From: Damien Broderick (thespike@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Dec 10 2002 - 12:59:09 MST
Anders wrote:
> As for the sentence Robert took as an example, that was likely
> murky just due to terminology, not concept (I hope). There is a
> difference between relying on complex or specialised shared
> concepts and having a complex train of thought.
[...]
> "The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a
> center. It is the very concept of variability -- it is,
> finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is
> not the concept of something -- of a center starting
> from which an observer could master the field -- but
> the very concept of the game."
>
> is of the second kind, a complex train of thought whose value
> cannot easily be ascertained despite being written in a far
> less technical language (although some hidden jargon exists;
> the above mess is likely only meaningful within a postmodern
> context, and even there I am doubtful if it says something
> relevant).
Ah, but relevant to *what*? Half the trouble in understanding difficult
discourse is knowing what interpretative frame to read it through. Consider
the citation above (from Jacques Derrida, although Anders politedly omits
this provenance): an impatient scientist (Sokal, let's say) might assume
that the writer is an idiot who doesn't understand the difference between a
constant such as the speed of light in vacuo and a parameter (let's say). My
reading, with a certain amount of hermeneutic charity toward its
poststructural frame, suggests that Derrida is referring not to *c* but to
the spacetime interval, where the invariant quantity is maintained despite
any number of variations in either space or time distances so long as they
are suitably coupled. Hence, Derrida says (playfully), while relativity is
founded upon an invariant, this cannot serve as a *center*, a Primum Mobile,
a godlike place without motion from which the entire field of play (of
reality) can be observed in a top-down, magisterial fashion. His error is
not in saying any of this, which is a commonplace of physics, but in
supposing that this insight can be imported directly and usefully into any
relativism salient to human culture.
But I have the mournful feeling that this attempted explanation of Derrida's
apparent obscurity will have failed Robert Bradbury's test and will itself
need explanation...
BTW, there are plenty of groups of smart people out there (mean 3 sigma,
say) who are not members of this club house. :)
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:39 MST