It seems to be a problem with his pastiche of the New Criticism and post structuralism. Post structuralism apparently takes into account the bias of the self in trying to think,which could be the purpose of his chapter involving Lacan. It is probably true that you personally can learn nothing about anything by looking at yourself. KAte Sullivan In a message dated 1/12/10 10:18:39 AM, [email protected] writes:
> Nothing is learned about the world by looking at self - and that's the > direction that Berger recursively pursues as he joins Lacanian > psychoanalysis > in pondering transhistorical psychology and practices "close reading", > which > is really just an endless exploration of what words can mean as far as he > is > concerned. > > He's a babbler -- just like those poor fellows one occasionally finds > riding > on public transportation. > > When he babbles about art historians, it can serve as an introduction to > discussing some of their ideas. > > But, as you might recall, Cheerskep once asked "Eventually I hope you'll > tell > us of any valuable insight Berger offers to the "pose" that wouldn't have > come > to you on your own with three minutes of reflection." > > The fact that you still can't answer should sufficiently articulate the > "difficulty that you can perceive" > > And then, you might reconsider whether you should judge him "both subtle > and > a master of his method"
