Nico wrote:
If there is no such thing as objective thought then there is no such thing
as objective reality, since reality is all in our heads anyway.
I said:
If it's all in our heads, how do I know that you exist? Might you be a
mirage or simply a Turing-type computer program?
Nico now
Uh, Jim,
I don't want to be a stick in the mud. But let's say you lived to 2060.
Would you really be able to say whether it was a super duper neural network
hooked up to an big ol' database of human knowledge you were conversing with
on the "other side" of your screen or a human person? Could
At 09:10 AM 9/6/00 -0700, you wrote:
Uh, Jim,
I don't want to be a stick in the mud.
why not?
But let's say you lived to 2060. Would you really be able to say whether
it was a super duper neural network hooked up to an big ol' database of
human knowledge you were conversing with on the
The question of whether objective [*gegenstandliche] truth can be
attributed to human thinking is not a quesion of theory but is a
*practical*
question. In practice man must prove the truth, that is, the reality
and]
power, the this-sidedness [*Diesseitigkiet*] of his thinking. The
dispute
I don't want to be a stick in the mud.
why not?
Because given your next sentence, you're playing that role :-)
you're right, _if_ I lived in the year 2060. But I'm currently
living in 2000.
Thanks for missing my point.
maybe, but at present we're stuck with what we've got at
:Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Pomotismo
The question of whether objective [*gegenstandliche] truth can be
attributed to human thinking is not a quesion of theory but is a
*practical*
question. In practice man must prove the truth, that is, the reality
and]
power, the this-sidedness [*Diesseitigkiet
Do you have a reference for your use of "epistemological realism"? The claim
you cite defines an interactionist view of the relationship of mind to body.
What has it to do with epistemology , the theory of knowledge? I would think
that epistemological realism would be the view that what we know
[PEN-L:1203] Re: RE: Re: Re: Pomotismo
G'day Nicole,
You are assuming that everyone knows that 2 + 2 = 4 or Ottawa is the
capital
of Canada. Some people could care less and it may or may not be a part of
what makes up their reality. If something is not part of a person's
reality
then it can no
: Re: Re: Pomotismo
Where do you get the idea that I assume that everyone knows that 2 plus 2 is
4 or that Ottawa is the capital of Canada? I don't. Why should I. It would
be a false assumption, as you point out. Not false for you and false for me
but just plain ordinary false. What significance
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 1:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Pomotismo
Barkley wrote:
Except of course there are situations where
2+2 does not equal 4, such as when one is adding
angles on the surface of the earth...
this says that the nature
Hi, Nico.
Over the weekend, I posted a message in response to one of your previous
ones (the one with the feminist revolution, the relativist revolution, and
the "brain revolution"). Did my message get Lost in Cyberspace? ("Danger,
Will Robinson!")
Nico wrote:
If there is no such thing as
, September 04, 2000 2:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Wittgenstein, Etc. (was Re: Pomotismo)
If the postmodern obsession is to attack logical positivism,
picture-thinking, "Turing machine functionalism," etc., why don't
postmodernists go for the late Wittgenstein, the l
Hi Jim,
Cool. I don't think I got your message, so here goes.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Jim Devine
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 6:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:1290] Re: Pomotismo
Hi, Nico
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/02/00 11:13AM
How is the truth that 2 plus 2 is 4 individual, or that Yoshie sent the
reply below, or that Ottawa is the capital of Canada, or millions of other
commonplace truths? That "the truth" is individual seems to imply that there
is something called "the truth"
You are assuming that everyone knows that 2 + 2 = 4 or Ottawa is the capital
of Canada. Some people could care less and it may or may not be a part of
what makes up their reality.
If you know any one whose reality doesn't include 2 + 2 = 4, I
*strongly* recommend that you urge them to trade it
G'day Nicole,
You are assuming that everyone knows that 2 + 2 = 4 or Ottawa is the
capital
of Canada. Some people could care less and it may or may not be a part of
what makes up their reality. If something is not part of a person's
reality
then it can not possibly influence what they think
essage -
From: Nicole Seibert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 11:26 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:1183] RE: Re: Re: Pomotismo
You are assuming that everyone knows that 2 + 2 = 4 or Ottawa is the
capital
of Canada. Some people could care less and it ma
RE the 'fact' that 2+2 = 4:
2 + 2 = 11 to someone using base 3.
Eric
Subject: [PEN-L:1208] Re: RE: Re: Re: Pomotismo
You are assuming that everyone knows that 2 + 2 = 4 or Ottawa is the
capital
of Canada. Some people could care less and it may or may not be a part of
what makes up their reality.
If you know any one whose reality doesn't include 2 + 2 = 4, I
This question is actually put to everyone -- What are your feelings on
Jean Baudrillard?
-Nico
below is slightly revised portion of post I sent to Lou Proyect's marxism
list a coupla years ago... Michael Hoover
JB doesn't matter much these days (some would say he never did), even he has
Barkley wrote:
Except of course there are situations where
2+2 does not equal 4, such as when one is adding
angles on the surface of the earth...
this says that the nature of truth depends on the objective context. It
doesn't deny the importance of objective context. On the other hand,
Barkley wrote:
Except of course there are situations where
2+2 does not equal 4, such as when one is adding
angles on the surface of the earth...
this says that the nature of truth depends on the objective context.
It doesn't deny the importance of objective context. On the other
hand,
Jim Devine wrote:
Barkley wrote:
Except of course there are situations where
2+2 does not equal 4, such as when one is adding
angles on the surface of the earth...
this says that the nature of truth depends on the objective context.
It doesn't deny the importance of objective context.
Barkley must be a disciple of Mill. For most philosophers 2 plus 2 is 4 does
not entail any empirical claim and that would include the claim that a two
degree angle and another two degree angle add up to a four degree angle on
the surface of the earth--assuming this is what Barkley is talking
not
be necessary. BTW, ever met anyone who didn't know the capital of Canada?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Carrol Cox
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 4:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:1199] Re: RE: Re: Re
In a message dated 9/4/00 2:37:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Most "truths" aren't of the 2+2=4 variety, at least the truths of
political economy. Is a certain income distribution fair? Is a
certain production process efficient? Are men and women equal? Where
does
Barkley wrote:
Except of course there are situations where
2+2 does not equal 4, such as when one is adding
angles on the surface of the earth...
I wrote:
this says that the nature of truth depends on the objective context. It
doesn't deny the importance of objective context. On the
In a message dated 9/2/00 6:01:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Here's a question: If there are two scholars, one male and one female, who
write exceptionally on fundamentalism which would be cited, referenced,
quoted and read more often in a classroom? If you can't
truth" is. This is
not dualistic Platonism, but dialectic multiplicity.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ken Hanly
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2000 11:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:1152] Re: Re: Pomo
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2000 3:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:1159] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pomotismo
Brad DeLong wrote:
I think people who comment on "
Seibert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, September 01, 2000 6:43 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:1130] RE: Re: Pomotismo
Hi Barkley,
I must confess that I too got an English degree with a focus in Modernist
Women's Literature. I find it strange now to be working
Hey, we all know that Doug's true identity is to be
Sergeant Joe Friday, :-).
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Brad DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Saturday, September 02, 2000 12:26 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:1142] Re: Re: Re: Re: Pomotismo
I
!
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Rob Schaap [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Saturday, September 02, 2000 1:29 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:1145] Re: Re: Re: Re: Pomotismo
G'day Doug,
No need for you and I to go at it again, mate. Shouldn't really have
posted
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 12:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:1181] Re: RE: Pomotismo
In a message dated 9/2/00 6:01:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Nicole Seibert wrote:
You are assuming that everyone knows that 2 + 2 = 4 or Ottawa is the capital
of Canada. Some people could care less and it may or may not be a part of
what makes up their reality. If something is not part of a person's reality
then it can not possibly influence what
G'day Nicole,
You are assuming that everyone knows that 2 + 2 = 4 or Ottawa is the
capital
of Canada. Some people could care less and it may or may not be a part of
what makes up their reality. If something is not part of a person's
reality
then it can not possibly influence what they think
01, 2000 10:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:1140] Re: Pomotismo
My response is 1) the truth is individual, 2) objectivity is impossible
(including in the argument I just created) and 3) accepting our "man-made"
god means accepting ourselves and trusting in our own m
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Yoshie Furuhashi
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 10:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Pomotismo
From Justin to Nicole:
I find your objection to essentialsim and foundationalsim
. Is this oxymoronic
Platonism?
Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 9:25 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:1140] Re: Pomotismo
My response is 1) the truth is individual, 2) objectivity is im
Brad DeLong wrote:
I think people who comment on "pomos" should show some evidence of
having read some, and should cite actual texts to make their points
instead of impressions. But maybe I'm just being a stick-in-the-mud.
Doug
No, but you are being pre-post-modernist. Imposing the grid of
Doug Henwood wrote:
Carrol Cox wrote:
I agree. Butler's almost habitual failure to observe this elementary
decency is the reason that I finally decided that she was a fraud. I
have made this complaint about her frequently (in specific reference to
her article in NLR) on several different
Carrol Cox wrote:
Butler merely shows here that she is consistently a fraud
Why can't you just say you disagree with her? Why must you repeat
this nasty characterization? You're doing exactly what she was
rightly complaining about, collapsing a complex body of scholarship
into a symptom - or
Doug Henwood wrote:
Carrol Cox wrote:
Butler merely shows here that she is consistently a fraud
Why can't you just say you disagree with her? Why must you repeat
this nasty characterization?
Because I'm more sure she is a fraud than that I disagree with her. I am using as
my criterion
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/01/00 10:25PM
My response is 1) the truth is individual, 2) objectivity is impossible
(including in the argument I just created) and 3) accepting our "man-made"
god means accepting ourselves and trusting in our own magic. Why do
academic work at all: 1) because it is
The tend to put meaning(less) parentheses around parts of words, use terms like
"discourse," "privilege," and "theorize" freely, dispise essentialism and
"foundationalism," "valorize 'difference,'" and think ill of class analysis, science,
or objectivity. They are armed, but not dangerous, or
Nico wrote:
... the pomos I know of do not look down on class analysis or science. In
fact, they rather like the "coming to terms with its own
unfirmness" science and the fluidity and function of class analysis.
My experience is that pomos do look down on science, admiring literary
criticism
an additional point: it seems to me that pomos confuse "truth" with the
"Official Truth." (This is not an accusation against specific individuals
as much as part of the a _definition_ of what I think of as postmodernism.)
The latter -- the Official Truth -- is the nonsense pushed down our
It should be kept in mind that our good friend
Doug Henwood is somewhat of a dialectical character.
On the one hand he is the ultimate data wonk of the
lists, the supreme datameister. Just the facts, ma'am.
OTOH, it is easy to forget that once upon a time he
was a grad student in
I wouldn't waste too much time in a dust-up over postmodernism. It's pretty
dead as an intellectual trend. A Lexis-Nexis search on "postmodernism" over
the last 6 months turned up 26 articles. In the same period in 1990 there
were 315 articles that satisfied this criterion.
Other signs of the
I think people who comment on "pomos" should show some evidence of
having read some, and should cite actual texts to make their points
instead of impressions. But maybe I'm just being a stick-in-the-mud.
Doug
J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote:
It should be kept in mind that our good friend
Doug Henwood is somewhat of a dialectical character.
On the one hand he is the ultimate data wonk of the
lists, the supreme datameister. Just the facts, ma'am.
OTOH, it is easy to forget that once upon a
I think people who comment on "pomos" should show some evidence of
having read some, and should cite actual texts to make their points
instead of impressions. But maybe I'm just being a stick-in-the-mud.
Doug
I have read lots of this stuff myself:
Lyotard: The Postmodern Condition
Derrida:
At 02:53 PM 9/1/00 -0400, you wrote:
I think people who comment on "pomos" should show some evidence of having
read some, and should cite actual texts to make their points instead of
impressions. But maybe I'm just being a stick-in-the-mud.
I totally agree. I agree that all theoretical
They are armed, but not dangerous, or maybe it is the other way around. --jks
Don't you mean: "They are 'armed', but not 'dangerous'"?
Brd DeLong
Doug Henwood wrote:
I think people who comment on "pomos" should show some evidence of
having read some, and should cite actual texts to make their points
instead of impressions. But maybe I'm just being a stick-in-the-mud.
I agree. Butler's almost habitual failure to observe this
nto action: measuring the
effectiveness of international law concerning women...
-Nico
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of J. Barkley Rosser,
Jr.
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 1:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-
H...nothing like starting a big one on Labor Day weekend. I will start
with Jim's response first since this (for me anyway) is the easiest for me
to discuss.
Hi Jim,
Agree, agree, and agree. I think it is helpful to look back at what
influenced the pomo I saw developing during the 1990s:
Carrol Cox wrote:
I agree. Butler's almost habitual failure to observe this elementary
decency is the reason that I finally decided that she was a fraud. I
have made this complaint about her frequently (in specific reference to
her article in NLR) on several different maillists but no defender
RE
I must confess that I too got an English degree ...
I can't take the pressure any more... I must confess that I too have a degree
in English Lit. Please forgive me. I was young and didn't know what I was
doing.
Eric
.
-Nico
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Louis Proyect
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 3:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Re: Re: Re: Pomotismo
I think people who comment on "pomos" should show som
My response is 1) the truth is individual, 2) objectivity is impossible
(including in the argument I just created) and 3) accepting our "man-made"
god means accepting ourselves and trusting in our own magic. Why do
academic work at all: 1) because it is fun, 2) it is the healthiest thing
for our
From Justin to Nicole:
I find your objection to essentialsim and foundationalsim confused,
and not just because you dot say what you mean by these terms. It's
rather because you seem to fall into a self-reference problem common
to those espouse pomo skepticism or relativism. You say that
I think people who comment on "pomos" should show some evidence of
having read some, and should cite actual texts to make their points
instead of impressions. But maybe I'm just being a stick-in-the-mud.
Doug
No, but you are being pre-post-modernist. Imposing the grid of
explicit text-citing
G'day Doug,
No need for you and I to go at it again, mate. Shouldn't really have
posted that vehement rant, but I was just back from a wet lunch. Being
Friday'n'all.
To quote one or two now would look like I'm just picking particularly
crappy bits for my own ends ... speaking of which! What
Nice one, Eric!
This quote fits nicely, too. Apologies to Giddens-haters (I feel your
pain; for an anti-pomoista, he can write awful wank, and be politically
awfully uncommitted - unless you consider 'The Third Way' a mode of
commitment, I s'pose), but here 'tis:
"Postmodernism, if it means
Jim Devine wrote:
there are lots of non-pomotistas at Amherst, e.g., Bowles Crotty.
What's a pomotista? Are there some characteristic markings? Are they
armed and dangerous?
Doug
I said:
there are lots of non-pomotistas at Amherst, e.g., Bowles Crotty.
Doug writes:
What's a pomotista? Are there some characteristic markings? Are they armed
and dangerous?
In the context of Amherst, a pomotista is a Wolf/Resnick
postmodernist-Marxist (or Marxist-postmodernist). As I
Jim Devine wrote:
there are lots of non-pomotistas at Amherst, e.g., Bowles Crotty.
What's a pomotista? Are there some characteristic markings? Are they
armed and dangerous?Doug
They write papers you will never read about
books you have never read.
They lead you from enslavement to
Jim wrote
In the context of Amherst, a pomotista is a Wolf/Resnick
postmodernist-Marxist (or Marxist-postmodernist). As I understand their
view, it is that (1) there's no way to decide between neoclassical and
Marxist theory except via moral commitment (leaning toward epistemological
nihilism)
Jim Devine wrote:
it's important to have sense of priority (e.g., that capitalism is
more important than the Rotarian International).
I should mention that many of these pomotistas continue to be
politically engaged in good left-wing causes.
Yeah, Rick Wolff ran for city council in New Haven
70 matches
Mail list logo
