14 پاسخ به “در ستایش سادگی و روشنی بیان به سبک آلن سوکال”

1. aavizoon گفت:

   دسامبر 11, 2004 در 4:46 ق.ظ

   منم یه سیستانی هستم و خیلی خوشحال شدم از دیدن ای سایت یه لینک بهتون دادم

2. دخو گفت:

   دسامبر 11, 2004 در 8:25 ق.ظ

   آقا لذت بردیم
   دخو

3. پيام آوران سگال گفت:

   دسامبر 11, 2004 در 9:35 ق.ظ

   بسیار لذت بردم از مطلب ارائه شده. وبسیار ناراحتم از تعداد افرادی که با این مقالات اجتماعی یا ادبی برخورد دارند واین چیزی نیست جز نشان از کهولت و نقص بلوغ فکری و اجتماعی ما که وای مصیبت‌ها/همیشه پاینده باشی

4. مریم اقدمی گفت:

   دسامبر 11, 2004 در 11:11 ق.ظ

   سلام، خوشحال شدم که حداقل یکی به جز خودم این ها را می خواند!

5. بهمن گفت:

   دسامبر 11, 2004 در 9:46 ب.ظ

   آقا مهدی.
   آقای خشایار دیهیمی و هومن پناهنده هم دغدغه های جدی در این زمینه دارند. به خصوص آقای پناهنده. ایشون در یک سخنرانی مفصل به این مساله پرداختند و گفتند که پیش شرط گفتگو اینه که دو طرف حرفشون رو روشن و ساده بیان کنند. توی اون سخنرانی شون تیکه هایی از محمدرضا تاجیک -مشاور رئیس جمهور- و همین طور کتاب جدید آقای سید جواد طباطبایی رو هم خوندن.

6. سيبستان گفت:

   دسامبر 11, 2004 در 10:04 ب.ظ

   بهمن عزیز،
   من متاسفانه آقای پناهنده را نمی شناسم گرچه خوشحال می شوم رفرنسی به من بدهی تا از ایشان بیشتر بخوانم ولی به خشایار دیهیمی ارادت بسیار دارم. آخرین مطلبی که از او خواندم در همین شرق بود و در ویژه نامه ۱۶ آذر و در باره دانشگاه. حتی می خواستم در باره اشاره های او چیزی بنویسم که نشد. محمد رضا تاجیک هم از خوشفکرهای کم کو و گزیده نویس است. شاید سالهای آغاز انقلاب را که با هم در دانشگاه می گذراندیم هنوز یادش بیاید. ولی اشاره ات را به کتاب او یا کتابی از استاد طباطبایی نگرفتم. کاش ذکر نام کنی تا بفهمم نمونه مغلق گویی بوده اند یا دفاع از روشنی بیان! من فکر می کنم شاید دوستان شرق بتوانند ویژه نامه ای در این باب منتشر کنند. این آفت یا بلای عظیم تنها با هدف قرار گرفتن صریح و مستقیم می تواند در میان ما تضعیف شود. از بین رفتنی که نیست این میل شگرف در بعضی از ما جماعت برای ابهام دوستی های فراپست مدرنیستی!

7. بهمن گفت:

   دسامبر 11, 2004 در 11:41 ب.ظ

   هومن پناهنده مترجم است و با موسسه معرفت و پژوهش هم همکاری می کند. در آن سخنرانی هم بخشهایی از نوشته های محمدرضا تاجیک و سید جواد طباطبایی را هم به عنوان نمونه مغلق و نامفهوم نوشتن خوانده بود. وقتی نوشتید ما هم به سکال های ایرانی نیاز داریم یاد آقای پناهنده افتادم. یادم افتاد که در جلسه ای خصوصی می گفت باید چند نفر مدتی همه نیرویشان را بگذارند برای تشویق به روشن نویسی و تقبیح مغلق نویسی. حتی می گفت می شود مجله ای تخصصی هم برایش راه انداخت. البته طبیعتا همه اینها در حد حرف باقی ماند ولی منظورم این بود که این دغدغه برای ایشان هم جدیست. متاسفانه متن آن سخنرانی ایشان در اینترنت وجود ندارد (شرق گزارش خیلی خلاصه ای از آن چاپ کرد که عملا اصل حرفش در آن گزارش نیامده بود). در مورد ویژه نامه هم بعید می دانم عملی شود.

8. حمید باباوند گفت:

   دسامبر 12, 2004 در 1:15 ق.ظ

   ما بجه های جنوب شهر وقتی که از یک موضوع خیلی حال می کنیم به طرف می گوییم دمت گرم! کوتاه است اما ساده و البته پرمعنی. و می گویم: آقا دمت گرم.

9. حامد قدوسي گفت:

   دسامبر 12, 2004 در 4:37 ق.ظ

   من متوجه نکته شما هستم. خودم چند وقت پیش یادداشتی در نقد روشنفکران چپ و از فریبندگی زبانشان گله کرده بودم. ولی به نظرم در مورد آثار فکری نمی توان با صفر و یک (سادگی و مهمل گویی) قضاوت نمود. حداقل سه گزینه به نظرم می رسد :
   ۱- نوشته های ساده و دارای منطق درست و روشن
   ۲- نوشته های مغلق دارای بار اطلاعاتی موثر
   ۳- نوشته های مغلق بی معنی و فریبنده
   شاید بهتر باشد به جای چوب زدن به همه نوشته های مغلق به مردم بگوییم موقع خواندن با حوصله تر و نقادانه تر رفتار کنند. و گرنه اگر روشنفکران مجبور شوند همه نوشته هایشان را ساده بنویسند انرژی زیادی برای گفتگو باید صرف شود.

10. سيبستان گفت:

    دسامبر 12, 2004 در 5:11 ق.ظ

    حامد عزیز،
    یادآوری بجایی است. می کوشم در بازگشت بعدی به این موضوع، نگاهی بیندازم به انواع مغلق های مفید و ساده های سطحی. اما در اینجا روشن است که هدف نقد روندی ناسالم است: فروختن و جلوه دادن کم سوادی به اسم سواد و دانشوری زیر پوشش قلنبه گویی.

11. مجتبا گفت:

    دسامبر 12, 2004 در 6:34 ق.ظ

    در دفاع از زبانِ پست‌مدرن:
    http://www.pouyan.ws/archives/001107.html

12. Sahand گفت:

    دسامبر 13, 2004 در 5:25 ق.ظ

    “ We need to make the things simple but not simpler.” Einstein
    Dear Mojtaba: I read Amir Pouyan’s article and had read pervious one on Luce Irigaray and the one in Sharghmagazine.
    First time when I heard about Alan Socal’s trick was at the following address
    http://think.iran-emrooz.de/more.php?id=955_0_12_0_M
    Second time I read it in Martin Gardner’s book “ Did Adam and Eve Have Navels” In first article, Alan Socal had repeatedly admitted that he is not a competent person in certain subject such as psychoanalysis. This article was translated by Ali-Mohammd Taba tabaei which some of them does not make sense at all, for example according to this translation Alan Socal had said that: I do not understand the differences between “Jouissance “(a Lacanian term) and: differences” There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Taba tabei had made a big mistake— as he usually does—because people may find hard to understand the differences between common English term “ pleasure “ and French term “ Jouissance “ and not between “ difference” and “ Jouissance” In dou term hatta ba yeh man serish be ham ne mi chasbeh
    First :To best of my knowledge he wanted to make fun of certain media and their editors, and that does not mean that all so-called “ post modernists “ are that stupid. J. Bricmont is a physicist at Louvain University in Belgium and if they would have sent their book and article to its Lacanian psychoanalyst in the campus, they will got their sweet answer. After all Louvain have the best Lacanian psychoanalysts. People like Alphonse De Waelhens, Wilfred Ver Eecke, Paul Verhaeghe, Philippe Van Haute and other are giants that would swallow them up. Second putting Lacan and people like Luce Irigaray in the same basket and calling them both post modernists is totally wrong. Lacan first of all is a Freudian and his style looks more like Zen Buddhism and he is more look like a Zen master. His ideas have nothing in common with most of these days post modernist thinkers. He deals with structure of unconscious and according to him, it’s content is nothing but a linguistic discourse. The core of his theory is based on scientific linguistics of both de Saussure and Roman Jakobson. Alan Socal is a physicist and not a linguist and no wonder he does not understand Lacan. Unlike some postmodern thinkers, which in my opinion have nothing to say but playing word games and their ideas do not have too much application, Lacan’s four fundamental concepts, unconscious, repetition, the transference and the drive are the most apparent phenomenon in the science of mind. Lacan uses certain mathematical formula which he calls them “ matheme “—- by analogy with the term “ mytheme “ coined by Claude-Levi –Strauss. —- To make them unchanged in translation. “They are constructed to resist any attempt to reduce them to one univocal signification and to prevent the reader from an intuitive or imaginary understand of psychoanalytic concepts: the mathemes are not to be understood but to be used.”
    Lacan was very well aware that how some of key concepts of Freud were mistranslated and he gives the example of word “ Trieb “ which was translated by James Strachey as instinct and not as drive (pulsion) There is a big differences between drive and instinct. Instincts are pre wired fixed and biological and applies only to animals and drives applies to human. Lacan wanted certain concepts to be understood universally the way the mathematical and physical formula can be understood across the world, without confusion. He did these with the help of a mathematician friend and mostly was in topology and is around ten in total. Instead of writing signifier over the signified he designate them with “ S” and “ s” and writes their relation S/ s . What is wrong with this?
    Richard Dawkins have jumped to bandwagon to attack the things that he just does not understand. I admire Dawkins 1: for his enormous effort in popularizing science 2: His firm stand against anti male, anti science radical feminists 3: His stand in pushing back the creationist theory of evolution but I do not appreciate his dogmatism. Unlike the Sharghmagazine’s article Richard Dawkins is not one of the best in biology field and as a matter of fact his ideas are all but dead. — He is a Neo Darwinist and believes that evolution had happened by gene mutation. He opposes to professor Lynn Margulis— in my opinion the best accurate scientific evolutionary theory of these days– — poetic and beautiful “ symbiosis” theory— Symbiosis means prolonged physical association between two or more “ differently names” organisms, generally from two or more different specious. — Lynn Margulis and other symbiosisist do not deny the fact that the single gene mutation had contributed to evolution but they do not consider it the main factor. According to Symbiosis theory the Eukaryotic cells, common in human and other high organized species — have evolved by cell acquiring the entire sets of genes from totally different species, bacteria. For example they say that male sperm’s tail once was a free-living bacterium called spirochetes, which is fast swimming and propels itself. That make sense even in today’s manufacturing we see that for example Boeing does not make every part of its aircrafts, they buy pre made parts by other manufacturer – that are specialized at certain part—and put them together to make a Boeing 747. To best of my knowledge Richard Dawkins have not responded to this theory even once, also Lynn Margulis have written more than 7 books in the subject. Dawkins sustain his Neo Darwinism theory the way the doctors sustain a crack baby’s — a baby borne to a crack addict mother— life by attaching hundred of electrode into his body and monitoring it round the clock. I do not blame Dawkins, he is fanatic scientist, which have invested a lot into this field and cannot accept to file a bankruptcy.
    His attack on anti scientists feminists such as Luce Irigaray and Sandra Harding and other mentally derailed radical feminist— you read lesbians— are wonderful. According Irigaray and Helen Cixous, the language in patriarchal culture originate with man, who locates himself a discursive subject and positive reference point of thought. According to these feminists science is also patriarchal and must be changed. While these morons are chasing wild goose and lecturing in worm, well paid universities, trying to” free women from male dominate societies “, every minute thousands of women join to stripe tease clubs, prostitution rings or call girl service.
    Irigaray’ problem with Phallus and Dawkins problem with Unconscious:
    In my opinion Irigaray is barking at wrong tree. She and others accuses Lacan to be a phallocentrist and male chauvinist. One after the other, Lacan had emphasized that Phallus is not the same as penis. According to Lacan phallus is a privileged master signifier and can only be defined in linguistic discourse and not as a male sex organ. Lacan says every body want to have the phallus but no body can have it. Irigaray think that the phallus is the column of the patriarchy and if she gets rid of it, she could demolish the patriarchal system. She is chasing a wild goose.
    Richard Dawkins in other hand—most probably, as some of his colleagues— does not believe in unconscious. He and some other scientists believe in solid evidence and for them unconscious do not make sense. I am not sure what will they say to a psychosis when he says he is hearing voices. Most probably they will try to look for a “ noisy gene” I call these people WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get), so if they cannot grasp unconscious it must not exist.
    Professor Gerald Edelman, a Neuroscientist and Noble prizewinner in his book “ Bright Air, Brilliant Fire “ mentions a discussion with Jacques Monod, French molecular biologist and also a Noble prizewinner.
    According to Edelman, Monod had said that Freud was unscientific and quite possible a charlatan. Monod had said, “ I am entirely aware of my motives and entirely responsible for my actions. They are all conscious.” In exasperation, I once said, “ Jacques let’s put it this way. Everything Freud said applies to me and none of it to you.” He replied “ Exactly my dear fellow.”
    Jacques Monod a great scientist was sort of ignorant on the subject that was out of his own field.
    Note 1: as usual there are some mistakes in this article in Sharghmagazine. For example it says Cambridge University wanted to grant an honorary degree to Derrida. It is not true. On 21 March 1992, senior members of the University of Cambridge gathered to decide its annual awards. Derrida’s name was in the list and four of the dons declared non placet (not contented) they were Dr. Henry Erskine, Ian Lack, David Hugh Mello and Raymond Ian Page. They saw Derrida’s thinking as deeply improper, offensive and subversive so Derrida was not granted the degree. Sharghmagazine unfortunately runs like a rabbit before
    Note 2: Ali Mohammed Taba tabaei, himself does not believe in unconscious and always translates from those that share his ideas. Most of these people are ardent believers in free will and in USA mostly are right wing religious people.

13. محمود فرجامي گفت:

    دسامبر 15, 2004 در 6:11 ق.ظ

    مطلب بسیار جالبی بود. لذت بردم. به فکرم رسیده یک کم سوکال‌بازی دربیاورم!

14. Mike Cams گفت:

    فوریه 9, 2005 در 6:26 ق.ظ

    cam adult – sexcams livecamgirls free webcams – free live nude web cam pensacola webcams – free live web cam sexcam virus – free porn cam satellite webcam – free home web cam adult webcam chatrooms – free xxx cam web cam chat software – asian sex chat adult chat rooms xxx – adult taxi cams – free cam chat adult java chat – free live adult web cam adult webcam free – free live sex web cam yahoo adult chat rooms – live web cam video chat adult sex cam – free live nude cam web cam chat rooms – free web cam video adult cams sites – adult web cam chat rooms adult cam software – sex chat line adult chat pad – local sex chat adult toy chat – free xxx web cam free adult web cam chat rooms – free web cam hosting
    ۶o41Zs-Hello, guys!-6o41Zs