Excuse me. I'd like to put in a good word for 60's counterculture and
Paul Goodman. (Never liked Herbert Marcuse or Charles Reich and don't
like all this pomo "theory" stuff. I read Telos out of a mistaken sense
of duty but eventually tired of it. I would much rather read a good
progressive ne
> What methodology D&G use in understanding fascism is simply beyond me
> " ...Rural fascism and city or neighborhood fascism, youth fascism and
> war veteran's fascism, fascism of the Left and fascism of the Right,
> fascism of the couple, family, school, and office ..."
> What is Left fascism?
On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, Louis N Proyect wrote:
> So what's the problem with historical materialism? I happen to find it
> very useful in understanding fascism. What methodology D&G use in
> understanding fascism is simply beyond me, but their conclusions are nuts:
>
Louis: My problems with historica
On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, Harry M. Cleaver wrote:
> move in new directions. As far as I can remember they both considered
> themselves to be dialectical and historical materialists --theories which
> have kept their practitioners trapped within the neverending synthesis of
> capital's master narrative
On Mon, October 6, 1997 at 15:51:46 (-0500) Harry M. Cleaver writes:
> (PS: I also don't try to excuse Marx's crafting of Chapter 1
>of Volume 1 of Capital either; it was a bad idea to structure it along the
>lines of Hegel's logic, no matter how neatly it all fit together. It has
>re
On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Well I am actually pretty familiar with that literature, and not just the
> classic stuff on Oedipal neuroses, but the pre-oedipal/narcissistic stuff
> too. (One of my prized possessions is a Standard Edition of the complete
> Freud.
> And I still found
Harry M. Cleaver wrote:
>I don't think Anti-Oedipus was nonsense, but there's
>no doubt it was written in a way that asumed complete familiarity not just
>with Freudian and post-Freudian psychiatry but with many of the classic
>cases as well --something very few people outside the field have.
We
On Sun, 5 Oct 1997, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> I haven't read Thousand Plateaus. I tried to read Anti-Oedipus, but I gave
> up after about 50 pages because I thought it was complete nonsense. Since I
> respect your opinions a lot, Harry, I'll give 1000Ps a shot.
>
> Doug
>
Doug: Thanks for the kin
Harry M. Cleaver wrote:
>Doug: I beg to differ, especially about Deleuze & Guattari some of whose
>works I know quite well. There is a great deal of extremely thought
>provoking and useful material in their writings. While there was no excuse
>for writing Anti-Oedipus the way they did, Thousand P
On Sun, 5 Oct 1997, Harry M. Cleaver wrote:
> Doug: I beg to differ, especially about Deleuze & Guattari some of whose
> works I know quite well. There is a great deal of extremely thought
> provoking and useful material in their writings. While there was no excuse
> for writing Anti-Oedipus the
On Sat, 4 Oct 1997, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Ok, Deleuze & Guattari are nutters, Lacan a bit of a fraud, Irigaray an
> arcane idealist - but what do we do now? How do you do real critical
> science studies? I think Alan Sokal should give us a hint of what he thinks.
>
> Doug
Doug: I beg to differ,
Sokal's criticism is justified, but a little bit unilateral. If
intellectualism of some french intellectuals, which wouldn't have been a
blot in the Moliere's theater landscape, is pretty well pined, as being
all things but scientific ones, the following it benefits from US
universities is as guil
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Ok, Deleuze & Guattari are nutters, Lacan a bit of a fraud, Irigaray an
> arcane idealist - but what do we do now? How do you do real critical
> science studies? I think Alan Sokal should give us a hint of what he thinks.
There is a small but healthy field of "science and
I'll pass this on to him and see what he says.
Lou
On Sat, 4 Oct 1997, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Louis N Proyect wrote:
>
> >"The ultimate validity of our criticism," Sokal said, "has to
> >be judged author by author, case by case."
>
> Ok, Deleuze & Guattari are nutters, Lacan a bit of a fraud,
Louis N Proyect wrote:
>"The ultimate validity of our criticism," Sokal said, "has to
>be judged author by author, case by case."
Ok, Deleuze & Guattari are nutters, Lacan a bit of a fraud, Irigaray an
arcane idealist - but what do we do now? How do you do real critical
science studies? I think
October 4, 1997
Physicists Take Philosophers to Task in Paris
By CRAIG R. WHITNEY
PARIS -- In the country that invented Cartesian logic, the
philosopher is king. So Alan Sokal, professor of physics at New York
University, and Jean Bricmont, a colleag
16 matches
Mail list logo
