Hi Curt,
For decon - in a way there's no way out because there's no out out - it's useful to me the way Nagarjuna, say, is useful to me, as a way of looking at the world. The punching metaphor is odd, more D/G I think than Derrida whose work expressed care just about everywhere. I can't place one phil. against or through another, and in a way it's a matter of taste. Of course language is more than that - I'd never claim otherwise. One could distinguish language from code from information from languaging from enunciation from parole and go on forever! Which isn't necessarily trivial. So when I'm talking about cosmology, I'm personally not refer- encing philosophy (Derrida, D/G), but cosmology per se, string/relativity theory, holography theory, etc. which personally excites me for a lot of reasons, including just the wonder of it, testability (in almost all cases), extending my fairly limited concept of the world. Re: D. again - I agree re: bodiless. And if it's any consolation (?), I actually did yell at Derrida &Co. one - the latter were pronouncing on email without knowing what they were talking about at a conference - Talan Memmott, Brian Rotman and I were there and a bit furious - I ended up interrupting with "If any of you had taken a course in Computer Science you might know what you were talking about." Derrida himself was astute - he clearly knew the limits of his knowledge, but the followers were total- izing all over the place and should have been called on it. In any case, I think any body of thought - Foucauldian, D/G, semiotic, Psych-A, Marxism, tends to wrap around itself ideologically, and it's on the boundaries that don't quite fit, that problems arise and unfortunately are subsumed. Like Tibet, but that's another complex story. - Alan, thanks for the discourse (this post got interrupted with the server going down, so it's a bit choppy) _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
