#14 No, el 68 fue la revolución pijoprogre de los hijos del régimen, que estaban aburridos de su vida burguesa. Cuando acabaron los 60 y terminaron los estudios, procedieron a dominar todos los puestos de poder y a convertirse en la generación más conservadora de la actualidad, tanto en EEUU como en Francia, por ejemplo, los llamados Baby-Boomers.
Todo lo que salió de ahí, desde Rancière hasta Foucault es una basura infecta vacía de contenido. Toda la filosofía posmoderna es una huida hacia ninguna parte que no ha producido ningún conocimiento práctico que haya ayudado en nada al progreso humano, ni en particular de la civilización occidental.
Ya no importaba mejorar las condiciones de vida de los obreros, o de los presos. Empezaron a hablar de las estructuras invisibles de poder y de tonterías de tres al cuarto como aplicar los estudios de género a la mecánica de fluidos aduciendo que se ha estudiado menos porque se asocian los fluidos con lo femenino:
he privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids. Although men, too, flow on occasion—when semen is emitted, for example—this aspect of their sexuality is not emphasized. It is the rigidity of the male organ that counts, not its complicity in fluid flow. These idealizations are reinscribed in mathematics, which conceives of fluids as laminated planes and other modified solid forms. In the same way that women are erased within masculinist theories and language, existing only as not-men, so fluids have been erased from science, existing only as not-solids. From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.
(Hayles, N. K. (1992) “Gender encoding in fluid mechanics: masculine channels and feminine flows,” Differences: A Journal Of Feminist Cultural Studies, 4(2):16–44.)
Todo lo que salió de ahí, desde Rancière hasta Foucault es una basura infecta vacía de contenido. Toda la filosofía posmoderna es una huida hacia ninguna parte que no ha producido ningún conocimiento práctico que haya ayudado en nada al progreso humano, ni en particular de la civilización occidental.
Ya no importaba mejorar las condiciones de vida de los obreros, o de los presos. Empezaron a hablar de las estructuras invisibles de poder y de tonterías de tres al cuarto como aplicar los estudios de género a la mecánica de fluidos aduciendo que se ha estudiado menos porque se asocian los fluidos con lo femenino:
he privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids. Although men, too, flow on occasion—when semen is emitted, for example—this aspect of their sexuality is not emphasized. It is the rigidity of the male organ that counts, not its complicity in fluid flow. These idealizations are reinscribed in mathematics, which conceives of fluids as laminated planes and other modified solid forms. In the same way that women are erased within masculinist theories and language, existing only as not-men, so fluids have been erased from science, existing only as not-solids. From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders.
(Hayles, N. K. (1992) “Gender encoding in fluid mechanics: masculine channels and feminine flows,” Differences: A Journal Of Feminist Cultural Studies, 4(2):16–44.)