>You seem to be making the accusation that Zizek is somehow
>"cheating" - that his theory only has the illusion of being able
>to outflank the positions that he contests (Nah nah, I'm more
>reflexive that you are!"), but I don't get it.
that's because i'm saying that this is what you do and did. not what zizek does. i never mentioned zizek. i specifically pointed to the "cartographers are on the map" defense and pointed out that the strategy here was rortian in a few ways. the specfic incident which set us off: when i asked for a theory of social change, if there was one, instead of answering me you suggested that i was supporting a theory dictates practice position. we cleared that one up. but, you still didn't answer my question nor did you try to find out what i was asking for if you didn't quite understand. this strategy of argumentation is a problem and i will continue to wonder how much of it is related to zizek's own methodology but will reserve judgment. but that both you and ange did it does make me wonder. so mebbe later baby and i'll turn my biting criticism to the ole boy.
otherwise, i cut you a lot of slack because i know you very well, we're old buds. so i know when you're being a shit for the hell of it and when you're not --most of the time. but i must say that quite a bit of evasion does go on in these exchanges. but i don't mind the play..... so.
as for bernstein, well gosh-a-golly i was unaware that quoting one quote from a text automatically meant that i bought in to everything the guy has written. say ken, i have an idea: read the man on pluralism and then tell me about communitarianism. read him on derrida, levinas, heidegger, foucault etc and then tell me about how he supports some ideal of transparent face-to-face communicative action. i mean seriously read and show me exactly how he support this instead of just asserting it. oh yeah, and then maybe read what he has to say about rorty and pragmatism and tell me that pragmatism can be reduced to the ridiculous slogan, "whatever works" pragmatism does NOT support an instrumentalist epistemology, though rorty may support a 'whatever works' theory of action.
anyway, i know you're just looking for a fight so mayB later baby. i wanna read hidden injuries because it is imperative that i do so as i hadn't considered it a text that would be so useful to my research on the american dream. my memory of it was so vague and it kind of got hidden among other the other books, but i'd forgotten about the urban anthopology and history of the self contained in it. so, you know, priorities!!
morning, morning, morning!!!
kelley