[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 the
[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
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 don't seewhy. There are a lot of people who are interested in the questions
being discussed here, even if
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 don't
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
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
Jim writes:
Anyone who embraces such a view is saying that their statements are simply
opinion, a bunch of subjective
feelings, with no assertion of possible truth. So there's no reason to
respect those opinions. I'll ignore them.
My response:
But, what I am saying is that what any of us say
[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
(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
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
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
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
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'
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
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 would welcome suggestions
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 would
16 matches
Mail list logo
