Oh, definitely both. You don't go postmodernism without some healthy crack.
Deleuze and Guattari are really interesting. I've found very little in either of their work that isn't useful, and nothing that isn't interesting, but my God do they miss on "right" sometimes.
And which Freudian thing in postmodern analysis do you mean?
And yes, you've hit at my other bemusement with the Bayesian crowd, which is that they seem to take on faith that the unknown unknowns, so to speak, are going to be more or less manageable. Whereas I take one of the basic lessons of postmodernism to be "be very, very wary of your unknown unknowns, and consider the possibility of unknown knowns."
no subject
Deleuze and Guattari are really interesting. I've found very little in either of their work that isn't useful, and nothing that isn't interesting, but my God do they miss on "right" sometimes.
And which Freudian thing in postmodern analysis do you mean?
And yes, you've hit at my other bemusement with the Bayesian crowd, which is that they seem to take on faith that the unknown unknowns, so to speak, are going to be more or less manageable. Whereas I take one of the basic lessons of postmodernism to be "be very, very wary of your unknown unknowns, and consider the possibility of unknown knowns."