NP no facts only interpretations

[Paul Mackin]

Otto quotes what for me was the most poignant (and ultimately the silliest)
passage in the article . . . about the discovery of pure objective truth
requiring too many visits to the library, etc. Yes, children, use your
library cards and someday you'll be as smart as me, as smart as your
teacher.  As a child I actually came to believe that if only one could find
the right book in the library, the correct reference, all the questions of
life would be answered and all the truths of the world revealed.

                         P.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Otto" <o.sell at telda.net>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: NP no facts only interpretations


> Hi you cyber-ghosts out there,
> special greetings to the Paranoia Lawyer . . .
>
> Now I know: the Truth is hidden on microfilm records but Bauerlein refuses
> to give us the exact location.
>
> It took me a while to get through the article because I didn't get his
point
> at first reading. Now it appears to me to be a covered attack on
> postmodernism (and more), and the assumption that this rose out of
laziness
> is indeed ridiculous. This is Bauerlein's definition:
>
> "(...) social constructionism. It is a simple belief system, founded upon
> the basic proposition that knowledge is never true per se, but true
relative
> to a culture, a situation, a language, an ideology, or some other social
> condition."
>
> I had my problems to see how this "truth" (though it's clear that it
cannot
> be any other way, that the Christian assumption of a Truth revealed by
God,
> or an History that necessarily develops to a Marxist paradise is
> unscientific according to the facts) is affecting the universitarian
> paper-production, but he explains:
>
> "Truth, facts, objectivity-those require too much reading, too many
library
> visits, too much time soliciting interlibrary loan materials, scrolling
> through microfilm records, double-checking sources, and looking beyond
> academic trends that come and go. A philosophy that discredits the
> foundations of such time-consuming research is a professional blessing. It
> is the belief-system of inquirers who need an alibi for not reading the
> extra book, traveling to the other archives, or listening to the other
point
> of view. This is why constructionism is the prevailing creed in the
> humanities today. It is the epistemology of scholarship in haste, of
> professors under the gun."
>
> My professor always *accused* us of being made of Teflon - nothing ever
> sticked to us - after sending us through several thousands of PMLA- and
> other bookpages per week. What he was missing was something to rely on, a
> wider basis of books that have been read, something he could use as
> axiomatic, not always having to begin new with the stuff he'd already told
> last semester. Nobody reads Marx or Weber or Nietzsche or the Bible
anymore
> to understand Pynchon. In fact Pynchon has sent me to all of these and
more.
>
> ("As Nietzsche says. . ."),
> If someone wants to read Eve Sedgwick's book (which I haven't) he/she has
to
> read Foucault in advance, it's as simple as that and to judge Sedgwick is
> only possible with this knowledge. But Bauerlein beats Sedgwick and others
> and means Foucault, Lacan and others.
>
> By the way, he's criticising Doug too "(...) Neopragmatists,
> post-structuralists, Marxists, and feminists (...)" and I bet he would
hate
> my website if he could read German.
>
> But I absolutely agree with Bauerlein in this. The humanities should
>
> "(...) insist that scholars need time to read, time to reflect, time to
test
> ideas in the classroom and at conferences if they are to come up with
> anything lasting."
>
> A four-year literature study cannot be enough. There should be more time
for
> reading.
>
> at last:
> I never said anything on spelling-errors on this list, but the Partisan
> Review should be able to use a spell-check before putting something out,
> *travelling* is written with two L's. This is web-journalism "in haste,
> (...) under the gun."
> Soviel Zeit muss sein!
>
> Otto
>
> > ----------
> > >From: Doug Millison <DMillison at ftmg.net>
> > >
> >
> > > A great example of the sort of ad hominem attack from hidebound social
> > > constructionists that Bauerlein studies and questions in his article!
> >
> > Well, no. An example of ad hominem would be your use of the term
> "hidebound
> > social constructionists" here, and this description from the article
fits
> > your preferred style of interlocution to a t:
> >
> >             ... Those who raise objections soon find themselves
> >     trapped in debates shaped by us versus them forensics, enunciated in
> an
> >     idiom of brazen philosophical avowals and insinuations about the
> >     character of adversaries.
> >
> > Bauerlein's charge that academics nowadays are not well-read is
> outrageous.
> >
> > best
>
>