Gee Molly, you must have much To Do to typo a To To for a Do To. Busy
are we?
Miss your more in depth out looks. {:-)
On Feb 22, 12:08 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
> And by the way, moderators, many, many thanks for all that you to to
> allow these conversations. You are appreciated.
>
> On Feb 22, 11:01 am, 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
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
