Anti-postmodernism, cont.

[jolly]

Count upon po-mo clowns to resort to ad hominem (gormless, wow man) when their precious continental schtick that they have worked so long at perfecting-- between Starbucks and sucking the dicks of the pretentious, confused windbags that now pass for English professors)--is exposed as the hoax that it is. 

 

I note that the Waste-org. po-mo'sters seem fond of renouncing Chomsky's theories.  Lately I�ve been reading �Language and Problems of Knowledge�; I don�t know if the Chomsky has now repudiated this or not, but it�s not bad reading.  Here�s a claim near the end: �the evidence seems compelling that...fundamental aspects of our mental and social life, including language, are determined as part of our biological endowment, not acquired by learning, still less by training, in the course of our experience.� 

That is sort of the main thesis of the book and of much of the UG project. Is that too hard for you to grasp?  We may or may not assent to this, but it is debatable, and inductive methods may prove it correct or incorrect.  It is, as he asserted, a refutable hypothesis.   Did Derrida or Lacan ever put forth a refutable hypothesis?   

Naw, but we can discover utterances such as this: �the value of displacement, of transport, etc., is precisely constitutive of the concept of metaphor with which one claims to comprehend the semantic displacement that is brought about from communication as a non-semiotic phenomenon to communication as a semio-linguistic phenomenon.� 

There's not much to say to anyone who operates on that level of bizarre, ontological obscurity, except, perhaps: Phuck those People. 

 

 


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20041013/2e7e2223/attachment.html>