First off that darn Louis Proyect caught me in one of those terrible name errors I make. I can't remember anybodys name worth a Goddamn. Frances Bolton is not Frances McDormand. Frances Bolton writes on LBO very interesting and wonderful opinions. Frances McDormand is an actress in a movie I watched once. It was my error and I apologize to Frances Bolton for this "glitze" on my part.
Jim Heatfield Monday Nov 16/98
>Well clearly if one thinks that blindness is as good as sightedness, or
>that hysteria is as good as reason or that idiocy is as good as
>intelligence, or that irrationality is as good as rationality, then
>post-modernism will appeal to you. If thine eye offends thee, pluck it
>out.
Look Jim I am pointing out to you that you use disabilty as your idea of what is safe to characterize as the "other" and ok to make a margin. It isn't. Disabled people are just folks just like you. Carrol Cox made a brilliant reply to the use of the word idiot in common parlance. Carrol said the word derived from the Greek, idiote, meaning someone who didn't participate in the community. And if you can successfully use history to take the anti-disabled labeling out of your thinking go for it. I don't think you mean that disability makes a person non-human or deserving of being the all purpose margin definition. I don't think you mean a blind person is less than you, I think you were searching for ways to characterize the marginalization of the "objective" error you felt Post Modernist make. And in doing so you seek out such things as irrationality. Or idiot because you think the point is well made. The point though requires dragging disabled people into a role that is about them being the margin. That is something your words carelessly perpetuate that being disabled is marginalized, and that is simply the lot in life of the disabled. Just try thinking about it for awhile. Why do you need to keep them in that role?
Jim Why? If they are wrong, shouldn't they be criticised. Hell, even if they are right they should be criticised. Criticism clarifies. An honestly held idea has nothing to fear from rigourous criticism.
Doyle What is wrong? In science that is a debate. Not about how much time you put in as an expert, but whether or not theory is adequate, but whether or not a theory explains gravity, or chemical events, etc.. Most of the Post Modernist are really anti-scientific. Or shades of that. Whether or not their views use science like jargon is really irrelevent to their views. So what do you end up arguing against with them? They think science is elitest. Sure as hell is in capitalism, but individual scientist aren't ideolgically elitest. I like science. I am not a scientist. You can't adequately account for Post Modernism by criticizing them for a lack of scientific rigor. They reject positivism or science so they don't have to live within that systems requirements. They aren't monolithic, they are a real mish mash of varying points of view with no universal connection. The thinkers that are listed to represent various views are more or less interesting from my point of view, but that that isn't something one can reject because their adaptation of science like postures are inconsistent and sometimes just foggy. They aren't impostures, because they aren't pretending to be scientists.
Jim On the contrary, I honour post-modernism in taking it seriously enough to criticise, as I have done on many occasions. My bookshelves groan under the volumes of Lyotard and Heidegger, precisely because I beleive these thinkers do reflect an important aspect of our times. If I did not take them seriously I would not bother to criticise them.
Jim If you really loath the scientific point of view, let me make a suggestion: turn of the computer, turn off the light, turn off the heating, burn the clothes, trash the car, throw away your contact lenses, unplug the phone, disconnect the electricity, abjure the supermarket and the newsagent, throw away the books, move to the hills, live off grubs and berries and live in a hut. My god! You're the Unabomber!
Doyle I think the science of the brain is very exciting. Neuro science actually is showing some things about the relativistic nature of neural networks that is quite interesting and materially grounded. I don't loath science. I am opposed to anti-technology ludditeism. I am more or less one more socialist and worker. I think you jump to the conclusion that I am anti-scientific, and I am not. I am not as I am constantly being accused of by various Post Modernist a positivist either. regards, Doyle Saylor