Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:04:21 -0500
Subject: Re: J'accuse Virilio


Jon:

>I would probably be happy to agree with you that he is wrong in this
>sentence.  I think denouncing it as "fraud" is a little hysterical.

If you say something about a subject you know that you know nothing about,
and it's wrong, it's not fraud? My moral universe is expanding every day.

>> Why
>> does everyone keep trying to slip this point?
>
>Perhaps because it's your point, not the original point, and a pretty
>uninteresting point, to boot, to me at least.

It's the point I made in re the original question, and one that is
potentially devastating if not answered. It doesn't matter that it's
uninteresting. That should make it easier to answer, if anything. It
certainly couldn't hurt to establish whatever few things we agree on. The
larger point that modern academic work is full of this fraudulent posturing
is hardly uninteresting.

>More interesting seems the general project of people like Virilio and
>DeLanda >(plus, as I mentioned, perhaps the Annales school, such as
>Braudel) to >construct or think through a different mode of history. What
>about it, Rahul?

Don't know and don't care. I can think of at least 500 books higher up on
my list of priorities.

>Foolishly, however, I do indeed think there's a point to answering the
>substance of what other posters say.  So...
>
>> The unwillingness to condemn this kind of thing that many have shown makes
>> me question their own intellectual integrity.
>
>J'accuse, j'accuse, j'accuse.
>
>What comes next?  [this is in fact a serious question]

Since you haven't done anything, I can't see that "what comes next" is a
serious question. People like you should be fighting this kind of fraud
instead of dismissing people who do as "hysterical."

XXXOOO,

Rahul




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