Alex Izurieta wrote: > well... 'Understanding' denotes there is a certain 'logic' > underneath. What if there is any ? What if the so-called theory is a > non-theory, as pomos themselves pretend by aiming at being the > quintessence of 'deconstructionism' (of every theory, and consequently > -'logically'- theirs as well ). In brief, what if 'that theory' is a > non-sense?? A critical *conclusion* regarding a theory must be based on a meaningful and substantive evaluation of that theory. To present a conclusion about a theory without presenting the critique itself (or, at least, referring to where such a critique can be found) is anti-theory, anti-intellectual, and dismissive. > I am going to hang his piece on my door at the ISS; just to > 'provocate' those newly appering 'fast track pomos' around. From your > reaction, it seems it works well. Is your purpose to "provocate" people or to get them to think? If you have the latter purpose in mind, you might consider something else to put on your door. On the other hand, Doug's post might make a good hand-out in a social science class about how *not* to have a meaningful discussion, i.e. it could be used to initiate a discussion about the way that many rely on vacuous put-downs and dismissive statements as an alternative to developing critical analysis. Jerry
