Fiend might be better than Saint Slip given the sanctification of Foucault by some! Wait until the moon is up before you howl Slip and you'll hear my echo ...
On 22 Feb, 21:07, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Fiend? *howls really loud* > > On Feb 22, 2:57 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Very insightful, as usual, my fiend Slip. > > > On Feb 22, 3:49 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
