>---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

It is not "warfare" but argument and it relates to what some see as an
important basis for film philosophy and others see as of little value and
even harmful to film philosophy and other areas.


>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.

That doesn't seem obvious to me at all, there are many philsophers who
would reject:

> sloppy argumentation, fuzzy thinking, lack of theoretical rigour, dogmatic
>invocation of *master's* texts, confusion, obscurity and vagueness ...<

>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. <

I'm sure you sincerely believe that Vidovic is arguing that if he doesn't
understand something it must be meaningless. However, it doesn't follow
from the fact that some important works are misunderstood that anything
which is misunderstood is an important work.


>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_. <

Let's hope that some of them are more accurate and relevant than the
examples that Sokal and Bricmont cite in "Intellectual Impostures."


>Many researchers and
>artists ARE applying Deleuzian concepts
>pragmatically.

One COULD apply ANY concepts pragmatically in art, e.g. Christian concepts
of hell, as many artists have done - does that prove that hell exists ?
Particularly in modern Art, any object can be used and then claimed to
"address issues of" time, space, alienation, etc. etc.

> Many who are strictly scientists are
>also applying these concepts, if somewhat implicitly
>-- I speak here of internationally-published
>biosemioticians and complexity-researchers.

Ah "somewhat implicitly" - well that's a useful escape clause. The fact
that things are "internationally-published" proves little in itself, which
was precisely the point made by Sokal's hoax article in the first place.

Perhaps you could give some actual examples, or at least a few precise
references.

>Is it a 'dogmatic invocation of *master's* texts'
>when engineers or artists rely on proven techniques
>to achieve a pre-defined effect?

No, precisely because they have been "proven" and do not rely merely on the
master's dogma (e.g. as in the case of Freud, who actually expelled
disciples who dared to disagree with his main dogma).

>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.

And in turn can be challenged.

> Is Zen 'confusion and obscurity' or does it have a different
>purpose? (which has nothing to do with belief in a
>master's words).  <

To the extent that it does not rely on masters' words but encourages
learning through experience that is valuable.


>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. <


Murphie, as I showed, did nothing of the sort; he demonstrated only that he
had briefly looked through one chapter in a  bookshop, used that to make
inaccurate criticisms, not only of that chapter, but of the book in
general. If you think my criticisms were wrong, show where. He also showed
that he couldn't be accurate about what he himself had said.


> 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'.<


Why don't you cite some of his examples of of these statements by S & B
relating to Derrida ?

In fact Derrida was only included (as far as I'm aware) in the group of
thinkers cited in Sokal's original article, and further references will
have been to that. But as S &B  explain  :

"...although the quotation from Derrida contained in Sokal's parody is
rather amusing

[judge for yourselves:

"The Einsteinian constant is not a constant. It is not a center. It is the
very concept of variability - it is,  finally, the concept of the game. In
other words, it is not the concept of something - of a center starting from
which an observer could master the field - but the concept of the game ..."
]

it is a one-shot abuse; since there is no systematic misuse of (or indeed
attention to) science in Derrida's work, there is no chapter on Derrida in
this 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'...


This is your "killer" is it ? (remember it's not really "warfare") - S & B
remain unscathed.

The passage continues:

"But if these writers have become international stars  primarily for
sociological rather than intellectual reasons, and in part because they are
masters of language and can impress their audiences with a a clever abuse
of sophisticated terminology - non-scientific as well as scientific - then
the revelations contained in this essay may indeed have significant
reprecussions....The works of Baudrillard, Deleuze, Guattari and Virilio
are filled with seemingly erudite references to relativity, quantum
mechanics, chaos theory, etc. So we are by no means splitting hairs in
establishing that their scientific erudition is exceedingly superficial.
Moreover, for several authors, we shall supply references to additional
texts where the reader can find numerous further abuses."

Your "killer" seems to be a dead duck - or parrot :-)




Ted Welch Lecturer in history and theory of the media and webmaster
School of Communication, Design and Media, University of Westminster,
London, UK
http://www.wmin.ac.uk/media
web designer of http://www.frontlinetv.com
http://www.wmin.ac.uk/media/aij (Association of Investigative Journalists)

"Truth Matters" Noam Chomsky




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