tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post3483906795401176637..comments2024-03-14T11:09:32.759-05:00Comments on Falkenblog: Chomsky Making SenseEric Falkensteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07243687157322033496noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-58793386871003767152009-04-06T14:52:00.000-05:002009-04-06T14:52:00.000-05:00Based on how you characterize Chomsky's views, I h...Based on how you characterize Chomsky's views, I have to disagree with the details of most of what he has to say, but I think he is onto something in one respect. By being skeptical of anything that is too big and powerful, he is instead insisting on a "The Power of Small"- http://tinyurl.com/c8enow -type model. Decentralization and smallness are less prone to corruption and abuses, for instance. Or maybe I'm giving him too much credit.Rhysnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-76402282514075001652009-04-02T14:02:00.000-05:002009-04-02T14:02:00.000-05:00The statements are way off and it appears you have...The statements are way off and it appears you haven't actually read anything by Chomsky. Where does he, for instance, say that US is domestically more repressive than most regimes in the world? I think you are conflating his criticism of US foreign policy with domestic issues. And celebrating the virtues of china and khmer rouge is nonsense.Unconventional Wisdomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12104938218664853916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-61383336597592944852009-04-01T21:27:00.000-05:002009-04-01T21:27:00.000-05:00I think you are unfair to Chomsky's political view...I think you are unfair to Chomsky's political views. For example, he does acknowledge the scope and importance of free speech within the USA, but denies that this implies a pursuit of freedom internationally. (I have no quote to hand though).<BR/><BR/>Also, he would not point to the character of those in power as necessarily evil, but that it is more "adaptation of personnel to the constraints of ownership, organization, market and political power" that is the root of the problem. (Manufacturing Consent preface, p xii).<BR/><BR/>Finally, on the Khmer Rouge, what I have read of his commentary was always focused on the media's relative interest and credulence for the atrocities there compared to (say) East Timor, rather than any support of the regime.tom s.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02843516091868469912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-16441309885458455412009-04-01T20:34:00.000-05:002009-04-01T20:34:00.000-05:00Chomsky once reportedly said something not about l...Chomsky <EM>once</EM> reportedly said something not about linguistics that I so agreed with ... I was quite surprised! So much so that I suspected somebody made it up and attributed it to him for effect -- though there are several places that attribute it to him (<A HREF="http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html" REL="nofollow">such as</A>).<BR/><BR/>It was his take on post-modernism...<BR/><BR/>~~ quote ~~<BR/><BR/>... There are lots of things I don't understand -- say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat's last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. <BR/><BR/>But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to understand it. <BR/><BR/>Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. --- even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest --- write things that I also don't understand, but (1) and (2) don't hold: no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I haven't a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures. <BR/><BR/>That leaves one of two possibilities: (a) some new advance in intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden genetic mutation, which has created a form of "theory" that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and profundity; or (b) ... I won't spell it out....<BR/>~~~<BR/><BR/>There it is: proof that <EM>something</EM> is too much for <EM>everybody</EM>.Jim Glasshttp://www.scrivener.netnoreply@blogger.com