My mom taught me never to let my slip show, but I can see we are back to the fire lit night and bottle of wine, good for a group howl.
On Feb 22, 4:48 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Well I'm thinking that I'm either Molly's "Friend Slip" or her > "Freudian Slip", hoping to find out soon! > > On Feb 22, 3:40 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
