Another take on science....

[bob scheetz]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth MacKendrick" <kenneth.mackendrick@utoronto.ca>
To: <frankfurt-school@lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 1:15 AM
Subject: Re: Another take on science....


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Neil McLaughlin" <nmclaugh@mcmaster.ca>
>
> > ... I really don't fully understand the Lacanian perspective... What can
> we get from Lacan, that we could not get from Fromm, say?
>
> Hi Neil,
>
> Kind of an unfair question isn't it? Almost like saying, "What can we get
> from Levi-Strauss, that we could not get from Husserl?"
>
> If you're looking for something accessible and relevant to the interests
of
> the FS, I'd recommend Yannis Stavrakakis, Lacan and the Political (1999).
> I'd also recommend Zizek, but if you already have doubts then it will
likely
> do nothing more than turn you off. Zizek is a demanding read, and
generally
> requires a fair bit of background knowledge to follow... and you have to
> have a high tolerance for references to popular culture (Hitchcock in
> particular) scattered throughout commentary on Kant, Schelling, Hegel, and
> Paul (just for starters).
>
> The problem I generally find with criticism of Lacan and the "new
Lacanians"
> (including thinkers such as Zizek, Salecl, and Copjec) is that the bulk of
> them reveal a blatant and irresponsible unfamiliarity with his work and
> thought. I don't quite understand the desire to ruthlessly criticize
> something that one really knows so little about and something that one
isn't
> interested in knowing anything about ... I guess I kind of understand it,
> but I don't really see why it should be encouraged. In any event, if one
is
> sympathetic to a theorist like Z. Bauman, then I don't really see why the
> Lacanian material should offend, as long as you happen to be predisposed
> towards psychoanalysis. It won't persuade you of anything if you aren't.
You
> really must like Freud as a prerequisite (I hope someone is chuckling).
> Sure, Lacan gets associated with postmodernism, but so does the FS and
that
> doesn't seem to bother the FSers all that much... something that is
usually
> resolved by saying "the FS anticipated the postmodern critique several
> decades earlier..." (as if that means something). One could just as easily
> say "Lacan anticipated the postmodern critique... and avoided all of its
> problems." But I guess we get to say whatever we want.
>
> Oh yeah, whose postmodernism are we talking about? I get confused easily.
>
> futures past,
> ken
>

Ken,
I 'd just like an explication of JBCM's text. How is "the book of western
science...edible"??

bob