Religions > Bible > Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Peter Dy" |
| Date: |
01 Apr 2004 01:06:48 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science |
"Marko Amnell" <marko_amnell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6852717.0403310205.3bb86d92@posting.google.com...
"Mike Williams" <mikegwilliams@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
No, I think Kristeva and Baudrillard thought those metaphors were
somehow clever or suggestive. You might not agree with their judgement
about that, but that is a literary or aesthetic judgement, not a
scientific one.
I think they were at minimum misguided, at worst trying to use
high-falutin' language to impress their constituency.
I also think they were writing in a playful way which upsets
people in Anglo-Saxon countries more than it does in France.
They also probably were trying to impress their readers
Ah... I guess that explains M. Guy as well. No wonder he hates them so --
too close to home.
Peter
.
|
|
| User: "Jacques Guy" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science |
01 Apr 2004 08:54:41 PM |
|
|
Peter Dy wrote:
Ah... I guess that explains M. Guy as well. No wonder he hates them so --
too close to home.
Quite right. When I saw the despicable stuff Le Monde published
on the subject in support of those arseholes and against Sokal,
I was ashamed of having been born French.
Would you hold an argument with a 2-year old shitting in his
pants and singing "poo poo wee wees wickety-wick poo poo"?
So why is it that do you respond in rational terms to those
who sing the same tune, but in words of many syllables?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Hardin" |
|
| Title: Re: Sokal&B "Fashionable Nonsense" Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science |
01 Apr 2004 03:30:31 AM |
|
|
"If a biologist wanted to apply, in her research, elementary
notions of mathematical topology, set theory or differential
geometry, she would be asked to give some explanation. A
vague analogy would not be taken very seriously by her
colleagues. Here, by contrast, we learn from Lacan that
the structure of the neurotic subject is exactly the torus
(it is no less than reality itself, cf. p. 20), from Kristeva
that poetic language can be theorized in terms of the cardinality
of the continuum (p. 40), and from Baudrillard that modern war
takes place in a non-Euclidean space (p. 147)--all without
explanation."
I throw around mathematical terms all the time and nobody
bothers me about it.
Baudrillard surely means that rhetorical space opened up opens up new space;
take as a handy example Lacan's observation about neurotics and
assholes, a topological joke that wasn't there when you started
reading. Things far apart are closely connected, in a bathtub
of sudden clarity.
I have no idea what Kristeva meant, but she's a woman. It's likely
to be a collection of things, culminating in no sex until you fix them.
The example biologist has the same problem, probably. People shrug and
go out for a while until it blows over. Where is affirmative action
when you need it.
--
Ron Hardin
rhhardin@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
