>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/08/00 01:34AM >>
truth is partisan (to the working class),
((
CB: Hear , hear ! My kind of epistemology.
And as Maurice Cornforth says in _Materialism and the Dialectical Method_
"Every philosophy expresses a class outlook. But in contrast to th
>Jim Devine wrote,
>
> >. . . postmoderns reject a basic principle of science, the view that
> > there's more to reality than what's in your head ("your
> > reality"). There's something outside that we're trying to discover. I'd
> > have to do a survey of the postmoderns to see how common it is, b
Jim Devine wrote,
>. . . postmoderns reject a basic principle of science, the view that
> there's more to reality than what's in your head ("your
> reality"). There's something outside that we're trying to discover. I'd
> have to do a survey of the postmoderns to see how common it is, but my
> ex
Justin is correct. I still see a handfull of people still interested in
this subject.
>
> In a message dated 9/7/00 9:41:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << [after this message, this discussion will be off-list, given Michael
> Perelman's preferences.] >>
>
> I d
[after this message, this discussion will be off-list, given Michael
Perelman's preferences.]
Nico writes:
>But, what I am saying is that what any of us say is only an opinion. And
>there is no possible assertion of truth when truth changes depending on
>where you are in history and who you s
In a message dated 9/6/00 7:34:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< But, what I am saying is that what any of us say is only an opinion. And
there is no possible assertion of truth when truth changes depending on
where you are in history and who you study with and what yo
[warning, long reply--but in the spirit of conversation--to Jim
Devine][Jim's original message is reprinted below].
Jim:
a reason we need po-mo (actually, the question is not whether we NEED it,
but whether it is OF USE, whether it facilitates certain operations), even
though there are examples
On Tue, 7 Jun 1994 12:19:46 -0700 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>... To go back to the example of gender, one can argue that the
>joining of class and gender (exploitation and patriarchy) makes the
>struggle against both (also egainst exploitation) stronger; for, if I can
>argue that the relation of
(This is a reposting of a message I sent last week; I did not see it come
on the network, so I assume it got lost the first time around).
Alan Isaac,
two points in response to your concerns:
If I thought a pomo perspective would make it impossible to argue against
exploitation, I would certainly
I myself like salad; a meal without a salad is boring and unattractive; and
if can get more people to sit at my table because, in addition to having on
it the dressing I like, I also include the dressing they like, that much
the better; then at least we can talk, become friends, figure out how we
Louis Proyect wrote:
>The problem I have with this latest installment in the
>postmodernism debate is that it is far too abstract to be of much
>use. When Callari refers to 'Marxists' and the 'left', I'm not sure
>who he is referring to. If he's referring to the CP, then we can
>recognize t
In my humble experience, decentered constituted experience is excellent
grilled with a side salad of arugula/radicchio/romaine properly dressed
of course.
Penny Ciancanelli
Manchester UK
Antonio,
Well I am at least persuaded that you have found pomo thinking
personally useful, and useful in a way that I can begin to
sympathize with. For example, I can accept that modernism
(which I take to be the Enlightenment heritage) has had a
tendency to seek ahistorical explanatory frameworks
The problem I have with this latest installment in the
postmodernism debate is that it is far too abstract to be of much
use. When Callari refers to 'Marxists' and the 'left', I'm not sure
who he is referring to. If he's referring to the CP, then we can
recognize the kind of 'factory-floor'
Some brief responses to Alan's rejoinder (which, by the way, I find good
and intrested/ing, very different from the dismissive tone that sometimes
surfaces around this question of pomo).
Alan says:
>My thanks to Antonio Callari for his interesting comments. I note
>that my original question rema
> why should we think the
>decentered, constituted subject isn't as much of a metaphysical
>presumption as any modern characterization.
Please explain what a "decentered constituted subject" is -- say
in contrast to the "centered nonconstituted subject" and the
"decentered nonconstituted subject"
My thanks to Antonio Callari for his interesting comments. I note
that my original question remains: why should we think the
decentered, constituted subject isn't as much of a metaphysical
presumption as any modern characterization. I take Antonio's
response to be a suggestion that it is a _better
Alan Isaac wrote:
>Hi. Would any of the lurking pomos be willing to offer a brief
>explanation of why the decentered, constituted subject is supposed
>to be less of a metaphysical presumption than, e.g., the
>transcendental ego. My apologies to anyone who finds this a
>bit astray for pen-l; I wo
18 matches
Mail list logo
