---Boris Vidovic <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I think that this thread is very useful also for
film studies since there
> has been written so much bogus nonsense in our
field. 

Sorry to introduce myself on such a sour note, but
how is this type of cultural warfare particularly
useful?  I will say something about this and then
shut up to hopefully learn something about film
philosophy, of which I know VERY little. - Mark Crosby

I can usually sympathize with this disgust for
'fiction and faction' (particularly regarding
minoritarian politics); however, this is obviously a
results-oriented technician speaking rather than a
philosopher. Just because I don't understand
Einstein's Theory of Relativity does not mean that
Einstein has made a 'sloppy argument' or lacks
'theoretical rigour' -- it simply means that I have
no aptitude for mathematical proofs. That Deleuze is
not 'fun' to read reflects your own personal
preferences and a failure to understand Deleuze's
'arguments' much in the way that I don't 'understand'
Einstein's arguments.

There is, for example, plenty of 'empirical
evidence', though somewhat musty, at least regarding
evolutionary theory and cognitive science, in the
notes to _A Thousand Plateaus_. Many researchers and
artists ARE applying Deleuzian concepts
pragmatically.  Many who are strictly scientists are
also applying these concepts, if somewhat implicitly
-- I speak here of internationally-published
biosemioticians and complexity-researchers.

Is it a 'dogmatic invocation of *master's* texts'
when engineers or artists rely on proven techniques
to achieve a pre-defined effect? Concepts, in the
Deleuzian sense, on the other hand, are intended to
challenge and create new concepts -- percepts and
affects, as well, in a more artistic vein.  Is Zen
'confusion and obscurity' or does it have a different
purpose? (which has nothing to do with belief in a
master's words).

The Impostures Intellectuelles here are clearly Sokal
and Bricmont, who (as Andrew Murphie aptly showed
with respect to Deleuze and Guattari) demonstrate no
understanding of the theorists they attack.  This was
clearly illustrated when they retracted their attacks
against Jacques Derrida (who, I might add, was still
around to defend himself), as was documented by
Michel Sauval's 'Science, Psychoanalysis and
Post-Modernism: The Limits of Sokal's Critique', in
the 9712 issue of the Spanish online journal
_Acheronta_ (see
http://psiconet.com/acheronta/acheronta6/sokal1-us.htm
-- oops, unfortunately this site NOW requires a
subscription...), which noted: 'Between the hoax and
the book, Derrida was repeatedly quoted by Sokal as
well as by Bricmont, as being part of the group of
thinkers who were the object of their critique';
however, later in 1997 they state: 'in no way do we
criticize all the contemporary French philosophy...
Renowned thinkers like Althusser, Barthes, Derrida
and Focault are essentially absent from our book'.

Perhaps the real killer of Sokal's argument, as
Sauval explains, is his test of reliability for
post-modernist writers. Sokal says: 'Let us contrast
this with Newton's work: 90% of his writing is
considered to be mysticism and alchemy. So what? The
rest is based on empirical considerations ... if the
same applies to the authors quoted in our book, then
the importance of our criticism is marginal'.  

It does and it is -- except for those who have a
pre-defined agenda of 'progressivism'...

---Boris Vidovic <[log in to unmask]> [also] wrote:
Some work has been
> done within cognitivist approch, but there is still
plenty of things to
> dismantle (*deconstruct*?).
> Latest craze for the writings of Zizek is one of
such examples. It is true,
> he is well read, charming and always fun to read
(something Lacan, Deleuze
> et al. never are), but it belongs more to
postmodern, self-conscious kind
> of leterature something between fiction and faction
then to the serious
> theory.
> I know that there is quite a lot of fans out there,
but Deleuze's explicit
> refusal of any kind of empirical evidence, his
nebulous
> stream-of-consciousness prose and terminology that
can mean everything and
> nothing (usually nothing) can be of value just to
the believers - and I'm
> not among them.
> On the other hand, I cannot understand how sloppy
argumentation, fuzzy
> thinking, lack of theoretical rigour, dogmatic
invocation of *master's*
> texts, confusion, obscurity and vagueness can ever
claim to be progressive
> or left-wing. One can vote for those whom one
wants, love ethnical and
> sexual minorities as much as one wants, but it has
nothing to do with
> *intellectual* impostures.
> Boris Vidovic
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> "Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was
so, it might be; and if it
> were so, it would be: but as it isn't, it ain't.
That's logic." 
> 
> Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass  
> 
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%