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,
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre