I've always been a Spicy kind of guy. I like to kick it up a notch
*BAM!
Ahhhh yes, the Spice Dreams {;-)
*Emeril Lagasse reference.
On Jun 25, 10:39 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
>
> > >> > > > > 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
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
