On 12/8/06, bitch <bitch at pulpculture.org> wrote:
> He apparently isn't listening to me
> who needs a box of toothpicks to get through a page. not because i don't
> get it, but because i just happened to learn of similar critiques from
> others first, so he's a snoozefest. or my partner who finds chompers a big
> mess of incomprehensible meandering. i bought him chomsky's stuff for
> christmas hoping that it was just me and everyone who was big on him was
> right. he's got a high school education, grew up in idaho, and was in the
> navy for 20 years. my dad? a high school drop out with a GED and a few
> courses in accounting at the local cc? chomsky is totally incomprehensible
> to him.
>
> I don't know if they're ordinary, but they're literate and not tarnished
by
> a college edumacation.
"It's certainly true that lots of people can't read the books I write. That's not because the ideas or language are complicated --- we have no problems in informal discussion on exactly the same points, and even in the same words. The reasons are different, maybe partly the fault of my writing style, partly the result of the need (which I feel, at least) to present pretty heavy documentation, which makes it tough reading. For these reasons, a number of people have taken pretty much the same material, often the very same words, and put them in pamphlet form and the like. No one seems to have much problem --- though again, reviewers in the Times Literary Supplement or professional academic journals don't have a clue as to what it's about, quite commonly; sometimes it's pretty comical."
[Editor: As for your parents, they may enjoy _Understanding Power_. Chomsky's most fun in wide-ranging Q&A sessions; his prepared speeches and books are relatively boring. For videos, his appearance in Budapest was awesome; online at Youtube. Your mileage may vary.]
> and my ample experience says the opposite. ultimately chomsky's making a
> claim to being a more important person who's experiences outweigh others.
> what kind of logic is that?
"instead of trying to provide an answer to this simple requests, the response is cries of anger: to raise these questions shows 'elitism,' 'anti-intellectualism,' and other crimes --- though apparently it is not 'elitist' to stay within the self- and mutual-admiration societies of intellectuals who talk only to one another and (to my knowledge) don't enter into the kind of world in which I'd prefer to live. As for that world, I can reel off my speaking and writing schedule to illustrate what I mean, though I presume that most people in this discussion know, or can easily find out; and somehow I never find the 'theoreticians' there, nor do I go to their conferences and parties. In short, we seem to inhabit quite different worlds, and I find it hard to see why mine is 'elitist,' not theirs. The opposite seems to be transparently the case, though I won't amplify."
> oh. sorry sorry. an N of 3 does not generalizable research make. neither
do
> chomsky's claims. so, if he's so big on research, why doesn't he back up
> what he says with actual pointers to such data. there's not doubt that
> there is research somewhere on the topic. or would that be, uh, coming
from
> the halls of academe where everything anyone ever pumped out is horseshit.
> but his work, of course. Why is it that every time I see him speaking to
> this issue, he seems to drop the love of logic and research -- the demands
> he places on the pomos?
"The whole debate, then, is an odd one. On one side, angry charges and denunciations, on the other, the request for some evidence and argument to support them, to which the response is more angry charges --- but, strikingly, no evidence or argument. Again, one is led to ask why."
"I would simply suggest that you ask those who tell you about the wonders of 'theory' and 'philosophy' to justify their claims --- to do what people in physics, math, biology, linguistics, and other fields are happy to do when someone asks them, seriously, what are the principles of their theories, on what evidence are they based, what do they explain that wasn't already obvious, etc. These are fair requests for anyone to make. If they can't be met, then I'd suggest recourse to Hume's advice in similar circumstances: to the flames."
> accents. schmaccents.
"End of Reply, and (to be frank) of my personal interest in the matter, unless the obvious questions are answered."
-- Chomsky the Poststructuralist Sockpuppet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20061209/044ffcb7/attachment.htm>