>
>carrol wrote:
> shag wrote:
>>
>>
>> That, or shut up shuttin' up already since you're being a ridiculous
>> fuckheaded bore who, as usual, has too much time on his hand such that
>> I'm
>> surprised the freakin' axe blade on your favorite axe hasn't been worn
>> to
>> a freakin' nub.
>
> No -- I think Jerry's use of "theory" (which is not quite mine and
> certainly not that of the more careful followers of "French theory," is
> still a contribution.
let me be clear:
1. Jerry noted, himself, that there are different definitions of and uses of theory. it is, therefore, idiotic to insist that only his definition of theory be used. It is even more ridiculous to talk about hypotehtico-deductive models of theory and then complain that, say, poomo theory isn't really theory. as you, yourself, noted that is not what the pomos are up to.
so why insist on that definition and then say "nuh huh, that's not theory.." when, from the get go, the theory under consideration in the subject line isn't the h-d model. (for reference, as jerry assumed there was, there is a whole discussion on differnt understandings of theory, the h-d model of theory development, etc. from back in 1998 -- a discussion had with charles, andie n., and some other folks.
2. the axe jerry grinds here is the anti-pomo axe and he's looking for any angle upon which to grind some more. the bigger axe is jerry's diatribes against people who do what he thinks of as obscurantist theory.
blah blah.
i'm sure it's all been useful, but whatever engels was up to -- i don't know -- charles' point had to do with ontology and epistemology, not h-d theory. ditto the po. mos.