And we could call this life Melange. The spice of knowledge. House Johnson to control production and distribution. A race of former humanoids twisted by massive dosages of the Spice learn to bend space and travel is reinvented. Yeah.
dj On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 4:31 AM, archytas<[email protected]> wrote: > > There's been a recent wall built on the question of how we might > better believe what we know. One of my guesses follows Popper in that > we can't know now what we will know in the future. Say this small > moon of Saturn in the news does have an ocean and life. Say we can > expand our brains by eating this life and there is an expansion > similar to that alleged in our progression from common ancestors that > didn't affect the other apes in the same way. We might actually be > able to see through the madness, understand travel in different ways > and so on (bit like a video game). On the other hand, if we could > stop fighting each other, maybe life would change anyway ...we don't > bother with this latter much, seemingly oblivious to just how much the > future could influence thinking and our lives. > > On 25 June, 07:01, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> It's a Humpty Dumpty ism, but all truth knows that one replaces >> another and another in succession to maintain the position on the >> wall. Scrabblers pile the bricks and mix the mortar and then wonder >> why the wall is so high and out of reach. >> >> On Jun 25, 12:31 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > A very apt version of the conundrum Gabby. I think we are dealing >> > with madness and consequently a rationality of the mad. Habermas was >> > slated for providing too much of an answer, thus becoming just the >> > next 'rule-giver', just another intellectual telling us what we should >> > do. I just want us not to have to scrabble about making livings and >> > get rid of the over-powerful. It just seems so damned difficult to >> > even try. >> >> > On 19 June, 17:32, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > I don't know. To think one can promote lying in a society is as naive >> > > as thinking one can promote truing the society. In the world you speak >> > > of, the child is encouraged to publically shout out that the Emperor >> > > is naked while being expected to quietly learn the taylor's job in >> > > their chambers. What is it you're really after? >> >> > > On 19 Jun., 15:11, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > Habermas is almost impossible to read, which is a great shame. >> > > > Academic critique of his work actually ends up rather like Gabby's few >> > > > lines, extrapolated to ridiculous length. He was gazetted into the >> > > > Hitler Youth at the end of the war, something that only goes to show >> > > > we can all end up serving perverse human interests. Francis' notion of >> > > > what might happen through wider communication and the possible >> > > > differences new technologies might bring to 'argument' is probably key >> > > > to whether we have a future or not. There has been a debate around >> > > > legitimation portrayed in academe as between Habermas, Lyotard, >> > > > Derrida, Foucault and others. My own view is that the insularity of >> > > > this debate (most people have barely heard of it and its protagonists) >> > > > is itself part of the problem. Press in the UK has been ridiculing our >> > > > unworthy politicians through expense claims leaked to one newspaper. >> > > > Today, Parliament has "published" the details under so much black ink >> > > > that we would know less had we been left to rely on official >> > > > "transparency" and we will get much the same when the Iraq scandal is >> > > > hidden from us next year. What we lack is honesty and substantial >> > > > links between this and its use in day-to-day actions. Many people >> > > > believe it is childish to look at work like this because the real >> > > > world is so dirty. I suspect the real childishness lies in fear we all >> > > > have of standing up to the bullying system, which we see as holding >> > > > all the cards We know bosses and politicians are bad, but are >> > > > generally weak-kneed in the face of power and easy enough to buy off >> > > > with a few trinkets and the threat of poverty if we stray into telling >> > > > the truth. Much as I like Habermas, I'm sure these days that work >> > > > like his is pussy-footing pisswitter lamenting our lack of courage. >> >> > > > His academic critics often referred to him as 'the Professor' as they >> > > > felt he was advocating a system that had to be followed to put the >> > > > system right - perhaps they feared yet another righteous theory as >> > > > potentially Nazi or Stalinist, even if Jurgen was a man of the left. >> > > > Academe was wet-through with cultural identity garbage back then and >> > > > still is. I just noticed he was weak on science, long on unnecessary >> > > > explanation and broadly right on the destruction of what others termed >> > > > organic links. I was looking for an explanation of why people choose >> > > > to follow such stupid ways or get caught up in them. My own view is >> > > > this happens and is a result of the way we promote lying in our >> > > > societies. The current situation in Iran would be a good example. We >> > > > don't know whether the election was fixed to favour the >> > > > Maddinnerjacket, but there are ways to find out (properly conducted >> > > > and sampled polling) and it ain't what Kameni is doing, even if he >> > > > might be right about miserable Western interference. It's too hard >> > > > anywhere for a populace to shift through the dross to get at truth >> > > > because of liars and what is so easily hidden or flashed in front of >> > > > us as the good. In our world, the child seeking to shout out that the >> > > > Emperor is naked is already silenced. >> >> > > > On 18 June, 20:32, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > Jürgen Habermas is 80 today. He is one of the most influential >> > > > > contemporary thinkers in the areas of philosophy, sociology and >> > > > > cultural science:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habermas,_Jürgen >> >> > > > > One of his most interesting works is "The Theory of Communicative >> > > > > Action." I find his analysis of the development of contemporary >> > > > > society interesting, particularly his analysis of the way modern >> > > > > society can be seen as an unequal dialectic between private, >> > > > > subjective "lifeworlds" and an ever more powerful "system." His >> > > > > thinking in this area is useful because it offers an explanation for >> > > > > some trends we observe in contemporary society, for example, our >> > > > > suspicions that we are being ever more disenfranchised, although, >> > > > > formally, we live in societies in which participation, representation >> > > > > and equality are established. Habermas sees the "system" as taking >> > > > > overweening power and thus becoming a source of alienation in the >> > > > > areas of the welfare state, corporate capitalism and the culture of >> > > > > mass consumption. The mass media plays a major role in this process. >> > > > > Political parties are also part of this "system." >> >> > > > > The following passage is lifted from Wikipedia (the quotations are >> > > > > from TCA): >> >> > > > > "In the end, systemic mechanisms suppress forms of social integration >> > > > > even in those areas where a consensus dependent co-ordination of >> > > > > action cannot be replaced, that is, where the symbolic reproduction >> > > > > of >> > > > > the lifeworld is at stake. In these areas, the mediatization of the >> > > > > lifeworld assumes the form of colonisation". >> > > > > Habermas argues that Horkheimer and Adorno, like Weber before them, >> > > > > confused system rationality with action rationality. This prevented >> > > > > them dissecting the effects of the intrusion of steering media into a >> > > > > differentiated lifeworld and the rationalisation of action >> > > > > orientations that follows. They could then only identify spontaneous >> > > > > communicative actions within areas of apparently 'non-rational' >> > > > > action, art and love on the one hand or the charisma of the leader on >> > > > > the other, as having any value. >> > > > > According to Habermas, lifeworlds become colonised by steering media >> > > > > when four things happen: >> > > > > 1. Traditional forms of life are dismantled. >> > > > > 2. Social roles are sufficiently differentiated. >> > > > > 3. There are adequate rewards of leisure and money for the alienated >> > > > > labour. >> > > > > 4. Hopes and dreams become individuated by state canalization of >> > > > > welfare and culture. >> > > > > These processses are institutionalised by developing global systems >> > > > > of >> > > > > jurisprudence. He here indicates the limits of an entirely juridified >> > > > > concept of legitimation and practically calls for more anarchistic >> > > > > 'will formation' by autonomous networks and groups. >> > > > > "Counterinstitutions are intended to dedifferentiate some parts of >> > > > > the >> > > > > formally organised domains of action, remove them from the clutches >> > > > > of >> > > > > the steering media, and return these 'liberated areas' to the action >> > > > > co-ordinating medium of reaching >> > > > > understanding".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Communicative_Action >> >> > > > > I wonder how much the Internet (I'm thinking here of the burgeoning >> > > > > social networks like Facebook, as well as - in a very modest way - >> > > > > our >> > > > > group here and others like them, but also Wikipedia, search engines, >> > > > > etc.) are such "counterinstitutions." Certainly the nervous actions >> > > > > of >> > > > > the regimes in China and Iran in recent times would seem to reinforce >> > > > > such views. >> >> > > > > Francis > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
