tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post965826153447718223..comments2023-10-21T07:44:20.549-04:00Comments on The Existence Machine: Noted: Gabriel JosipoviciRichardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post-21161712000485292242008-11-12T10:03:00.000-05:002008-11-12T10:03:00.000-05:00Yeah, I have read that review of Dan's, thanks.Wha...Yeah, I have read that review of Dan's, thanks.<BR/><BR/>What I think is amusing about the "innatists" being against modern art, is they don't seem to account for its existence. Why is it there, then?Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post-79618496540135225532008-11-11T21:51:00.000-05:002008-11-11T21:51:00.000-05:00Well, for what it's worth, the arch-Chomskian ...Well, for what it's worth, the arch-Chomskian cognitive scientist / evolutionary psychologist / pop-science superstar Steve Pinker is hostile to modernist art. It makes sense that an 'innate-ist' might be a conservative in matters of culture. And think also about the bonds between evolutionary-psychological determinism and the rhetoric of "success." Therefore the corollary might also be the case: that those who reject forms of 'innate-ist' determinism also might embrace modernism and the modernist aesthetic of "failure." Just a thought. <BR/><BR/>Dan Green wrote an article on Pinker's aesthetics a while back. A betting man would put his money on your already having read it, but here's the link:<BR/><BR/>http://quarterlyconversation.com/against-steven-pinkers-the-blank-slate<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the Rad Anth & Chris Knight references. I've been a long-distance CPGB fan for a number of years now, so I've read some of the material that's been posted on their site, but I think it's time for a closer look.Edmond Caldwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02651618912907453630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post-86561012670531997492008-11-11T17:08:00.000-05:002008-11-11T17:08:00.000-05:00Re: the Josipovici passage itself: Josipovici is o...Re: the Josipovici passage itself: Josipovici is of course very concerned with this question of failure. To my mind the modernist concerns have relevance to the origins of language, and play, but I need to work on this idea in detail, when I have time to think it through.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post-52995755712083772362008-11-11T16:58:00.000-05:002008-11-11T16:58:00.000-05:00Hi Edmond -I agree with your wife, as does Stuart,...Hi Edmond -<BR/><BR/>I agree with your wife, as does Stuart, who commented above. You should check out a) Stuart's blog From Despair to Where? (linked to on my blogroll), but also b) the latest issue of <A HREF="http://www.radicalanthropologygroup.org/journal.htm" REL="nofollow"><I>Radical Anthropology</I></A>, in which Stuart interviews Chomsky. You'll see how he isn't interested in going into it. Anyway, I always used to take for granted that Chomsky's theories were correct, since he was so well-regarded, and because he's so accurate on political matters. But I didn't know anything about his resistance to discussing origins until relatively recently. <BR/><BR/>I've written a handful of posts touching on these matters, collected <A HREF="http://yolacrary.blogspot.com/search/label/Chris%20Knight" REL="nofollow">here</A> under the heading "Chris Knight", the Marxist anthropologist who has a particularly interesting and compelling theory on the origins of language.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post-15447698463633842722008-11-11T16:31:00.000-05:002008-11-11T16:31:00.000-05:00An interesting passage to me on two counts: My wi...An interesting passage to me on two counts: <BR/><BR/>My wife (a researcher in cognitive psych. and linguistics, among other things) is fiercely anti-Chomsky, because his view of the origin of language leaves no role for learning and sociality. She says that she's in a minority in her field, though; the Chomskian view is hegemonic. <BR/><BR/>For me, though, it's interesting to think about the conclusion of that passage in terms of the modernist "aesthetics of failure" (Fail again, fail better, etc.). I would have to see how it plays out in Josipovici's novel itself, which I haven't read (nor any of his work). So now I have two reasons - thanks for the post.Edmond Caldwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02651618912907453630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23471801.post-39685687522159320752008-11-04T09:16:00.000-05:002008-11-04T09:16:00.000-05:00"Nonetheless, he said, the power of Chomsky's work..."Nonetheless, he said, the power of Chomsky's work as perhaps retarded rather than advanced our understanding of the origins of human language. For, like so many thinkers before him, but now in full awareness of what he is doing, Chomsky has found the means of cutting man off from his past and so from all other animals."<BR/><BR/>Brilliant summary! In a previous life, I started to research what contemporary scholars have to say about the origins of language, and I think this about sums up the view of many.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com