INTELLECTUALS, reason & al.

[Ralph Dumain]

On 7 July Jukka asked me a number of questions.  Not sure I can or
want to take time to answer most of them, but I'll react to one or
two briefly.

To my statement:

>>"What I'm most concerned about is coherence and concentration of


>>human mental power, self-possession and self-awareness, which

>>must be based upon a fundamental simplicity that underlies all
>>complexity."

Jukka queries:

>What is this fundamental simplicity?

I don't know what to say to a person asking such a question,
except to shake my head.  Fundamental simplicity means rootedness
in reality, and some kind of non-mystified coherence and
centeredness, so that you don't get lost in a mass of slopped
together, inchoate ideas that aren't rooted in anything but the
ability to manipulate concepts, or, in other words, grasdate
student syndrome.  I deal with lots of academics, both profs and
students, and I can instantly tell the difference.  I explained
this very principle to a highly esteeemed colleague just last
night, and he knew just what I meant, since he's fighting
aforementioned narcissistic slop from within the academy.  One can
intuitively tell the difference.  I can.  Can you?  What's your
fucking problem?

For example, why does Kenneth Mackendrick write as if if he read
too many theory books on drugs?  The debate on "myth and reason"
has descended to a level of intellectual mutual masturbatuon
unconnected with reality.  People like Ken are grounded not in any
reality, but in discourse's discourse with itself.  I have no use
for such people.

Jukka continues:

>Isn't there a danger (in your discussion) to reduce theoretical

>(phil. & scientific) questions into 'social positions' and, also,


>to psychologise them?

But you must know by now that as a materialist I reject this.  But
when a person is devoted to nonsense there must be a reason, and
for intellectuals to be even dumber than ordinary folks there must
be a reason, and that reason lies in alienation and the lack of
rootedness in reality, the ultimate sources of mental paralysis.


>Isn't there a need for further elaboration of division of labour


>in order to find out the instances or institutions and structures


>behind, for example, repression?

Be my guest.  Isn't it interesting, though, how those who worship
the holy trinity of race, class, and gender don't bother to
question the fundamental role of the division of labor that
governs the intellectual life of all constituencies who have a
stake in the academy's strategy for diversity management?  All
minority groups and victims of discrimination want in on the
hustle, but does that make any of them anything other than
hustlers?