Anyway, in spite of my laughter, Jerry, please accept my apology for my use of foul-language. I should have just called your admission that there are different understandings of theory, your admission to be that you were a hypocrite and should probably shut up but kept on talking about it anyway, boring.
turgidly,
shag
At 04:26 AM 6/4/2008, Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Jerry Monaco <monacojerry at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 2, 2008, at 1:41 PM, Jerry Monaco wrote:
> >> > negligible pomo gibberish
> >>
> >> I'm putting on my moderator's hat and announcing an official list
> >> policy: no assertions like this without names and quotes.
> >
> > You moderate me for saying a phrase like this but not someone who says
> > something along the lines of > "_shut up shuttin' up already since you're
> > being a ridiculous fuckheaded bore." And similar things that she said to
> > Ravi which chased him away?
> >
> > Doug I have to say that this is a very weird sense of propriety. But maybe
> > you just agree with shag and thus impoliteness doesn't bother you as
> long it
> > is not impoliteness that effects "intellectuals" of a particular school of
> > thought.
>
>Well, here's an example of "names and quotes," from a Famous leftie
>who blurbed LBO's homepage:
>
> "Any critic of the party line must meet very high standards. If
> you're following the party line you don't have to document
> anything; you can say anything you feel like. There are major
> books, well reviewed, highly regarded, which are just an
> expression of opinion -- there is nothing in them that you can
> even trace to its source -- but that doesn't matter as long as
> you're producing the party line. That's one of the privileges you
> get for obedience. On the other, if you're critical of received
> opinion, you have to document every phrase. He also later in the
> review calls my writing "turgid." That's right, and part of the
> reason it's turgid is because every three words I have to have a
> footnote with big documentation explaining it. On the other hand,
> if you're on the other side you can just pay attention to style,
> because it doesn't matter what you say."
>
> -- Noam Chomsky, "Political Discourse and the Propaganda System,"
> 1986
>
>Forums often replicate these patterns. Don't be a "ridiculous
>fuckheaded bore", but you better offer names and quotes about
>"negligible pomo gibberish." [1]
>
>
>BTW, I probably disagree with your view on "theory". You may find this
>a reasonable use of the term, for activist purposes:
>
> What's a Theory?
>
> Theories are collections of concepts about some real world area of
> concern or interest which facilitate explaining, predicting, or
> intervening. With theories we explain why and how things occur as
> they do. We predict what is going to happen given the way things
> are. And we choose ways of acting to make things turn out in some
> way we desire.
>
> Some theories are better for one or more of these purposes, worse
> for others. Darwin's theory of Natural Selection, for example,
> explains very well, predicts barely at all and allows intervention
> of only a quite limited sort. Theories of the solar system, based
> on Newtonian gravity, not only explain but also allow us to
> prediction example where a planet will be on some day and even
> hour 50 years from now. Social theories generally explain,
> predict, and permit intervention, all to a degree, not with
> perfect confidence, but with enough to be much more useful than
> just winging it, so to speak.
>
> So what do we want for ourselves in the way of theory?
>
> We want a theory that explains social events and trends because we
> want to be able to situate ourselves
to explain to others
to
> understand the way things are. And we want a theory that can
> predict these same types of phenomena, because we want to be able
> to have a notion of what's coming. And we want a theory, in
> particular, that can help guide our actions to help us intervene
> in what's happening, to affect it, and to work for outcomes that
> we might desire. So it turns out we want a pretty powerful theory
> for our domain, which is society and history.
>
> -- http://www.zmag.org/zmi/zinstruc5.htm
>
>
>
>[1] Try "gradual crescendo of nonsense," from Sokal and Bricmont's
>analysis of Baudrillard, quoted by Dawkins.
>
>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/philosophy/dawkins_impost.html
>
>
>
>Tayssir
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)