>Gregg Flaxman interjected:
>
>>I cannot remember posting on this listserve before and perhaps this will
>>be the last time.<
>
>Oh don't say that Greg ! :-)
>
>But seriously, lists depend on the active participation of members,
>preferably accurate activity.
>
>>I am frankly amazed at the way this discussion has
>>transpired: each time someone (Andrew Murphie, Mark Crosby, Kenneth
>>Johnson, Timothy Murray) tries to bring the least bit of even-mindedness
>>to the discussion about Deleuze, it seems as if the anti-Deleuzians (for
>>lack of a better term) degenerate into strident name-calling.
>
>This, of course, is an entirely "even-minded" way of describing the
>situation. I suppose Murphie's dismissal of S&B (then admitting he hadn't
>read the book) and comparing them to first year students he would fail -
>was entirely "even-minded". What "names" have been used ? What was
>"even-minded" about Murray's accusation that people daring to criticise
>Deleuze wanted to stop people reading him (and why didn't he make this
>point when Murphie criticised S & B. ?)
>
>>What's "patronizing," Ted, is not Murray's altogether sane plea for
>>open-mindedness but, rather, a response that treats anyone who could
>>possibly find value in Deleuze as misled, stupid, and ultimately
>>inferior.
>
>Yet again, one of Deleuze's irritated defenders can't even get the record
>straight, despite the fact that I had commented on this specifically.
>
>Murry did NOT simply make a "sane" plea for open-mindedness, I quoted what
>he actually said last time; given Greg's reading disability I'll quote it
>again:
>
> "request that members of the list refrain from launching unspecific
>attacks whose aims are to dissuade members from even opening the texts
>whose close readings are likely to yield fruitful results."
>
>That is, he was attribuing intellectually disreputable "aims" to those who
>had simply stated their opinions and made criticisms of Deleuze, something
>which has hitherto been regarded as a perfectly legitimate intellectual
>procedure.  As I said, justifiably, this is patronising in implying that
>others will take on trust some criticism and will not read what is being
>discussed in order to decide for themselves. This may be what happens in US
>universities, personally I encourage my students to argue with me and NOT
>to write what they think I will approve of.
>
>Is that clear THIS time ? If you have some problem with my argument say so,
>don't redescribe what Murray actually said. If anything, it is he who is
>not being open-minded in that he is telling people they should not
>criticise Deleuze in case this puts some people off - as I said, a
>ridiculous suggestion.
>
>
>> If this is indeed the case, then among the dumbest we might
>>include Ilya Prigogine, the Nobel-prize winning chemist who credits
>>Deleuze with having formulated a view of multiplicity that, he insists, is
>>remarkably grounded in emerging sciences (see, for instance, Prigogine's
>>essay with Isabelle Stengers in Stenger's own _Power and Invention:
>>Situating Science_).
>
>
>Well, I'm terribly impresssed; if he won a Nobel prize I guess that
>settles it.
>In fact we only got on to Deleuze because Murphie focused on him in his
>attack on S & B, not because I had some great campaign against him (though
>given the reactions on here so far I'm beginning to think one might be very
>healthy).
>
>
>> The lesson to which Prigogine and Stengers constantly
>>return is that a distinction must be made bewteen the complicated and the
>>complex, the latter of which supercedes any ideal position of
>>knowledge (say, Laplace's or Maxwell's demon). In a very crude sense, this
>>distinction lies at the heart of Deleuze's philosophy and, especially, his
>>cinema books, for Deleuze is ultimately concerned to deterritorialize
>>thought from its pretense--its fantasy--of secutury [sic], whether that
>>security
>>is founded in common sense, in transcendent Truth, or in language.
>
>Actually "thought" doesn't have "pretenses" nor "fantasies". If he's
>arguing that people shouldn't be dogmatic - I think I'd go along with that
>- not quite as fancy or impressive though, I must admit. If I have it
>wrong, please deterritorialise my thought from its insecurity about this
>matter.
>
>>	Deleuze's project is, as anyone would have to admit, exceedingly
>>difficult; and there are moments that are surely less successful than
>>others. Nevertheless, some on this listerserve would have everyone believe
>>that Deleuze is unreadable, when nothing could be further from the truth.
>
>Who actually said that ?  Or is that to be boringly empiricist ?
>
>>Deleuze's books on Nietzsche (which was previously mentioned), Kant,
>>Spinoza (_Practical Philosophy_), and Bergson are models of clarity; his
>>prose style--especially if read in the original French--is beautiful,
>>concise, and often pristine. The _Capitalism and Schizophrenia_ books are,
>>to be sure, written in a kind of howling and poetic vein, but this is no
>>reason to dismiss them--rather, we might see in them an extension of
>>Deleuze's project to writing itself or what he calls (re Nietzsche) nomad
>>thought. To judge solely by these books or to say that Deleuze is patently
>>unreadable suggests an incredible lack of, well, hospitality.
>
>Nah, bring him in, but just accept the house rules - be prepared for
>argument and demands for minimal accuracy (e.g. in accusations, e.g. the
>"unreadable" one just repeated).
>
>>After all, what is the point of being on a listserve such as this if you are
>>completely unwilling to entertain other ideas, to think even a little bit
>>differently?
>
>I totally agree - and what is the point of being on the list if you never
>contribute some other ideas to it - but only mount an inaccurate diatribe
>against somebody who happens to disagree with your preferences ?
>
>
>>To be even more blunt, what is the point of shitting on
>>anyone who does think differently? Ulimately, it strikes me that by doing
>>so you tesify to the very strictures of thought that Deleuze, for one, was
>>committed to seeing past.
>
>Lol - well some good, healthy Anglo-Saxon, how refreshing. Perhaps, though,
>you'd care to explain your use of the term (to which I have no objection in
>itself) - just how am I supposed to have "shit" on somebody ? Do you mean
>because I argue against some people, because I adopt the kind of dismissive
>tone sometimes which Murphie adopted towards S & B ?  Was he "shitting"  on
>them ? Certainly, to adopt your terminology, his arguments were shit, as I
>tried to show in the usual scholarly way by actually quoting relevant
>passages from the work being discussed to support my criticisms.
>
>This "even-minded" criticism of yours, as so often by those who've leapt to
>the support of Deleuze, is not supported by anything specific. But you go
>on triumphantly to claim my supposed shitting is  in itself is further
>proof of the value of Deleuze's work - when in fact this claim itself is
>only evidence of the desperation of your "arguments."
>
>
>>	As for the Sokal hoax with which, it seems, all philosophical
>>(continental) approaches to science are condemned,
>
>This is a pathetically ignorant comment - little surprise, the courtesies
>(like reading the work) we are urged to pay to Deleuze are deemed quite
>inappropriate when referring to those who not among the chosen.
>
>>perhaps it's time to interrogate
>
>I thought that was what Nazis did to prisoners - what's wrong with "study"
>"examine" - rather than this 70s borrowing from French - not so dramatic I
>admit.
>
>
>>the model or idea of science on which it's based. Sokal
>>suggests that academics, theoreticians, and philosophers need to be put in
>>their place, that they should leave the real thinking to science. <
>
>He says no such thing. This kind of ignorant simplification would
>reprehensible in a first year student (as Murphie would put it). There is
>not even the excuse that Sokal's writing is difficult.
>
>>Needless to say, science has never really worked in the way it likes to
>>pretend it
>>does (i.e., rationally, progressively),
>
>Oh, now science, like "thought,"  has started "pretending" has it ? - of
>course the issue would get more complicated if we spoke of actual
>scientists and their varying claims for science.
>
>>and more important, what does it
>>mean to cede that kind of intellectual space to science?
>
>It doesn't matter what it might mean because Sokal never suggested anything
>like it.
>
>>In this regard,
>>we might understand Deleuze's relation to science--his use as well as his
>>resistance--as finally following Nietzsche's own ethic: "to look at
>>science in the perspective of art, but of art in that of life."<
>
>Yes, but neither art nor life entail a complete disregard for the facts of
>what a scientist, artist or any other person actually says. Perhaps it's
>time to revive close study of texts there in the
>
>>Department of Comparative Literature and Literary Theory
>>University of Pennsylvania
>
>
>It seems that calling a spade a shovel upsets some people here; I agree
>with Paolo:
>
>"I mean, I do prefer such discussions, also when hard, than some
>academics meetings where all the people smile to the others,
>and anybody agree with the other ones. "
>
>I fear that Nietzsche himself would upset some of the more sensitive souls
>here; politeness was not his main virtue - I'm happy to say.
>
>"During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is
>chosen and commenced as a means to an end but continued as an end in
>itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent of all acts of
>stupidity."
>
>Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human.
>
>Anyone seen any good films lately ? :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>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

Ted:
You asked:
> just how am I supposed to have "shit" on somebody ?

In the same message you said:
>>He says no such thing. This kind of ignorant simplification would
>reprehensible in a first year student (as Murphie would put it).

>This is a pathetically ignorant comment - little surprise, the courtesies
>(like reading the work) we are urged to pay to Deleuze are deemed quite
>inappropriate when referring to those who not among the chosen.

>>Murry did NOT simply make a "sane" plea for open-mindedness, I quoted what
>he actually said last time; given Greg's reading disability I'll quote it
>again:

>I thought that was what Nazis did to prisoners - what's wrong with "study"
>"examine" - rather than this 70s borrowing from French - not so dramatic I
>admit.

In one message, you called Greg ignorant twice, metaphorically implied that
he was an academic Nazi, and made at least one catty comment about his
academic skills (actually, you did more insulting than this, but these
examples should serve.)

Now, I don't care one way or the other about the Deleuze/AntiDelueze
argument. I haven't read ANY of the texts and so have no opinion about
DorGorSorB. I do read the list, however, and I have to say that you are
using a lot of ad hominem attacks, including, but not limited to, sarcasm,
sardonicism, and blatant insults.

We are all occasionally guilty of this kind of behavior. I just don't think
that it helps to escalate the name calling. The intent of Gregs message,
what he was trying to accomplish, was to bring the argument back down to a
more rational level. Your response escalated the name calling and general
acidity..

for example:

Greg:
>>Needless to say, science has never really worked in the way it likes to
>>pretend it
>>does (i.e., rationally, progressively),
>
Ted:
>Oh, now science, like "thought,"  has started "pretending" has it ? - of
>course the issue would get more complicated if we spoke of actual
>scientists and their varying claims for science.

Now, if you look at it, you both have a point. Science has, in fact, over
the centuries, tended to evolve in fits and starts. James Burke writes very
interesting histories of this phenomena, the latest one of which is called
"The Pinball Effect: how rennaissance water gardens made the carberettor
possible." Burke details how chaotic the shape of science and technology
can be, one invention in Flanders in the 1400's can effect scientific
discoveries in America in the 1800's and so on. People in search of one
thing often find another. Dr. Dean Adell, eye surgeon and talk show host,
frequently mentions medical discoveries that were basically accidents, the
most famous example of which is Penicillin... and the germ theory of
disease along with it.
However, I don't know of any scientists who claim that science is
rationally progressive in the way that seems to be implied. They generally
know that you can't always predict the outcome of a given experiment... the
whole scientific method is based on that assumption, I.E., if you could
predict the results of all experiments accurately, you wouldn't have to do
experiments to test hypotheses.
The general public tends to believe that science evolves rationally, that
there is a progress going on. Thats sort of a general perception.
So in a way, this little snippet of the Greg/Ted conversation reveals two
people who had common ground completely ignoring it. And while some might
prefer cat-fighting to faux friendliness, I think that there is a third
possiblity... civilized debate. It might sometimes get a little wild. Thats
inevitable. But just because the name calling gets started doesn't mean
that it has to continue.

j. daigle




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