On 2/6/06, Doyle Saylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Autoplectic writes, > *Who* are these pomos that made relativism a bad word? > > Doyle, > Derrida is the one I've looked at concerning grammar. Derrida's method > of finding multiple readings in text is relativistic technique. > Certainly text is not to be taken quite in the way popular culture > might have it about the skill of reading. Derrida is acknowledging an > apparent relativity property in text. Why it's there did not concern > Derrida.
------------------------ So if there are multiple readings of a text that's bad? And how is having multiple readings of a text not an ancient problem that continues into the contemporary era? What does using the word pomo in a sweeping, pejorative manner add to anything with regard to the problems of language-world dynamics. What specifically is pomo about Derrida? Surely he's not the first difficult -to- understand writer in the history of humankind. How a term first used in an article on architecture came to be a bogeyman in academic politics and the wider culture after the death of god and all his semantic substitutes escapes me. It looks/reads more and more as just not much more than an esoteric version of machismo one-upmanship about having the final word on various issues. The so-called problem of relativism/absolutism has been around for thousands of years. It will not be going away anytime soon.
