The question, I guess Molly, would be how we might get the spirit into our due process. We fail almost entirely in the UK because we can't work out what fair expression is and don't do proper investigations. Goffman got a lot right in terms of what is said in different places and contexts, and I remember a reference to a British bureaucrat in 1941 pointing out the 'economical with the truth' strategy - the best answers one could ever draft being so meaningless as not to allow critique or even understanding. Aggression is often conflated with frustration and a kind of righteous indignation we should take more account of. I guess the need to sort out spam and snerting etc. must run up against the ideal of wanting anyone to be able to have their say. What kills me off in the general run of information in the media is that they never get beyond a class view or seem to understand this isn't balance, but prejudice. Even this runs to a defence of the Sun if not careful (our main grim tabloid). I often get a 'let them eat cake' feeling.
There is a need to spit in the face of smiling brotherhoods - yet the spit is often merely to say this isn't working for me and is hurting me. There is a key inertial violence in our systems - standard academic work would refer to paranoid-schizoid and depressive positions - but even to say this is to be confused with claiming people are paranoid-schizoid as an insult. One is generally forced to be a supplicant to those with the power to exclude evidence. Evidence itself becomes an instrument of torture - perhaps as claims to provide evidence might be used against some of your prose-ideas (which are often a source of comfort to me). I really don't want to be distracted by bone pointers when trying to discuss methyl effects in epigenetics - but there is an equal distraction from scientistic boneheads amongst the phenomenological-experiential. This used to be put in terms of competing paradigms, or analytic versus immanent critique - my view was that we do this at some speed in scientific hypothesising and trying to understand others - moving as quickly as we could towards observational data in an understanding of its theory-ladenness and critical experimentation. None of this was about trashing someone talking about treating traumatised kids as an idiot because her work couldn't generalise (which, of course, it could if one looked hard at its conditions of possibility) because it was only her experience. Gabby said something about repetition that seems tangentially relevent. We all repeat. Indeed, her posts repeat some kind of enigmatic message, always welcomed even when I'm confused. 'You poor little wain' she might reply - and there would only be an exchange of smiles. Your response on the return of logos certainly made me smile. Polite postmoderism only demands a lack of seriousness along with a refusal to dance on graves. I can't remember a bunch of politicians so serious as we have now, ceding opposition merely to the satirists and the dire smalltalk of the pub. Of course, postmodernism forgets it demands anything. In Lyotard's version it arises before modernism - I guess as a critical (pretty scientific) moment in hypothesis to move to a rationalism again subject to the moment of the postmodern. We had heard this long before his report in 1979. One might wonder how we can progress past the hostile barriers of the old, repeated arguments people want to ascribe importance to. This might be the highly impolite Wittgesteinian deconstruction moment of noticing the same old sets at work in all side of an argument. Everyone hates this smartass, though the matter is key in the Ludwig (not Witters) and Snell programmes that have identified approximation in all research programmes. Negotiation and argument have, sadly, become forms of life that actually exclude what we would intend them for. Conviction politics have become a grim form of not listenning and endless justification by singing hymns louder. The repetion is everywhere. On 21 Feb, 13:45, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > Just as politesse for the sake of politics is abhorrent, hatefulness > in the name of free speech is even more so. Bullies who cry their > right to aggression have it all backwards, but this is nothing new. > Unfortunately, our court rooms are full of them, so the blind eye of > justice remains so often closed. Now we are back to a set of morals > and ethics that these folks just can't understand because if they did, > they would need to let go of that all powerful feeling of domination > or being right. I, for one, am glad for a space to express myself > that includes folks that, in their wisdom, can get beyond all that > nonsense. > > On Feb 21, 7:04 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I tend to agree Craig - even if the free speech bit sticks in my craw > > and I actually like Chaz. Knowing you tried is important, so thanks > > for telling us. I feel incidentally that there is conflation in my > > concerns between the dire silencing of what people feel in our society > > under political correctness and wanting the impossible from the > > generally high standards in here. The conundrum in postmodernism is > > that voices are silenced despite the insistence we should be > > listenning to them. There's been fair play and this is all we can > > ask. I suspect, had I been party to this, I would not have wanted to > > change the outcome on the evidence. > > > On 21 Feb, 00:22, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > You could have forced the last three sentences to remain in your > > > fingers. > > > > On 20 Feb., 22:57, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Nom, > > > > Of course your just as free to go, as we are free to moderate. I just > > > > want to make clear though, that we have never moderated based on > > > > content or substance. There are three moderator's on this site, and > > > > our views differ drastically. I don't think you can find two people > > > > who have views that differ as drastically as mine and Ian's. You, and > > > > everyone else are free to talk about anything you want on this site. > > > > You will only be banned if you attack other members of the group, > > > > using foul and vulgar language, and change the tone of an open and > > > > accepting environment. In other words, we are only intolerant of the > > > > intolerant. ;) (never thought I'd hear that phrase come out of my > > > > mouth, or at least from my fingers) I understand though if your > > > > "commitment to free speech" forces you from our group. Its been nice > > > > having you. You'll be missed. > > > > > On Feb 20, 1:49 pm, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > panache.... > > > > > as usual, when I look back I pick something up.....Kierkecraig. > > > > > Yes, you do have a nice group going, here, I won't trash or bad-mouth > > > > > it, some nice people... with one or maybe two exceptions.... Frankly, > > > > > I haven't seen eye to eye with Chris from the time when he crashed in > > > > > on me on epistemology... to try to set me straight (in his opinion) as > > > > > to my language on Nominal9's Censorship Hall of Shame.... As I said, I > > > > > know enough to distinguish between Words and Deeds.... and though your > > > > > words are nice... and your site is polite... well, the deeds are quite > > > > > dfferent.... like Archytas noted in one post above... sometimes the > > > > > politeness accompanies some not so congruent acts. As a prospective > > > > > lawyer, you will probably learn that, if you haven't already. So, I > > > > > don't think that I will be back here... it would be sort of > > > > > hypocritical on my part to hang my personal reputation on my > > > > > commitment and preference for freedom of speech, and then to forsake > > > > > it on account of some nice words, alone. Hope that you see my point, > > > > > even if you disagree... if you ever want to engage in some unfettered > > > > > and actually free conversation, (there are some "things" that can only > > > > > be learned or known in freedom) maybe you can look me up.... > > > > > nominal9 > > > > > (proprietry quote) > > > > > I have never met a circle or its diameter but your ass resembles > > > > > them...Like it or not, your ass stinks. > > > > > (believe it or not.... that is deeper than it may appear... nothing > > > > > personal.... it applies to everyone, don't you think?) > > > > > > On Feb 20, 10:41 am, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Nom, > > > > > > My point exactly. I've been on forums as well where people just > > > > > > throw > > > > > > insults back and forth. It is the mood of those forums, and I have > > > > > > caught myself being nasty in those forums. It is a matter of the > > > > > > company you keep, just as you say. It is my goal to keep this forum > > > > > > from becoming a shouting match. That is why on occasion some have > > > > > > to > > > > > > be moderated. This is a quiet place for intelligent conversation. > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > say that I have always and only... "replied in kind" (and usually > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > greater style and pannash) to what I received from others.... > > > > > > > those > > > > > > > others being mostly sysops and moderators. But let that be as it > > > > > > > may. > > > > > > > The road goes both ways... It is a matter (or a question) of the > > > > > > > company that you keep... > > > > > > > nominal9- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" 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/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
