[eDebate] keenan, "K" and "policy"

matthew farmer matthewfarm
Sat Apr 11 15:01:56 CDT 2009


"I?m especially disturbed because these flawed forms of analysis are
justified by self-serving and non-falsifiable methods. So Zizek thinks he
can deduce the nature of material reality from a (false) theory of the
mind.  Whatever comes into conflict with that theory is actually a distorted
picture of reality that?s created by our secret desire to cause suffering.
McWhorter thinks that our desire to manage the environment is the root of
violence.

And it is here that Ermo?s point about trivial distinctions is most true.
Zizek and McWhorter should have to answer to the mountains of carefully
collected and analyzed objective data about the world."

Dylan's criticism of zizek and mcwhorter's methods (which i will not make a
value judgment about here) seem to run contra the conclusion that ermo draws
in his argument against the k (as it is currently debated and adjudicated).
The 'trivial distinctions' problem is one in which the k team is able to
shift their alternative, link arguments, analogies, etc. in subtle ways that
make 'specific strategies' unviable. What Dylan has illustrated in his
criticism of the zizekian method, is that specific strategies ARE possible
and viable. The METHOD arguments are ones that a k team can rarely avoid
(these are also very specific discussions). For example, it is extremely
difficult to 'no link' a criticism of constituitive lack if you are running
a zizek arg, regardless of how you toy with your alt. Now, if someone
successfully achieves this end, then it speeks more to their abilities,
relative to their opponent's, than it does to any structural or enigmatic
disconinuity in the adjudication of k debates. --- Dylan seems to go a step
even further, so does Clay; things are going so well in the world that some
uq cards on cap, env, security, with a quantitative method defense should
get you a win on the uq debate alone? My point here is simply that the
'trivial distinction' argument, which has now appeared twice in this
discussion, does not support the position that the k is not a good vehicle/k
debate is not a good cite for discussing different impacts or impacts in
different ways.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090411/1730dfd9/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list