Wednesday, May 03, 2006

# Posted 11:38 AM by Patrick Porter  

ACADEMIC JARGON: One scholar describes his own work:

Ontologically, I have prioritized the triunity of space, time and causality; stressed the fivefold causal chain consisting, typically, in the transfactual efficacy of the generative mechanism of structures, the rythmic (viz., irreducibly tensed A-serial spatializing processual) exercise of their causal powers, potentially mediated by the holistic causality and intra-activity of an (in general) partial totality, dependent in the human sphere upon the embodied intentional causal agency of emergent structurata, codetermining a concretely singularized conjunctural outcome.

Why on earth have you done that?

(11) opinions -- Add your opinion

Here's my guess: "I looked for a cause and effect relationship and found [it] partly responsible."
Man that's funny.
For the children.
Found this beautifully crafted bit of academic brilliance from a review of a book with the modest title "Plato etc."

"Indeed dialectical critical realism may be seen under the aspect of Foucauldian strategic reversal - of the unholy trinity of Parmenidean/ Platonic/ Aristotelian provenance;of the Cartesian-Lockean-Humean-Kantian paradigm, of foundationalisms (in practice, fideistic foundationalisms) and irrationalisms (in practice, capricious exercises of the will-to-power or some other ideologically and/or psychosomatically buried source) new and old alike; of the primordial failing of Western philosophy, ontological monovalence, and its close ally, the epistemic fallacy with its ontic dual; of the analytic problematic laid down by Plato, which Hegel served only to replicate in his actualist monovalent analytic reinstatement in transfigurative reconciling dialectical connection, while in his hubristic claims for absolute idealism he inaugurated the Comtean, Kierkegaardian and Nietzschean eclipses of reason, replicating the fundaments positivism through its transmutation route to the superidealism of a Baudrillard"."
... epistemically speaking ?
I usually just shake it three times before putting it away... but to each his own.
It makes them seem smarter than us plebes who belive in un-obfusticated speech.
Same reason anyone does anything: to get laid.
Because it was a Monty Python audition?

"And I did all this, Sir, with a HERRING!"
Here's a good one: A guy responds to critics of his views on Iraq (posted under the rubric of "Language, Intent, & the Other") by identifying the source of his authority (don't be distracted by his use of the 3rd person): "... at one time he did teach university honors courses about hermeneutics, intentionalism, and historiographical theory—which invested heavily in analyses of linguistic assumptions, particularly how they are formed, the impact they have on identity formation, and how they permeate history and historiography (which in turn has a manifest impact on epistemology)."
JEEZ. Don't you guys know a hoax when you see it?

If it's not a hoax, how could you tell? And if it's not a hoax, what can you do with it that you can't do with a hoax?
Post a Comment