|
time_is_now
|
 |
« Reply #135 on: 18:04:54, 20-08-2007 » |
|
As I mentioned to Ian, I was not seeking to comment upon what I posted and I did not write it myself but merely quoted it, so no carping is involved; I don't therefore think that I'm being amusing, as it isn't my work in the first place.
In that case, perhaps you could indicate where you were quoting it from and whose work it was. Because it's quite clearly a spoof (none of the quotations from or references to real people are even nearly accurate) and I'm now genuinely confused as to whether you realised it was a spoof or were quoting it in good faith. (And either way, I still don't see why you were quoting it.) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #136 on: 18:21:01, 20-08-2007 » |
|
As I mentioned to Ian, I was not seeking to comment upon what I posted and I did not write it myself but merely quoted it, so no carping is involved; I don't therefore think that I'm being amusing, as it isn't my work in the first place.
In that case, perhaps you could indicate where you were quoting it from and whose work it was. Because it's quite clearly a spoof (none of the quotations from or references to real people are even nearly accurate) and I'm now genuinely confused as to whether you realised it was a spoof or were quoting it in good faith. (And either way, I still don't see why you were quoting it.) OK, let's come clean about this, then. I quoted it from the internet. It - in and of itself - is not actually anyone's work as such. It is not so much a spoof in its own right as just one example of a larger spoof process and yes, since you ask, I did indeed realise that it was such. I quoted it purely as a joke - nothing more, nothing less - and not a joke of which I was the originator, either, as you will see from the source which is http://www.elsewhere.org/pomoalthough I'm not certain how you'd actually access the specific piece that I quoted. What you may (or may not) be more interested in is the reference quoted in the "acknowledgement" section below the footnotes to http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/which contains rather more factual information which is not unrelated to the principle (or rather lack of it) involved here; you will also note from the same section why "increpatio" earlier referred to smelling Dada. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #137 on: 18:40:04, 20-08-2007 » |
|
I'm not certain how you'd actually access the specific piece that I quoted. That's fine, you don't have to be. But I'd have hoped the fact that I managed to spot it as a spoof immediately upon reading it might reassure you that there are other people out there who can distinguish between genuine, worthwhile Derrida/Lacan/whatever and fakery. I'm aware of Sokal's supposed 'exposé' of Baudrillard, Derrida and Lacan and I can't say I'm particularly convinced by his criticisms. If you want to have a serious conversation, on- or off-board, about 20th-century European philosophy, psychoanalysis, poststructuralism and/or critical theory then I'd be more than willing to engage in such a conversation (subject of course to unavoidable constraints on my time). But I don't particularly appreciate you dismissing a lot of serious philosophical work with apparently little or no detailed knowledge of it. You're quite entitled to think (and to say) it's not for you, of course, in the same way that on the basis of a couple of hearings of music by Sorabji I'm inclined to think his music is not for me. But while I might make the occasional sceptical comment, I don't make continual posts about it and I certainly don't go around casting doubt on your status as someone who is both interested in and knowledgeable about the subject. I'd appreciate it if you would pay me the same courtesy, and accept that if you don't want to learn more about some of the thinkers you mention, you might at least have the humility to suspend judgment on them rather than making provocative comments based on hearsay and misinformation. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 18:41:42, 20-08-2007 by time_is_now »
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #138 on: 20:33:43, 20-08-2007 » |
|
I'm not certain how you'd actually access the specific piece that I quoted. That's fine, you don't have to be. But I'd have hoped the fact that I managed to spot it as a spoof immediately upon reading it might reassure you that there are other people out there who can distinguish between genuine, worthwhile Derrida/Lacan/whatever and fakery. Of course! I knew perfectly well that what gives this and its like away for exactly what it is are the spoof bibliographical references whose very existence is surely intended to mirror the ways in which certain people feel it incumbent upon themselves to address and deal with this sort of "scholarship"; this is actually a far cry from commenting, let alone pouring scorn, upon those people whose names and work have on occasion unwittingly been found to be drawn into such expressions. In other words and for example, it is not for the exposers here, let alone me, to deride Derrida. I'm aware of Sokal's supposed 'exposé' of Baudrillard, Derrida and Lacan and I can't say I'm particularly convinced by his criticisms.
After reading it all I cannot say that I am especially impressed by Sokal's "exposé" of these writers as much as I am of his exposé of certain academic name-droppers that have sought to appropriate the work of these and other writers in order to seek and hope to prove some kind of psuedo-scholastic and arguably self-serving point. If you want to have a serious conversation, on- or off-board, about 20th-century European philosophy, psychoanalysis, poststructuralism and/or critical theory then I'd be more than willing to engage in such a conversation (subject of course to unavoidable constraints on my time). But I don't particularly appreciate you dismissing a lot of serious philosophical work with apparently little or no detailed knowledge of it.
I hope very much that, now that I have written as I have, you and anyone else that might be interested can see that I am not "dismissing" the works of those writers so much as exposing someone else's joke not against them but against certain of those sometimes ersatz scholars who habitually resort to such name-droppiong and footnote-creating (both of which are recognised academic modus operandi) in place of anything of real substance; had that kind of thing not occurred in substantial quantities, the joke would have been no joke at all and consequently nothing better than a mere irrelevance. You're quite entitled to think (and to say) it's not for you, of course, in the same way that on the basis of a couple of hearings of music by Sorabji I'm inclined to think his music is not for me.
Sure. I'm not specifically committing myself to doing that (as I hope you will now be able to appreciate from the above), just as those couple of Sorabji hearings may not necessarily blind you to his art eternally. But while I might make the occasional sceptical comment, I don't make continual posts about it and I certainly don't go around casting doubt on your status as someone who is both interested in and knowledgeable about the subject. I'd appreciate it if you would pay me the same courtesy, and accept that if you don't want to learn more about some of the thinkers you mention, you might at least have the humility to suspend judgment on them rather than making provocative comments based on hearsay and misinformation.
Unless you have revised your ideas as expressed here on the basis of what I have written, I will simply have to remain astonsihed that you still think that I am "making continual posts" about something or other (please check my overall post numbers and content) or "casting doubt" upon anyone else's knowledge of anything; I simply don't work that way and would frankly be horrified, whatever my thoughts about anything may be, to think that anyone would assume that I could be so blatantly and unthinkingly dismissive of anything - yes, I have my views, but none of those are such as to put anyone else's out to grass as you appear to imply. I mean you no discourtesy whatsoever (for heaven's sake, you came and listened to some of my work recently, which I greatly appreciated and I enjoyed meeting you, albeit very briefly) and, furthermore, I would at least hope that you can recognise that, in posting what I have done, I am not lacking in humility, have made no "judgements" on anyone and have made no "provocative comments" of my own based on "hearsay and misinformation" or anything else. A joke's a joke, for all that. For the record, I should perhaps add that the person who initially drew my attention to this thing was and is a professional musicologist. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 20:59:07, 20-08-2007 by ahinton »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #139 on: 21:37:51, 20-08-2007 » |
|
Of course! I knew perfectly well that what gives this and its like away for exactly what it is are the spoof bibliographical references whose very existence is surely intended to mirror the ways in which certain people feel it incumbent upon themselves to address and deal with this sort of "scholarship"; this is actually a far cry from commenting, let alone pouring scorn, upon those people whose names and work have on occasion unwittingly been found to be drawn into such expressions. In other words and for example, it is not for the exposers here, let alone me, to deride Derrida. Can we have some examples of that writing which you think resembles the stuff from the Pomo generator, then? After reading it all I cannot say that I am especially impressed by Sokal's "exposé" of these writers as much as I am of his exposé of certain academic name-droppers that have sought to appropriate the work of these and other writers in order to seek and hope to prove some kind of psuedo-scholastic and arguably self-serving point. Again, how about naming the name-droppers? And is academic name-dropping (which certainly exists) any different to what you find in the company of those eager to tell you how they know a particular obscure fourth-rate Latvian symphonist who no-one else has heard of (often for good reason)? I hope very much that, now that I have written as I have, you and anyone else that might be interested can see that I am not "dismissing" the works of those writers so much as exposing someone else's joke not against them but against certain of those sometimes ersatz scholars who habitually resort to such name-droppiong and footnote-creating (both of which are recognised academic modus operandi) in place of anything of real substance; had that kind of thing not occurred in substantial quantities, the joke would have been no joke at all and consequently nothing better than a mere irrelevance. OK, you seem an expert on ersatz scholarship and the like - for the third time, could you please give some specifics? I have peer-reviewed papers on Deleuze and the like - going through in intense close-focus at something that is dealing with very complex and obscure subjects, trying to see what is really penetrating and what is hiding behind jargon - it's not easy, truly. But I challenge others to rewrite the best stuff in 'plain English' without sacrificing a great deal. Having a go at a very generalised target is so so easy, and really rather cheap. I'll listen to those who have only bad things to say about any of the theorists mentioned before (or about various musicologists) as long as they have genuinely read them carefully and their criticism deals with specifics rather than just broad generalities without examples. In this thread in general we have seen rather a bit too much of the latter. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #140 on: 21:52:49, 20-08-2007 » |
|
footnote-creating (both of which are recognised academic modus operandi) in place of anything of real substance; had that kind of thing not occurred in substantial quantities, the joke would have been no joke at all and consequently nothing better than a mere irrelevance. There are a few really quite straightforward reasons for footnotes. Academics and scholars build upon and critique others' work, rather than necessarily starting from scratch every time. Historians draw upon the work of others who have been through archives in details, scientists build upon others' discoveries, and so on and so forth. If not, few of these disciplines would get much beyond the first stage - there is usually far too much for any single person to know exclusively from first principles or primary sources. The reader (or fellow scholar) has to take the secondary work upon which one's arguments depend on trust; footnotes give comprehensive bibliographic references so that if someone is in doubt, they can check the work against the sources. Some of my own work has involved doing precisely that with certain musicological work and (I would say) finding a pattern of distortion or misrepresentation. But having the footnotes gives some means of verification - especially important when one is selecting snippets from a much bigger body of work. It is especially important if one is making a more contentious or unusual argument. But I distrust most writing that does not detail its sources. Then there is the other purpose of simply suggesting where the reader might look to find more detail on certain subjects. In most things I have researched, I've started from some secondary or tertiary literature, and followed up on the references in the footnotes (and them often in the footnotes in those as well) when wanting to find more detail on various things. Of course this isn't the whole story - there are often various unpublished documents to seek out, or newspaper reviews that have not yet been surveyed, and so on - but I reckon many scholars, certainly those dealing with subjects about which there has already been a fair range of research, would recognise this mode of working. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #141 on: 22:26:05, 20-08-2007 » |
|
Can we have some examples of that writing which you think resembles the stuff from the Pomo generator, then?
Why? Can't you just take a joke by A relayed by B at the expense of no one in particular? After reading it all I cannot say that I am especially impressed by Sokal's "exposé" of these writers as much as I am of his exposé of certain academic name-droppers that have sought to appropriate the work of these and other writers in order to seek and hope to prove some kind of psuedo-scholastic and arguably self-serving point. Again, how about naming the name-droppers? See above. And is academic name-dropping (which certainly exists) any different to what you find in the company of those eager to tell you how they know a particular obscure fourth-rate Latvian symphonist who no-one else has heard of (often for good reason)?
When someone does that to me I'll remember what you said and think about that, but in the meantime I rather doubt that there is necessarily any identifiable difference in principle - it would simply have to depend upon the individual context and I'd have then to go an listen for myself to that Latvian symphonist's work before coalescing my thoughts thereon. I hope very much that, now that I have written as I have, you and anyone else that might be interested can see that I am not "dismissing" the works of those writers so much as exposing someone else's joke not against them but against certain of those sometimes ersatz scholars who habitually resort to such name-droppiong and footnote-creating (both of which are recognised academic modus operandi) in place of anything of real substance; had that kind of thing not occurred in substantial quantities, the joke would have been no joke at all and consequently nothing better than a mere irrelevance. OK, you seem an expert on ersatz scholarship and the like - for the third time, could you please give some specifics? I claim no such expertise and, again, see above. I have peer-reviewed papers on Deleuze and the like - going through in intense close-focus at something that is dealing with very complex and obscure subjects, trying to see what is really penetrating and what is hiding behind jargon - it's not easy, truly. But I challenge others to rewrite the best stuff in 'plain English' without sacrificing a great deal.
Doing that from the perspective of conscientious and often laborious research work is one thing; appropriating the work of others when one actually has little to say but has figured out a way that might hoodwink some - even certain fellow academics, as has on occasion occurred - is quite another. Having a go at a very generalised target is so so easy, and really rather cheap. I'll listen to those who have only bad things to say about any of the theorists mentioned before (or about various musicologists) as long as they have genuinely read them carefully and their criticism deals with specifics rather than just broad generalities without examples. In this thread in general we have seen rather a bit too much of the latter.
Buit do please bear in mind that, in the present instance, it is not me that is "having a go"... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #142 on: 22:30:26, 20-08-2007 » |
|
footnote-creating (both of which are recognised academic modus operandi) in place of anything of real substance; had that kind of thing not occurred in substantial quantities, the joke would have been no joke at all and consequently nothing better than a mere irrelevance. There are a few really quite straightforward reasons for footnotes. Academics and scholars build upon and critique others' work, rather than necessarily starting from scratch every time. Historians draw upon the work of others who have been through archives in details, scientists build upon others' discoveries, and so on and so forth. If not, few of these disciplines would get much beyond the first stage - there is usually far too much for any single person to know exclusively from first principles or primary sources. The reader (or fellow scholar) has to take the secondary work upon which one's arguments depend on trust; footnotes give comprehensive bibliographic references so that if someone is in doubt, they can check the work against the sources. Some of my own work has involved doing precisely that with certain musicological work and (I would say) finding a pattern of distortion or misrepresentation. But having the footnotes gives some means of verification - especially important when one is selecting snippets from a much bigger body of work. It is especially important if one is making a more contentious or unusual argument. But I distrust most writing that does not detail its sources. Of course - and I do not disagree at all in principle. Everything in its appropriate place, indeed. But why so defensive when all I've done is cracked someone else's joke?! Then there is the other purpose of simply suggesting where the reader might look to find more detail on certain subjects. In most things I have researched, I've started from some secondary or tertiary literature, and followed up on the references in the footnotes (and them often in the footnotes in those as well) when wanting to find more detail on various things. Of course this isn't the whole story - there are often various unpublished documents to seek out, or newspaper reviews that have not yet been surveyed, and so on - but I reckon many scholars, certainly those dealing with subjects about which there has already been a fair range of research, would recognise this mode of working.
Again, of course this is the case. I am reeling with astonishment that you'd even think that I can't tell the difference between genuine and conscientious research into things that matter and the kind of thing illustrated in this piece of stuff that I quoted. Some joke that's turned out to be! (not)... Ah, well... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 05:08:15, 21-08-2007 by ahinton »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #143 on: 22:36:31, 20-08-2007 » |
|
Yet more unsubstantiated generalities about academics. You might make your case much better if you showed any evidence of having read this work. Apparently it's not you 'having a go' - so why do you keep bringing this subject up, and why did you post your contribution to the thread in the first place, if not for that reason? I might suggest you actually read more of the writings on either side connected with the Sokal Affair - it did provoke some intelligent debate on the subject. (I'm going to stop quoting Eagleton after this - it's becoming somewhat manneristic - but would just recommend this article for anyone who's interested in reading more) |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 22:41:24, 20-08-2007 by Ian Pace »
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #144 on: 22:38:17, 20-08-2007 » |
|
Some joke that's turned out to be! (not)... This is not about being offended or anything, it's just finding such easy arguments tiresome and tedious. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #145 on: 05:18:05, 21-08-2007 » |
|
Yet more unsubstantiated generalities about academics. You might make your case much better if you showed any evidence of having read this work.
But whose? Again, I reproduced an item here which carries with it some supporting background evidence as to the reception of certain work, without offering up any opinion - still less any "unsubstantiated generalities" - either upon it or about anyone or any profession in particular. For the record, then, I am not necessarily seeking to "make a case" - or certainly not one of my own. Apparently it's not you 'having a go' - so why do you keep bringing this subject up,
I don't, other than to extend the courtesy of responding to the posts of others, including yourself; I posted this thing once but have indeed returned to it purely and simply to reply to comments that its appearance has generated - no more, no less. and why did you post your contribution to the thread in the first place, if not for that reason?
As I already wrote - as a joke, again, no more, no less. I might suggest you actually read more of the writings on either side connected with the Sokal Affair - it did provoke some intelligent debate on the subject.
Indeed it did - and I think that we (by which I mean you and I and other interesed parties here, as distinct from the woolly Grewesque "we") would agree that "intelligent debate" is the very least that such a situation deserves. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #146 on: 05:25:09, 21-08-2007 » |
|
Some joke that's turned out to be! (not)... This is not about being offended or anything, it's just finding such easy arguments tiresome and tedious. Well, Ian, I'm pleased about the first bit as no offence was intended and, as I have said several times now, I'm not actuallty offering an argument of my own here, so I guess that's just fine. Time is now to drop this one, methinks; it was never intended (by me, that is) to generate this amount of froth in the first place. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #147 on: 10:59:51, 21-08-2007 » |
|
Postmodernist culture has produced a rich, bold, exhilarating body of work across the whole span of the arts, and has generated more than its fair share of execrable kitsch. It has pulled the rug out from beneath a number of complacent certainties, prised open some paranoid totalities, tainted some jealously guarded purities, bent some oppressive norms, and shaken some rather solid-looking foundations. It has also tended to surrender to a politically paralyzing skepticism, a flashy populism, a full-blooded moral relativism, and a brand of sophism for which, since all conventions are arbitrary anyway, might as well conform to those of the Free World. In pulling the rug out from under the certainties of its political opponents, this postmodern culture has often enough pulled it out from under itself too, leaving itself with no more reason why we should resist fascism than the feebly pragmatic plea that fascism is not the way we do things in Sussex or Sacramento. It has brought low the intimidating austerity of high culture with its playful, parodic spirit, and in thus imitating the commodity form has succeeded in reinforcing the crippling austerities of the marketplace. It has released the power of the local, the vernacular, the regional, at the same time as it has contributed to making the globe a more drearily uniform place. Its nervousness in the face of concepts like truth has alarmed the bishops and charmed the business executives. It consistently denies the possibility of describing how the world is, and just as consistently finds itself doing so. It is full of universal moral prescriptions - plurality is preferable to singularity, difference to identity, otherness to sameness - and denounces all such universalism as oppressive. It dreams of a human being set free from law and constraint, gliding ambiguously from one "subject-position" to another, and sees the human subject as no more than the determined effect of cultural forces. Bit heavy on the generalisations there, aren't we? A few footnotes might help.  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 11:02:13, 21-08-2007 by time_is_now »
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #148 on: 11:07:03, 21-08-2007 » |
|
gliding ambiguously from one "subject-position" to another Sounds almost like the off-topic thread. Oh, sorry, I did imply that I'd desist from feeble jokes and now I've gone and made another one. Slapped wrist, methinks... Bit heavy on the generalisations there, aren't we?
It's that "we" again!... A few footnotes might help. Not untrue! Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #149 on: 16:37:14, 21-08-2007 » |
|
I was going to sceram off topic again, but given that the sokal affair is indeed about periodals, it isn't entirely so. About the referencing thing. While I, as much as anyone, value immensely good referencing (and that's something I really *don't* like about modern journalism), it is accepted in several academic communities that citing (this (generally rather depressing) paper mentions it in the field of economics for one instance: http://www.chichilnisky.com/pir/pdfs/papers/187.pdf, though it seems that *not* citing important sources seems in general to be the bigger problem generally(endemic, though not overwhelmingly so)). As for my opinion on the Sokal affair; it seems simply like they had a bad editorial policy, and should have submitted the scientific aspects of the paper to be reviewed by scientists; that the editors response to his article in Lingua Franca spoke of their worry that in future "Less well-known authors who submit unsolicited articles to journals like ours may now come under needless suspicion" seems indicative of bad academic practice to me; all articles submitted should undergo the appropriate form of scrutiny (depending on whether it be a diary or a fiction or a academic treatise, or whatever) so long as it wishes to regard itself as an academic journal, neh? In mathematics at the moment there is a *very* strong move away from professionally published journals, with several editorial boards having resigned recently (The editors of the journals Topology and K-Theory come to mind at the moment) in favour of university, or internet-published periodicals. The issues being that the journal companies might be involved in dodgy nonacademic practices (Elsevier invoved in arms fairs, for instance, though they have stopped that now), ridiculously high prices (Elsevier also bieng a big offender here, but many medical journals also), having inflexible bulk subscription options, or of enforcing their copyright on the articles they publish (given that many mathematicians like to publish their papers on their websites anyway). Given that academics now type-set their own work, and referees reference (and, where necessary, proof read) for free, and that on-line access is *entirely* sufficient for many, it seems that the role of the academic journal publisher should be quite a small one, and that they certainly have no place in charging 40 dollars or more for a single article! However, there also seems to be a noticable (but small and, I believe they will not get anywhere) current in the mathematics community calling for the abandonment of the peer-reviewed journal entirely. That would, of course, be a great calamity (unless there was something analagous establish in its stead). I have not read through all of the responses included on Sokal's website. I am, for one point, not decided whether it was an entirely ethical act on Sokal's part or not (Fair game by any standards I would say). I will speak of the Eagleton article on a different thread. Oh wait. There doesn't seem to be an appropriate one about. Hmmm. What's to be done? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
