor^H^H^H^H^H faculty
> offices.
Yes, there are lots of books. However, they, along with
the people who read them or at least talk about them, are
not in garrets or communes, that is, out of the way, out of
the power structure of the society, by and large. On the
contrary, they've got jobs, and not bad jobs at that,
considering some people have to wash toilets. Did you
really misunderstand the intent of my observation? I find
it hard to believe.
> > I am not at all sure, however, that postmodernism
> > represents anything coherent, philosophically speaking.
> > As in the arts the suspects seem to constitute a
> > temporal category, an epoch, rather than a school or
> > party.
Kater Moggin wrote:
> All those and more. The meanings of "post-modern" vary in
> every single detail -- the "post," the "modern," and the "-"
> -- and they change with context: "pomo" denotes one thing here
> but another there. If you're disturbed by language's
> instability (you said something about that before), then pomo's
> a word you'll want to stay away from.
I don't mind instability in language a bit. However, once people
try to prove things a certain amount of rigidity is needed; you can
have fun with Jell-o, but it isn't a good material for carpentry.
(That's a metaphor!)
anarc...@yahoo.com
> If i might add one thing re postmodernism - regarding it as just a literary
> feature of certain U.S. college lit crit depts - and some in the UK (and not
> within philosophy depts!) it can be seen as you say below. But Marxism not
> only failed on the streets - it failed elsewhere - in the bedroom - in
> general economic terms - etc.
>
> But postmodernism marks a more widespread failure of hegemony. Its
> recognisable in Art, architecture, mass politics and consumerism. The only
> big ideologies which remain appear to be fundamentalism Christianity and
> Islam. (And within these ideologies the only folk who would rather not think
> for themselves).
>
> The annoying thing (perhaps) is that with the freedom given to the masses
> they don't seem to do with this what the intellectuals thought they should..
>
> Feminism = Spice Girls
>
> Po-mo isn't anarchy but consumerism...
That's hardly a failure of hegemony.
James Whitehead
<anarc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142600761.6...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
perhaps fordism - post-fordism would be a better example-
Or another - that movies these days have multiple endings and focus groups
are used to determine which to use...isnt that a failure of the author's
hegemony?
Or maybe i should arrange a focus group in order to phrase my response?
anarc...@yahoo.com
I don't see any of the above as specific philosophical
implications of deconstruction. You will have to give
some instances to clarify what you're talking about. It
seems to me that multiculturalism is just as subject
to being deconstructed as monoculturalism (if I may
call it that).
>From what I read and observe, the activist left does
not go in for theory any more. This goes along with
the idea that the theoreticians all left for Academia,
but not the idea that they came back.
Kater Moggin
[academia]
> Yes, there are lots of books. However, they, along with
> the people who read them or at least talk about them, are
> not in garrets or communes, that is, out of the way, out of
> the power structure of the society, by and large.
Nobody said they were. Eagleton's claim -- the one you're
calling peculiar, for some peculiar reason -- is that the
radicals of the 60's, or at any rate some of them, retreated to
academia after losing in the streets, resulting is what's
called post-modernism, which if I'm remembering right is to him
a step back from politics.
> I don't mind instability in language a bit. However, once people
> try to prove things a certain amount of rigidity is needed; you can
> have fun with Jell-o, but it isn't a good material for carpentry.
So if you want pound nails into pomo, you have two choices.
Either accept that your efforts are aimed at jello or else
cobble together a concept of post-modernism you can hammer away
at with satisfaction.
-- Moggin
anarc...@yahoo.com
> anarc...@yahoo.com:
>
> [academia]
>
> > Yes, there are lots of books. However, they, along with
> > the people who read them or at least talk about them, are
> > not in garrets or communes, that is, out of the way, out of
> > the power structure of the society, by and large.
>
> Nobody said they were. Eagleton's claim -- the one you're
> calling peculiar, for some peculiar reason -- is that the
> radicals of the 60's, or at any rate some of them, retreated to
> academia after losing in the streets, resulting is what's
> called post-modernism, which if I'm remembering right is to him
> a step back from politics.
As I said, I haven't read Eagleton's book, but was commenting
on a report of it. The idea I thought was peculiar was (it seemed)
that leftists left the barricades and retired to the contemplation
of texts. That may be an incorrect report or I may have misread
the report, so it's nothing to get excited about. But _if_ that is
what Eagleton said, and if a lot of former leftists did wind up in
the role of flogging postmodernist philosophy in academic
environments, then I think it is somewhat off the mark to
characterize them as retreating from the fray, etc. etc. etc.
They've just changed sides.
Those are big _ifs_, however. Did Eagleton go out and survey
a thousand pomofloggers as to their youthful politics? Seems
like a lot of work. Maybe he's writing about himself.
> > I don't mind instability in language a bit. However, once people
> > try to prove things a certain amount of rigidity is needed; you can
> > have fun with Jell-o, but it isn't a good material for carpentry.
>
> So if you want pound nails into pomo, you have two choices.
> Either accept that your efforts are aimed at jello or else
> cobble together a concept of post-modernism you can hammer away
> at with satisfaction.
I don't have the slightest desire to pound nails into postmodernism.
Kater Moggin
> As I said, I haven't read Eagleton's book, but was commenting
> on a report of it. The idea I thought was peculiar was (it seemed)
> that leftists left the barricades and retired to the contemplation
> of texts. That may be an incorrect report or I may have misread
> the report, so it's nothing to get excited about. But _if_ that is
> what Eagleton said, and if a lot of former leftists did wind up in
> the role of flogging postmodernist philosophy in academic
> environments, then I think it is somewhat off the mark to
> characterize them as retreating from the fray, etc. etc. etc.
Not in Eagleton's view. Right or wrong, he's offering the
extremely unpeculiar notion that ensconsing oneself in
academia means withdrawing from the barricades, retreating from
political action. Simple.
> I don't have the slightest desire to pound nails into postmodernism.
You seemed concerned it wasn't good material for carpentry.
-- Moggin
anarc...@yahoo.com
> > As I said, I haven't read Eagleton's book, but was commenting
> > on a report of it. The idea I thought was peculiar was (it seemed)
> > that leftists left the barricades and retired to the contemplation
> > of texts. That may be an incorrect report or I may have misread
> > the report, so it's nothing to get excited about. But _if_ that is
> > what Eagleton said, and if a lot of former leftists did wind up in
> > the role of flogging postmodernist philosophy in academic
> > environments, then I think it is somewhat off the mark to
> > characterize them as retreating from the fray, etc. etc. etc.
Kater Moggin wrote:
> Not in Eagleton's view. Right or wrong, he's offering the
> extremely unpeculiar notion that ensconsing oneself in
> academia means withdrawing from the barricades, retreating from
> political action. Simple.
Yes, and I'm disagreeing with that. I see Academia as highly
active politically, a critically important component of the
established order like the military and the major industrial
corporations. To say that the universities are apolitical
is about as reasonable as saying that the newspapers and
other mass media are apolitical.
I have my doubts, in any case, that many leftist activists
can be traced from the barricades to the classroom. Much
of the politics of the '60s was pretty simple-minded and
doesn't seem to lead to the involved obscurities of
postmodernist arcana. But it could be that Eagleton has
dozens of thumbnail biographies and statistical surveys to
back up his theory.
> > I don't have the slightest desire to pound nails into postmodernism.
>
> You seemed concerned it wasn't good material for carpentry.
I was concerned on behalf of others who might want to make
more of it than I.
Actually, I suppose you could do structural things with Jell-o,
like nail it to a wall, but you'd have to freeze it first. I'll
mention that to the next unemployed conceptual artist I see.
Kater Moggin
[Eagleton]
> > Right or wrong, he's offering the
> > extremely unpeculiar notion that ensconsing oneself in
> > academia means withdrawing from the barricades, retreating from
> > political action. Simple.
> Yes, and I'm disagreeing with that.
Lots of reasons to disagree. For one thing, the dates are
off: lots of pomo stuff goes back to the sixties, which
obviously makes it contemporary with the New Left -- not merely
some kind of reaction.
Then there's Paglia's argument against the idea of tenured
radicals. The radicals of the 60's, she says, ended up in
jail, in the grave, or insane. (My words, not hers -- plus I'm
working from memory.) The somewhat-less-than-radicals
survived in better shape. Now they do their respective things
on the social fringes. The kids who spent '68 sitting in
library carrels studying for their prelims, she says, belong to
a whole 'nother category: they were the conformists, the
drudges, grinds, and brown-nosers who attended class and turned
in their assigned work instead of marching in protests or
dancing in the streets. One guess which the professoriat draws
from.
> I see Academia as highly
> active politically, a critically important component of the
> established order like the military and the major industrial
> corporations. To say that the universities are apolitical
> is about as reasonable as saying that the newspapers and
> other mass media are apolitical.
No argument against Eagleton. He doesn't contend academia
is apolitical.
-- Moggin
anarc...@yahoo.com
> > active politically, a critically important component of the
> > established order like the military and the major industrial
> > corporations. To say that the universities are apolitical
> > is about as reasonable as saying that the newspapers and
> > other mass media are apolitical.
Kater Moggin wrote:
> No argument against Eagleton. He doesn't contend academia
> is apolitical.
As I mentioned previously, I don't have the book, so I can't
deal with it very well, but it was my impression that Eagleton
characterized the transition from activism to the academic as
a retreat from politics, and I thought it was simply a matter of
changing sides, that is, if any such transition took place,
which apparently both of us doubt.
Kater Moggin
> > > I see Academia as highly
> > > active politically, a critically important component of the
> > > established order like the military and the major industrial
> > > corporations. To say that the universities are apolitical
> > > is about as reasonable as saying that the newspapers and
> > > other mass media are apolitical.
Kater Moggin:
> > No argument against Eagleton. He doesn't contend academia
> > is apolitical.
> As I mentioned previously, I don't have the book, so I can't
> deal with it very well, but it was my impression that Eagleton
> characterized the transition from activism to the academic as
> a retreat from politics, and I thought it was simply a matter of
> changing sides, that is, if any such transition took place,
> which apparently both of us doubt.
Your impression of Eagleton's argument came from me -- and
I said in so many words that he considered pomo to be a
retreat from political action. I dunno how the hell you turned
that into a statement the university is an apolitical
institution, but revising Genesis was simple enough for you, so
this must've been cake.
-- Moggin
anarc...@yahoo.com
You said, "Eagleton's line is that pomo is what happened
when the New Left was defeated: a withdrawal, he argues,
from the barricades to the books, from political action to a
paper-chase." Or at least that's what Google reports.
But where does postmodernism of the philosophical sort
take place? In academic institutions, as far as I know.
You seemed to agree. Later, you are reported as writing
"Eagleton's claim .. is that the radicals of the 60's, or at
any rate some of them, retreated to academia after losing
in the streets, resulting is what's called post-modernism,
which if I'm remembering right is to him a step back from
politics."
If becoming part of academia is "a step back from
politics", "a withdrawal from the barricades... from
political action," then it seems to me there is a very
strong implication that academia itself is apolitical,
a place which is not active politically. We have:
activists -> defeat -> inactivity
and
activists -> defeat -> academia.
It is true that if the ex-activists had been taken to
academia by force and placed in bottles there, that
one might say the institution was politically active
whereas the ex-activists were not. But they were
not taken by force, they asked for jobs. I interpreted
this not as leaving political struggle but changing
sides. (I'm not saying that anyone did this, only
that that is how the report of Eagleton reads. To
me.)
I hope this explains how the hell I got the impression
that Eagleton had portrayed academia as apolitical,
and that you can now move forward and correct my
misapprehension (or your misstatements).
As for Genesis, as far as I can see I am the only
person in the discussion who followed the text. I
even hauled a highly respected commentator and
interpreter out of the Middle Ages and, as a
decorative accent, provided some Hebrew grammar
and vocabulary. All to no avail. Let us not reopen
the question, however, or we will have more Eternal
Return than is good for me.
Kater Moggin
> You said, "Eagleton's line is that pomo is what happened
> when the New Left was defeated: a withdrawal, he argues,
> from the barricades to the books, from political action to a
> paper-chase."
Precisely. Eagleton takes the view that post-modernism is
a response to the New Left's defeat in the streets, viz.
withdrawal to the academy. Right or wrong, not a peculiar idea.
> Or at least that's what Google reports.
> But where does postmodernism of the philosophical sort
> take place? In academic institutions, as far as I know.
But nothing. Academia is the paper-chase that I mentioned.
...
> If becoming part of academia is "a step back from
> politics", "a withdrawal from the barricades... from
> political action," then it seems to me there is a very
> strong implication that academia itself is apolitical,
> a place which is not active politically.
Big leap from people retreating from the barricades to the
idea academia has no politics.
> We have:
> activists -> defeat -> inactivity
> and
> activists -> defeat -> academia.
No: _political_ inactivity, a retreat from the streets to
a leafy campus.
> It is true that if the ex-activists had been taken to
> academia by force and placed in bottles there, that
> one might say the institution was politically active
> whereas the ex-activists were not.
Or you could say it anyway. "Politically active" connotes
_activity_ -- couldn't you have guessed? -- in this case
actions of a rebellious kind -- did you forget those barricades
already? -- not merely complicity with the workings of a
conservative institution, so nothing peculiar about contrasting
it to quiet campus life.
> But they were
> not taken by force, they asked for jobs.
Alternatively, they were forced to asked for jobs once the
revolution was out of reach.
> I interpreted
> this not as leaving political struggle but changing
> sides.
But quitting the battle and signing up with the status quo
-- Eagleton's claim re: pomo, roughly speaking -- makes a
piss-poor example of "political struggle." Your interpretation
is way off-base.
> (I'm not saying that anyone did this, only
> that that is how the report of Eagleton reads. To
> me.)
Understood.
> I hope this explains how the hell I got the impression
> that Eagleton had portrayed academia as apolitical,
> and that you can now move forward and correct my
> misapprehension (or your misstatements).
>
> As for Genesis, as far as I can see I am the only
> person in the discussion who followed the text.
You followed the text the way a drunk follows the sidewalk.
In your reading Genesis 1 places God outside existence
generally -- not just outside the Creation -- an idea the story
never suggests, and according to you it insists on a
"primordial, undivided unity," while in Genesis chaos (the dark
and the water) is primordial, not the Creation, and the
Creation isn't claimed to have ever been undivided, even in the
very beginning.
> I even hauled a highly respected commentator and
> interpreter out of the Middle Ages and, as a
> decorative accent, provided some Hebrew grammar
> and vocabulary. All to no avail.
You quoted an encyclopedia article about Rashi, is all you
did (not quite pulling Marshall McLuhan out from behind a
nearby billboard), and the Britannica repeated what I'd already
said.
The Hebrew lesson you offered was nonsense -- purposefully
-- and skipped over your problems with the name of the OT
deity, Yahweh, which makes existence definitive for him instead
of putting him beyond its borders.
> Let us not reopen
> the question, however, or we will have more Eternal
> Return than is good for me.
The wicked walk in circles, if you'll forgive my vulgarity.
-- Moggin
anarc...@yahoo.com
> > I interpreted
> > this not as leaving political struggle but changing
> > sides.
Kater Moggin wrote:
> But quitting the battle and signing up with the status quo
> -- Eagleton's claim re: pomo, roughly speaking -- makes a
> piss-poor example of "political struggle." Your interpretation
> is way off-base.
No, all we have is a vocabulary difference, unlike Genesis,
where you've warped the sequence of the story to force it
to conform to your _idee_fixe_ and held yourself
obdurately impervious to contrary opinions -- a sort of grand
monument of wrong-headedness. Nothing so impressive
can be made of Eagleton's (alleged) gassing.
Kater Moggin
> No, all we have is a vocabulary difference
I guess you'd have to say so, but no -- you just blew this
one. I told you in so many words Eagleton was discussing
people who retreated from the barricades, thus withdrawing from
political action, but somehow or other you managed to
interpret that "not as leaving political struggle," in your own
words.
> unlike Genesis,
> where you've warped the sequence of the story to force it
See, there you go again. I couldn't possibly have "warped
the sequence of the story" -- another of your eternally
unsupported accusations -- since my point was about the way God
makes the world, according to Genesis 1, not the order in
which he does so. Again, Genesis describes the Creation of the
heavens and earth mainly in terms of difference -- the
separation of waters from waters, water from land, so forth and
so on -- not identity. Clearly a troubling thought to some
people, but so far w/out anything resembling a cogent objection.
> to conform to your _idee_fixe_ and held yourself
> obdurately impervious to contrary opinions --
Your opinions run contrary to the scripture we're debating
as well as to mine. According to you Gen. 1 posits a God
outside existence generally -- not just outside of the Creation
-- but he's not in the story, and the name "Yahweh" (which
admittedly doesn't turn up until Genesis 2) makes existence one
of the OT deity's defining qualities.
Or take your claim that in Genesis, the Creation begins as
a "primordial, undivided totality." Twice-wrong, since the
story there makes chaos primordial -- _not_ the Creation, which
is never said to be undivided. Instead Genesis starts by
referring to it in terms of its parts -- namely the heavens and
earth -- then describes their making primarily as God's
separation of one thing from another: light from darkness, etc.
> a sort of grand monument of wrong-headedness.
So I keep hearing. But thus far nobody has shown that I'm
wrong.
-- Moggin
anarc...@yahoo.com
> anarc...@yahoo.com:
>
> > No, all we have is a vocabulary difference
>
> I guess you'd have to say so
I don't have to, but it's a good representation of the situation.
I say that working in a classroom or office is a form of political
activity. You say, well, it's not _activism_, it's not the
_barricades_. We're disputing the meaning of certain words
in a representation of a theory which is probably not a very
good theory in the first place. To go futher one would have to
actually be so gauche as to open Eagleton's book and read it,
and I'm not encouraged by what I've heard so far.
In any case we have failed Michael who desired postmodernists
deconstructing and destroying justice and freedom.
> ...
> So I keep hearing. But thus far nobody has shown that I'm
> wrong.
I don't doubt it. And I am sure that nobody ever will.
Kater Moggin
> I say that working in a classroom or office is a form of political
> activity. You say, well, it's not _activism_, it's not the
> _barricades_. We're disputing the meaning of certain words
> in a representation of a theory which is probably not a very
> good theory in the first place.
More accurately, I'm reminding you that I began by talking
about _activism_ and the _barricades_, or anyway by talking
about Eagleton talking about them, making nonsense of your idea
that simply working in an office or classroom fits the
description. His theory may be wrong, I agree, but wrong in an
ordinary, not-what-happened sort of way. Why you need to
convict him of peculiarity I dunno, but it's driven you into an
obvious misreading.
> In any case we have failed Michael who desired postmodernists
> deconstructing and destroying justice and freedom.
He thought that Eagleton had already given him one, namely
Barthes. But it turned out that Barthes, in Eagleton's
description, defended freedom from _diktat_ on the one hand and
ideology on the other, rejecting authoritarianism and
liberalism alike. _LIterary Theory_, page 117 or 135 depending
on the edition.
> I don't doubt it. And I am sure that nobody ever will.
They're welcome to try. When I say you're wrong about the
creation-tale in Genesis, I take the trouble to explain
exactly where and how you've screwed up. You always delete the
details -- in fact you've just done it again -- but I was
helpful enough to supply them on the off-chance that you wanted
to learn from your mistakes. I've also showed how Genesis
supports my own reading. By contrast, you offer empty
accusations and self-congratulations backed up with more of the
same.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
"Kater Moggin" <kimm...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:kimmerian-35A3C...@news.verizon.net...
Genesis says 'separate' - not "by difference" - a point you miss - (which i
think is the third mistake youve made here)-
If things are essentially 'different thats not to say the same as the are
separated- for dust you are and to dust you will return...
anarc...@yahoo.com
> anarc...@yahoo.com:
> > I don't doubt it. And I am sure that nobody ever will.
>
> They're welcome to try.
They're welcome to beat their heads against brick walls,
too, but they probably won't. At least, the clever ones
won't.
> When I say you're wrong about the
> creation-tale in Genesis, I take the trouble to explain
> exactly where and how you've screwed up.
As I have you. It's remarkable that you remain unenlightened
in the face of my incontrovertible evidence and irrefutable logic.
There's something admirable in it, like a hundred-year-old
wooden fencepost.
Kater Moggin
> It's remarkable that you remain unenlightened
> in the face of my incontrovertible evidence and irrefutable logic.
Another self-addressed floral bouquet complete with a note
of congratulations from you to you.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> Genesis says 'separate' -
My point again. In Genesis, God makes the heavens and the
earth mainly by separating one thing from another (the
darkness and the light, the water and the land, so forth and so
on) -- not by establishing their identities. You screamed
long and loud, so clearly the idea pains you, but you've failed
to make any valid objections.
> not "by difference" - a point you miss - (which i
> think is the third mistake youve made here)-
The mistake is yours, of course, since I never claimed the
phrase "by difference" was in Gen. 1.
> If things are essentially 'different thats not to say the same as the
> are separated-
You already admitted, right there above, that Genesis does
say things are separated. More: Genesis 1 pictures God
creating the world mainly by dividing, e.g. the waters from the
land.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
No your original point was 'world' - then 'cosmos' - which you talk about
being created - both world and cosmos includes everything in it - in cosmos
as a whole.
>In Genesis, God makes the heavens and the
> earth mainly by separating one thing from another (the
> darkness and the light, the water and the land, so forth and so
> on) -- not by establishing their identities. You screamed
> long and loud, so clearly the idea pains you, but you've failed
> to make any valid objections.
No i pointed out your error - re "world" - and your term "cosmos"
You changed your position from "world" to cosmos and finally heavens and
earth - as you could it appears not deal with some of my objections-
Quite simply in Genesis the "world" - is not made primarily by division...
If you can accept this mistake and own up - i'll then try to show how
Derridian Difference is not God's division.
Kater Moggin
> No
Yes, definitely. In Genesis God makes the heavens and the
earth mainly by separating one thing from another (the
darkness and the light, the water and the land, so forth and so
on) -- not by establishing their identities. You screamed
long and loud, so clearly the idea pains you, but you've failed
to make any valid objections.
> You changed your position from "world" to cosmos and finally heavens and
> earth -
You're lying again, James. My position didn't change, and
neither did your failure to refute me.
> Quite simply in Genesis the "world" - is not made primarily by division...
Quite simply an argument-by-assertion, no reply to Genesis
where -- as I already showed -- God makes the heavens and
earth mainly through a process of division: waters from waters
and so on.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
> James Whitehead <some...@overtherainbow.com>:
>
> Quite simply an argument-by-assertion, no reply to Genesis
> where -- as I already showed -- God makes the heavens and
> earth mainly through a process of division: waters from waters
> and so on.
>
No that isnt what you said - you used the term "world" - and seemed to claim
it contains heaven and earth in its biblical sense. Yet the bible
differentiates world from heaven, so you were wrong there - you then slipped
in cosmos - a greek idea re creation - next you'll slip in some Hindu
creation story as well - but of course all these stories are different - so
created by the same process. Err - thats ether by Derridian difference or
Divine speech - but hell - they are similar.
Kater Moggin
> No
Oh, yes -- definitely. In Genesis 1 God makes the heavens
and earth mainly through a process of division rather than
identity, as I showed, separating the water from the land, the
light from the dark, etc. You screamed unhappily at the
thought, but you haven't given any objections amounting to more
than noise.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
> James Whitehead" <some...@overtherainbow.com>:
>
> > No
>
> Oh, yes -- definitely. In Genesis 1 God makes the heavens
> and earth mainly through a process of division rather than
> identity, as I showed, separating the water from the land, the
> light from the dark, etc. You screamed unhappily at the
> thought,
No - at your foolish comparison of Derrida's idea of difference - and
division - in creating the World, see how you no longer can use that idea -
but an abbreviated creation which stops two days short of whats in Genesis.
Kater Moggin
> No -
Oh, yes -- definitely. In Genesis 1 God makes the heavens
and earth mainly through a process of division rather than
identity, as I showed, separating the waters from the land, the
light from the dark, etc. You screamed unhappily at the
thought, but you haven't given any objections amounting to more
than noise.
> at your foolish comparison of Derrida's idea of difference - and
> division - in creating the World, see how you no longer can use that idea -
On the contrary, I'm still using it, and it's working fine.
The foolishness is yours: you keep objecting without any
meaningful objections. Of course that never stopped you before.
> but an abbreviated creation which stops two days short of whats in Genesis.
The making of the heavens and earth, relevant to Derrida's
remarks on the elements, not how God populates them with
plants and animals. Your supposed counter-examples were merely
irrelevancies.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
> James Whitehead <some...@overtherainbow.com>:
Your supposed counter-examples were merely
> irrelevancies.
Matter of opinion - regarding the creation of the world - the last of these
irrelevancies i thought was why he created the whole thing?
Kater Moggin
> Matter of opinion -
Nope -- you merely erased the reasoning. Again, the topic
here is the creation of the heavens and the earth as it's
described in Genesis, which I compared with Derrida's remark on
the production of the elements in OG. Your supposed
counter-examples, the plants and the animals, are irrelevancies
because they don't address the question. They concern the
populating of the world -- not how it's made in the first place.
-- Moggin