Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 11:38:35 -0500
Subject: Re: DROMOLOGY QUESTION


Jon:

>I read Virilio's _Speed and Politics_ a while ago, and found it
>interesting--though I wasn't over the moon about it.
>
>Lots of stuff, as I recall, about ships, navigation, trade, and the impact
>of the invention of latitude and longditude etc. on the conception of
>space.  At least, that's also what Deleuze and Guattari pick up from that
>book.
>
>It's simply not trying to do the same thing as physics.

Jon, the way you guys close ranks never ceases to amaze me. I don't care
that Virilio isn't trying to do physics (actually, I'm happy he's not). I
wouldn't even care if he was working on a massive monograph on religious
iconography among 14th-century Languedoc peasants and its significance to
modern international currency markets. The point is, why does this
egregious sentence fragment appear in his work:

"the dromospheric space, space-speed, is physically described by what is
called the 'logistic equation,' the result of the product of the mass
displaced by the speed of its displacement, MxV."

Somebody give me an alternative to egregious stupidity or charlatanry. If
he's talking about a completely different sphere, then why does he need to
throw in not only  a reference to special relativity, which could not
possibly be of any relevance, but one that is completely nonsensical. Why
does everyone keep trying to slip this point? Is it true, as I've believed
for quite some time now, that even obvious, deliberate fraud is not
considered a serious matter in the modern academy?

The unwillingness to condemn this kind of thing that many have shown makes
me question their own intellectual integrity.

Rahul




     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---