Widder,NE wrote:
>
> Maybe there has been so much focus on vocabulary that people have come to
> think that "correct use of words" or "clarity" is the main concern here. I
> don't really think that's what Michael had in mind in any event, though he
> can speak for himself here. It's ok to be hard or challenging to read, and
> it's ok to be "dense" in some sense -- i.e., Nietzsche's claim that he
> always sought to say in one sentence what it took others 10 sentences to
> say.
but if a statement doesn't meet this definition it's "not okay"?
> The point Michael made -- quite effectively, even if the apparent hostility
> was a put off to some -- was that underneath Unleash's purportedly artistic
> language was a simple claim that we should discard repressive psychological
> categories, which didn't even answer the question put to him. This is
> precisely why it shouldn't be excused as art or poetry or experimentation.
excused?
> If modern/postmodern/whatever art is supposed to have an effect that breaks
> with representation,
if art only meets a pre-defined objective/idea of art, then what is
it's "art"?
then surely -- like Michael said about philosophy -- it
> should be playing for "higher"stakes than this too.
>
> Given what this "poetry" ended up saying, it's not very unreasonable,
do we have to be reasonable?
even
> if a bit mean, to say that it makes a useless point. Who the hell would
> want to keep repressive categories (assuming they saw them as repressive)?
> This is not entirely unlike a politician who runs around saying he wants a
> strong economy and a healthy environment. Well, who doesn't want these
> things???
of course, "we all want that".
> What's unfortunately ended up happening is that saying that "in fact" or "in
> truth" this is not much of a point has been taken as policing.
in what way is it not policing/ an attempt to police?
It's ironic
> that this claim has occured on this list, where presumably enough people
> have read Foucault (or Deleuze's book on Foucault) to know that such
> policing can't really occur in the real world, yet alone the virtual one.
but 1. attempts at policing can and do exist, and 2. what exactly is the
basis for your distinction here between real and virtual? how is this
list not co-extensive with and occupying a flat dimension with anything
else?
> This doesn't mean that people can't be harassed; it means, as Foucault
> pointed out, that the real effect of such discipline is not a reduction and
> normalization of society but rather a multiplication of "deviations" to this
> constructed norm -- hence power presupposes and indeed produces its own
> resistence.
but resistance of this kind is in danger of being purely oppositional
and therefore futile because it's "transgression" has nowhere to go,
it's folded back onto itself. it is a negative action, reactive.
------
to ask a naive philosophical question: why do you(seem to) empahsise
reasonableness, clearness, the conformity of acts/words to pre-defined
categories, the idea that language exists for clear communication??
i've been amazed in this thread that no one has yet mentioned the
postulates of linguistics plateau - (although, come to think of it, i've
never read anything about this plateau on this list) the attack on the
idea of language as informational and communciational, don't you think,
undermines the whole idea of clarity or clear speech as somehow neutral
or given? it's ideas about "competency" and attacks on chomsky are
totally relevant to this thread... what is the importance of
communicating an idea clearly? why is that a valued thing? what are the
(micro)politics of this requirement to "speak clearly"?? to be
"understood??
i'm not saying that we can't understand one another, nor that we should
all try no to be understood or to understand. I'm just wondering what
are the investments, what are the machines? to me there is a key issue
here to do with too often looking/thinking at things from the
perspective of the majority, the social group, the crowd...the state...
what is being invested? the coherence of the group, the premises and
foundations of the group ... the existing structures of power, the
existing segmentarity, the existing codes and territories.... language
needs to make sense, to be clear, because it maps power, and
(state)power needs to be clear about somethings to operate - the group
need to know boundaries, limits etc, to know what is unnacceptable. in
this sense, M's criticism of Unleash is symptomatic of the unclear
boundaries of power, it is a power struggle - and very interesting for
that reason.
this all this bickering is obscuring these (i think) interesting
issues... any thoughts, anyone??do we need to speak clearly?
dan h.
--
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/chupacabras/48/
http://www.tw2.com/staff/daniel/
Ware ware Karate-do o shugyo surumonowa,
Tsuneni bushido seishin o wasurezu,
Wa to nin o motte nashi,
Soshite tsutomereba kanarazu tasu.
We who study Karate-do,
Should never forget the spirit of the samurai,
With peace, perseverance and hard work,
We will reach our goal without failure.
>
> Maybe there has been so much focus on vocabulary that people have come to
> think that "correct use of words" or "clarity" is the main concern here. I
> don't really think that's what Michael had in mind in any event, though he
> can speak for himself here. It's ok to be hard or challenging to read, and
> it's ok to be "dense" in some sense -- i.e., Nietzsche's claim that he
> always sought to say in one sentence what it took others 10 sentences to
> say.
but if a statement doesn't meet this definition it's "not okay"?
> The point Michael made -- quite effectively, even if the apparent hostility
> was a put off to some -- was that underneath Unleash's purportedly artistic
> language was a simple claim that we should discard repressive psychological
> categories, which didn't even answer the question put to him. This is
> precisely why it shouldn't be excused as art or poetry or experimentation.
excused?
> If modern/postmodern/whatever art is supposed to have an effect that breaks
> with representation,
if art only meets a pre-defined objective/idea of art, then what is
it's "art"?
then surely -- like Michael said about philosophy -- it
> should be playing for "higher"stakes than this too.
>
> Given what this "poetry" ended up saying, it's not very unreasonable,
do we have to be reasonable?
even
> if a bit mean, to say that it makes a useless point. Who the hell would
> want to keep repressive categories (assuming they saw them as repressive)?
> This is not entirely unlike a politician who runs around saying he wants a
> strong economy and a healthy environment. Well, who doesn't want these
> things???
of course, "we all want that".
> What's unfortunately ended up happening is that saying that "in fact" or "in
> truth" this is not much of a point has been taken as policing.
in what way is it not policing/ an attempt to police?
It's ironic
> that this claim has occured on this list, where presumably enough people
> have read Foucault (or Deleuze's book on Foucault) to know that such
> policing can't really occur in the real world, yet alone the virtual one.
but 1. attempts at policing can and do exist, and 2. what exactly is the
basis for your distinction here between real and virtual? how is this
list not co-extensive with and occupying a flat dimension with anything
else?
> This doesn't mean that people can't be harassed; it means, as Foucault
> pointed out, that the real effect of such discipline is not a reduction and
> normalization of society but rather a multiplication of "deviations" to this
> constructed norm -- hence power presupposes and indeed produces its own
> resistence.
but resistance of this kind is in danger of being purely oppositional
and therefore futile because it's "transgression" has nowhere to go,
it's folded back onto itself. it is a negative action, reactive.
------
to ask a naive philosophical question: why do you(seem to) empahsise
reasonableness, clearness, the conformity of acts/words to pre-defined
categories, the idea that language exists for clear communication??
i've been amazed in this thread that no one has yet mentioned the
postulates of linguistics plateau - (although, come to think of it, i've
never read anything about this plateau on this list) the attack on the
idea of language as informational and communciational, don't you think,
undermines the whole idea of clarity or clear speech as somehow neutral
or given? it's ideas about "competency" and attacks on chomsky are
totally relevant to this thread... what is the importance of
communicating an idea clearly? why is that a valued thing? what are the
(micro)politics of this requirement to "speak clearly"?? to be
"understood??
i'm not saying that we can't understand one another, nor that we should
all try no to be understood or to understand. I'm just wondering what
are the investments, what are the machines? to me there is a key issue
here to do with too often looking/thinking at things from the
perspective of the majority, the social group, the crowd...the state...
what is being invested? the coherence of the group, the premises and
foundations of the group ... the existing structures of power, the
existing segmentarity, the existing codes and territories.... language
needs to make sense, to be clear, because it maps power, and
(state)power needs to be clear about somethings to operate - the group
need to know boundaries, limits etc, to know what is unnacceptable. in
this sense, M's criticism of Unleash is symptomatic of the unclear
boundaries of power, it is a power struggle - and very interesting for
that reason.
this all this bickering is obscuring these (i think) interesting
issues... any thoughts, anyone??do we need to speak clearly?
dan h.
--
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/chupacabras/48/
http://www.tw2.com/staff/daniel/
Ware ware Karate-do o shugyo surumonowa,
Tsuneni bushido seishin o wasurezu,
Wa to nin o motte nashi,
Soshite tsutomereba kanarazu tasu.
We who study Karate-do,
Should never forget the spirit of the samurai,
With peace, perseverance and hard work,
We will reach our goal without failure.