At 12:54 PM 5/5/2006, Carrol Cox wrote:
>Jerry Monaco wrote:
> >
> > Here, here, Woj!
> >
> > Except for your mode of expression (which I call "my style problem with
> Woj" - he is sort of the neo-con Spartacist League of this list) I agree
> with you completely. Unless you want to work through an obsession with
> Lacan, Hegel, Lenin, and the Roman Catholic church, Zizek is close to
> unreadable. But as far as I can see is Lakoff is not much
> different. All of thes guys make a critical fetish of language,
> essentially reducing an analysis of politics to an analysis of ideology,
> and an analysis of ideology to their own peculiar misconception of human
> language.
>
>
>Have you read this particular article? Neither the RC nor Lenin figures
>in it, the Lacan is strictly decorative, the use of Hegel is decorous,
>and the language is straightforward for the most part amd quite
>readable. Most of the usual Zizek tics are absent. W may claim he's
>responding to style but I suspect it's another instance of W's being
>unable to acknowledge (or even imagine) that honest disagreement with
>him could possibly exist. (Actually, I haven't read W's post -- but I've
>never seen one of his polemics that didn't fit this description, so I'm
>fairly confident that I wouldn't need to rephrase had I read him.)
>
>I'm not exactly obsessed with Lenin, though I've always found his works
>quite useful.
>
>Carrol
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org