Well, I disagree with Randolph Fritz. But, I am not sure that I have the
energy for the argument, this morning.
Certainly Bohr's inseperablie experiment, in which the observer and the
observed, the experiment and the instrument, are so tightly bound to
easch other that they cannot be seperated, is a profound argument for
relativism. This extreme relativism tore down many of the canons of physics.
Simel// Simalarly, Goedel's eveidence of the limits of logic. That is,
that logic itself, could not be proven to be valid. Sets the stage for
a new level of mathematics. Seems to me that these instances in other
more formal domains are just as deep and brosd challenges as deconstruction.
Yet, they were not seen as personal assaults. Why does this happen
with deconstruction?
Finally, read Derricda, not Foucault. There is a big difference.
- Ray
energy for the argument, this morning.
Certainly Bohr's inseperablie experiment, in which the observer and the
observed, the experiment and the instrument, are so tightly bound to
easch other that they cannot be seperated, is a profound argument for
relativism. This extreme relativism tore down many of the canons of physics.
Simel// Simalarly, Goedel's eveidence of the limits of logic. That is,
that logic itself, could not be proven to be valid. Sets the stage for
a new level of mathematics. Seems to me that these instances in other
more formal domains are just as deep and brosd challenges as deconstruction.
Yet, they were not seen as personal assaults. Why does this happen
with deconstruction?
Finally, read Derricda, not Foucault. There is a big difference.
- Ray