No doubt it's relativist snow too! What can you do other than write the stuff and wait 400 years for a muted apology? Argument always seems to lead to a demand for evidence from power and power's differing ability to evade demonstration. My first quibble with the frames of reference stuff was that, more or less, any intellectual tradition was OK, but they all cut out massive amounts of 'evidence' being used in interpretation and gave 'status' to the intellectual he or she has no right to other than in an undisclosed set of 'manners' not much different from advertising or dinner parties. In short, we educate ourselves to a point at which we can get into a one-way gaze with respect for others, superior to inferior, and forget reasoning can (and should) be viewed as defeasible. Strong relativism is useless, other than in imaginary fantasies, but my guess is the real enemy is the 'objective voice' that pretends it is arguing, but is really asserting control. Much of the deception lies unsaid and is very violent.
On 16 Jan, 13:02, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > If I were to play the anti-relativist card on this one, it would be > like dropping a heliocentric bomb into the vatican. > I might go down the enlightenment is a discursive formation - a > retrospective re-grouping of a set of values by which academicians > reassure themselves as to their own importance. But Foucault seems to > play the Enlightenment game too. > > It seems the Uni has offered everyone and extra week due to the snow. > I can't believe my luck - but can't believe the legalese email they > sent me which is totally ambiguous, either! > > On Jan 16, 4:42 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/isa good general > > paper. I end up like a character from Orwell who can only swear in > > disgust at the Double and News-speak PC crap. Insistence on generic > > frames of reference is legion and there is no bottom to it. > > > On 15 Jan, 22:07, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sorry - I didn't get a word of that. > > > > On Jan 15, 8:03 pm, "Serenity Smiles" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > I have an antidote perhaps, hit them with the sims computer game "mess > > > > with > > > > life" me Serenity Smiles, I always said the Caths want me dead and side > > > > with > > > > there behind looking creation!!! the (green emerald jewel on the > > > > cover, was > > > > a visualisation that belongs to me). > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > From: "chazwin" <[email protected]> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 8:13 PM > > > > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> > > > > Subject: [epistemology 11184] Re: Second Enlightenment (S1,S2) > > > > > > Oh yeah! > > > > > The E is a pain in the academic butt! > > > > > Its a clear example of the theoretical tail waging the historical dog. > > > > > What was once a "war on religion" has become a cosy political correct > > > > > relativism club that lets in the Christians. > > > > > It's a bit of a sore point at the moment as I have to finish 5,000 > > > > > words by Monday on it. > > > > > > On Jan 14, 12:57 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> Georges must have switched on more than a few light bulbs Chaz. > > > > > >> On 6 Jan, 15:07, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> > It's all very interesting but was there any such thing as a first > > > > >> > enlightenment? > > > > > >> > On Dec 30 2009, 6:21 pm, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > ========== > > > > >> > > Reminder: > > > > > >> > > The present thread is destined to discuss the rationality of the > > > > >> > > Second Enlightenment as well as to inquire into the sources of > > > > >> > > the irrational manipulation of masses and to look for > > > > >> > > remediation. > > > > >> > > Its basic structure is: > > > > > >> > > X1. Scientific Revolution > > > > >> > > X2. Ontology > > > > >> > > X3. Ideology > > > > >> > > X4. Social awareness > > > > >> > > X5. Establishment > > > > > >> > > with X=F/S respectively for the first/second enlightenment. > > > > >> > > We start by the first enlightenment as guidance to the > > > > >> > > formulation > > > > >> > > of the second and warning of errors to be avoided. > > > > >> > > ============ = > > > > >> > > Originally the thread was meant as a chain of posts, but proved > > > > >> > > much > > > > >> > > too voluminous and I upload it progressively to my site. > > > > >> > > The so far uploaded sections are: > > > > >> > > F1.Scientific Revolution and F2.Ontology of the first > > > > >> > > enlightenment > > > > >> > > inhttp://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/ESSAYS/second_enlightenment_F1_F... > > > > >> > > F3.Ideology of the first enlightenment > > > > >> > > inhttp://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/ESSAYS/second_enlightenment_F3.html > > > > >> > > F4.Social awareness and F5.Establishment of the first > > > > >> > > enlightenment > > > > >> > > inhttp://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/ESSAYS/second_enlightenment_F4_F... > > > > >> > > S1.Scientific Revolution and S2.Ontology of the second > > > > >> > > enlightenment > > > > >> > > inhttp://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/ESSAYS/second_enlightenment_S1_S... > > > > > >> > > Georges. > > > > > > -- > > > > > 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.
-- 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.
