Here's some pure Klingon on the subject:
This chapter is concerned with some implications of how time, space,
and social change have been powerfully retheorized under the impetus
of poststructuralism. Social science has steadily jettisoned long-
standing teleological conceptions of social structure and change that
pervaded Marxist and Weberian accounts. Inspired by structuration
theory and philosophical realism, disciplines such as geography and
sociology have increasingly come to emphasize the contingent nature of
social reality, that is, the manner in which it could be different. As
part of this transformation, poststructural theorizations have focused
on the rejection of simplistic dichotomies such as individual/society,
culture/economy, nature/society, objective/subjective, global/local,
and time/space, all of which thwart their effective integration.
I assert that the theorization of social and spatial life necessarily
involves the rejection of an additional dichotomy, that between the
real and the imaginary, the actual and the possible, the ontological
and the epistemological. If what is defined as the “real” is not
simply equated with the observed, the definition of “reality” broadens
to include not only what is, but what might be, and the lines between
the real and the possible become blurred in productive and imaginative
ways. Poststructuralism elevates unmaterialized possibilities to the
level of ontology. In other words, what is taken to be real is not
simply what is observable or actual but forms one outcome secreted
from a broader universe of possibilities. Social reality includes
events that never happened in fact, but could have happened plausibly
as defined by theory. Thus, the distinction between what did happen
and what could happen is not obvious or unproblematic. History and
geography are the understanding of not only why things happen, but why
they do not.
Barney Warf
Email: [email protected]
On 18 Jan, 02:58, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> They do point out Ari didn't do experiment. Some of the presenter's
> dissections are as messy as mine, which lent him some cred to me. On
> a slightly different tack, there is stuff on animal learning. I
> always remember Imo - some monkey that started to wash her food in the
> sea, with the others soon catching on. In another area, I had to read
> mounds on management strategies, and couldn't conclude much other than
> they were all retrospective 'successes'. The general standard is
> incompetence, which we rarely investigate. In all history, there is a
> tendency to create existential heroes who don't stand real scrutiny.
>
> On 17 Jan, 22:55, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sorry if we have colonised your thread, but as us 'gentlemen' have
> > contributed 15 of the 17 postings - that kinda means that it belongs
> > to us.
>
> > On Jan 17, 9:01 pm, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Would you kindly, gentlemen, fuck off from this thread, as you don't
> > > twig the slightest of it, and kindly change the "subject" under which
> > > you dump your drivel.
> > > Respectfully
> > > Georges.
>
> > > --- On Sun, 1/17/10, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > From: chazwin <[email protected]>
> > > > Subject: [epistemology 11193] Re: Second Enlightenment (S1,S2)
> > > > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]>
> > > > Date: Sunday, January 17, 2010, 7:34 PM
>
> > > > The question of the Enlightenment is not so much how do we
> > > > know but
> > > > what the hell do we think it is.
>
> > > > On Jan 17, 4:07 am, jonbenn <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I haven' responded to this list in years, it got to
> > > > hostile. And I
> > > > > haven't followed the recent posts, but thought I might
> > > > just dive in
> > > > > here and as the obvious epistemological question-how
> > > > do you know? How
> > > > > do you know anything at all? Once you answer that
> > > > question then you
> > > > > can as whether or not there was such a thin as the
> > > > enlightenment, and
> > > > > other questions. First, how do you know.
>
> > > > > The fact that there was once believed to be an
> > > > enlightenment, and the
> > > > > fact that it is questioned today, is because we have
> > > > changed our
> > > > > epistemology, as well as our metaphysics. But the very
> > > > fact that we
> > > > > now question the existence of the enlightenment, or of
> > > > any age, or
> > > > > absolute knowledge of any fact, is a direct result
> > > > from the
> > > > > epistemology that was ushered in by the
> > > > enlightenment.
>
> > > > Err, well - nope! Diderot was consciously unmasking 1200
> > > > years of
> > > > darkness, to a time when
> > > > he considered that restriction on thinking was much less.
> > > > Whatever the
> > > > E is, it did not usher in anything new.
> > > > What E is usually caricatured as is part of a revolution of
> > > > Science,
> > > > this was Baconian, Newtonian, but also Epicurean and
> > > > Stoical.
> > > > But that is only true oif you have a 50 year old conception
> > > > of the E.
> > > > The real difficulty is that the E is now so many things
> > > > that it has
> > > > lost coherence.
> > > > There is a Christian E now, and even an English one; its a
> > > > period of
> > > > time, its a process, its an event, its a set of values ad
> > > > nauseum.
> > > > I'm trying to put 5000 words together and I've opened up a
> > > > can of
> > > > worms.
>
> > > > > Jon
>
> > > > > Jan 6, 7:07 am, 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > > > athttp://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.
