>But for some reason Dennis, you claim that I can't use the word
>"vision", as I do.... without implying all of the mishigosh about
>"light", "gnosis" "spirit", and seeing "God."
Well, I would say that using the word as you do does imply all that mishigosh because that is how the meaning you assume we understand came about. That doesn't mean we can't have a conversation without stopping to contemplate how every word came to have its meaning But in the context of what we were talking about I thought my question was relevant because I asked why your use of "view" was not a problem while "reading" as used in contemporary theory was.
This comes down to what I think the value of capital T theory is. It helps us question assumptions and I think that's a good thing.
This conversation has shifted from a focus on critical theory being characterized by bad writing and incomprehensibility to what it has contributed that's valuable. To the first part, I can only say that I don't find it incomprehensible and if I understand it I would think others could too, even if I didn't know that from talking to many people who do. I find much of the writing provocative, challenging and plain enjoyable. There are hack theorists of course, just as there are hack journalists and economists. But that's the fault of careerism and laziness, not the respective disciplines.
As to critical theory's value, I'm not prepared to answer point for point arguments because I don't have the expertise. My knowledge of theory is circuitous and comes less, far less, from reading literary theory than from reading history, art history and urban theory. Art history is where I learned about the privileging of sight and I think it's an important idea. Bitch's elaboration was spot on too. <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20061218/025530.html>
Anyway, I'm bowing out of this and deferring to Carrol, who has been saying things I agree with, and better than I could, since this thread started.