Alfredo Triff
Leo el artículo “Postmodernismo y frivolidad” de Mario Vargas Llosa, publicado en su recopilación El lenguaje de la pasión, en el que el gran escritor peruano arremete contra el filósofo francés Jacques Derrida de forma neófitamente escolapia. Aquí van sus citas: “La cultura postmoderna y, sobre todo... el deconstruccionismo de Jacques Derrida [son] corrientes de pensamiento que parecen frívolas y artificiales comparadas con las escuelas tradicionales de crítica literaria e histórica.” Vargas Llosa nunca menciona qué entiende por postmodernismo o a qué escuela tradicional se refiere. ¿La hermenéutica de Gadamer o Ricoeur -que se emparenta con Derrida en la importancia otorgada al análisis textual? ¿La escuela de Frankfurt, con un libro tan pre-deconstruccionista como Dialéctica Negativa? ¿Acaso la crítica freudiana tradicional que se entronca (quiérase o no) con el llamado estructuralismo de Jacques Lacan? Y continúa el escritor: “Cada vez que me he enfrentado a la prosa oscurantista y los asfixiantes análisis literarios de Derrida (¡¿cuáles?!) he tenido la sensación de perder miserablemente el tiempo, no porque crea que todo ensayo o crítica deba ser útil –si es divertido y estimulante me basta- (¡¿no prevés utilidad acaso en la estimulación lúdica?!) sino porque la literatura que él supone es una sucesión de archipiélagos de “textos” autónomos, impermeabilizados... inmunes a toda valoración (¡¿y qué estás haciendo, cebón, con todo esto sino valorizaciones?!)... a toda interrelación con el desenvolvimiento de la sociedad y el comportamiento individual”. Pura estridencia e hipérbole vargasllosiana. ¿De qué inmunidad hablas? Libros definitivos y tempranos de Derrida como La voz y el fenómeno, De la gramatología o La escritura y la diferencia establecen conexiones filosóficas y lingüísticas muy específicas entre pensadores tan variados como Platón y Aristóteles, pasando entre otros muchos, por Rosseau, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, la escuela literaria de Génova, Lacan, Levinas, Artaud y Valery. ¿Impermeabilizados? Si hubieses leído “Política de la amistad”, sabrías que se trata de un estudio perturbador sobre la sociología de la devoción; El fantasma de Marx, un análisis actual sobre el marxismo. “Fe y saber” es una exploración aguda entre el fideísmo y la evidencia. Finalmente, Canalla: Dos ensayos sobre la razón apura una especulación abierta del mundo actual. ¡Vargas Llosa, aprende a leer y ponte al día!
10 comentarios:
No por ser Vargas Llosa se deja de ser propenso al conservadurismo. Esa resistencia a los agotamientos y a las decadencias de los sistemas se entronca con las exigencias totalitarias del ser contemporáneo latinoamericano, para quien se me hace la idea que, todo lo contrario a lo que proclamó Fukuyama, ni siquiera ha comenzado la historia. En este caso, a fuerza de incomprender que en el acontecer abstracto existe la continuidad sin plan determinado, lejos de ser crítico el peruano ha pecado de acriticismo. Creo que, como sugiere Alex, es mejor interceptarlo en La Fiesta del Chivo.
Suscribo al icono al pie de la letra, nomas una zetica en en rozagante. Suscribo a cafeina y a alexny igual. El derecho de la Plaza del Vapor lo que tiro hoy fue saoco. Yo no llego ahi. Pero comento que ayer fui a ver al Barni y me alegro sobremanera ver en proceso la pincha de The Count, ver terminada la intriga cardenense de la pelicula de Maqui, ver al Barni incansable en la pega. Hablamos de Miami y del presente. Para mi, que asimile con estoicismo la guajirez involuntaria, es hora de volver al poblado.
vaya que el vargui se mantenga en el jaque al rey y suelte el guante y la pelota. guajirez, me encanta ese término, machetico, para involuntariar mi estoicismo. oh, sacros panqués de jamaica en las noches lajeras de san josé!
Rafaello, en el caso Zaha, lo que tu ves como "caotica representacion", yo lo veo como dematerializacion de la arquitectura, porosidad e interpenetracio'n. Obra limitada? El museo de Cincinati, la estacio'n Vitra, el Bergisel Ski Jump, el edificio expresionista de la BMW en Leipzig (que algunos dicen inicia un nuevo tratamiento de la manipulacion del concreto), el Centro Cienti'fico en Wolfsbuig? Que no se merec'ia el Pritzker? All'a el jurado que se lo di'o. Por otra parte, Eisenman es un arquitecto a respetar. Su Carnegie Mellon, o el Centro Aronof son proyectos que nos hacen ver la arquitectura desde otro punto de vista. Respeto tu opinio'n, solo me atrevo (y me alegro) de no compartirla.
Ahhh AT...How you tempt me! Do you require a long response to validate your issues? One that surpasses a diatribe of inconsistent rhetoric. If I would admit to not caring, would that make me a Stoic? Or is it that at this venue of my life I just "Kant" care for it. In any case, to keep within the holiday spirit and my sardonic studies, please enjoy the following:
Christmas Carols for the Mentally Disturbed...
1. Schizophrenia --- Do You Hear What I Hear?
2. Multiple Personality Disorder --- We Three Kings Disoriented Are
3. Dementia --- I Think I'll be Home for Christmas
4. Narcissistic --- Hark the Herald Angels Sing About Me
5. Manic --- Deck the Halls and Walls and House and Lawn and Streets and Stores and Office and Town and Cars and Buses and Trucks and Trees and.....
6. Paranoid --- Santa Claus is Coming to Town to Get Me
7. Borderline Personality Disorder --- Thoughts of Roasting on an Open Fire
8. Personality Disorder --- You Better Watch Out, I'm Gonna Cry, I'm Gonna Pout, Maybe I'll Tell You Why
9. Attention Deficit Disorder --- Silent night, Holy... oooh look at the chicken, can I have a chocolate, why is France so far away?
10. Obsessive Compulsive Disorder --Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle, Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells ....
"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
Baruch Spinoza (Un Hebreo, Sefardies y un filosofo holandes)
Vizca: Aqu'i va. Tomado de una conversacio'n entre Chomsky y Phetland (en 1995). Cuidado con citar a Chomsky, tu', ahora que Chavez lo considera su maestro ideolo'gico (lo digo por eso de las afinidades electivas):
Specific comment. Phetland asked who I'm referring to when I speak of "Paris school" and "postmodernist cults": the above is a sample.
He then asks, reasonably, why I am "dismissive" of it. Take, say, Derrida. Let me begin by saying that I dislike making the kind of comments that follow without providing evidence, but I doubt that participants want a close analysis of de Saussure, say, in this forum, and I know that I'm not going to undertake it. I wouldn't say this if I hadn't been explicitly asked for my opinion --- and if asked to back it up, I'm going to respond that I don't think it merits the time to do so.
So take Derrida, one of the grand old men. I thought I ought to at least be able to understand his Grammatology, so tried to read it. I could make out some of it, for example, the critical analysis of classical texts that I knew very well and had written about years before. I found the scholarship appalling, based on pathetic misreading; and the argument, such as it was, failed to come close to the kinds of standards I've been familiar with since virtually childhood. Well, maybe I missed something: could be, but suspicions remain, as noted. Again, sorry to make unsupported comments, but I was asked, and therefore am answering.
Some of the people in these cults (which is what they look like to me) I've met: Foucault (we even have a several-hour discussion, which is in print, and spent quite a few hours in very pleasant conversation, on real issues, and using language that was perfectly comprehensible --- he speaking French, me English); Lacan (who I met several times and considered an amusing and perfectly self-conscious charlatan, though his earlier work, pre-cult, was sensible and I've discussed it in print); Kristeva (who I met only briefly during the period when she was a fervent Maoist); and others. Many of them I haven't met, because I am very remote from from these circles, by choice, preferring quite different and far broader ones --- the kinds where I give talks, have interviews, take part in activities, write dozens of long letters every week, etc. I've dipped into what they write out of curiosity, but not very far, for reasons already mentioned: what I find is extremely pretentious, but on examination, a lot of it is simply illiterate, based on extraordinary misreading of texts that I know well (sometimes, that I have written), argument that is appalling in its casual lack of elementary self-criticism, lots of statements that are trivial (though dressed up in complicated verbiage) or false; and a good deal of plain gibberish. When I proceed as I do in other areas where I do not understand, I run into the problems mentioned in connection with (1) and (2) above. So that's who I'm referring to, and why I don't proceed very far. I can list a lot more names if it's not obvious.
For those interested in a literary depiction that reflects pretty much the same perceptions (but from the inside), I'd suggest David Lodge. Pretty much on target, as far as I can judge.
Phetland also found it "particularly puzzling" that I am so "curtly dismissive" of these intellectual circles while I spend a lot of time "exposing the posturing and obfuscation of the New York Times." So "why not give these guys the same treatment." Fair question. There are also simple answers. What appears in the work I do address (NYT, journals of opinion, much of scholarship, etc.) is simply written in intelligible prose and has a great impact on the world, establishing the doctrinal framework within which thought and expression are supposed to be contained, and largely are, in successful doctrinal systems such as ours. That has a huge impact on what happens to suffering people throughout the world, the ones who concern me, as distinct from those who live in the world that Lodge depicts (accurately, I think). So this work should be dealt with seriously, at least if one cares about ordinary people and their problems. The work to which Phetland refers has none of these characteristics, as far as I'm aware. It certainly has none of the impact, since it is addressed only to other intellectuals in the same circles. Furthermore, there is no effort that I am aware of to make it intelligible to the great mass of the population (say, to the people I'm constantly speaking to, meeting with, and writing letters to, and have in mind when I write, and who seem to understand what I say without any particular difficulty, though they generally seem to have the same cognitive disability I do when facing the postmodern cults). And I'm also aware of no effort to show how it applies to anything in the world in the sense I mentioned earlier: grounding conclusions that weren't already obvious. Since I don't happen to be much interested in the ways that intellectuals inflate their reputations, gain privilege and prestige, and disengage themselves from actual participation in popular struggle, I don't spend any time on it.
Phetland suggests starting with Foucault --- who, as I've written repeatedly, is somewhat apart from the others, for two reasons: I find at least some of what he writes intelligible, though generally not very interesting; second, he was not personally disengaged and did not restrict himself to interactions with others within the same highly privileged elite circles. Phetland then does exactly what I requested: he gives some illustrations of why he thinks Foucault's work is important. That's exactly the right way to proceed, and I think it helps understand why I take such a "dismissive" attitude towards all of this --- in fact, pay no attention to it.
Visit our upcoming electrical training schedule of forums and courses
bali bras
cubic zirconia bangle bracelet
discontinued bali bras bali bras discounted
bankruptcy mortgage loan illinois bad credit bankruptcy loan personal unsecured
The world's leading iPod resource for news, reviews, forums, tips, tutorials
buy cheap VIAGRA online
GoldenCasino.com - An incredible online casino experience offering blackjack, roulette, craps, slots, and video poker. Deposit now and get up to $555 FREE!
Save by buying your Down Pillows direct from the manufacturer. We offer a wide selection of quality Hungarian down, down and feathers bed pillows, body pillows, pillow inserts, and cushions
blue car headlight covers
bmw chicago
bmw new york
BUY CHEAP SUPER VIAGRA ONLINE AND SAVE 70 % OF MONEY...
ORDER CHEAP CIALIS ONLINE
DISCOUNT LOW-COST CIALIS VIAGRA LEVITRA
BUY CHEAP CIALIS ONLINE LOW-PRICES PHARMACY
Publicar un comentario