It's funny that you mentioned you were a caterer -- and your two rape fantasies revolve around me eating you.
Forward this conversation to Zizek; he'll scrape like 5 papers out of this one theme. ("What then, is the eponymous 'Bitch'?" he'll ask. "It is crucial to note that Tayssir lost 10 pounds; she simply represents the Lacanian 'big Other' that he IS afraid of reverting TO.")
> (That wasn't a flame of chomsky. YOU chose to ignore the part about lots of
> folks recommending him for his accessilibity. I'm not saying he's
> inaccessible, but that he's not going to be read that way by all. If you
> only travel in Chomsky Buoy Fandom Circles, you'll never hear what others
> have to say.
I realized there was something wrong with large parts of academia, before reading a line of Chomsky. (In fact, I assumed he was even worse, because he had the reputation of being the king of academia or something.)
But Chomsky has the smartest in-depth critiques of these "theories" I know so far. If you'd like to recommend a better source of such criticism, I'll dutifully read it!
On 12/11/06, andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anyone who thinks technicak writing is clear has never
> attempted to, for example, program a garage door
> opener. I am have a philosophy PhD from a good school,
> am or was reasonably numerate, and I cannot figure out
> these garage door opener instructors. And they are not
> especially bad, they're about average.
To clarify, my position is not that technical writing is magically clear. That is wrong.
My position is that you can legitimately criticize literature for obscurity, if you have made a good faith effort to understand. Presumably our opinions have some overlap.
(Too many smart people are cowed into silence because they're afraid of looking dumb. This goes for rightists, leftists, and normal people.)
Tayssir