Lyle Lovett Explains It All

"Alright.  I've had it up to here," he says, vigorously motioning to an area about a foot above his head, "with people I like thinking I don't like them.  So I'm officially dedicating this song to all thems who ain't John Bruce."  (Click on that link and you'll be subjected to an appropos but not necessarily very good Lyle Lovett song.  Best you click here, here, here or here.)

Matt, that includes you.  I apologize for the offense I unintentionally caused, but I don't want you thinking me a hard-headed or anything of the sort.  I am open and receptive to all opinions not my own because, well, because I don't trust my own opinions, being that they're mine and all. 

Comments

[Matt]

Dear Scott,

Like I said, no hard feelings. And point taken, by the way (about an often funny situation that does indeed seem to almost compell us more toward misundersting). It's a misunderstanding worth engaging with, in my view.

I too, would like to keep an open mind.

Surely, however, you're not entirely unaware of the sentiments that exist...

http://www.cinestatic.com/infinitethought/2005/03/new-continental-philosophy-blog.asp

(it's unfortunate the contphilUK blog seems to have been erased; there were some very intelligent debates about the relative efficacy, obscuration, etc. of the terms themselves, "continental" and "analytic" there...)

http://www.cinestatic.com/infinitethought/2005/04/epitaph-for-continental-philosophy.asp

http://www.cinestatic.com/infinitethought/2005/03/cont-phil-debate-continues.asp

If, on the other hand, one's response to this sort of sentiment or framing of the issue is merely a scoff, then you'll agree that's the sort of response that does risk rather just confirming "their" point, if you take my meaning.

Anyway I honestly think it *could be* a productive dialogue, and has been at times, for instance over there at contphilUK. But more is needed, yes. The problem is each side seems convinced it is the REAL VICTIM. A more careful look at the facts might indeed reveal the analytics to be both the
dominant group and the primary agressors, and I'm sorry to say so but an event like "Theory's Empire" did not exactly alter that impression.

It's too bad, really. Let's work on it, shall we?

By the way, I've added a link to your blog from mine.

[camicao]

I don't mean to lower the discourse, but as a Lyle Lovett fan I'd like to say that I once peed next to him in a Houston airport restroom. No, I did not see his "member", but he's taller and craggier than what I expected.

[Rich Puchalsky]

Matt, remember what I wrote about apparently odd psychological models of others?

"The problem is each side seems convinced it is the REAL VICTIM. A more careful look at the facts might indeed reveal the analytics to be both the
dominant group and the primary agressors, and I'm sorry to say so but an event like "Theory's Empire" did not exactly alter that impression."

The primary aggressors? The dominant group? Come on, Matt. You're using the language of culture war and applying it to a dispute among academics. If an academic writes that he or she sees problems with the general methods of the field or with a particular theorist, saying "You're the primary aggressor!" is not an answer. Challenging each other's ideas is what academics do.

I guarantee that the members of the Valve in general are not actuated by a feeling of victimhood or psychologically boosted by a feeling that they themselves are the dominant group. Maybe someone writing some blog somewhere is. But so what?

[Matt]

Fair enough, but that wasn't a comment about the Valve so much as about the book, the book's ambitions, the climate in which it was composed, etc. And I was responding to these ambitions by suggesting the original premise could just as easily be overturned. Obviously, it's a bit more complicated that than, but I do think there's a kind of victim-speak that often tarnishes this debate, yes. These arguments do not take place in a vacuum.

[Matt]

"Come on, Matt. You're using the language of culture war and applying it to a dispute among academics."

One where "the other side" apparently didn't bother to show up, if you remember the allegations.