Newsgroup sci.physics 207359

Directory

In article <55p21b$dgu@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy) writes:
>Walker on Earth  wrote:
>
>|> > ...  Btw, could you explain why an increasing function has at
>|> > most a finite number of discontinuities?  Simple calculus, with
>|> > a small 'c' :-)
>
>Actually, this elementary result is generally considered
>pre-calculus (i.e., continuity).
>
>Russell Turpin:
>
>|> If Fitch has difficulty explaining this, I will be happy to
>|> provide a counterexample, obviating his need.
It's already been pointed out to my extreme embarrassment that monotonic
increasing functions have at most a countable - not finite - number
of discontinuities.  I picked this elementary theorem precisely because
it precedes calculus, which Mr. Fitch claims to have studied.
I find it a curious and unique claim he makes, that his understanding
of Newtonian mechanics preceded his acquisition of the necessary
tools, and that, having acquired them his grasp of the subject was in
no way ennobled.
Hence, I think it reasonable for him to a) demonstrate that he had a
precalculus grasp of the subject, and b) attempt to be at least mildly
convincing that he knows the rudiments of calculus.  As I have already
pointed out, if he never understood the mathematical material, it is
entirely probable that his comprehension was in no way made more fine,
and in fact (since, imho, having an 'intuitive feel' for the concepts
is much harder than learning the math) the confidence in which he
holds his intuition is more than a little suspect as well.
Not that I am outright calling his claims patently absurd, just extremely
unusual, and if, in fact, he does demonstrate to my satisfaction the
veracity of his statements I for one will be extremely envious.  My
own intuitive powers find little challenge explaining the lack of a
net gravitational force at the exact center of a spherical shell, for
example, but they could in no way ferret out the supposition that the
net force is also zero anywhere else inside as well :-(

Derrida:
>>"I believe, however, that I was quite explcit about the fact that
>>nothing of what I said had a destructive meaning. Here or there 
>>I have used to word _de'construction_, which has nothing to do 
>>with destruction.  THat is to say, it is simply a question of 
>>(and this is a necessity of criticism in the classical sense of
>>the word) being alert to the impliations, to the historical 
>>sedimentation of the language which we use-- and that is not 
>>destruction. I believe in the necessity of scientific work in the 
>>classical sense, I believe in the necessity of everything which 
>>is being done and even of what you are doing, but I don't see why
>>I should renounce or why anyone should renounce the radicality of
>>critical work under the pretext that it risks the sterilization 
>>of science, humanity, progress, the origin of meaning, etc. I 
>>believe that the risk of sterility and of sterilization has 
>>always been the price of lucidity."
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Derrida is lying.  Since his term `déconstruction' is derived 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>from Heidegger's term `destruktion', the destructive implications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>are there, brought out by the argument from etymology, favored by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the Nazi and the Nazi apologist alike.
Silke:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Zeleny is lying, but he can't help it.
Zeleny:
>>>>>>>>>>>>You are out of it.  See Rodolphe Gasché, _The Tain of the Mirror:
>>>>>>>>>>>>Derrida and the Philosophy of Reflection_, Chapter 7, pp 109-121.
moggin@nando.net (moggin):
>>>>>>>>>>>     I don't have the book handy, but the last time I heard Gasche, 
>>>>>>>>>>>he was arguing that the implications of Heidegger's _Destruktion_ 
>>>>>>>>>>>differ significantly from the English "destruction."   David Farrell
>>>>>>>>>>>Krell takes the same tack, noting that _Zerstorung_ would have been
>>>>>>>>>>>closer.
zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny):
>>>>>>>>>>Arguing about implications is scarcely a Heideggerian move.
moggin:
>>>>>>>>>     Neither do I dance like an Egyptian.
moggin:
>>>>>>>     Correction -- that should, of course, have been "walk."
Zeleny:
>>>>>>>>Your personal habits are quite beside the point here.
moggin:
>>>>>>>     Then you shouldn't have brought them up.
Zeleny:
>>>>>>I did no such thing.
moggin:
>>>>>     "Arguing about implications is scarcely a Heideggerian move."
Zeleny:
>>>>So where is the reference to your personal habits?
moggin:
>>>     Where I pointed to it.  If you meant something different, 
>>>feel free to explain yourself.  
Zeleny:
>>There is no reference to your personal habits in the quotation to
>>which you have pointed.  In fact, you may safely assume that there is
>>no such reference in anything I have written to date, or am likely to
>>write in the foreseeable future.
moggin:
>     Great.  Now, if you want to explain what you _did_ mean, I won't
>stand in your way.
I meant that "historical sedimentation" is either transparently there or 
not at all.  Matters of brute fact do not require elaborate corroboration.
Zeleny:
>>>>>>>>>Check his Greek etymologies against Liddell & Scott -- always 
>>>>>>>>>good for a giggle.
moggin:
>>>>>>>>     I thought we were discussing the relation of _destruktion_ and
>>>>>>>>deconstruction: you claimed Derrida is lying when he distinguishes
>>>>>>>>them, and stated that "deconstruction" possesses the "destructive 
>>>>>>>>implications" of Heidegger's "_destruktion_."  
Zeleny:
>>>>>>>As I said, implications are beside the point. 
moggin:
>>>>>>     Then you shouldn't have brought them up.
Zeleny:
>>>>>I brought up history, not logic.  Refer to Derrida's apposition of
>>>>>"the historical sedimentation of the language which we use" for HIS
>>>>>sense of `implications', which involves him in Heidegger's crypto-Nazi
>>>>>rhetoric by HIS own lights.
moggin:
>>>>     Call it what you like, you brought up "destructive implications."
>>>>But you haven't said anything that would support your claim, namely
>>>>that "Since [D.'s] term `déconstruction' is derived from Heidegger's
>>>>term `destruktion', the destructive implications are there...."  (And
>>>>>needless to say, you haven't shown that Heidegger is using "crypto-
>>>>Nazi rhetoric" -- that's mere demagoguery.)
Zeleny:
>>>>Derrida:
>>>>"The word _déconstruction_ ... has nothing to do with destruction."
>>>>
>>>>Derrida:
>>>>"Deconstruction ... it is simply a question of ... being alert to the
>>>>implications, to the historical sedimentation of the language which we
>>>>use."
>>>>
>>>>Gasché: 
>>>>"The main concepts to which deconstruction can and must be retraced
>>>>are those of _Abbau_ (dismantling) in the later work of Husserl and
>>>>_Destruktion_ (destruction) in the early philosophy of Heidegger."
>>>>
>>>>Deconstructively speaking, we have a contradiction.  Hence Derrida is
>>>>lying, cqfd.
moggin:
>>>     First, let's note that you brought up "destructive implications,"
>>>denied it, and then dropped the subject when I pointed it out -- so if
>>>anyone here is lying, it's you.
>Zeleny:
>>I apologize for assuming that you were capable of distinguishing
>>between two clearly identified senses of a single word.
moggin:
>     Toss in a bridge, maybe I'll consider it.  
You expect me to care what you would or wouldn't consider?
moggin:
>>>     Now to business.  Derrida isn't contradicting himself.  I take
>>>it you see a contradiction between his statements and Gasche's.  That
>>>wouldn't make Derrida a liar.  Gasche is entitled to give any reading
>>>he wishes, whether or not it agrees with Derrida's interpretation of
>>>his own work.  Even if Gasche _did_ disagree with Derrida here, that
>>>would simply indicate a difference of opinion.
Zeleny:
>>As I said before, I am not in the least interested in Gasché's 
>>READINGS.  His text is of value to my argument only in so far as it
>>corroborates a well-known etymological FACT.  [...]
moggin:
>     Then you could've saved yourself the trouble -- I never disputed
>the proposition that "deconstruction" derives in part from Heidegger's
>"_destruktion_."  But you claim that the former contains "destructive
>implications" it takes from the latter, and _that's_ what you haven't
>been able to show.
Once again, the historical derivation is all the implication I need.
Politician: "Vote for the Freedom Movement!  Our benign goal is being alert 
to the national culture and historical genealogy of our fellow countrymen."
Historian: "The main concepts to which the Freedom Movement can and must be 
retraced are those of National Socialism."
Politician: "The Freedom Movement has nothing to do with National Socialism."
Citizen: "He is lying."
moggin:
>>>     But as it happens, Gasche and Derrida aren't contradicting each
>>>other.  Derrida says that deconstruction doesn't have "a destructive
>>>meaning."  Gasche observes that it stands in relation to Heidegger's
>>>concept of _Destruktion_.  You assume that _destruktion_ contains the
>>>"destructive implications" which you mentioned earlier -- but both
>>>Heidegger and Gasche say otherwise.  As I already observed, Heidegger
>>>says clearly that _destruktion_ does not have "the _negative_ sense
>>>of shaking off the ontological tradition."  (His emphasis.)  He goes
>>>on, "We must, on the contrary, stake out the positive possibilities
>>>of that tradition..."  So Derrida's assertion that deconstruction is
>>>not basically destructive is entirely compatible with Gasche's point
>>>that the concept derives, in part, from Heidegger's _Destruktion_.
Zeleny:
>>Your valiant efforts to stake a claim of plausible deniability are
>>duly noted.  Alas, nothing you say has the effect of dislodging the
>>"historical sedimentation" of Derrida's term.  I said it before, and
>>I will say it again -- Derrida deserves to be judged by the lights of
>>his own theory.  If you are uncomfortable about my judgment, blame
>>the man or his views.
moggin:
>     The question isn't whether your judgement makes me comfortable
>(do you mean it to serve as a couch?),  but whether it's valid.  You
>haven't offered any reason to think so, while the evidence against
>it is substantial.
So you say.
Zeleny:
>>>>>>>                                           My etymological
>>>>>>>argument satisfies Heidegger's (and a fortiori, Derrida's)
>>>>>>>demonstrative criteria with room to spare.
moggin:
>>>>>>     You've offered only an argument-from-authority.  (The one that
>>>>>>we're presently discussing.)
Zeleny:
>>>>>What else is new?  Arguments about history ARE arguments from authority.  
moggin:
>>>>     Your claim concerns the implications contained in certain terms.
>>>>But you haven't offered any support for it, except to mention Gasche,
>>>>who appears to disagree with you, in any case.
Zeleny:
>>>Looks like you are lying, too. 
moggin:
>>>     Nope.
Zeleny:
>>Looks like you are persevering in your lies.
moggin:
>     False premise.
Not so -- true conclusion.
moggin:
>>>>>>>>All this on authority
>>>>>>>>of Gasche, in a passage you didn't quote; but as I said, I've heard
>>>>>>>>Gasche contend that "_destruktion_" doesn't imply "destruction" (an 
>>>>>>>>argument also forwarded by Krell, on the basis I mentioned).
Zeleny:
>>>>>>>How phallogocentric of you to judge a text on the basis of an oral
>>>>>>>presentation! 
moggin:
>>>>>>     ??  Where have I judged a text?  You based your case on Gasche's
>>>>>>_The Tain of the Mirror_, but didn't bother to quote whatever you were
>>>>>>thinking of.  I replied that while I didn't have the book handy, I'd 
>>>>>>heard Gasche argue very differently in the past.
Zeleny:
>>>>>And?  Am I responsible for his allegedly arguing in the past?
moggin:
>>>>     In this case, yes, since you're relying on his authority.
Zeleny:
>>>Not at all.  I am relying on the authority of his TEXT, with which you
>>>are admittedly unfamiliar.
moggin:
>>>     Until you quoted the text, you were relying entirely on his name.
>>>Now that you _have_ quoted it, we can see that it doesn't support your
>>>argument.  (As an aside, you don't seem to remember what I said about
>>>the book.)
Zeleny:
>>Gasché': "This unavoidable loosening up of a hardened tradition, and
>>the dissolution of the concealment it has brought about, are not, as
>>Heidegger often insists, violent acts.  Nonetheless, it is interesting
>>to note that in the context of the public debate between Cassirer and
>>Heidegger in April 1929 at Davos, Switzerland, Heidegger employed the
>>much more forceful German word _Zerstoerung_, as opposed to its
>>Latinization in _Being and Time_, to designate the radical dismantling
>>of the foundations of Occidental metaphysics (the Spirit, Logos,
>>Reason)." (p 113)
moggin:
>    That repeats Krell's point, which I mentioned at the beginning,
>i.e., that if Heidegger had intended to say "destruction," he would
>have been more likely to use _Zerstorung_ than _Destruktion_.  Yet
>_Destruktion_ is the term that "deconstruction" derives from (as
>you've been at pains to argue).
More reading disability.  Like Gasché says, `Zerstoerung' is a dysphemism 
for `Destruktion', which Heidegger was wont to use in its stead.  Thus any 
negative connotation of the latter a fortiori applies to the former.
Zeleny:
>>To put this disingenuous doubletalk in perspective,
>>we are discussing the philosopher who publicly asseverated "the inner
>>truth and greatness" of National Socialism as late as 1967; who defined
>>in correspondence with Jaspers a moral equivalence between the German
>>operation of the gas chambers and the postwar displacement of ethnic
>>Germans from East Prissia by the Allies; who extolled his students not
>>to make principles and "ideas" into the rules of their existence; and
>>who never renounced his 1933 declaration that "the Fuehrer himself and
>>himself alone is the German reality of today, of the future, and of its
>>laws." (See Farias' biography for more gems of this kind.)
moggin:
>     Non sequitur.
Are you trying to demonstrate your ignorance in yet another language?
The point is that Heidegger's insistence on the benign nature of his
procedure has as much credibility as your learned disquisitions on
Einstein's "revisions" of Newton.
moggin:
>                    But out of curiosity, were you the one who was
>quoting Lacoue-Labarthe out-of-context on the topic of Farias' book? 
>I can't remember who it was, but I'm reminded of your technique.
No.
Zeleny:
>>>>>>>>            "We understand this task as one in which by taking _the
>>>>>>>>question of Being as our clue_, we are to _destroy_ [_Destruktion_]
>>>>>>>>the traditional content of ancient ontology ..." (Heidegger cited by
>>>>>>>>Gasché on p 112).  Read the book, or I will sic Silke on you.
moggin:
>>>>>>>     "...until we arrive at those primordial experiences in which we
>>>>>>>achieved our first ways of determining the nature of Being -- ways
>>>>>>>which have guided us ever since."  Yep, that's Heidegger, alright --
>>>>>>>and so?  You haven't established anything about Gasche's reading of
>>>>>>>"_destruktion_."  But two sentences later, Heidegger says explicitly
>>>>>>>that _destruktion_ does not have "the _negative_ sense of shaking
>>>>>>>off the ontological tradition."  (His emphasis.)  Which is just what 
>>>>>>>Gasche emphasized, as I recall.
Zeleny:
>>>>>>Why should I give a flying fuck about HIS reading or HIS emphasis?
moggin:
>>>>>     Because you cited him on your behalf.
Zeleny:
>>>>I cited him out of context, as per Derridean interpretive technique.
>>>>His quaint reading and arbitrary emphasis went down the drain.  If you
>>>>want to make an issue out of it, address all complaints to the old Boa
>>>>Deconstructor himself.
moggin:
>>>     That's your technique, not Derrida's, so my complaints will have 
>>>your address, if I need to make them.  Incidentally, it was Heidegger
>>>you took out of context.
Zeleny:
>>Your complaints would be more effective if you were to address them to
>>the Gestapo, as Heidegger did with his racially impure and politically
>>incorrect colleagues at Freiburg.
moggin.
>     Non sequitur.  
This is not a conclusion, momo.
Zeleny:
>>>>>Turnaround is fair play.  In deconstructing a deconstructor I am
>>>>>entitled to take his words out of context, imputing "historical
>>>>>>sedimentation" as I please.  Deal with it.
moggin:
>>>>>     You're not "deconstructing" shit.
Zeleny:
>>>>I have that on your unimpeachable intellectual authority?
moggin:
>>>     As well as with my observations below.
Zeleny:
>>Lucky for me that your observation rest on naught but your credibility.
moggin:
>     On the contrary, they're verified by the text of this discussion.
What I said.
moggin:
>>>>>                                        You claimed that Derrida is
>>>>>a liar, but you didn't show it.  You also claimed Gasche supports
>>>>>your position -- but ditto.  
Zeleny:
>>>>I have no interest in showing anything to the wilfully obtuse.
moggin:
>>>     Just as I have no interest in what interests you -- the point
>>>remains that you didn't demonstrate either of the above to anyone.
Zeleny:
>>How nice of you to speak on behalf of "anyone".
moggin:
>     Simple:  you didn't demonstrate either of the above; therefore
>you didn't demonstrate them to anyone.
What I said and what I said before that.
moggin:
>>>>>                            You haven't even bothered to quote him. 
>>>>>(The words you took out of context were Heidegger's, although that
>>>>>seems to have slipped by you.)
Zeleny:
>>>>So are you functionally illiterate or just a pathological liar?
Zeleny:
>>The question remains unanswered.
moggin:
>     Need I point out your difficulty in making accurate quotations?
Looks like you are lying again.
Zeleny:
>>>>>>>>>>What better way to judge a writer than by applying his master's lofty
>>>>>>>>>>intellectual standards?
moggin:
>>>>>>>>>     I can't see Heidegger as Derrida's "master" -- but more to the
>>>>>>>>>point, Heidegger doesn't rely on Gasche to authorize his etymologies.
Zeleny:
>>>>>>>>Tell your problems to an optician.  All I want from Gasché is his
>>>>>>>>corroboration of the historical link between Derrida's term and its
>>>>>>>>Heideggerian ancestor, which is well-known anyway.  
moggin:
>>>>>>>     Well, no -- you invoked Gasche to support your your assertion
>>>>>>>that "deconstruction" contains "destructive implications" which it
>>>>>>>supposedly derives from "_destruktion_."  (You also accused Derrida
>>>>>>>of lying for saying differently.)  That leaves you with an argument
>>>>>>>from authority which your chosen authority doesn't seem to support.
Zeleny:
>>>>>>I cited Gasché as an authority on etymology.  You seem to suggest
>>>>>>that I should care about his interpretation, or your reading thereof.
>>>>>>What a droll notion.
moggin:
>>>>>     I don't give a damn what you care about.  (Where do you get these
>>>>>ideas?)  Your only argument was a reference to Gasche, who appears to
>>>>>differ with you on the point in question, and a quote from Heidegger,
>>>>>borrowed from Gasche, which doesn't support you, either.  That's that.
>>>>>If you can come up with something better, you know where to reach me.
Zeleny:
>>>>The sole point in question is the etymology of the term `déconstruction',
>>>>as derived from Heidegger's `destruktion' -- a proposition that Gasché
>>>>corroborates.  If you have other concerns, address them to your mother.
>>>>She cares.
moggin:
>>>     I'm surprised you haven't learned to back down more gracefully,
>>>given all your recent practice.  Of course "_deconstruction_" derives
>>>in part from Heidegger's concept of "_Destruktion_."  That's obvious.
>>>But you claimed that since deconstruction derives from _Destruktion_,
>>>it contains "destructive implications," making Derrida a liar when he 
>>>says that deconstruction isn't fundamentally destructive.  And that's
>>>the contention you haven't been able to support -- it's based on the
>>>premise that Heidegger's "_Destruktion_" means "destruction," which
>>>you've failed to demonstrate.  And as I pointed out, Heidegger's
>>>text disputes you.
Zeleny:
>>Horror of horrors -- Heidegger's text disputes me, just as it
>>dismantles the Spirit, Logos, and Reason?  I am crestfallen.
moggin:
>     Properly so.
Help yourself to the last word.
Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye:   "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
itinerant philosopher -- will think for food  ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com 
ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)

I would very much appreciate information concerning the following for 
serious research purposes:
· ball lightning events, especially recent events/those involving 
traces or damage
· ball lightning publications
· meetings and conferences concerning ball lightning. 
Many thanks for your help,
Mark Stenhoff
(Mark_Stenhoff@msn.com)

ALT.NEWS wrote:
> 
> In article <55s90n$80t@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>, AQAY1  writes:
> o> TomFool  wrote:
> o>>IBAN wrote:
> o>>>
> o>>> ASIANS OF THE WORLD....LETS BOYCOTT AUSTRALIA.......
> o>>>
> o>>> AND ALL THAT HAVE SUFFERED AND BEEN ABUSED BY WHITES.......
> o>>> THIS IS YOUR CHANCE ....BOYCOTT AUSTRALIA......JAPANESE BOYCOTT
> o>>> AUSTRALIA....PROVED THAT YOU ARE ASIAN......
> o>>> NATIVES OF AUSTRALIA.....STOP BUYING FROM WHITE
> o>>> SHOPS......PROTEST......THIS IS A HITLER IN WOMAN'S DISGUISE....
> o>>> PAULINE HANSON IS A WHITE SUPREMACIST
> o>>
> o>
> o>
> o>
> o>
> o> give us all a break !!  u afraid of one white chick ??  and one with a
> o> lot of balahooo and no sense ??
> o>
> o> mate  , go put your head in cold water  and breathe !! and take your
> o> racist sentiments else where !
> o>>
> o> u r no different either
> 
> Who is she anyway?
> 
> o>>
> o>
> o>
She ran a fish shop until she was accidentally elected a few months ago.
That's one of the drawbacks of democracy I suppose.
But what's a dimwit like Pauline Hanson got to do with woodworking
anyway?
tyrant

Brent Hamstra  schreibt:
>There still is a man from Hanover,
>whose ramblings, alas, are not over--
>Although e, i, and pi
>come not from nuclei
>he continues to spout ideas which describe reality about as well as the
>end of this limerick conforms to the traditional meter of a limerick.
Lovely! What a nice idea to get around the last line trap :-)))
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to 
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.

Im Artikel , moggin@nando.net
(moggin) schreibt:
[on Derrida's "...not a constant, not a center"]
>Personally, I'd guess he's referring to the lack of
>absolute space and time.
Probably the only possible interpretation. Fits IMHO and makes Derrida's
comment at least seemingly logical and meaningful.
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to 
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.

                      'The Crucial Test'
                        If and only if
        Clocks on the Mir Space Station lose 26 micro seconds/day.
                      then SR/GR passes.
If you don't agree with my suggested '26 micro second' as the prediction
of SR/GR, then do please respond, and do tell us exactly what you think
clocks on the Mir Space Station will do.
My own guess is that the little darlings will just keep right on ticking
at the same rate as they do all over this old spinning Earth. But who
knows ? Really, until someone does the experiment,nobody knows really.
-- 
Keith Stein

jakiel@crl.com (Jennifer B. Jakiel) wrote:
:Yeah, I met my double at a pagan gathering once... she didn't have
:the same name as me, and she was just a kid, but she and I looked
:a lot alike in the face and had TOO much in common for comfort...
Were you a kid at the time, too?
What did you have in common that caused you discomfort (besides the
face)?
Dan

jrhodes@pupgg.princeton.edu wrote:
> I'd personally like to see you, or anyone else, name a scienctist
> who didn't believe the earth was a sphere.
> 
> Jason
and DaveHautunen (spell?) wrote
"Utter rot. It has been known since at least the time of the Ancient
Greeks that the world was a sphere. It was the ignorant who thought
otherwise."
Would someone like to explain to Jason and Dave what a troll is?
Charles Wm. Dimmick

weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) wrote:
>: Again, I'm not sure what expertise was declared irrelevant.  Sorry if 
>: I sound dense.
>I'm amazed that this point seems hard to grasp. I'll try again: Derrida 
>refers to SR as a decentering, destabilizing theory -- so have major 
>physicists before him. In deriding Derrida's (brief and cryptic, but this 
>_is_ oral and conversational, after all) perspective, lots of 
>"scientists" around here have made fun of his credentials and alleged 
>that the remark, taken out of context, shows his utter inanity in regard 
>to science. Now some people start pointing out that eminent physicists 
>might have had a similar take on these matters --- which seems to suggest 
>to me that it is _not_ a question of scientific expertise, but of 
>philosophical perspective, framework, etc.
>Have I made myself clearer?
As a caveat, I don't speak for "lots of scientists" and they don't
speak for me.  That said, I suggest that Derrida and said physicists
are working different territories and they are saying different
things.  This is not a simple matter to analyze because one really has
to understand not only what the physicists are saying but what they
mean by what they are saying and one also has to understand what
Derrida is saying. 
I grant that it is a matter of philosophical perspective but this says
very little; almost anything is a matter of philosophical perspective
if you choose to look at it that way.
To say that SR is a decentering theory is, in its own right, to say
very little, to say only "we've changed the way we look at things".
La de da.  But when Derrida says it, he says it out of an entire
context, a way of looking at things and approaching them.  And when
the physicists say something that sounds the same, it's not the same
because it is out of a very different context.
The issues and concerns that Derrida is addressing are drawn from the
continental philosophical schools, Hegel, Heidegger, Husserl, et. al.,
and from Literary criticism.  This entire body of intellectual
thought, this apparatus of ideas, is effectively irrelevant to the
issues and concerns that the physicists are grappling with.  If one is
going to relate Derrida to Science, one is going to have to come to
terms with the philosopher of science and not simply science.  That in
turn is no simple matter; scientists do science in the context of an
implicit philosophy of science, irregularly and imperfectly
formulated.  Scientists quote people like Popper, not because they are
very good [they aren't], but because what Popper, et.al., says is
somewhere in the neighbourhood.
Everything is simple if you don't understand the question.
Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
Life is tough. The other day I was pulled over for doing trochee's
in an iambic pentameter zone and they revoked my poetic license.

In article <32827655.2411982@news.ind.mh.se>, Louis Savain
 writes
>
>  La "renne" de l'Angleterre?  C'est drole.  Dites-moi monsieur Nemec,
>y a-t-il des animaux qui parlent l'anglais en Angleterre ces jours-ci?
How would he know?  He's an American, you foolish fucking frog fart
-- 
John Lynch

>   zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>  moggin@nando.net (moggin) writes:
>  >>>     You're in no position to be issuing challenges, but I'll humor
>  >>>you, just this once.  Logical positivism:  meaning is verification;
>  >>>a statement that can't be verified is meaningless.  
>  
>  zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
>  >>Not.  Verificationism is neither necessary nor sufficient as a
>  >>characterization of logical positivism.  For starters, you must
>  >>do justice to the genus and the differentia.
Why isn't Verificationism necessary?   You seem to want to give
primacy to the epistemological position; is that right?  So that
the genus would be empiricism and the differentia, well, 
something that distinguishes their empiricism from, say, the
radical empiricism of a Mill or a Quine?  Is that right?
But if so, why is the epistemological position more important
than the theory of meaning (or the criterion of meaningfulness)
or the philosophy of perception--the phenomenalism?
If one sees logical positivism as a cluster of logically independent
positions--the Verificationism, the phenomenalism, the moderate-
empiricism (perhaps this leaves out something important)--in
what way is one going wrong?
Paul J.
>  
>  Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
>  Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye:   "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
>  itinerant philosopher -- will think for food  ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com 
>  ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)
>  
>>>>

On 1 Nov 1996 05:39:21 GMT, john@mail.petcom.com. (John S.) wrote: 
>Please, please, nononono!! 
>OKOKOK I LIKE THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT AND THE RADIOACTIVITY!!! 
You don't have to believe in them.  They happen.
>I promise to 
>stop looking for a better way!!!
eh?
>He's going to tell us about the pattern he developed as soon as he gets his 
>page up and running- hint: it has 4 equal angles and 4 equal sides. :-)
Either a square or a tetrahedron.
L O V E   L I E S   S Q U E A L I N G
Oh children don't you weep and moan, 
Children save your breath, You'll 
draw a pretty pension, when your daddy
meets his death. - Trad. Ballad.

>   august@micron.net(Paul Johnson) writes:
>  >   zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>  >  moggin@nando.net (moggin) writes:
>  
>  >  >>>     You're in no position to be issuing challenges, but I'll humor
>  >  >>>you, just this once.  Logical positivism:  meaning is verification;
>  >  >>>a statement that can't be verified is meaningless.  
>  >  
>  >  zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
>  >  >>Not.  Verificationism is neither necessary nor sufficient as a
>  >  >>characterization of logical positivism.  For starters, you must
>  >  >>do justice to the genus and the differentia.
>  
>  
>  Why isn't Verificationism necessary?   You seem to want to give
>  primacy to the epistemological position; is that right?  So that
>  the genus would be empiricism and the differentia, well, 
>  something that distinguishes their empiricism from, say, the
>  radical empiricism of a Mill or a Quine?  Is that right?
>  
>  But if so, why is the epistemological position more important
>  than the theory of meaning (or the criterion of meaningfulness)
>  or the philosophy of perception--the phenomenalism?
>  
>  If one sees logical positivism as a cluster of logically independent
>  positions--the Verificationism, the phenomenalism, the moderate-
>  empiricism (perhaps this leaves out something important)--in
>  what way is one going wrong?
>  
>  Paul J.
>  
Does anybody know why I capitalized "verificationism"?  Me neither.
Paul J.
>  
>  
>  >  
>  >  Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
>  >  Zeleny@math.ucla.edu | Popeye:   "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum."
>  >  itinerant philosopher -- will think for food  ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ@ptyx.com 
>  >  ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)
>  >  
>  >>>>
>  
>  
>>>>

>  In article <55uhmd$12v@netnews.upenn.edu>
>  weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria  Weineck) writes:
>  
> Oh, give me a break; not three philosophers can agree on Plato's notion 
> of anamnesis, or on what the status of his daimonion is; put any three 
> Kant scholars together and they will argue bitterly about the sublime; 
> likewise, try to get pragmatists to agree on Dewey's notion of 
> intelligence. In this regard, theory may as well be poetry. Which, 
> incidentally, is one of the claims post-struc is making, to wit that it 
> has become increasingly difficult to draw a _rigorous_ line between 
> philosophy and literature.
> 
> Silke
>  
You're saying that post-structuralism claims that it used to be 
easier to draw a rigorous line between philosophy and literature?
When was it easier?
Paul J.