k-punk

Spectres of Mark
I'm just saying that I've heard enough examples of the kind of things postmodern thinkers sometimes come out with to justify being antagonistic towards it. Like the academic who declared that the dynamics of rigid bodies was essentially a solved science because the subject matter was inherently 'masculine' (because stiff rods are a bit like cocks, you see?) whereas fluid dynamics still contained open questions because it was inherently 'feminine', and thus abhorred by the patriarchal physics community. The link I posted contains several examples of egregious abuses of scientific and mathematical concepts to try and justify nebulous claims about something-or-other.

Have you read Irigaray on 'The Mechanics of Fluids' or have you just read Dawkins' braying account of someone else's denunciation of it? Her writing is allusive and literary - it isn't easily boiled down to soundbites.

Irigaray doesn't think that anything is 'inherently' masculine or 'inherently' feminine. But are you denying that fluids have been linked with femininity in western culture?
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I've heard the fluid mechanics thing before, and it's utter tripe. She also calls Newton's Principia Mathematica a "rape manual", apparently (at least, Dawkins says she did - I doubt he's lying, and it's not an ambiguous statement, is it?).

The semiotics of fluids in Western culture may well be of interest to a sociologist or an anthropologist. I can't see it being much interest to physicists, so people who know nothing about physics, or science in general (and are actively antagonistic towards it) shouldn't talk about it, still less pass judgement on it. No doubt this will engender cries of "Then don't talk about postmodernism!", but as Idle Rich says above, there's not a lot of point reading up on something that is (or at least, that you believe to be) demonstrably bollocks, is there?

(For the record, the dynamis of soild bodies is generally described by linear equations, which are easy to solve, while fluid mechanics is described by non-linear equations, which usually cannot be solved analytically at all, only numerically approximated using powerful computers.)
 
Last edited:

old goriot

Well-known member
To say that the claim mustn't be taken literally doesn't entail that it be taken metaphorically.

If anything the Gulf War is a metonym - i.e. it isn't an image of what he is talking about, it is part of what he is talking about.

And I'm afraid that many of those academics were too witless to fathom his arguments; when , for instance, they were out on the streets in Manchester in the early 90s denouncing Baudrillard, it was because they claimed he was denying the reality of the suffering. This isn't to say that everyone who objects to Baudrillard is that stupid, naturally.

Wow.. ok I stand corrected. I didn't realize an actual book burning took place. They really are blockheads. All I'm trying to point out is that there has been valid criticism of Baudrillard from intelligent people that are sympathetic to his philosophy, but who have found reason, over and over again, to doubt his integrity. The defence that he is misunderstood only goes so far, when he seems to take positive steps towards provoking such misunderstandings at every opportunity. In this case, was it really necessary to use the controversial metonym? I don't think so. It's a pretty standard, cheap rhetorical tool to start out with a verbal detonation and then go about refining it. I think he could have made his point quite easily without it, but alas, he would not have made it so famously.

Bear in mind also that Baudrillard was making these claims BEFORE the Gulf War happened - the perception that this would be a media non-event was not then widespread. Many thought that it would be a war in a long, drawn-out conflict in the style of Vietnam.[/QUOTE]

Is it not now a drawn-out conflict in the style of Vietnam? American engagement (no fly zones) has been continuous since the first war. The only thing lacking was a sufficient casus belli to resume full-scale aggressions, which, once contrived, resulted in standard fourth generation warfare . The thing that I think renders the Gulf War ripe for misunderstanding is that it (along with the Falklands) represented an anomoly in modern warfare. They were a throwback to third generation warfare, and therefore did not seem consistent with what we had come to expect of war. They were not wars of the future, but retro wars.
 

k-punk

Spectres of Mark
Wow.. ok I stand corrected. I didn't realize an actual book burning took place. They really are blockheads.
I don't think they literally burned books, to be fair. But they certainly demonstrated against it...

All I'm trying to point out is that there has been valid criticism of Baudrillard from intelligent people that are sympathetic to his philosophy, but who have found reason, over and over again, to doubt his integrity.

Fair enough...

The defence that he is misunderstood only goes so far, when he seems to take positive steps towards provoking such misunderstandings at every opportunity. In this case, was it really necessary to use the controversial metonym? I don't think so. It's a pretty standard, cheap rhetorical tool to start out with a verbal detonation and then go about refining it. I think he could have made his point quite easily without it, but alas, he would not have made it so famously.

Well, I understand the objection, but I'm happy with rhetorical provocations .... If there was no more to it than the title, then fine... but actually there turned out to be an awful lot more...


Is it not now a drawn-out conflict in the style of Vietnam?

Yes, certainly, the aftermath of the second attack on Saddam is... but not the first Gulf War...

American engagement (no fly zones) has been continuous since the first war. The only thing lacking was a sufficient casus belli to resume full-scale aggressions, which, once contrived, resulted in standard fourth generation warfare . The thing that I think renders the Gulf War ripe for misunderstanding is that it (along with the Falklands) represented an anomoly in modern warfare. They were a throwback to third generation warfare, and therefore did not seem consistent with what we had come to expect of war. They were not wars of the future, but retro wars.

That's interesting... perhaps the best way to see it was as a war of the past fought with the most up-to-date technology and in the media arena...
 

k-punk

Spectres of Mark
Is he being mis-represented? Maybe it doesn't matter if it's "meaningless from a scientific point of view", maybe something was lost in translation or maybe he is simply wrong because he was outside his field and that doesn't detract from his other work. What do K-Punk and Nomadologist think?

Why is it being judged as if it were a scientific statement? It isn't - it's a proposition, a provocation. The clue that this is not hard science is the word 'perhaps'....


What does 'meaningless from a scientific point of view' mean?

Are we told why or how it is meaningless? No. A bald assertion is made, untroubled by argument or evidence. The basic point seems to be, 'look at this, boys, isn't it silly'; all we see - in Dawkins' piece and in the bits from Sokal and Bricmont he quotes - is a series of fallacious denunciations, the main fallacy being appeal to self-evidence (i.e. we already know that is ridiculous.)

Here is their judgement:

In summary, one finds in Baudrillard's works a profusion of scientific terms, used with total disregard for their meaning and, above all, in a context where they are manifestly irrelevant.​
Circular argument; appeal to self-evidence. Why are they 'manifestly irrelevant'? What is the criteria of relevance?

Whether or not one interprets them as metaphors, it is hard to see what role they could play, except to give an appearance of profundity to trite observations about sociology or history.​
Again - self-evidence ('hard to see what role they could play') Hard for whom to see, and why?

Moreover, the scientific terminology is mixed up with a non-scientific vocabulary that is employed with equal sloppiness.​
Some evidence would be nice...

When all is said and done, one wonders what would be left of Baudrillard's thought if the verbal veneer covering it were stripped away.​
I think here we confront the real issue: it isn't in plain English! What would be left of Swift if you took away all the imagery and rhetoric?
 

k-punk

Spectres of Mark
I've heard the fluid mechanics thing before, and it's utter tripe. She also calls Newton's Principia Mathematica a "rape manual", apparently (at least, Dawkins says she did - I doubt he's lying, and it's not an ambiguous statement, is it?).
No, she doesn't, nor, in fact, does Dawkins says that she does. (I thought that this didn't sound REMOTELY like the sort of thing that Irigary would write, and I didn't have to do any more than read Dawkins to find that I was right.

The actual quote is ' In a passage reminiscent of a notorious feminist description of Newton's Principia (a "rape manual"), Irigaray argues that E=mc2 is a "sexed equation"'.

Dawkins is comparing Irigaray's claim that E=mc2 is a sexed equation WITH 'a notorious feminist description of Newton's Principia'.

The semiotics of fluids in Western culture may well be of interest to a sociologist or an anthropologist.

... or a cultural theorist, or a literary critic....or... or....

I can't see it being much interest to physicists

2 things: why SHOULD it be of interest to physicists? It's a work of feminist philosophy, not an article in Nature. Secondly, why wouldn't physicists be interested in an investigations of the gender implications of resonances and implications of their work?

, so people who know nothing about physics, or science in general (and are actively antagonistic towards it) shouldn't talk about it, still less pass judgement on it.
Firstly, what is your evidence that she knows nothing about physics, or science, or that she is antagonistic towards it? Secondly, why shouldn't those who are antagonistic to things be able to speak or write about them?

No doubt this will engender cries of "Then don't talk about postmodernism!",

I wearily note in passing that the term postmodernism doesn't really apply to Irigaray

but as Idle Rich says above, there's not a lot of point reading up on something that is (or at least, that you believe to be) demonstrably bollocks, is there?

Self-evidence again. But, as we have seen above, your case against Irigaray is based upon misinformation.

(For the record, the dynamis of soild bodies is generally described by linear equations, which are easy to solve, while fluid mechanics is described by non-linear equations, which usually cannot be solved analytically at all, only numerically approximated using powerful computers.)

Isn't that why Irigaray is interested in fluid mechanics?
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I really don't know where to start here. If Irigaray knew anything about physics, she'd know the facts I put in parenthesis, namely that there's a very good reason why fluid dynamics isn't a neatly done-and-dusted part of physics. Secondly, any claim that E = mc^2 is a 'sexed' equation is such utter drivel it's hardly worth spending a minute's thought on. Sexed HOW, exactly? Does she imagine some nasty sexist physicists sat down one day and decided on the laws on the universe to suit themselves? As for her idea being a piece of feminist philosophy and not science, well, that's all well and good, but she should limit herself to talking about things that have some relevance to her subject, rather than ranting incoherently about a subject which clearly has nothing to do with hers. OK, so I misread the part about Principia, but don't see how that can be seen as much more ridiculous than her assertion about E = mc^2. I just find it incredible that people can assume that their intellectual discipline, which has arisen more oiut of political fashion than anything else and may well be forgotten about in a few decades' time, takes precedence over laws of physics which demonstrably apply throughout the whole of time and space.

Finally, I've noticed a trend in this thread for anyone who supports any thinker under attack to say "well they're not really a postmodernist at all". If Irigaray isn't a postmodernist, then what is she? Why do opponents of postmodernism attack her? Does that mean it has become a dirty word, that no-one really wants to be associated with it these days? I'm reminded of people who say al-Qu'eda and the Taleban are "not Muslims", full stop, rather than merely representing the most reactionary and violent strain of Islam.
 
Last edited:
N

nomadologist

Guest
You just keep burying yourself, Mr. Tea. To be challenged to come up with a "post-modernist" whose theory is obviously wrong, and come up with Irigaray, a Lacanian psychoanalytical feminist, is maybe the most ridiculous thing I've heard you say. Secondly only to that citation of the "80% of all rape accusations are false made by regretting drunks" comment on that BBC article...
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Which opponents of post-modernism attack Irigaray? I know a lot of people disagree, but if we're going to bother with the old analytic/continental line of bullshit. Must we? "Analytical philosophy" is dead in the water. Very few people see it as a vital movement anymore...
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
I really don't know where to start here. If Irigaray knew anything about physics, she'd know the facts I put in parenthesis, namely that there's a very good reason why fluid dynamics isn't a neatly done-and-dusted part of physics. Secondly, any claim that E = mc^2 is a 'sexed' equation is such utter drivel it's hardly worth spending a minute's thought on. Sexed HOW, exactly? Does she imagine some nasty sexist physicists sat down one day and decided on the laws on the universe to suit themselves? As for her idea being a piece of feminist philosophy and not science, well, that's all well and good, but she should limit herself to talking about things that have some relevance to her subject, rather than ranting incoherently about a subject which clearly has nothing to do with hers.

You really sound dumb. I'll be honest.

If you can't figure out how the entire text of the Western tradition [INCLUDING SCIENCE, which you seem to imagine operates without the aid of fallible humanity] is "sexed" intuitively, due to thousands of years of having privileged a distinctly male culture and viewpoint (remember, women didn't participate directly in producing culture for thousands of years), then you might want to at least read some Derrida. Derrida is NOT a post-modernist by the way. But you should start there.
 
Last edited:

tht

akstavrh
Finally, I've noticed a trend in this thread for anyone who supports any thinker under attack to say "well they're not really a woman at all". If Irigaray isn't a woman, then what is she? Why do opponents of women attack her? Does that mean it has become a dirty word, that no-one really wants to be associated with it these days? I'm reminded of people who say feminists and lesbians are "not women", full stop, rather than merely representing the most reactionary and violent strain of femininity
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
What Mr. Tea doesn't realize is that Dawkins seems to be guilty of worse than these horrible philosophers who have borrowed scientific language WITH THE OPEN AND OBVIOUS INTENTION of manipulating it to their ends, KNOWING they are not "being scientific" or "mathematical." Dawkins, on the other hand, attacks "post-modernists" having no idea who they are or what post-modernism is, having read some philosophical texts in a such pigheadedly literal-minded way it almost seems like he must be kidding.
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
(Just for the record, here is Mr Tea’s, alleged, ‘second most ridiculous’ comment, alluded to earlier. You draw your own conclusions:

There are police records, and there are police records. This is a reader's comment from the BBC website:

"I was accused of rape in the UK. I was arrested, humiliated, I had intimate samples taken, I was told these would remain on file whatever the outcome. The next day the young lady (whom I had never had any intimate relations with) retracted her story. I still had to remain on police bail for many months, losing my resident status over here in the USA, until the forensics, which took 5 months (!!) came back negative. The girl meanwhile had been sectioned at the behest of the police themselves, in a mental hospital as a delusional schizophrenic. The officer who questioned me later admitted that of the cases she investigated, 80% were either girls getting drunk and regretting having sex the next day, or girls afraid of facing up to their pregnancies and using 'rape' as an excuse for outcome of casual sex. It took me many months and thousands of dollars to regain my status here, whilst I spent two years in the UK jobless, sometimes homeless, and often friendless."
Doug, Northville USA


Now I don't know whether that "80%" statistic is bollocks or not, but it seems rather harsh for the guy to be treated like that before anything's been proven against him, no?
)
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Oh for fuck's sake, I'm 'dumb', am I, nomad? You have to be the most monochromatic thinker on this forum, and that's saying something. I once quoted someone (who was in turn quoting something) else, and something they said which wasn't even part of my main argument is now something I hold to be unshakably true? Yeah, OK, whatever. I deny that an equation relating mass, energy and the speed of light can be sexist and all of a sudden I'm denying the historical oppression of women? Well, I guess hard logic belongs to that fuddy-duddy, dead-in-the-water tradition of analytic philosophy, and is probably inherently mysogynistic anyway...

Can you explain to me, without using terms like 'cultural metatext' and 'socio-sexual hegemony', why an equation - a statement that's not even about human beings, let along men and women - can be seen as 'sexed'?
If you can, I'd love to hear it.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
(Just for the record, here is Mr Tea’s, alleged, ‘second most ridiculous’ comment, alluded to earlier. You draw your own conclusions:

)

"I don't know whether it's bollocks or not". Does that sound like a statement of firm belief to you?
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Oh for fuck's sake, I'm 'dumb', am I, nomad? You have to be the most monochromatic thinker on this forum, and that's saying something. I once quoted someone (who was in turn quoting something) else, and something they said which wasn't even part of my main argument is now something I hold to be unshakably true? Yeah, OK, whatever. I deny that an equation relating mass, energy and the speed of light can be sexist and all of a sudden I'm denying the historical oppression of women? Well, I guess hard logic belongs to that fuddy-duddy, dead-in-the-water tradition of analytic philosophy, and is probably inherently mysogynistic anyway...

Can you explain to me, without using terms like 'cultural metatext' and 'socio-sexual hegemony', why an equation - a statement that's not even about human beings, let along men and women - can be seen as 'sexed'?
If you can, I'd love to hear it.

The entire text of Western history is SEXED "male" because women were actively KEPT FROM PARTICIPATING IN ITS MAKING.
 

k-punk

Spectres of Mark
I really don't know where to start here. If Irigaray knew anything about physics, she'd know the facts I put in parenthesis, namely that there's a very good reason why fluid dynamics isn't a neatly done-and-dusted part of physics.
But she does know that; it is, in fact, the whole point of the piece

Secondly, any claim that E = mc^2 is a 'sexed' equation is such utter drivel it's hardly worth spending a minute's thought on. Sexed HOW, exactly? Does she imagine some nasty sexist physicists sat down one day and decided on the laws on the universe to suit themselves?

The meaning of her claim that it is a 'sexed equation' is not obvious, that is why it requires some thought.

As for her idea being a piece of feminist philosophy and not science, well, that's all well and good, but she should limit herself to talking about things that have some relevance to her subject, rather than ranting incoherently about a subject which clearly has nothing to do with hers.

Oh dear, we're back with self-evidence again.

So the gendered language of solids and fluids has nothing to do with feminist philosophy?

OK, so I misread the part about Principia, but don't see how that can be seen as much more ridiculous than her assertion about E = mc^2.

But you've said you don't know what her assertion about E=mc2 means.. so how can it be ridiculous?

I just find it incredible that people can assume that their intellectual discipline, which has arisen more oiut of political fashion than anything else

interesting and revealing characterisation of feminist thought, that

and may well be forgotten about in a few decades' time, takes precedence over laws of physics which demonstrably apply throughout the whole of time and space.

You're aware of course that the ways in which those 'laws' - if they can be characterised as laws, not all scientists would talk in such terms any more - have been interpreted and understood has changed over the years? You're aware that science is not some monolithic entity which agrees on everything...

Finally, I've noticed a trend in this thread for anyone who supports any thinker under attack to say "well they're not really a postmodernist at all". If Irigaray isn't a postmodernist, then what is she? Why do opponents of postmodernism attack her? Does that mean it has become a dirty word, that no-one really wants to be associated with it these days? I'm reminded of people who say al-Qu'eda and the Taleban are "not Muslims", full stop, rather than merely representing the most reactionary and violent strain of Islam.

It's just a question of accuracy. Lyotard, for instance, I would have no problem with him being described as a postmodernist; he uses the term and uses it positively. Baudrillard is at best ambivalent about the term, which he rarely uses. Irigaray, as far as I am aware, never uses the term, nor is she especially interested in postmodern themes, except where the term is used incredibly vaguely to mean 'that continental stuff'.

The muslim analogy is inappropriate, too. Those who make the argument that the Taleban are 'not Muslim' do so in order to disavow particular examples and defend the general category Islam. We are rejecting the lazily-applied general category 'postmodernism' in order to defend particular thinkers.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
To have cited that anonymous comment from a website as some sort of argument was, and still is, ridiculous. How do you know any of that even happened? You don't! Whoever posted that could be making up the entire thing. And I've definitely noticed on the BBC website there are tons of people who troll the comments boxes--especially any of the articles that have a feminist spin--and make up all kinds of anecdotes to "prove" that men are oppressed. Give me a break.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
"I don't know whether it's bollocks or not". Does that sound like a statement of firm belief to you?

I never said you "firmly believed"--to have cited that at all doesn't seem up to your own "scientific" standards of verifiability, does it?
 
Top