The power to destroy a thing is absolute control over it... On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:39 AM, frantheman <[email protected]>wrote:
> > And how would House Johnson deal with the Fremen? Are you prepared for > everything planned by Molly's Missionaria Protectiva (aided by the > Mentat, Archytas)? Not to mention Tinker's Face Dancers, along with > Chris Muad'Dib Jenkins and his sister, Gabby "the Knife". Me, I'm > dreaming Spice Dreams with Slip, who's an expert! > > On 25 Jun., 15:41, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habermas,_J%C3%BCrgen> > > > > >> > > > > 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 > > > > ... > > > > Erfahren Sie mehr » > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
