[csaa-forum] But wait, there's more

[langley timmy]

 sorry to clog this post, but ben demanded answers.

ben, thanks for your reply. i don’t have time to
examine your points in detail; i’m too busy
‘preaching, not teaching’ (to use a recent andrew bolt
phrase). this is my last post on the issue as we have
reached event horizon, which points to the limitations
of writing ‘posts’. one day our paths may cross and we
can sit down for a coffee or beer or line and continue
(but i’m sure you’ve got better things to do!). i’m
going to use our ‘postal’ exchange in tutorials
because it highlighst two pertinent points, and
reflects some poststructural theories (i’ll look at
logic last):

1. strategic misreading: there is a big difference
between my original phrase: ‘fallacious references to
traditional universal notions *as* authority', and
your misquote/misreading: 'I think it's a point of
contention whether authority *is* indeed a 
"fallacious traditional universal notion". the
difference in meaning is so obvious there needs no
more comment. (i’m not sure if you’re misreading me on
purpose or by mistake. i think on purpose because this
misreading is exactly what windschuttle does to
theorists’ writings in ‘killing history’, that’s why
some people think his points are apt; there are far
better readings of these theorists by academic critics
which do identify theoretical limitations). 
2. this exchange reflects how a discussion relating to
a specific (political) topic is reduced to pointless
(postmodern) language games. this is fairly obvious to
both of us! (i use postmodern here in a specific
sense, similar to some critics, as an alibi for
neo-conservatism: a move from politics to
performance).

now logic (which again relates to your strategic
misreading): you are referring to (as we learn as
western undergraduates) a specific form of *modern*
logic (there are, as i’m sure you are aware, many
forms of logic besides your example) derived primarily
from philosophy of mathematics (the history of this
form of logic is much longer of course), which is the
basic form of reasoning applied to (most) arguments in
the western academy. there are, however, spectacular
transgressive examples in western academy: bhabha –
third space; cixous –écriture feminine; derrida –
différance. (one of the reasons the old cambridge
philosophy professors petitioned against derrida is
because he often transgressed this form of logic and
argument). in *practice*, for undergraduates to
doctorates and (most) western academic writing, this
logic is the basis for different forms of arguments,
which is disciplinarily productive (and limiting), in
a foucaultean sense. in this form of traditional
argument, taught in *practical* academic writing
courses, ad hominem is not a logic but an
argumentative fallacy. this is *practice*, which is
very different from *theory*.
in *theory* (particularly postmodern), logic is seen
often as ‘a manifestation of human [one could add
masculine/western] desires to “tame” life’. in
theories of affect and performance and non western
epistemologies, ad hominem is a logic, it is a desire
to control others, language, political discourse (this
is basic stuff). 
moving past the mathematical logician godel’s theorem,
poststructural/postcolonial/postfeminist theories
highlight the limitations (in signification) of
traditional forms of logic (and often try to push
their boundaries, or specifically go against them
through paralogism, like the theorists referred to
above). in relation to wider discourses such as
patriarchy, for example, cixous argues, basically (off
the top of my head. i’m not speaking literally, just
to be clear): to enter western logic is to enter a
masculine economy of hierarchy and exclusion.
(irigarary also comes to mind here). postcolonial
critics (spivak, bhabha) demonstrate and challenge,
often deconstructively, the eurocentrism of western
logics, its pedagogies, and the academies. [but this
is a long complicated topic, with many long and
sometimes hostile attacks, primarily from marxists and
conservatives (this is where they share common
ground), against these critics; i don’t have time to
go over it]. historically, western logic has justified
some of the worst atrocities on those who fit outside
logic, as the ‘other’. as i said in my last post,
academic language (i’m using language very broadly)
should not be use to address these (neo-conservative)
critics, which of course i wasn’t; you conflated
contexts, strategically. 
but my original point stands: there can be no
‘conciliatory gesture’ towards these critics; these
positions are discursively (but not necessarily
politically) incommensurable. and in terms of
political resistance, (binary) logic is at times
necessary.
finally to end in/conclusive (logical) ambivalence:
herbert badgery’s proclamation at the beginning of
peter carey’s ‘illywhacker’, ‘my advice is to not
waste your time with your red pen, to try to pull
apart the strands of lies and truths, but relax and
enjoy the show’, (which no one’s quite knows for sure
if he – author/character – is being literal or
ironic), problematizes traditional logic through
ambivalence: affectively (in bleuler’s sense);
linguistically (in bauman’s sense); and discursively
(in bhabha’s sense), producing ‘new categories’, which
is exactly what you are calling for!

over and out for good i promise, tim.  


--- Ben Hourigan <mail at benhourigan.com> wrote: 
> A short reply, because I think this discussion has
> just about run its 
> course.
> 
> > i specifically refer to their
> > *logic*, not to their *character*. although i did
> use
> > the pronoun ‘they’ in my next clause, i was
> referring
> > to (as indicated in parenthesis) to what they
> ‘said’.
> > (if i was writing in another context, outside this
> > list, i would refrain from using pronouns in
> reference
> > to ‘logic’). i use ‘said’ in reference to both
> writing
> > and speech. of course in an academic context,
> notions
> > like ‘combative, aggressive and hawkish’ have
> little
> > descriptive merit, unless one was analysing the
> way
> > these words operate in popular/political
> discourse. i
> > use these ill-defined terms to describe their
> logic:
> 
> This is a jargonistic use of the word "logic," and I
> challenge you to 
> find a logician or computer scientist who would
> confirm that you're 
> actually talking about logic at all. Logic is the
> kind of rules of 
> argument that operate behind statements like this:
> "If all A's are B's, 
> and all B's are C's, then all A's are C's." You,
> like many humanities 
> writers before you, are using the word "logic" to
> mean "style of 
> argument," and the style you attribute to Melleuish
> and co. is 
> dominated by 'affect,' or emotion, not logic. If you
> were to directly 
> criticise Melleuish & co. for being all emotion and
> no logic, I would 
> recognise this as a valid approach. I think, though,
> that the statement 
> involved in that approach, which would say their
> arguments are entirely 
> emotive, would be incorrect, and you go on to show
> why, when you 
> criticise
> 
> > the way they use broad analogies and
> generalizations,
> > their false dilemmas and false causes, the
> fallacious
> > use of evidence,
> 
> *This* is what you should focus on, with examples,
> please. Here you've 
> identified a point where evidence and logic are
> actually at issue.
> 
> >  their fallacious references to
> > traditional universal notions as authority, their
> > simplistic appeal populous notions, etc.
> 
> I think it's a point of contention whether authority
> is indeed a 
> "fallacious traditional universal notion." Let's not
> forget how central 
> authority is to the whole practice of being a CS
> researcher. We do have 
> to do our lit reviews, and many of us are endlessly
> citing various  
> works or theorists. Much of this behaviour is simply
> an appeal to 
> authority. I'm not saying I like the situation.
> 
> Ben Hourigan, B.A. (Hons) (Melb.)
> mail at benhourigan.com	
> http://benhourigan.com
> 
> _______________________________________
> 
> csaa-forum
> discussion list of the cultural studies association
> of australasia
> 
> www.csaa.asn.au
> 
> change your subscription details at
> http://lists.cdu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/csaa-forum
>  

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com