On second thoughts, WHERE ON EARTH DO YOU, GEORGES AND WHOEVER ELSE GET THE AUTHORITY, THE ARROGANCE, the temerity to demand that I defend my right to speak? It this a group of human beings or a cows' pecking order setup? I did not know that my birth certificate carried in invisible ink the hidden agenda you gentlemen play by.
adrian Alex P. Real wrote: > Adrian, > > I´m rather acquainted with tropes, particularly according to structuralism > (notably Kristeva and her psychoanalytic approach); hence my question. Same > would apply to disinformation, particularly because the array of schemata > you enact in speech may be different to mine. An accurate conceptual > framework is important to enable understanding by others. > > On what grounds do you speak about the social system? A matter of opinion? > Re paradigms neither an opinion nor choice, rather narratives of science > within what in English is termed science studies, in a simplification of the > French concept of epistemologie de la science. > > Sad you have such views about human interaction, whether computer-mediated > or not. There's always some degree of personal choice, no matter how little > it may be, which provides room for strategies of resistance and subversion. > I'm not an optimistic but if you don't like such "isolation" and "paranoia", > why don't you introduce some change within your small parcel of freedom? A > tiny act may shift the full perspective. Belief in determinism can well lead > to mental slavery. Totalitarian regimes proved self-censorship the most > effective mechanism for social control. > > Re "wondering" I was just being polite, quite frankly the savant should put > their knowledge to more productive uses than a row. Disqualification and > insults are the last resource when one runs out of reasoned arguments, and > hence lead to a not very savant impression. This last bit is of course an > opinion. > > Georges can get verbal, but (correct if me wrong, G!) it seems more related > to impatience and frustration out of passion for knowledge than anything > personal. And maybe some may enjoy twisting him a bit (??). > > Cheers, > > Alex > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] En > nombre de adrf > Enviado el: miércoles, 27 de agosto de 2008 8:21 > Para: [email protected] > Asunto: [epistemology 9310] Re: Prisoner exchange > > > Yes Dear, > LOOK UP TRope and disinformation, Inet has lots of dictionaries. > THERE"S P dilemma and P Exchange, not the same, > Kindly name WHO wrote "confusing the weak mindded", not me. > " It would be more comfortable to live under the umbrella of a Paradigm > (Kuhn terms, dated > though applicable), but maybe the lack of it is a paradigm itself (Latour)" > That's your choice and opinion. > " In my immense folly, I can't help wondering why intellectual discussions > by savant people end > in quarrel rather than some fruitful outcome. > Kindly stop wondering and start understanding. It's the social system which > isolates us and > makes us paranoid. > > adrian. > > > Alex P. Real wrote: >> Prisoner's dilemma is widely used in conflict resolution at grassroots > level >> and a little bit more complex than your quote, particularly when linked to >> rational choice theory. Unfortunately not applicable to > Israeli-Palestinian >> conflict, otherwise it would have been solved years ago. >> >> Please define "disinformation". I may not always agree with Georges but > his >> arguments are usually flawless. I dislike online rows, so I haven't been >> following this. Who's the weak minded here and according to which >> indicators? Sorry but placing yourself in the hierarchical superiority of >> "confusing the weak minded" when you don't know list members may not be in >> line with the game theory you quote. >> >> Please define trope and according to who. Confusing the end of grand > récits, >> or rather their shattering into partial micro units at the same > hierarchical >> level with no overarching one, with political interests against a new >> paradigm is somewhat limited. It would be more comfortable to live under > the >> umbrella of a Paradigm (Kuhn terms, dated though applicable), but maybe > the >> lack of it is a paradigm itself (Latour). Fractal geometry led to a >> veritable scientific revolution, which can't really be compared to > hologram.. >> If interested in latest technology, its interconnection with science & > arts >> is a most fascinating field (e.g. virtual touchability) which is pushing >> boundaries indeed and leading to a significant shift in social sciences' >> theories. >> >> BTW, I'm an utter idiot in its etymological sense. In my immense folly, I >> can't help wondering why intellectual discussions by savant people end in >> quarrel rather than some fruitful outcome. >> >> Cheers. >> >> >> >> -----Mensaje original----- >> De: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > En >> nombre de adrf >> Enviado el: martes, 26 de agosto de 2008 22:36 >> Para: [email protected] >> Asunto: [epistemology 9293] Re: Prisoner exchange >> >> >> PRISONER"S DILEMMA taken from wikipedia> >> Prisoner's Dilemma constitutes a problem in game theory. It was originally >> framed by Merrill >> Flood and Melvin Dresher working at RAND in 1950. Albert W. Tucker >> formalized the game with >> prison sentence payoffs and gave it the "Prisoner's Dilemma" name >> (Poundstone, 1992). >> >> Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient >> evidence for a >> conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to >> offer the same deal. If >> one testifies ("defects") for the prosecution against the other and the >> other remains silent, >> the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year >> sentence. If both >> remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for > a >> minor charge. If >> each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner >> must choose to betray >> the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would > not >> know about the >> betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners > act? >> Prisoner EXCHANGE >> "In 1985, Israel released 1,150 prisoners in exchange for three Israeli >> soldiers captured in >> "Lebanon. Then-Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin defended the deal. "When no >> military option >> "exists," he said, "there is no choice but to enter negotiations and pay a >> price." [1] >> >> Metapoofsky is a disinformation agent. I've been on several other lists > with >> one in >> attendancce, hoping to confuse the weak minded and their tactics are >> obvious. They leave one >> uncertain about whether it's nuts or what. Oh well, every village used to >> have its idiot, so >> what else is new? >> >> adrian >> >> >> >> >> Georges Metanomski wrote: >>> >>> --- On Tue, 7/29/08, Alex P. Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> I eagerly await further comments on the Jewish side. >>> =============== >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
