Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 17 Nov 1996 03:15:53 GMT
In article <56j1bg$m0t@hpindda.cup.hp.com> seshadri@cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri) writes:
x-no-archive: yes
> : >>If the author 'meant' something other than what he wrote --
> : >>why didn't he write that instead?
>
> There was a famous incident in world war I.
> A beleaguered British commander had one
> final chance to send a message before
> being totally cutoff from all communication -
> so he sent the following message -
>
> BUT IF NOT
>
> Now what will a "literal" reading of the
> text by a roomful of pomos have got out
> of this ? Zilch, that's what.
>
> The man was referring to a particular
> passage in the Bible, where one character
> (I am quite ignorant of the Bible, fyi)
> is surrounded by his enemies, and
> he sends out an appeal for help saying
> "speed is of the essence, come and
> relieve us if you can, BUT IF NOT, we
> will not disgrace our flag, we will
> fight till the last drop of blood".
>
> In 1916, almost all literate persons
> in England knew their Bible, and the
> Army high command had no difficulty
> figuring out this meaning.
>
> So, you see, there was a reason why the
> author didn't put down all his
> intended meaning (there was no time),
> and a literal interpretation of the
> text alone would have resulted in
> total meaninglessness. The meaning
> was there, but it needed a common
> understanding, implicit, to get at it.
>
> This should show up the silliness
> of pomo arguments.
>
> RS
Doubtless this shows the silliness of some pomo arguments, but there
is little hope of getting them all with one truck bomb.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 17 Nov 1996 06:00:39 GMT
weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>>>weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>>>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>>>>>weinecks@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>>>>>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>>>>>>>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>>>>>>>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>weinecks@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>If I may quickly interfere here in my usual conciliatory voice:
>>>>>>>>>>>I think that, yes, Zeleny is right: both Destruktion and
>>>>>>>>>>>deconstruction have an etymological connection to destruction;
>>>>>>>>>>>he is right further in claiming that Derrida and Heidegger are
>>>>>>>>>>>very attuned to implications of this sort -- to deny that there
>>>>>>>>>>>is any link whatsoever strikes me as problematic.
>>>>>>>>>>I appreciate your interference, but calling Derrida's self-serving
>>>>>>>>>>lie `problematic' is still, umm... "problematic" -- for reasons I
>>>>>>>>>>suggested by my analogy with Jorg Haider. Do you seriously expect
>>>>>>>>>>Derrida to remain morally unaffected by inheriting his critical
>>>>>>>>>>methodology from a Nazi and sharing it with a Nazi collaborator?
>>>>>>>>>Yes; as much as I don't accuse Aristotelians to be pro-slavery.
>>>>>>>>Why ever not? Philosophers such as Bernard Williams in _Shame and
>>>>>>>>Necessity_ -- have made THAT argument. What sort of superiority --
>>>>>>>>and surely the intellectual variety could be ruled out right away --
>>>>>>>>entitles you to dismiss them without consideration?
>>>>>>>You says I haven't considered it? I'm familiar with the argument;
>>>>>>>it doesn't interest me, and I think it's fallacious. Next thing
>>>>>>>you'll argue that everybody who thinks Nietzsche is worthwhile
>>>>>>>will contract syphilis.
>>>>>>No germ or poison can contaminate reason as much as the belief that
>>>>>>some men are natural slaves.
>>>>>So?
>>>>So your hysterical analogy is quite worthless, as usual.
>>>Barely established; commit yourself: are all people who respect
>>>Aristotelian philosophy pro-slavery or not? If not, are all people who
>>>respect Heidegger's philosophy pro-Nazi or not? If not, do you still have
>>>a point?
>>All people who accept Aristotelianism lack the intellectual grounds
>>for being anti-slavery. All people who accept deconstruction lack the
>>intellectual grounds for being anti-Nazi. I say this counts as being
>>morally affected by the ancestral odium.
>YOu didn't answer the question. Please do.
Your question is not well formulated. Not having lost horns, I do not
have them, either. All people who respect Aristotelian philosophy en
bloc are committed to respecting the pro-slavery part. Likewise, all
people who respect Heidegger's philosophy en bloc must respect the
pro-Nazi parts. I do not believe that philosophical respect can be so
carefully apportioned as to exclude the naughty bits that are part and
parcel of these thinker's philosophical corpora. Not being privy to
their states of mind, I cannot say whether or not individual virtue
moralists or the deconstructionists are aware of their commitments.
But they should be.
>>>>>>>I find much of Heidegger's approach to metaphysics problematic, and
>>>>>>>I have no interest in constructing apologetic arguments about his
>>>>>>>involvement with the Nazis -- yes, he was a Nazi, and, yes, part of
>>>>>>>his philosophy reflects this or is at least connected to it. That
>>>>>>>does not constitute a critique of his philosophical work yet; it
>>>>>>>certainly does not constitute a critique of _Derrida's_ philosophical
>>>>>>>work. As you damn well know.
>>>>>Response?
>>>>You know where to find my critique of Derrida's philosophical work.
>>>No, I don't.
>>See my responses to Brian Artese in the thread "De la grammatologie".
>Which one?
Articles <55r4fm$ppe@uni.library.ucla.edu>,
<55tbjg$1foe@uni.library.ucla.edu>, and
<5607m9$1v4c@uni.library.ucla.edu>.
>>>>Feel free to join in. In this thread I am exclusively addressing his
>>>>moral failure. To recap:
>>>>Derrida:
>>>>"The word _déconstruction_ ... has nothing to do with destruction."
>>>Have you read Goldman's comments to which Derrida is addressing himself?
>>No, I haven't. Nor do I care about their content. Derrida's emphatic
>>"nothing to do" speaks for itself. So does your frenetic scramble for
>>plausible deniability.
>Perhaps; they don't however veil in the least your lack of credibility.
My self-respect would not survive my gaining credibility in your eyes.
>>>>Derrida:
>>>>"Deconstruction ... is simply a question of ... being alert to the
>>>>implications, to the historical sedimentation of the language which we
>>>>use."
>>>Precisely; and you have failed to establish what exactly the historical
>>>sedimentation of Heidegger's _Destruktion_ would be here. In other words,
>>>make a case for destructiveness.
>>Assuming that "X has nothing to do with Y" means that X has nothing to
>>do with Y, Derrida's claim can be falsified without such hermeneutic
>>excavations.
>In other words, you have no answer to the question I asked you.
In other words, I see no need to bother.
>>>>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.
>>>You are again trying to argue from Gasch'e's authority; by now, you
>>>should have realized that it doesn't work very well.
>>Works for me just fine. I am a simplistic fellow making a simplistic point.
>Ah yes. Of course. Simple folks and what they'll do.
You got it.
>>>>>>>>>>If so, what good is his alleged sensitivity to "historical
>>>>>>>>>>sedimentation"?
>>>>>>>>>It's good when it's subtle; your brand is indeed worthless.
>>>>>>>>Subtlety is no substitute for truth.
>>>>>>>It's a good approach to it, though.
>>>>>>It is in no way superior to honest reason as an approach to truth.
>>>>>Honesty and subtlety are not mutually exclusive; I consider your response
>>>>>a non-response.
>>>>You implied that my brand of deconstructing `déconstruction' was
>>>>worthless for want of subtlety. Consider your claim refuted by your
>>>>own subsequent turn.
>Which turn? You still haven't exhibited any subtlety, so the point is
>still valid.
>>>Hardly. You set up a dichotomy between honesty and subtlety; that's
>>>pathetic. Apart from the fact that nothing you do in these threads is
>>>honest.
>>Speak for yourself. I pointed out a straightforward connection
>>between deconstruction and destruction. You impugned it for lack of
>>subtlety. I consider THAT response a non-response.
>You also stipulated connections between Nazism and deconstruction. This
>is what you will have to address if you want to gain credibility (not a
>priority with you, I know).
I also described the precise genetic nature of these connections, as
far as they concern my argument.
>>>>>>>>>> Zeleny's problem is that he cannot distinguish between
>>>>>>>>>>>throwing a bomb at a church and taking it apart piece by piece,
>>>>>>>>>>>lovingly, to see how it is made. The latter does involve, to
>>>>>>>>>>>introduce a new term, dismantling, and it is a destruction to the
>>>>>>>>>>>extent that any interference with a structure is a destruction
>>>>>>>>>>>because it doesn't leav its object unchanged.
>>>>>>>>>>ANY interference with a structure is a destruction because it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>leave its object unchanged? Are you really implying that each time
>>>>>>>>>>you eat your Wheaties or take your morning shit, read a newspaper or
>>>>>>>>>>write your Usenet screed, you destroy your body or your mind, by dint
>>>>>>>>>>of interfering therewith? Would you care to reconsider your claim
>>>>>>>>>>after a leisurely walk through Liddell & Scott on metabole?
>>>>Response?
>>>I did respond to this; you quote my response below.
>>You never substantiated your distinction between destruction and dismantling.
>You mean the difference isn't obvious to you? Well, that's what I
>claimed to begin with, of course. A dismantling is not a destruction
>apart from the banal sense in which you use it for reasons unclear to
>me. But that goes back to the question of subtlety; we'll call it the
>Zelenian circle.
You are repeating yourself. The distinction can be sustained only if
functional remains, which would otherwise be obliterated by destruction,
are left over after dismantling. Show that this is the case.
>>>>>>>>>> At any
>>>>>>>>>>rate, Heidegger dismantles the Spirit, Logos, and Reason, to replace
>>>>>>>>>>them with -- WHAT?
>>>>>>>>>Yes, I am -- which is precisely why your objection is so worthless;
>>>>>>>>>deconstruction is destructive precisely to that degree --- that is,
>>>>>>>>>it is destructive in such obvious and negligible ways that to point
>>>>>>>>>out that it is destructive and trying to build your case on it
>>>>>>>>>bespeaks your vindictive fantasies rather than any understanding
>>>>>>>>>of what is at stake.
>>>>>>>>Half of my family was murdered by Heidegger's party comrades. What
>>>>>>>>makes YOU so sure of your entitlement to the high moral ground in
>>>>>>>>denouncing my "vindictive fantasies"? What have YOU got at stake?
>>>>>>>Half of my family belongs to slavic Untermenschen; another part (a
>>>>>>>small one) is gypsy; my husband is Jewish and my children according
>>>>>>>to Antisemites the result of Rassenschande -- so what's your point?
>>>>>>First tell me what entitles you to the high moral ground.
>>>>>You introduced the terrain; you graze it. Since you introduces your
>>>>>family history, I introduced mine -- but it's you who seems to think it's
>>>>>relevant. Explain yourself.
>>>>I introduced my family history to put in context my moral concerns,
>>>>which you so charitably characterized as "vindictive fantasies."
>>>Bullshit. You have given no evidence of "moral concerns" whatsoever;
>>>being a relative of Nazi victims gives you no intellectual leverage. If
>>>you have true concerns about a connection between deconstruction and
>>>Nazism, establish such a connection.
>>I never arrogated "intellectual leverage". My provenance merely gives
>>me personal reasons for concern and visceral understanding of what is
>>at stake. In particular, I have concerns about the avowed connection
>>between deconstruction and dismantling of the Spirit, Logos, and Reason.
>You were fooled; your personal reasons, if they are indeed the reason for
>your intellectual behavior around here, stand in your way when it comes
>to understanding what is at stake in deconstruction which is a profoundly
>anti-authoritarian approach to reading texts. So make a point if you have
>one: what is the connection? What are your concerns? How do oyu
>understand the "dismantling of the Spirit, Logos, and Reason"? Be as
>visceral as you like, but try to be also logical, and attempt to exhibit,
>once again, credibility.
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)
>>>> As
>>>>far as I am concerned, your ethnic provenance is irrelevant to moral
>>>>standing -- but perhaps you feel differently. So answer the question
>>>>already.
>>>My ethnic provenance is as irrelevant as yours. Your question is
>>>disingenuous; I do not claim moral high ground, I'm asking you for an
>>>argument to sustain your moralisms.
>>What sort of argument do you require to sustain a straightforward
>>identification of a self-serving lie as such? In the passage quoted
>>above, you already identified Derrida's disclaimer as "problematic".
>>At this point, we are merely quibbling about proper force of epithets.
>Yes, some of us are still concerned with the proper word. You aren't --
>accepted. But then, your concern for logos and reason seems a lot more
>problematic than Derrida's response to Goldman.
Whatever you say.
>>>>>>>>>"What does he replace them with?" -- Why, do you think philosophy
>>>>>>>>>is like restocking the shelves in a supermarket? Oh, gee, these
>>>>>>>>>Wheaties seem stale, let's put some Cheerios in instead? As soon
>>>>>>>>>as you stop asking "what is" in favor of "what is it good for,"
>>>>>>>>>you're in trouble. Get your reassurances somewhere else --
>>>>>>>>>Commentary would probably suit.
>>>>>>>>What a jolly good show of non-partisan demagoguery. Now would you
>>>>>>>>kindly point out an instance when I stopped asking "what is" in favor
>>>>>>>>of "what is it good for"?
>>>>>>>It's implied in your suggestion that critique should reshelve the
>>>>>>>metaphysical storehouse.
>>>>>>Non sequitur. Quidditative inquiry depends on the availability of its
>>>>>>tools and subject matter alike, as surely as pragmatic concerns depend
>>>>>>on an expectation of benefit.
>>>>>So tell us what your point was in the dramatically capitalized "WHAT?"
>>>>First you answer the question.
>>>Which question is that?
>>Heidegger dismantles the Spirit, Logos, and Reason, to replace them
>>with -- WHAT? Until and unless you can answer this question, your
>>distinction between destruction and dismantling will remain nugatory.
>Doesn't work this way; why does he have to restock the shelf? What makes
>your question one that should be answered? And, before that, what do you
>mean when you say "Heidegger dismantles the Spirit, Logos, and Reason"?
I mean that, which is described by Gasché in the passage quoted above,
and exemplified by Heidegger's public asseveration of "the inner truth
and greatness" of National Socialism as late as 1967; by his definition
in correspondence with Jaspers of moral equivalence between the German
operation of the gas chambers, and the postwar displacement of ethnic
Germans from East Prussia by the Allies; by his appeal to his students
not to make principles and "ideas" into the rules of their existence;
and by his never repudiated 1933 declaration that "the Fuehrer himself
and himself alone is the German reality of today, of the future, and of
its laws." I also mean remarkable mental agility that allows Derrida to
reinterpret de Man's wartime consciousness-raising efforts on behalf of
"vulgar antisemitism" as a cryptic missive of humanitarian resistance.
See above for reasons to answer.
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)
Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: brian artese
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 00:22:03 -0600
Raghu Seshadri wrote:
> There was a famous incident in world war I.
> A beleaguered British commander had one
> final chance to send a message before
> being totally cutoff from all communication -
> so he sent the following message -
>
> BUT IF NOT
>
> Now what will a "literal" reading of the
> text by a roomful of pomos have got out
> of this ? Zilch, that's what.
>
> The man was referring to a particular
> passage in the Bible, where one character
> (I am quite ignorant of the Bible, fyi)
> is surrounded by his enemies, and
> he sends out an appeal for help saying
> "speed is of the essence, come and
> relieve us if you can, BUT IF NOT, we
> will not disgrace our flag, we will
> fight till the last drop of blood".
>
> In 1916, almost all literate persons
> in England knew their Bible, and the
> Army high command had no difficulty
> figuring out this meaning.
>
> So, you see, there was a reason why the
> author didn't put down all his
> intended meaning (there was no time),
> and a literal interpretation of the
> text alone would have resulted in
> total meaninglessness. The meaning
> was there, but it needed a common
> understanding, implicit, to get at it.
You haven't a clue about what the argument is. We're
talking about how communication works. One theory says
that an articulation is grounded in something called 'a
meaning' or an 'intent' that exists *independently* of any
or all sensible signifiers. The decon explanation is that
meaning is not a 'thing' that a signifier is trying to 'get
to,' but rather a condition engendered by its linguistic
environment. Meaning is derived entirely by a signifier's
relationship with other signifiers.
Your example proves my point beautifully. Let's say the
command center 'didn't get' the message; they didn't get it
because they tried to appropriate the articulation (the
signifier) into the wrong linguistic environment--i.e.,
into a context that was not the context of the bible.
Let's say they did 'get it': one might say that the
command center 'discovered the soldier's intent.' But that
intent is not something that existed independently of or
'prior to' the realm of signifiers -- a condition implied
by your phrase 'the meaning was there.' In fact, what
established the success of the communication was the fact
that both parties knew to place the articulation within the
same nexus of signifiers -- i.e., within the bible.
> This should show up the silliness
> of pomo arguments.
Keep tryin'...
-- brian
