I can't really reply to you Vam - you obviously haven't followed what has actually been said. Much is over-complicated before we get a clear view of it. I agree with Craig and the others and also wouldn't have wanted to contest as I already cede to their legitimate use of authority. There are deeper questions.
On 22 Feb, 16:01, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > Betty, > You probably joined the group and choose to receive updates via > email. Change your settings to no email if you do not wish to receive > email updates. > > On Feb 22, 1:18 am, Betty Boop <[email protected]> wrote: > > > --- On Sun, 2/22/09, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ok im a bit lost as to why i am recieving everyones mail but none is > > directed at me????/ could you answer that for me > > From: Vamadevananda <[email protected]> > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Say it ain't so.... > > To: ""Minds Eye"" <[email protected]> > > Date: Sunday, February 22, 2009, 8:16 AM > > > Could we keep Goffman, Ludwig, Lyotard, etc. aside for a moment, > > Neil ! It is very easy to lose focus between the two virtues of > > listening and expressing, the kind you espouse. > > > The point is you like Chaz and would like to have him back. Keeping > > KC's offering in mind, the question was of maintaining order on this > > forum. Which that involves isn't restrictive at all : it just > > requires that one is verbally meaningful, polite and respectful > > towards each other. Do you disagree with that, this one basic need of > > ensuring order ? > > > And, how does one ensure that order without shutting out the spammers > > and the deviants, the latter who continue to display obnoxious > > ( verbal ) behaviour despite having been given a long rope in terms of > > caution and warnings ? > > > I see this happenning as being more procedureal than philosophical ! > > Much as I envy your erudition, I also suspect that it can be > > debilitating. > > > On 21 Feb, 20:22, 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.... > > > ... > > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
