[extropy-chat] Fw: Deconstruction deconstructed....

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at HarveyNewstrom.com>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 12:41 AM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Fw: Deconstruction deconstructed....


> Alan Eliasen wrote,
> > Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> >
> > > Jef Allbright wrote,
> > >
> > >>Stephen Karlsgodt wrote:
> > >>
> > >>><http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/PVR/decon.html >
> > >
> > > I would fire any engineer that wrote this article.  He makes fun of
> > > things he doesn't understand and assumes that only his own field of
> > > endeavor is worthwhile while other people's knowledge is fake.  He
> > > sounds more like the pointy-haired boss in Dilbert rather
> > than a real engineer.
> >
> >    If you find yourself in such a position, please forward me
> > the resume of said fired engineer.  I would be more than
> > happy to hire such a pragmatic engineer who was clearly able
> > to express himself clearly, with a clear flair for language,
> > and had such a wide-based interest in fields outside of
> > engineering that he reads the exchanges, attends the
> > seminars, is confident to present public talks, and attempts
> > to contribute to mass understanding of a rather interesting
> > phenomenon. Firing such people would seem to me to be, to put
> > it gently, counterproductive.
>
> Wow.  Did we read the same article?
>
> This person that you think has interests in other fields attended a
> conference that was "an aggressively interdisciplinary gathering, drawing
> from fields as diverse as computer science, literary criticism,
engineering,
> history, philosophy, anthropology, psychology, and political science" and
> finds it incomprehensible, saying "The things they said were largely
> incomprehensible."  This lead me to conclude that the author was not
> interested or familiar with most of the fields he listed.

### Chip wrote in the third paragraph " The things they said were largely
incomprehensible. There was much talk about deconstruction and signifiers
and arguments about whether cyberspace was or was not "narrative". There was
much quotation from Baudrillard, Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Saussure, and the
like, every single word of which was impenetrable.". This clearly indicates
his lack of familiarity with contemporary literary criticism, which he
openly admits (an ignorance he felt spurred to correct), and not ignorance
of the fields you quote above. He also writes " I'd never before had the
experience of being quite this baffled by things other people were saying.
I've attended lectures on quantum physics, group theory, cardiology, and
contract law, all fields about which I know nothing and all of which have
their own specialized jargon and notational conventions. None of those
lectures were as opaque as anything these academics said. ", again
intimating that he does not have a reason to see himself as an all-around
ignoramus.

--------------------------------------
>
> This person that you think was an accomplished speaker said, "we
discovered
> that we had grossly mischaracterized the audience by assuming that it
would
> be like the crowd from the first conference. I spent most of that first
day
> furiously scribbling notes."  This lead me to conclude that the author was
> not prepared and was not confident of his own presentation.

### An unexpected appearance of strange guests at a conference can hardly be
seen as the fault of the speaker. At least as a result we get an
entertaining exposition of amusing and exasperating pseudointellectual
trends in some backwaters of the academia.
---------------------------------------
>
> The person you think expressed himself clearly with a flair for language
> said, "We retreated back to Palo Alto that evening for a quick rewrite.
The
> first order of business was to excise various little bits of
phraseology....
> Then we set about attempting to add something that would be an adequate
> response to the postmodern lit crit-speak we had been inundated with that
> day. Since we had no idea what any of it meant (or even if it actually
meant
> anything at all), I simply cut-and-pasted from my notes."  This lead me to
> conclude that the author was willing to present material he didn't
> understand and fluff it up with buzzwords that he did not comprehend.

### The first sentence of his presentation was a delightful joke, you know.

-------------------------------------
>
> This person you believe to be a good source of information also said, "(I
> once spoke with a Harvard professor who told me that it is quite easy to
get
> a Harvard undergraduate degree without ever once encountering a tenured
> member of the faculty inside a classroom; I don't know if this is actually
> true but it's a delightful piece of slander regardless)."  This lead me to
> conclude that the author is willing to pass on information for its affect,
> even if the truthfulness of the information is in doubt.

### This indicates that he has a sense of humor.

------------------------
>
> Most of the communication in this article seems to be insulting satire
> rather than a serious observation.  For example, when he says, "You get
> maximum style points for being French. Since most of us aren't French, we
> don't qualify for this one, but we can still score almost as much by
writing
> in French or citing French sources. However, it is difficult for even the
> most intense and unprincipled American academician writing in French to
> match the zen obliqueness of a native French literary critic."  This lead
me
> to believe that the author likes to go off into satirical insults instead
of
> presenting a serious position.

### How can a serious person be serious about Derrida?

---------------------------------------
>
> And in conclusion, after a very lengthy attempt at persuasion, the author
> finishes with a not-too-clear conclusion.  He says, "So, what are we to
make
> of all this? I earlier stated that my quest was to learn if there was any
> content to this stuff and if it was or was not bogus. Well, my assessment
is
> that there is indeed some content, much of it interesting. The question of
> bogosity, however, is a little more difficult."  This lead me to conclude
> that the author merely wanted to express the various stories and insults
and
> satires, but that they did not add up to any specific conclusion one way
or
> the other.

### His conclusions are clear, and entirely in agreement with my own amateur
opinions of the field.

---------------------------------

>
> I stand by my statement.  If I had an engineer working for me, and if I
sent
> him to a conference, and I got reports back that he:
> 1.  Totally mischaracterized the audience.
> 2.  Added major rewrites and new material to the presentation the night
> before.
> 3.  Insulted other attendees or made fun of their serious presentations
> during his presentation.
> 4.  Cut and pasted notes from other people's presentations into his own.
> 5.  Used buzzwords and phrases in his presentation even though he did not
> know what they meant.
> 6.  Was invited to present a serious paper, but presented a comedy routine
> or satire paper instead.
> 7.  Recounted a possibly slanderous anecdote and later admitting that he
> didn't know if it were true or not.
>
> I would indeed fire the engineer.

### I would fire an engineer incapable of parsing Morningstar's satire from
his more serious content, but of course, to each employer his own.

Rafal