I'll answer this this weekend, when have more time. Right now there's
a lot of traveling to do.
On Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 07:50 PM, paul murphy wrote:
> are you saying that the class system doesn't exist? Of course the
> class system exists, even if it is unquantifiable. Remember the
> people who designed the class system weren't scientists, they were
> mystifiers. So, if Marx was bound up in mystification with his
> 'scientific socialism', it is a mystification which resulted from the
> previous dominant ideology. All the problems of the 20th Century,
> Nazism, Communism,, which Margaret Thatcher puts down to 'the
> Anglo-American worlds problem with Continental Europe' actually
> evolved out of crises within Capitalism - the 1st WW, the Wall Street
> Crash. We can't figure history as a locomotive with a statue of Jesus
> perched on the engine, but this is how Victorian progress was
> envisioned, yes in such a vulgar, uncritical way. History, for Marx,
> is a story of change. in this way he was correct and his opponents
> were wrong. So long as things are changing, he is right, and things
> are changing still and always will. There are only those dinosaurs,
> those paralysed with fear of the future, those who cast a backward
> glance - show me, for instance, the empirical basis for the 'axis of
> evil' and any other of the recent buzznonsense...
>
>
>
> >From: Michael Snider
>
> >Reply-To: Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to
> poetry and poetics
>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
>
> >Subject: Re: Beckett & Descartes
>
> >Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:50:18 -0400
>
> >
>
> >On Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 06:21 PM, Dominic Fox wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> sociologising (or archeologising) theories that aim to put
>
> >>philosophical or poetic discourse in its place are never without an
>
> >>authoritarian overtone - beware the analysts who come dragging
>
> >>their
>
> >>"contexts" like weighted nets...
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >On the contrary--the danger comes from philosophy which refuses to
>
> >recognize that we are part of the world, and/or that theories about
>
> >the
>
> >way in which are part of the world are at least partly subject to
>
> >empirical verification. (Freud at least tried) And I'd say that
>
> >poetic
>
> >discourse which ignores what we can discover about ourselves through
>
> >empirical research is apt to be so full of hot air as to "rise"
>
> >above
>
> >lose its audience. That does not mean that all poetic discourse
>
> >should
>
> >be about the latest in sociobiology--just that poetic discourse
>
> >shouldn't pretend such work is irrelevant or simply declare it wrong
>
> >without seriously grappling with the science. Descartes, Freud, and
>
> >Marx are not good foundations from which to do that grappling.
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> Surf the Web without missing calls!†Get MSN Broadband. Click Here
|