""A wise man can see more from the bottom of a well than a fool can from a mountain top.
" About Julia Kristeva, her teacher Roland Barthes wrote, "Julia Kristeva changes the order of things: she always destroys the latest preconception, the one we thought we could be comforted by, the one of which we could be proud: what she displaces is the already-said, that is to say, the insistence of the signified; what she subverts is the authority of monologic science and of filiation." " Julia Kristeva's main interest is in discourse which confronts language and thinks it against itself. She focuses on the signifying process, trying to answer not only the question of exactly how language means but also what is in language that resists intelligibility and signification. She argues that structuralism, which focuses on the static phase of language and attempts to fix it and describe its details, sees it as homogeneous. Semiotics, on the other hand, which studies language as discourse articulated by a speaking subject, sees it as fundamentally heterogeneous. BY J.K>"All functions which suppose a frontier (in this case the fissure created by the act of naming and the logico-linguistic synthesis which it sets off) and the transgression of that frontier (the sudden appearance of new signifying chains) are relevant to any account of signifying practice, where practice is taken as meaning acceptance of a symbolic law together with a trangression of that law for the purpose of renovating it" (The Kristeva 29). And then YOU try to put me in my place? Have you actually understood the bit I quoted above? Then you play arch question and answer games! Assumming I don't know what I talk about. Besides that, words are noises and the meaning is bestowed by people's body sensations. It would be interesting to numb somebody's body and then test in what ways their language and meaning changes. But then that's already done with tranquillisers and that makes them be emotionally dead. NEXT: QUOTE> ""Roland Barthes gleefully eluded any attempt to reduce or classify his thought. He was instrumental in spreading word of Structuralism and Semiotics both within and beyond the academy. His "Mythologies" -- a series of pithy readings covering everything from wrestling to soap ads -- remains a canonical text in classrooms where the art and science of interpreting signs are taught. These brief essays had their origins, however, as columns for newspapers like "Le Monde," where Barthes punctured the barrier that had separated "high" and "low" culture. Then you insist I declare my authority and conceptual schema? What are you doing here in an epistemology group? It reminds me of when I offered a course in Creativity, decades ago, and I was asked who my authority was. I laughed at that so I did not get approval. So far psychology has not explained or accounted for creativity. It cannot be repeatably applied by everybody. Don't try to slap me around the ears with people whose books you have not read. Don't play academic oneupmanship games. It's not even puerile. It reminds me of the cartoon of a rabbit 'westing' in a fridge, a westinghouse of course. ""The authority of the convention rests in the agreement of those who adhere to it.Bernard I. Pietsch in http://www.sonic.net/bernard/heaven.html. You can rest assured I don't. ""Lord Acton, in Freedom quote: By liberty I mean the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes is his duty against the influence of authority and majorities, custom and opinion. ""Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to Authority is not using his intelligence, he is just using his memory. Leonardo da Vinci ""Authority has every reason to fear the skeptic, for authority can rarely survive in the face of doubt. ~ Robert Lindner ""No statement should be believed because it is made by an authority. ~ Hans Reichenbach "However sugarcoated and ambiguous, every form of authoritarianism must start with a belief in some group's greater right to power, whether that right is justified by sex, race, class, religion or all four. However far it may expand, the progression inevitably rests on unequal power and airtight roles within the family. ~ Gloria Steinem "The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors that there will be no opposition from that class. The great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages will bear its burden without complaint. Rothschild. Thomas H. Huxley: "The ultimate court of appeal is observation and experiment... not authority. ""Any fool can make a rule, and every fool will mind it." Henry Thoreau ""It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious." One of Murphy's laws. I don't use ad hominem insults. I'm rather well acquainted with rhetoric and a few other things. 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 grou"nds 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
