On Mon, 13 Feb 1995, Randolph Fritz wrote:
> [David Sucher on the accessibility of theories of deconstruction.]
> >sp/n: i suppose you would like particle physics to made accessible as well?
>
> In fact, particle physics has been made accessible. There are many
> excellent popularizations. I think there's a role for non-technical
> summaries as well as abstract theoretical work; not everyone is a
> philosopher, after all, and if the theories are going to be made useful to
> the educated public, they are going to have to be communicated in language
> the educated public understands.
Randolph, I hesitate to pursue this with you because after our foray into
the limitations of screen tolerance of others on this list i really do
want to limit the nonsense and get down to the business of thinking about
our profession. While the pyrotechnics of occasional flaming seems
necessary, i am tiring from the lack of content. There was recently a
proposal to discuss design issues and sometimes we just go too far
afield. So i don't want to avoid your concerns, but respect the
legitimate concerns of others. I want to learn from being here, i have
and know i have to work harder to continue to learn. But before doing so,
let me indulge in responding to some of your misguided remarks:
Randolph:
> I also have the strong sense that in pomo philosophy, as in formalist
> mathematics, elegant formulations are more important than accessible ones.
> While that's sometimes fun (I have a math degree, did you know?) it's hell
> for students who aren't themselves planning on being philosophers. As a
> technical writer, I know that many post-modern basics can be put in much
> simpler, if less elegant, language.
>
sp(i)n: i don't recall making any strong analogy between science and
philosophy. The philosophy that i might refer to, that has even been
called "weak" philosophy is in no way interested in dealing with the kind
of content one finds in deep science. And to be sure, it is suspicious of
the degree to which TechnoScience is an instrumental tool for reason with
which to transform resources (including humans) into items for consumption.
So your analogy below that renders Foucault as undergoing some kind of
petty existential crisis is so bankrupt as to be laughable. You aren't
even close to dealing with issues Foucault was really struggling to do. I am
so tired of these superfical readings of thinkers who do have scores of
secondary texts available as to assure at least some sense for their
projects.
> Consider the style Foucault adopted near the end of his career. Much
> clearer and more direct than his earlier work (and generally less popular
> with fans of his earlier works.) Now--I don't know this, that'll be for
> his biographers to sort out--however, I think part of what went into the
> change was that he knew his time was limited and--showy obscurity became
> less important to him, and communicating more so. Perhaps we had best
> consider his example and reasons.
>
> R.
>
>
>
//////////////////////////////////////////////Stephen Perrella, Architect//
//////........./////////////////////////////////////////sp43@xxxxxxxxxxxx////
/////....... *//////////////////////////////////////////////403 Avery Hall//
////... >///////////////////////////////Columbia Univ.New York 10027//
///... =" Language is the house of Being/Televisual"///////////////////
////// //////////studio AEM/NYC/architecture at the end of metaphysics///
////////////////// ofc: 212-854-5885 //////// fax: 212-864-0410 ///////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> [David Sucher on the accessibility of theories of deconstruction.]
> >sp/n: i suppose you would like particle physics to made accessible as well?
>
> In fact, particle physics has been made accessible. There are many
> excellent popularizations. I think there's a role for non-technical
> summaries as well as abstract theoretical work; not everyone is a
> philosopher, after all, and if the theories are going to be made useful to
> the educated public, they are going to have to be communicated in language
> the educated public understands.
Randolph, I hesitate to pursue this with you because after our foray into
the limitations of screen tolerance of others on this list i really do
want to limit the nonsense and get down to the business of thinking about
our profession. While the pyrotechnics of occasional flaming seems
necessary, i am tiring from the lack of content. There was recently a
proposal to discuss design issues and sometimes we just go too far
afield. So i don't want to avoid your concerns, but respect the
legitimate concerns of others. I want to learn from being here, i have
and know i have to work harder to continue to learn. But before doing so,
let me indulge in responding to some of your misguided remarks:
Randolph:
> I also have the strong sense that in pomo philosophy, as in formalist
> mathematics, elegant formulations are more important than accessible ones.
> While that's sometimes fun (I have a math degree, did you know?) it's hell
> for students who aren't themselves planning on being philosophers. As a
> technical writer, I know that many post-modern basics can be put in much
> simpler, if less elegant, language.
>
sp(i)n: i don't recall making any strong analogy between science and
philosophy. The philosophy that i might refer to, that has even been
called "weak" philosophy is in no way interested in dealing with the kind
of content one finds in deep science. And to be sure, it is suspicious of
the degree to which TechnoScience is an instrumental tool for reason with
which to transform resources (including humans) into items for consumption.
So your analogy below that renders Foucault as undergoing some kind of
petty existential crisis is so bankrupt as to be laughable. You aren't
even close to dealing with issues Foucault was really struggling to do. I am
so tired of these superfical readings of thinkers who do have scores of
secondary texts available as to assure at least some sense for their
projects.
> Consider the style Foucault adopted near the end of his career. Much
> clearer and more direct than his earlier work (and generally less popular
> with fans of his earlier works.) Now--I don't know this, that'll be for
> his biographers to sort out--however, I think part of what went into the
> change was that he knew his time was limited and--showy obscurity became
> less important to him, and communicating more so. Perhaps we had best
> consider his example and reasons.
>
> R.
>
>
>
//////////////////////////////////////////////Stephen Perrella, Architect//
//////........./////////////////////////////////////////sp43@xxxxxxxxxxxx////
/////....... *//////////////////////////////////////////////403 Avery Hall//
////... >///////////////////////////////Columbia Univ.New York 10027//
///... =" Language is the house of Being/Televisual"///////////////////
////// //////////studio AEM/NYC/architecture at the end of metaphysics///
////////////////// ofc: 212-854-5885 //////// fax: 212-864-0410 ///////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////