litcritter bashing...)

[bill fancher]

> No, not precisely at all.  Everything I've read Chomsky say
> about pomo, has been similar to many of the arguments made on
> this list; that it is obscurantist or needlessly difficult to
> read.  I've never read him to say it was *dangerous*, so much as
> *useless*.  Big difference.


>From Fashionable Nonsense, p204:

Chomsky observes that, in a not-so-distant past,

"Left intellectuals took an active part in the lively working class
culture. Some sought to compensate for the class character of the
cultural institutions through programs of worker's education, or by
writing best-selling books on mathematics, science, and other topics for
the general public. Remarkably, their left counterparts today often seek
to deprive woring people of these tools of emancipation, informing us
that the "project of the Enlightenment" is dead, that we must abandon
the "illusions" of science and rationality - a message that will gladden
the hearts of the powerful, delighted to monopolize these intruments for
their own use (Chomsky 1993, p.286)"

--
science spod