After two power glitches got my keyboard and modem back again.
Where was I? CARE, Alex, You write to tell me you don't care, why write to tell me [ project into me, read Freud on that] that I am objectionable when you don't care. If you don't care why bother to write? It's contradictory and suggests you are into behaviour but out of touch with your feelings which prompt you to write and tell me you don't care. Funny that. I won't bother with the rest, it shows up the same. It's called rhetorical analysis, a method to extract meaning from a textus, part of semeiotics. 531,000 websites. I recommend: "Basic Questions for Rhetorical Analysis": http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Pedagogy/Rhetorical%20Analysis%20heuristic.htm I suggest you change your name to Alex B. Real and treat it as an injunction. You are villeinesquely rude, PLEASE look up the etymology of villein and rude, it's not villain I wrote. It's a disguised euphemism to write: illiterate. You use clichees but don't know their meaning. A parrot could do better. Plato and the slave demonstrates the slave has understanding but no ability to apply it. Now I do care, but without consequence, NO expectations, NO assumptions, NO beliefs, NO Freudian projections are poured into the textus by me, behaviourism does that. I take what I get and use that. I may be objectionable as YOU imagine it, but for myself I am fine, though the social context is not, too nomothetically coercive. Of course that is if you speak for yourself and it's not a homunculus, called ego, running your mouth. I don't live in your head, mind or imagination, it's a representation and a false one at that. As for Georges, IFF he has a disproof of Godel, that's Nobel Prize winning stuff and being a math topdog, instead of piddling around in groups. So rhetorical analysis tells me he's diddlefibbing. He should publish in a math journal. He shot himself in the mouth telling me he'll trash my mails and then has to indirectly make snide remarks like newbie and crap tsunami to others. He'd love me to disappear, but that's MY decision. I've actually already dropped my seed loaded bird dropping some people can use. Whether it falls into fertile soil makes no difference to me. Georges however has to constantly monitor everything to check whether others do or do not pay deference to him. That's another contradiction. Psychiatry calls that paranoid. I'd call it tyrannising a group and being petulant when it fails. adrian Alex P. Real wrote: > Why do you draw the conclusion that you're objectionable? If you have > problems with Georges, sort them out yourself. He makes his decisions and I > make mine. Do as you wish, you're free to draw fantastic impressions and me > not to care. > > > > Dear Alex, > The "hohum" 'array of schemata I enact in WRITING', IS different from > yours. Do I need your > permission for that? > Quote: An accurate conceptual framework is important to enable understanding > by others. > NOW who is playing THE authority? What's your authority for that one? It's a > belief, It's a > convention, don't turn it into dogma. > You are obviously Quite content with the social system, Does that mean I am > not allowed? > I AM utilising my small and getting smaller freedom. > Since I dislike being patronised to within your comfort zone, could you > acquire the grace and > courtesy of allowing me mine? It's called tolerence and the very fact of > your intolerance for > other schemata than those you are familiar with shows what's wrong with tHE > social system. > It's funny you can tolerate Georges calling me a crap tsunami and a fetid > smell but I am > objectionable. Make like Georges and tell me he'll delete anything I write > and then get prima > donna that I don't disappear. Does he OWN this group? > > 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. >> >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
