Re: [-empyre-] a book, dna and code

["sdv@krokodile.co.uk" <sdv@krokodile.co.uk>]

The question at the end requires some kind of answer I believe, which as 
far as I can tell is related to  the following quote: 'science... is 
interested in the truth-value of its propositions'(59) In your 
continuation of the linguistic turn, for what else can a statement such 
as the following 'language is transparent' be a reference to. I believe 
that you appear to be suggesting that cultural work is also only 
interested in the truth-value of its propositions. This is to suggest 
that an idelogical, a discursive analysis of what is presumed to be 
ideological work replaces science as truth with cultural work as truth. 
The danger in this then is that the expressed desire is actually to 
avoid ideological work and to identify 'truth', the real.

As if in some way cultural work can perhaps be non-ideological.

After all contrary to earlier emails it's clear now that this is not at 
all about code... but rather about getting through to what is real.

steve



> Steve,
>
> Thanks for the careful reading.  Of course, you are right in that any  
> focus in a book whatsoever draws a line somewhere, always somewhat  
> indefensibly, by which any such project can proceed.  Thus, the  project 
> itself is always limited by sets of presuppositions whose  value and 
> caginess can be put into question.  One problematic  assumption usually 
> gives way to another, which gives rise to another  locus of 
> representational irresponsibility, etc.
>
> But, too, such projects are often a question of audience,  
> presuppositions about which often define the site of intervention.   As 
> what is broadly termed a "humanist," my imaginary audience is not  those 
> scientists who know better (though they may not know exactly  what they 
> do not know better about), nor is my subject actually DNA,  nucleic 
> acids, or the workings thereof in any sense other than quite  broadly.  
> My subject is really the problems that occur when we  carelessly believe 
> that language is transparent.  DNA is not a  metaphor, but a symptom, a 
> pretext, an opportunity for certain kinds  of cultural work to be done, 
> certain assuagements to be had, an  invitation to a kind of familiarity 
> that crosses traditional  "disciplinary" boundaries and brings us back 
> to the delusion of a  controlling comfort.  Maybe not scientists or 
> those with experience.   But certainly the vast majority of Americans 
> who do not even  comprehend the rudiments of a Punnett square or think 
> it is a game show.
>
> The question, in light of your final paragraph is: How does one avoid  
> blatantly ideological work when one never takes representation,  
> language, metaphor or other such sneaky tools into account?
>
> Cheers,