>Dear Ted,
>
>>I am astonished that an academic who seems able to grapple with the
>>difficult work of Deleuze cannot understand a simple joke. Who would
>>seriously argue that merely using the word "interrogate" makes someone a
>>Nazi ?  Nor was I (as I have pointed out already)  suggesting that Flaxman
>>was going to use implements of torture on a "model or idea of science."
>
>FYI: Understanding a joke and finding it tasteless are two different
>things. (Maybe you should have a long chat with Claude Lanzmann or watch
>_Shoah_ one more time).


So Mel Brooks'  "The Producers" is tasteless  ?  I think we are fortunate
to have people like Brooks who is prepared to puncture all kinds of
pomposity - which is very common in academia. Would it have been OK if I'd
said "'interrogation' is the kind of thing French paratroopers did to
Algerians (see Battle of Algiers) ? Or would you have tut-tutted over the
tastelessness of that too ? Perhaps from the vantage point of your refined
and superior taste you could suggest a suitably tasteful way  of putting
the point.


>> I  am not calling for "rejecting Deleuze wholesale" nor do S & B - so your
>>point is redundant.
>
>Why is it you feel this point was addressed to you in particular or even to
>S&B?

You had referred to my joke about the word "interrogation" and I had been
almost the only one to defend S &B and they had criticisms of Deleuze. Who
else did you have in mind ?


>>Had you actually read S & B (a rather common omission here) you would know
>>that they did not claim this proved  anything about Deleuze's philosophy in
>>general.
>
>Actually, I have read S&B.


You seemed to have failed to note the points I quoted. Maybe they weren't
in the French edition, however they make it clear enough that they do not
think they are refuting the whole of those thinkers' work. But they do
think the abuses of science that they cite do raise questions about the
general intellectual probity of their work, and remove some of the aura of
profoundity.

>My point, however, is that criticism of Deleuze
>or Lacan or Kristeva on the basis that they misrepresent "science" does not
>really affect their work, their "central themes." Moreover, I think it is
>important to add that the "aura of profundity" of these continental
>thinkers has little to do with their use (or misuse) of "scientific"
>material. Understand that this is not meant as a defense for continental
>thinkers -- and I'm happy to concede that S&B do make some good points. But
>in the end, as you know, S&B do not invalidate what these thinkers
>ultimately stand for.
>
>>The point at  issue is whether these "raids" involve clear abuses and/or
>>careless mistakes about the fields raided, which is what S & B claim (and
>>successfully demonstrate according to the two reviewers cited by Murphie).
>
>So what if they do make such mistakes (as far as "science" is concerned) --
>especially if their overall philosophical points still stand ? Renaissance
>Neo-Platonists had a strange (Christian -- one could also say "mistaken",
>although I hesitate to use the word here) reading of Plato. Should we burn
>their works ??

Who's talking of burning books ? Surely this is not a tasteless allusion to
the Nazis and and insinuation that those criticising Deleuze are like them
?

>No one reads Deleuze to learn about physics or mathematics
>per se. (If that's what you want, then get a textbook).<


But one does expect that if such things are to be referred to and sometimes
discussed at length, there will be some point to their inclusion and the
author will take the trouble to try to avoid the kind of gross errors
and/or wilful obscurities S & B point out.


> And I would not
>recommend his studies of different philosophers to students looking for
>textbook-type material. As I previously mentioned: I could criticize his
>"reading" of Peirce from the point of view of exegesis. But the latter, it
>seems to me, would be BESIDE THE POINT. <


All of this ignores the response to this kind of criticism from S & B,
which I quoted in my last post in reference to your previous comments along
these lines. It is usual to deal with the arguments offered - rather than
ignoring them and merely  repeating your own (something which you share
with Murphie and Flaxman).





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




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