RE: Restored (and a final story for Luke and Daniel)

I could care less about D'souza, but John does go around this joint with
authority, fine, where does this authority come from? Little t truth? Of
course I am using my presuppositions but some how he is able to recognize
his ala Derrida etc but he is not held to them. How can he apply any kind
of value based presupposition with out a universal understanding of truth?
If it is his truth then I don't like its taste. When I am with company and
I offer refreshment and they turn it down because they don't 'like' it, it
is not reasonable to argue with them. But you see, Luke unlike John does
not think it is a matter of taste or relative absolutes. I have written
this, do you know what I mean?
Daniel

 
Daniel --

What you're attempting to do is demonstrate how John's responses are self
defeating in that they simultaneously assert and deny authority.

(Incidentally, no one sued D'Souza because no one in the field took the book
seriously. It was quickly seen to be a simple-minded piece of cable-news
political grandstanding.)
John O.
 
Is that canonical with a capital C? I never know, what with your rhetoric's
of power and such. So, who canonizes text in your profession? Is there a
ceremony that the unannointed may watch? So, all these posts are about your
intellectual truth versus Luke's? If it is yours and not his and t is lower
case why do you brow beat him? Or is your truth just about being a critic
and everything is subject to criticism and that criticism can be based on
any method or lack there of which is also subject to criticism ad nausea.
So, should we capitalize Scholar and maybe Serious? Again, I never know
what the proper structure is around here.

Take heart Luke, that 'almost' is all that separates you from the society
of Serious Scholars and modern academic hell. You better treat John O. and
Jacques with more respect or that guardrail of almost will be withdrawn. In
this rhetoric Luke, apparently propaganda is only appreciated if it is
complex. For shame, you brought cocktail party chatter (knife) to a Serious
Scholarly (gun) fight. Next thing, John will be calling you an intellectual
greaser.
Daniel

This is a self defeating strategy on your end, because you're criticizing
John for working with your own presuppositions. What needs to happen is
some kind of defense of D'Souza's work, if you really believe in Truth with
a capital t.. John asserts that the events described did not happen as DS
described them. Luke asserts that DS's account is correct. John asserts
that his knowledge is based upon direct experience with the persons
described in DS's book.

Upon what are Luke's claims of the authenticity of DS's work based?

John, by the way, isn't the first person I've heard to level this kind of
criticism against D'Souza.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Jul 17 11:18:13 2003