I'll shine you those smiles, Neil.
On Feb 21, 10:22 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
