read bruno latour (and related literature; HAraway, Michael Fischer, etc)
about how scientists are "linguists" as you want to claim -- not my
statement -- whose scientific practices of constructing realities through an
apparatus of scriptural practices is very effective. they are in the
business of producing meanings about reality that pass under the name of a
nonlinguistically constructed real.
At 02:29 PM 5/4/96 +0100, you wrote:
>On Fri, 3 May 1996, Quetzil Castaneda wrote:
>> take a poll colin. see what you get. see if the survivors are more concerned
>> about the technical construction and equations of the split atom, or that it
>> was a war --- the practice of antagonims --- that construed an event that
>> had horrorific concommittants.
>
>Atomic explosions cannot be construed. They have to be caused.
>
>> you insist on speaking in the name of the "real" and the "actual" in which
>> you appeal to something outside language and the practices that have made
>> that those linguistic/signifying forms have meaning.
>
>What - you mean something outside language and the practice of
>meaning-formation? How ridiculous. The bomb was clearly not built by
>atomic scientists, but construed. By f***ing linguists.
>
>And Malcolm. You're next.
>
>Dave Hugh-Jones
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>'Yes, that's my mother all right, but my mother's the Virgin Mary, you know.'
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>dash2@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
about how scientists are "linguists" as you want to claim -- not my
statement -- whose scientific practices of constructing realities through an
apparatus of scriptural practices is very effective. they are in the
business of producing meanings about reality that pass under the name of a
nonlinguistically constructed real.
At 02:29 PM 5/4/96 +0100, you wrote:
>On Fri, 3 May 1996, Quetzil Castaneda wrote:
>> take a poll colin. see what you get. see if the survivors are more concerned
>> about the technical construction and equations of the split atom, or that it
>> was a war --- the practice of antagonims --- that construed an event that
>> had horrorific concommittants.
>
>Atomic explosions cannot be construed. They have to be caused.
>
>> you insist on speaking in the name of the "real" and the "actual" in which
>> you appeal to something outside language and the practices that have made
>> that those linguistic/signifying forms have meaning.
>
>What - you mean something outside language and the practice of
>meaning-formation? How ridiculous. The bomb was clearly not built by
>atomic scientists, but construed. By f***ing linguists.
>
>And Malcolm. You're next.
>
>Dave Hugh-Jones
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>'Yes, that's my mother all right, but my mother's the Virgin Mary, you know.'
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>dash2@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>