RE: Re: Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes for Doug)
Sure, I do. But the categories, models that I use to judge them are periodically critiqued (usually about every four years). Reference to Kristeva's work on science. -Nico -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 11:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Re: Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes for Doug) I agree with Yoshie here, and I d o not think that you believe what you say. Do you find it hard to pass judgment on Henry Kissinger or George W. Bush? --jks Understanding that this is relative however makes passing judgment almost impossible. And I am not talking about the judgment of whether or not to walk off the cliff which so many of you seem to think I am talking about. I am talking about academia and establishment of grand narratives, theories, definitive works which so often are passed off as truth. At least now I know to limit my discussions of relativism to the life of the mind. Lacan and Kristeva discussing language, signs and symbols are surely limiting their discussion to the life of the mind. The new question then becomes do pomos actually discuss anything that takes place outside of the mind? This would then automatically limit the criticism to the same orientation. I know Foucault discussed prisons, but wasn't this just on how they made people feel? Kristeva discusses the language of science, but not scientific findings themselves... Well? -Nico Theories that refuse to pass judgments retreat into "the life of the mind" (whatever is meant by the term) do not further but in fact hinder political projects that aim at social emancipation: feminism, socialism, etc. Yoshie _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Re: Re: Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes for Doug)
Yes, I think I was trying to work out why and how the dialectical process occurs that Kristeva talks about. Seems we need to reevaluate our criteria, models, etc. for judgment occasionally. With the space/time compression it is just happening more often. Does anyone know of any researchers that have worked on this type of topic before? -Nico -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Peter Dorman Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 3:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Re: Re: Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes for Doug) Am I right in locating the core error in pomoism (as currently defended) in its assumption that claims are either "true" or "unjudgeable opinions"? Such a view excludes the possibility of criteria that would pass judgment on claims even in the absence of any knowledge that they are truly "true". The Putnam-type argument (which I accept) undermines teleological criteria (a claim is better to the extent it approaches the final truth) but not the sort of criteria most of us use to judge claims: consistency with evidence, logical coherence, consistency with other claims we accept, passing ethical tests (like Kant's), etc. These kinds of criteria give me grounds for rejecting GW Bush even though I doubt I possess "the truth" about government, economics, etc. Peter _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Re: Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes for Doug)
So, how did feminism start? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Yoshie Furuhashi Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 9:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:1394] Re: Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes for Doug) (How degrading - naïve relativism, sounds harsh. Anyway, you answered that question yourself with Hume. Realizing that it is all relative does not preclude the fact that we must walk out of our front doors or wear clothes. Understanding that this is relative however makes passing judgment almost impossible. And I am not talking about the judgment of whether or not to walk off the cliff which so many of you seem to think I am talking about. I am talking about academia and establishment of grand narratives, theories, definitive works which so often are passed off as truth. At least now I know to limit my discussions of relativism to the life of the mind. Lacan and Kristeva discussing language, signs and symbols are surely limiting their discussion to the life of the mind. The new question then becomes do pomos actually discuss anything that takes place outside of the mind? This would then automatically limit the criticism to the same orientation. I know Foucault discussed prisons, but wasn't this just on how they made people feel? Kristeva discusses the language of science, but not scientific findings themselves... Well? -Nico Theories that refuse to pass judgments retreat into "the life of the mind" (whatever is meant by the term) do not further but in fact hinder political projects that aim at social emancipation: feminism, socialism, etc. Yoshie _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Re: Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes for Doug)
I agree with Yoshie here, and I d o not think that you believe what you say. Do you find it hard to pass judgment on Henry Kissinger or George W. Bush? --jks Understanding that this is relative however makes passing judgment almost impossible. And I am not talking about the judgment of whether or not to walk off the cliff which so many of you seem to think I am talking about. I am talking about academia and establishment of grand narratives, theories, definitive works which so often are passed off as truth. At least now I know to limit my discussions of relativism to the life of the mind. Lacan and Kristeva discussing language, signs and symbols are surely limiting their discussion to the life of the mind. The new question then becomes do pomos actually discuss anything that takes place outside of the mind? This would then automatically limit the criticism to the same orientation. I know Foucault discussed prisons, but wasn't this just on how they made people feel? Kristeva discusses the language of science, but not scientific findings themselves... Well? -Nico Theories that refuse to pass judgments retreat into "the life of the mind" (whatever is meant by the term) do not further but in fact hinder political projects that aim at social emancipation: feminism, socialism, etc. Yoshie
Re: Re: Re: Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes for Doug)
Am I right in locating the core error in pomoism (as currently defended) in its assumption that claims are either "true" or "unjudgeable opinions"? Such a view excludes the possibility of criteria that would pass judgment on claims even in the absence of any knowledge that they are truly "true". The Putnam-type argument (which I accept) undermines teleological criteria (a claim is better to the extent it approaches the final truth) but not the sort of criteria most of us use to judge claims: consistency with evidence, logical coherence, consistency with other claims we accept, passing ethical tests (like Kant's), etc. These kinds of criteria give me grounds for rejecting GW Bush even though I doubt I possess "the truth" about government, economics, etc. Peter
Re: Re: Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes for Doug)
I wasn't picking on Nicole, who is after all a student, but on supposedly professional scholars in the pomo mode whose analysis is no better. I except some of the big shots: Derrida, Foucault, DeLeuze, Rorty, etc., are quite sophisticated. Lytoard, however, is not. --jks In a message dated Wed, 6 Sep 2000 3:22:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Rob Schaap [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: G'day Justin, But what is the point of engaging in this exercise? I enjoy an epistemological dustup as well as any and better than most ... But at the level at which the present discussion is carried on, the game is not worth the candle. It's a distraction. I don't agree with this, mate. Sure, we should blast away at the limits of our respective capacities at times - push ourselves, enjoy the cut'n'thrust, and see if we end up surprised by where we've arrived (that's the ultimate mailing-list buzz, after all) - but there are quite a diverse bunch assembled here (it may not be what Michael dreams of, but it's pretty damned diverse by economists' standards!), and sometimes you get the chance to help someone who's not up to scratch in your particular area. I've found Pen-L to be great at that, myself, and to the degree I sound off with more confidence and relevance than I used to, it's coz I've had, for instance, a Devine to help me out with a macro-problem or a Furuhashi on an anthropology question, or a Henwood on a finance question, or a Coleman on a feminist labour history question, or a Perelman on an economic history question - or a Schwartz on an epistemology problem! (er, mebbe I shouldn't have started that list - they're just examples of many a talent and many a Pen-pal, anyway.) That said, I enjoyed your summary execution of pomo excesses a lot. Always do. Cheers, Rob. ... relativism: (1) undercuts itself by leaving you unable to say that the disagreement on which it is purportedly based is not real; (2) leaves you unable to engage in criticism of the things that appall you, such as the subordination of women, because on your relativism their existence is just a matter of opinion about which no nonarbitrary agreement is possible; (3) likewise leaves you unable to say that whatever you don;'t like, such as racism or sexism, is wrong rather than just not to your taste; and (4) ina ny event do not follow from the premises about disagreement, because it does not mean, just because two views disagree, that neither of them is right, just that both of them cannot be right at athe same time?
Re: RE: Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes for Doug)
Nicole Seibert wrote: The problem with acting like we know it all is that people then think we know it all. Nicole, statements like this just make conversation impossible. No in the history of the world (except possibly Duhring and Wagner) has even pretended to "Know it All" -- and if you want to argue that we don't know it all, no one is going to disa gree with you. So all these posts you are writing simply are wasted, as mine would be if I posted abou 300K arguing vigorously that I think I live in Bloomington Illinois. Now, do you think that *anyone* on this list acts as or believes that we "know it all" or ever will know it all? If your answer is Yes, then there's nothing more to say. If your answer is No, then perhaps we can have a conversation. But first you would have to rewrite this post leaving out all the non-sense (literally can't be comprehended) that depends on the premise that someone is claiming to know it all. Carrol
RE: RE: Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes for Doug)
Maybe this is better: Academics are in a position of authority. Authority that historically does not pan out. I have never been in a class in which what a past academic said was taken for truth. And the reality of the situation is that we walk around in our nice academic world thinking that we are actually coming up with something good. This just goes to prove my point that truth is relative. Depending on what country you live in, what generation you were born during, what point in history we can never actually have any "truth(s)." Truth is relative. -Nico -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Carrol Cox Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 5:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RE: Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes for Doug) Nicole Seibert wrote: The problem with acting like we know it all is that people then think we know it all. Nicole, statements like this just make conversation impossible. No in the history of the world (except possibly Duhring and Wagner) has even pretended to "Know it All" -- and if you want to argue that we don't know it all, no one is going to disa gree with you. So all these posts you are writing simply are wasted, as mine would be if I posted abou 300K arguing vigorously that I think I live in Bloomington Illinois. Now, do you think that *anyone* on this list acts as or believes that we "know it all" or ever will know it all? If your answer is Yes, then there's nothing more to say. If your answer is No, then perhaps we can have a conversation. But first you would have to rewrite this post leaving out all the non-sense (literally can't be comprehended) that depends on the premise that someone is claiming to know it all. Carrol _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
