I just agree with that Vam, entirely, no 'buts' -as you know unusual
for me!
Sue works for my best friend, helping with his university teaching.
Like me, he finds 'management teaching' intolerable against both his
previous practical experience and an integrity it is dangerous to
express. The textbooks seem a collection of all that does not
matter. Behind this, one can write critically, though this is a game
itself, easily exposed by electronic text-engines that sound as we
do. "the linguistic construction of post-capitalist hegemony may be
parsed as the delegitimisation of de Man's aesthetic ideology" is
produced from some standard terms in which to write academic sentences
("linguistic transparency", "praxis", "discourse", "reification" and
the rest). Many involved in this believe they are doing real work.
The truth is that power has constrained us. Your own rhetoric would
fit very well in this small world of international travelers, even
though this is not its intent. The journal which contains these
references is the Times Higher Educational Supplement, the farce that
elsewhere it is replete with the language of this very machine, in
book reviews and advertisements for conferences for the high and
mighty of academe.
As you've said elsewhere, it is possible to defend Israel and be
critical of it at the same time. It is possible to construct and
deconstruct at the same time, my choice of words very intentional here
to show there is yet more happening as we might still be "impressing"
with "fine words". The noise (not from you Vam) becomes such that
there is no argument, just the "devoid".
On 23 Jan, 07:42, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:
> " We are incessantly treated as children."
>
> I believe the real dialogue, with oneself and with others, begins from
> here. This also the point from where the reign of silence begins,
> where we are individually left on our own, where our real challenge in
> life is, in thought, will and action. This where I find the greatest
> absence in terms of what is worthwhile, what is a positive and
> meaningful to our quest. The noise and the cacophony you speak of is
> yet pressing on our back, devoid of what we are seeking.
>
> Barring exceptions, ME members generally revert back to others on this
> forum only to add more to overshouts of criticism and complaints,
> screeching whines and laments, gigoling comfort topics, or duding and
> mating others ! Which all is fine, considering that it takes all
> kinds to constitute this group, but the abysmal gap in our connection
> with each other, in the positivity and meaningfulness we can bring to
> others and to ourself, remains yawning.
>
> On Jan 23, 7:02 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Chris just has a good line in pointing out much radicalism can be seen
> > as 'niche marketing' or that 'everything can be an industry'. I'm old
> > enough to have seen the radicals of '68 become bureaucrats, to have
> > joined the Labour Party to vote for Blair and become sickened that he
> > was just another 'Boys' Own' idiot and New Labour a gawping
> > 'management by objectives' set. I don't mean this is the only arrow
> > in Chris' quivver, just that he is good at this. The following is
> > mostly from a review of Tzyetan Todorov's 'In Defence of the
> > Enlightenment' (Atlantic Books 2009):
>
> > We will not get any help (in finding intellectual and moral bases for
> > constructing our communal life) from politicians (obsessed as they are
> > with PC, greed and getting or holding power) or religious leaders
> > (varying from empty waffle to incitements of mass murder of those who
> > will not cling to similar fatuously irrational beliefs) - not much to
> > be cheerful about. What we have is intellectual mediocrity, avoidance
> > of the truth and moral cowardice everywhere obvious in those who hold
> > positions of power. Radical desacralisation, loss of meaning and
> > universal worship of Relativism are distortions of Enlightenment
> > principles and are products of carelessness, cant and cowardice. Mass
> > media, controlled by a few individuals, employing apparatchiks
> > promoting the bland soup of received wisdom leave the old enemies of
> > arbitrary authority, fanaticism and obscurantism unchallenged. All
> > societies are under attack from fundamentalisms. We are incessantly
> > treated as children.
>
> > On 22 Jan, 04:28, Ash <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Thanks Neil, the reference to Chris' work sounds interesting but I
> > > cannot find those terms via in-list search.
>
> > > I think an interesting phenomena of the human mind is the ability to
> > > perceive hypothetical scenarios, and upon considering the matter it
> > > may conjure worth from purpose (for example). So long as we don't
> > > become paralyzed mentally by the question itself, I would venture the
> > > possibility we at least represent a valuable resource. Moreso, in
> > > personal worth is a fine investment, whereby we might come to realize
> > > timeless achievements. That is to say, to forever move our species
> > > toward greater frontiers both inner and outer. Not to aggrandize
> > > poetic, I equally regard how better the experience of life can be with
> > > simply fundamental changes in health, stability, vitality, etc.
>
> > > I think you are spot-on, "that almost all on politics..." In treating
> > > human beings as means to an end we have industrialized the process of
> > > dehumanisation, and in ways that only the fringe-cases still care to
> > > challenge.
>
> > > Sometimes, 'peace' - a plea,
> > > -Ash
>
> > > On Jan 21, 5:07 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Quite brilliant Ash. Our cats merely hunt each other most of the
> > > > time. The male appears to be the bozo of the pair in this, yet the
> > > > much bigger female may be lured to his ground. In the garden he is
> > > > the superior mouser and territory defender, often dropping from height
> > > > onto other cats larger than he. She is an appalling bully of smaller,
> > > > female cats. Both, in their own ways, worm their wiles on our
> > > > affections and clearly regard me as the butler.
> > > > The notion of deriving great profit from dramaturgy often crops up in
> > > > here. Typical would be a swipe from Chris on the variety of protest
> > > > industries. He is right, of course. Yet something is so grimly wrong
> > > > that almost all on politics is said in the graffiti that emblazons
> > > > 'BECAUSE WE'RE WORTHLESS'.
>
> > > > Peace indeed.
>
> > > > Neil
>
> > > > On 21 Jan, 05:32, Ash <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Archytas,
>
> > > > > I have a narrative clip for you that came to mind while reading your
> > > > > post. Some more noise for your signal, eh.
>
> > > > > In error we expect to find an overt move to signify the presence of
> > > > > manipulation all the while avoiding the horrifying truth that our
> > > > > behavior sustains, and empowers it. The nature of masterful maneuver:
> > > > > to know the opponent, his ways, predicting and set the trap before he
> > > > > decides to walk into it.
>
> > > > > I remember watching our cat learn to hunt chipmunks. How she worked
> > > > > haphazardly at first, applying hammerlike moves with no hope beside
> > > > > sheer luck of catching him. Days went on and I noticed she began to
> > > > > predict her prey's attempts at escape, his behavioral characteristics,
> > > > > and adapt contingency experiments on the poor creature. I think it was
> > > > > this that wore him down, the little chipmunk would be overcome and in
> > > > > fear made his final flawed move. She was there waiting for it. I have
> > > > > little doubt the entire battle occured on the field of minds, the
> > > > > chipmunk knew everything necessary to wait, evade, and dart about much
> > > > > faster than our cat and did so for some time.
>
> > > > > Bred into the public discourse, I think, is an instinct to flinch at
> > > > > the worst possible moments. We are undone by the most vulgar
> > > > > influences rather than facing the challenge of unknowns. My opinion is
> > > > > that the mob rule is the equivalent of a chipmunk behaving like a
> > > > > ball, not even putting up a fight. What, 'better to have [hoped] and
> > > > > lost?'
>
> > > > > I know this is an absurd allegory, but when I consider behaviourism
> > > > > and how people operate within tolerance ranges how easy it could be
> > > > > with the right means, motive and opportunity to just push the right
> > > > > buttons and let predictability fall in place. By this I invoke no 'Big
> > > > > Brother' icon, but that doesn't make me cringe from the idea that our
> > > > > stage is set on a broad range of contingencies from which some derive
> > > > > great profit in conducting dramaturgy.
>
> > > > > The idea that as a recurring theme, we are either giving or being
> > > > > taken from is the disturbing part.
>
> > > > > ...but you had to mention 'absurd'...
>
> > > > > Peace,
> > > > > Ash
>
> > > > > On Jan 10, 9:12 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I wish, in many ways, that I was still footling about with lasers
> > > > > > in a
> > > > > > laboratory, only having to give any concern to public argument over
> > > > > > delayed trains and the continued failure of my rugby league team.
> > > > > > One
> > > > > > can do something rather similar in my subject, which is broadly
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > how organisation comes about and develops, ending up in esoteric
> > > > > > arguments in 'good sense' whilst despising 'common sense' (these are
> > > > > > Gramscian terms). Science has no truck with common sense and
> > > > > > academe
> > > > > > in general regards it as a theatre of the absurd. One can reverse
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > gaze, and we often hear phrases like, 'he's bright, but has no
> > > > > > common
> > > > > > sense'.
> > > > > > Some way into academic views, one can find the notion of 'paradigm',
> > > > > > that knowledge is always expressed in generic terms of reference and
> > > > > > one must understand the root metaphors or ways of life involved.
> > > > > > Science can be viewed as just such a form of life. People doing
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > neglect many of the difficult questions this raises, such as whether
> > > > > > you'd ask a bunch of physicists to produce a Bose-Einstein
> > > > > > condensate,
> > > > > > or a grannies' knitting club. Complex ideas of human understanding
> > > > > > are involved here, but it is too easy to lapse into a form of
> > > > > > knowledge deconstruction that denies evidence entirely.
>
> > > > > > Philosophy can seem to quickly unhinge everything, but this is
> > > > > > generally a case of a little knowledge being a very dangerous thing.
> > > > > > Absurdity might be a place to understand how weak our arguments
> > > > > > often
> > > > > > are. How did the Chinese rationalise 'foot-binding', the British
> > > > > > 'witch-burning' (we hung most of them really) and so on? Currently,
> > > > > > in the UK we hear our politicians saying we must find ways to
> > > > > > encourage the best people into politics, the absurdity being that
> > > > > > these politicians are clearly not the best people at all, looking
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > a bunch of money-grubbing scum to many of us.
>
> > > > > > My thesis is that argument is dangerous to power, and that as power
> > > > > > cannot do away with argument (as it uses a form of it), it ensures
> > > > > > control of it. We are encouraged to forget this through control
> > > > > > measures that are 'hidden' as manners. The abstract argument from
> > > > > > here is very complex, but there are some practical events in history
> > > > > > that can help to make them specific. Even these take considerable
> > > > > > space to detail. At bottom in this, power clearly hides evidence
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > us to prevent proper argumentation.
>
> > > > > > Theory aside (plenty is written if anyone wants to venture
>
> ...
>
> 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.
