Poetry Forum

Full Version: Luce Irigaray
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
One of our number has introduced the philistines to a certain Ms Irigaray, a feminist thinker.

Anyone may get a brief idea of what she thought courtesy of google, or wade through pages of original text.

I was more interested in Prof Dawkins' brief destruction of this purveyor of mumbo jumbo:

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html


One famous equation may catch your eye too.....

Of course, Dawkins and I may both be wrong.

Thoughts?
Hysterical

I love you Edward!

While the redoubtable Ms Irigaray has given us some quite interesting theories, I tend to find her actual writing very dense and pretentious. Quite aggressively "look at me, I'm an intellectual woman". Now, the time she was writing in might have demanded such an attitude in order for her to be noticed. Personally I find her pigeonholing of women who choose to stay at home with their families as weak and passive to be highly offensive, since I was under the impression that the point of feminism was to give us just that: choice. Then again, I'm not much impressed by Richard Dawkins either -- and I do love Foucault Wink

Of course cultural theorists should not muck about with science. But then, Richard Dawkins is a scientist mucking about with cultural theory.
Big fan of Dawkins but he is a biologist. He is right about much of post-modernism. Sokal's publication was a hoax as everyone knows. That does not mean that all of post-structuralist thought was bs. Of course that would make life easier for some people less inclined to make use of their frontal lobes if not absolutely neccessary.

To sum it up: I'd say Dawkins is sometimes wrong. About you I don't know of course and lack interest and time to find out.

With Leanne I am a Foucault fan, who* spent his sparetime in dark rooms in Frisco. A not much publicized biographical detail somewhat nicely fitting into the ranting of the middle part of Autosodomization. Anyway.

----
*who: him, not me ;-)

cheers
Serge
(02-12-2013, 05:26 AM)serge gurkski Wrote: [ -> ]That does not mean that all of post-structuralist thought was bs. Of course that would make life easier for some people less inclined to make use of their frontal lobes if not absolutely neccessary.
Not subscribing to post-structuralism does not make one less intelligent. I generally subscribe to a lot of the theories that came out of that era and those schools of thought influence me because they resonate with what I already knew -- although not all, and a good deal of that has to do with the fact that those were the theorists most privileged by universities at the time that I did my Bachelors. It is now recognised -- thank heavens -- that post-structuralism is not the be-all and end-all when it comes to reading a text and that many different criticisms are equally valid. For example, when I was first studying, many of the definitive papers on postcolonialism were yet to be written or widely accepted -- when I went back to teaching, I found that this type of criticism was now one of the canon I was expected to teach (fortunately, not a tricky one since it makes a truckload of sense).

When I first started at university I was told that my writing was influenced by Sartre. I had never read Sartre (obviously I have remedied that lack now) -- though I quickly found that the writing and ideas that attracted me most were considered existentialist. Does that make me exclusively existentialist? Hardly. I also love Bacon (and bacon) and Descartes. I read widely among the Doctors of the Church: St Augustine (probably my favourite), Thomas Aquinas, Therese de Lisieux (my confirmation saint) and St John of the Cross in particular. Yet I am not a practicing Catholic, nor remotely religious.

To label someone according to the theories they most subscribe to is to ignore the fluidity of thought and trends of thought.
I'm more the pick and chose guy (obviously); I find some ideas convincing , others not and see no fault with that. I referred to ONE text of Irigiray and never claimed otherwise. I was never into labelling and do not know why anyone would think so.
cheers
serge
I rarely take the time to find out biographical details about any writer, except for the general period in which they were writing -- I am a good student of Barthes, and I don't give much of a damn about the author him/herself. In this I find myself utterly in agreement with Luce -- knowledge of the writer's personal details should not influence the reader's appreciation or understanding of the text as an intellectual creation.
(02-12-2013, 05:52 AM)serge gurkski Wrote: [ -> ]I'm more the pick and chose guy (obviously); I find some ideas convincing , others not and see no fault with that. I referred to ONE text of Irigiray and never claimed otherwise. I was never into labelling and do not know why anyone would think so.
cheers
serge

''I'm more the pick and chose guy'' Does the use of the past have a special significance in some circles? Maybe Derrida did that, or Lacan?
Now now, Edward, you're not going to try and tell us you've never referred to a theorist/ artist/ article/ novel/ essay/ anything in the past before? Because that would be somewhat fallacious (not fellatious)
Quote:Does the use of the past have a special significance in some circles? Maybe Derrida did that, or Lacan?

And if so? What is your point and how does it relate to my sentence quoted by you?

(02-12-2013, 06:03 AM)Leanne Wrote: [ -> ]I rarely take the time to find out biographical details about any writer, except for the general period in which they were writing -- I am a good student of Barthes, and I don't give much of a damn about the author him/herself. In this I find myself utterly in agreement with Luce -- knowledge of the writer's personal details should not influence the reader's appreciation or understanding of the text as an intellectual creation.

Then you are good a deal more postmodernist than I am. ;-) (they were not the only ones I know.) Sometimes I feel the need to get more info on the background of a text implying the writer. Sometimes not. I am not that much into generalizations anymore. This approach to treat texts as organisms on their own and independent of those who created them e.g. I find too extreme. Why not find a hopefully meaningful balance between the biographical and the postmodernist approach? Why not approach texts (fictional) as art and approach them each invidually? What method or combination of methods seems to fit best.
(02-12-2013, 06:17 AM)serge gurkski Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Does the use of the past have a special significance in some circles? Maybe Derrida did that, or Lacan?

And if so? What is your point and how does it relate to my sentence quoted by you?

(02-12-2013, 06:03 AM)Leanne Wrote: [ -> ]I rarely take the time to find out biographical details about any writer, except for the general period in which they were writing -- I am a good student of Barthes, and I don't give much of a damn about the author him/herself. In this I find myself utterly in agreement with Luce -- knowledge of the writer's personal details should not influence the reader's appreciation or understanding of the text as an intellectual creation.

Then you are good a deal more postmodernist than I am. ;-) (they were not the only ones I know.) Sometimes I feel the need to get more info on the background of a text implying the writer. Sometimes not. I am not that much into generalizations anymore. This approach to treat texts as organisms on their own and independent of those who created them e.g. I find too extreme. Why not find a hopefully meaningful balance between the biographical and the postmodernist approach? Why not approach texts (fictional) as art and aproach them each invidually? What method or combination of methods seems to fit best.

We say ''pick and choose''. A simple grammatical error on your part, therefore, or, for what I know,some special way of expressing an obscure concept, of the sort high-lighted by Sokal. I have no means of knowing.

I am glad that you have seen the light over Ms Irigaray. Yet even one of her apologists writes this absurd piece, reluctant to give up to the last.

''I’ve read only a little of the work of the feminist writer, Luce Irigaray, but I was delighted to learn, from the few briskly contemptuous pages devoted to her here, that, in arguing for the masculinist bias of science, she has had the estimable insolence to suggest that the 20th century’s most resonant (and sinister) equation, E = MC2, may be sexist for having ‘privileged the speed of light’ or ‘what goes fastest’ over other velocities, and that if the science of fluid mechanics is under-developed, then that is because it is a quintessentially feminine topic. Irigaray’s invocations of the sciences concerned may be worse than dodgy, but in that libertarian province of the intellectual world in which she functions, far better wild and contentious theses of this sort than the stultifying rigour so inappropriately demanded by Sokal and Bricmont.''

I earlier asked you to express yourself more clearly. Perhaps I should demonstrate with a critique of this: unmitigated balderdash.

As we are a friendly site, I shall save your blushes by refraining from pointing out your spelling errors. But I would say this one thing. I find much talk on poetry sites of physics , M-theory and Prof Hawking's last obscure statement. Now, I have no idea whether they are correct, but I was struck by another professor at Cambridge, also physics, and one of his colleagues, who said he did not really understand it. But the poets did.
(02-12-2013, 07:21 AM)abu nuwas Wrote: [ -> ]As we are a friendly site, I shall save your blushes by refraining from pointing out your spelling errors. But I would say this one thing. I find much talk on poetry sites of physics , M-theory and Prof Hawking's last obscure statement. Now, I have no idea whether they are correct, but I was struck by another professor at Cambridge, also physics, and one of his colleagues, who said he did not really understand it. But the poets did.
I'm jumping into a discussion midstream that I probably have no business in. I am one of those that occasionally choose physics/science-related topics to write about. This is because I find them fascinating. I will never be more than an interested hobbyist, and would never claim to understand them.

I'm more Elegant Universe or Jo Ann Beard's Fourth State of Matter (intense short story btw) than I am a serious student of any of it. It mostly just gives me something to puzzle over.

~~sorry for the interruption~~
to Leanne: Intellectual creation. That is a fine concept because it encompasses not only fiction.
Bc you mentioned Augustine: this is a case where I find biographical detail important. Knowing that he was first a Manichean (and therefore drawn to some kind of gnosticism) does help understand his writings better. Why would a reader not want to make use of that bit of info? If you know in more detail what informs his writing, it informs your reading more too (enriches your understanding).
Of course it is possible that you could get to the same results studying the geneology of the ideas laid down in his writings (the texts his texts are built and based upon). But why not combine both techniques as it's been done away)?

To Edward: (just as an aside I posted my astrophysical revelations on the "fun board". Just saying. about getting modern physics. Your source is not alone. Couple a years ago Dawkins gave a fine lecture (at Tedtalks) about what we know about the universe. We are in a kind of middle world: we understand more about the Cosmos than ants do but based upon what we know what to be probably true (quantum theory etc), we are like ants and we know it. I paraphrased, but it was on this line. I must confess that to be aware of that, is not very comforting, but I believe him.)
And more about Slovenian and the post-modernist with that heavy Slovenian accent later.
You misunderstand. As a student of history, I enjoy finding out details of people's lives. When it comes to reading their text, however, I will often read for a specific purpose, from a particular perspective, employing a set of critical theories. I am quite versatile and can actually manage to read a text in a variety of different ways Smile. The set of theories I most often find myself employing, however, are post-structuralist -- I don't deliberately keep myself ignorant of the writer's life, but to the best of my ability I distance myself from it and read the text in the now. I don't think it should be necessary for a text to carry a massive appendix explaining the writer's motivation, perspective, psychotic state or whatever. A text should/must speak to the reader through the reader's own filters or it has failed for that reader only. If it continues to fail for multiple readers without lengthy explanations on the part of the writer or the writer's apologists, then it's probably fair to say that it's a crap text. And yes, that is the accepted metalanguage.

As to science, I employ it a great deal in my writing as well. I understand it in my own terms, which occasionally agree with the terms of the experts, though science has that wonderful trait of being fluid and accepting various viewpoints. A good part of my understanding of the world is in scientific terms and I see nothing wrong with using science, as Todd does, to explore the metaphysical. I have not, to date, stumbled upon the Grand Unified Theory via poetry... I have found evidence of dark matter, but this is not the place to discuss what exists in the mind of emo slasher poets...
That dark matter line was classic. Smile

Sylvia is cutting herself in her grave. Especially appropriate today, oh yes.
to edward:
Being able "pointing out your spelling errors." implies logically, that you got my message (if not what it really meant). What more could a foreigner hope for (if not to be really understood)? ;-)

to Leanne:
" If it continues to fail for multiple readers without lengthy explanations on the part of the writer or the writer's apologists, then it's probably fair to say that it's a crap text. And yes, that is the accepted metalanguage."

Accepted by who?

Ok: examples:
stravinsky, passolini, and too many painters to mention here. all crap?
Oh dear, do we need to bring out the sarcasm emoticon?
and of course: continues to fail ........ for how long?
I don't know a damned thing about Stravinsky's life. I can still listen to his music.
(02-12-2013, 08:14 AM)Leanne Wrote: [ -> ]Oh dear, do we need to bring out the sarcasm emoticon?

no, i was serious.
Good for you.
Pages: 1 2