Just hold up the beer Chris, preferably in the company of pretty women. On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 6:04:53 PM UTC, Chris Jenkins wrote: > > I'm so happy right now. :) This conversation is excellent. > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:55 AM, frantheman <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> One of my professors has suggested that I do a research paper next >> semester on the reception of Habermas' thinking about society in the >> English-speaking (academic) world, Neil. I'm internally resisting because I >> find him so long-winded, obtuse, boring, and self-important (a typical >> German academic in other words). I can think of about a hundred things I'd >> rather do than immerse myself in his writings - like cleaning the windows >> in my flat for instance. >> >> Fundamentally, Habermas is also a typical German philosopher (like >> Leibnitz and Hegel) in that he believes he lives in the best possible world >> - that of centre-left North European liberal democracy (though, should he >> in his dotage find the way to this group, he would probably deny this and >> condemn us all from his self-appointed position as the doyen of German >> ivory-tower intellectuals). I would argue that there may have been a moment >> when he was perhaps partially right, but this moment has gone. >> >> In a longer historical context of the past 250 years, there was a moment >> when the rationalist liberal bourgeois spirit seemed to be reaching some >> kind of fruition in the West - between the end of WWII and the beginning of >> the 80s. Then came Reagan, Thatcher, and the religious orthodoxy of >> neo-liberal economics and the moment was lost. What I believe happened was >> that the old (and some new) elites had finally recovered enough power over >> the basic decency of New Deal, social-democratic, open, liberal (in the >> true sense) democracy to once more rearrange things to their own maximised >> benefit. This is the central point made by Piketty in *Capital in the >> Twenty-First Century. *No wonder he has been so viciously attacked by >> various acolytes of neo-liberal economic orthodoxy. Since then, Habermas' >> "unfinished project" of western liberalism has been continuously - and >> purposely - unravelled, often leaving the forms intact while killing the >> living substance. >> >> Much as I would like to see it, I find myself despairing more and more >> over the possibility of the kind of decent rational discourse Chris is >> pleading for. It's possible - sometimes - in microcosmic areas like this >> forum (though even here it can be easily sabotaged). There's one way of >> telling the narrative of the history of ideas in the past 250 years which >> goes like this: Once upon a time there was a dream of rational and reasoned >> discourse. It was called the Enlightenment. It soon became tainted by the >> virus of Romanticism and it turned into Modernity, which came with lots of >> unpleasant features like nationalism and fascism. It has now almost >> completely disappeared, constantly castigated by braying apologists of >> nationalist, ideological, or religious certainty before ultimately drowning >> in a sea of triviality. >> >> Of course, that's only one way of telling the story. I don't think I'd >> like to live in a platonic republic ruled by philosopher-kings and >> Robespierre, Saint-Just, and the Committee of Public Safety justified the >> Terror with an appeal to Reason. As humans we are more than just our >> rationality. This is what makes real communication so difficult - but also >> so rich and fascinating. What we need, perhaps, is less certainty and >> self-righteousness, more decency, respect, and listening. >> >> On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 10:10:37 AM UTC+1, archytas wrote: >>> >>> Interesting dictionaries Gabby. You actually sound a bit like Luhmann >>> in this tense and grammar version. We could send all our messages to you >>> in order to get the genuine and objective version of whatever we meant to >>> say, though I'm sure you might resist the censorship implications of the >>> new Gabbledegook. Understanding transitions from sensual to intellectual >>> and various aspects of nuance has long been part of racist and classist >>> presupposition in intelligence. >>> >>> The verstehen problematic includes the idea that we should not expect to >>> treat language in our theoretical expectations, as 'naive' participants >>> have their own assumptions and hypotheses of which researchers themselves >>> may be ignorant. One thus goes for more 'ethno' approaches such as >>> ethnomethodology. The literature is generally boring, not unlike >>> dictionaries. I suppose we enter the learning hoping to stand on the >>> shoulders of giants, but few enter these educational processes on a >>> voluntary basis. Science, with its objective outcomes, should be easy to >>> teach, yet is not. In Chris' 'strip the language for easy interpretation' >>> terms, what could be easier than teaching people simple standardisation >>> like "measuring a meniscus"? You can demonstrate the doing to explain the >>> word and necessary actions. Now send the little dears off to do some >>> titration. Simples! Yet much gets in the way even of this kind of simple >>> instruction. Many kids aren't even considered fit to enter the laboratory >>> and, indeed, even fit to have such simple pointed instruments as a compass >>> to learn a bit of geometry (owing to stabbings, self-harm and so on). >>> >>> Gabby's spin is a delight, even if I get a vision of her standing with >>> two feet in a rabbit hole, and was waiting for the barb at the end, which >>> came here with a smile. AI can catch these patterns. Most of us in this >>> game have noticed we are after machine intelligence because we despair of >>> the glib internet world Francis describes.and that defeasible logic loses >>> all beauty contests with Chris holding up a craft beer. The despair on >>> human rationality and the libidinal biologically bound trivial is a >>> motivator, perhaps once found in science cutting out the Idols Gabby has an >>> undeclared better version of she has forgotten, in trying to get machines >>> to do what humans have always failed at - argument properly informed by >>> Reason and 'big data' approaches not constrained to selling us another >>> planet-burning widget. One thing I think we have been very bad at is >>> grasping frames of ideology, including why people generally act in them. >>> This was the big theme in both Luhmann and Habermas, who did nothing on how >>> we might live without the violence of poverty and needing to make livings. >>> There is no grasp of Gabby as the existential cash girl she described >>> herself as. One can model all of us in fuzzy sets on such lines, not >>> unlike her idea of the trace of people's histories to the 'moment'. >>> Socrates was described by his wife as a good-looking waster, not much good >>> at putting food on the family table and helping with childcare. We neglect >>> what argument is and why anyone else would want to listen to it. The dogs >>> watch me, concerned only that I finish and enter their rationality of being >>> off the lead along the riverbank. >>> >>> There is an old joke about standing in something on both feet. This is >>> a punishment in hell, standing in excrement up to one's neck. This, of >>> course, is for the tea break. One spends the rest of the day standing on >>> one's hands. >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 12:54:25 AM UTC, Gabby wrote: >>>> >>>> What a question, Francis! Here is basically everything you can get >>>> about "verstehen" in ist linguistic context: >>>> >>>> http://www.dwds.de/?view=1&qu=verstehen >>>> >>>> I guess you are interested in the tipping point when the sensuous >>>> meaning "I am standing in this with both my feet" transgressed to the >>>> field >>>> where it became an expression for the process of intellectual >>>> comprehension: >>>> >>>> in-stân besagt 'in einem gegenstande stehen, fuszen, zuhause sein', >>>>> under-standen, under-stân 'dazwischen d. h. mitten darin stehen'. wenn >>>>> nun >>>>> noch, ob auch ganz vereinzelt, ein nhd. bestehen (th. 1, 1672) in >>>>> demselben >>>>> sinne gebraucht wird, so würde es die anschauung vertreten 'einen >>>>> gegenstand umstehen, bestehen, in seiner gewalt haben' (ahd. bi-standan >>>>> vgl. umbi-: griech. ἀμφι-). von diesem ausgangspunkte läszt sich der >>>>> übergang von dem sinnlichen auf das geistige gebiet verstehen, wie uns >>>>> die >>>>> ähnlich entwickelten bildungen be-greifen und ver-nehmen noch heute >>>>> semasiologisch durchsichtig sind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You can also see what the "ver"-prefix can do and has done to the root >>>> words and vice versa: http://www.dwds.de/?view=1&qu=ver >>>> >>>> >>>> And to do something "aus Versehen" would be an example of how an >>>> educated Minds Eyer would justify their mistake. ;) >>>> >>>> 2015-03-03 18:56 GMT+01:00 frantheman <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>>> I and I sometimes overstand. Sometimes don't! And does *ver-stehen *have >>>>> the same relationship to standing as *sich vertun *has to doing? >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 6:36:22 PM UTC+1, Gabby wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers Francis! >>>>>> >>>>>> Schonhaltung or schon Haltung. The break makes the difference. And >>>>>> your medical knowledge bridges the gap. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually "overs", short form of "overstand", was my initial key word >>>>>> that got me looking deeper/higher into language construction long time >>>>>> ago. >>>>>> I was deeply impressed by what I had learned about Jamaican itations and >>>>>> Rastafari poltitical poetry. In your case the ability to do religious >>>>>> contextualization of language items certainly helps when studying >>>>>> Kulturwissenschaften. Viel Erfolg! >>>>>> >>>>>> 2015-03-03 17:15 GMT+01:00 frantheman <[email protected]>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm still here - in some sense anyway. More passive, thoughtful, >>>>>>> watching, listening and thinking. As they say on Facebook; it's >>>>>>> complicated. There's such a volume of *stuff *out on the web now >>>>>>> that I find my reluctance to contribute to it growing ever stronger in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> past years. Do I have anything to say that thousands are others aren't >>>>>>> saying? Is any attempt we make to say something not drowned out in a >>>>>>> cacophony of of puppies, selfies, mindless chatter and incivility? In a >>>>>>> world where significance seems to have become dependent on reduction to >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> viral hash-tagged tweet, or a five-second video on Vine, what happens >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> depth, complexity, the possibility of real interaction? Has >>>>>>> communication >>>>>>> finally reduced itself to atomic brevity and superficiality? Otherwise >>>>>>> - >>>>>>> tl;dr. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, >>>>>>> plausible, and wrong." What Menken actually said was a little >>>>>>> different; >>>>>>> "Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a >>>>>>> well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and >>>>>>> wrong" (*The >>>>>>> Divine Afflatus*, 1917). Even within the same language quotational >>>>>>> drift occurs. Interpretative drift is a constitutive element of >>>>>>> discourse. >>>>>>> Our communication is always a hit-and-miss thing, or maybe, better, a >>>>>>> constantly creative process. What you say, what I understand. Each of >>>>>>> us >>>>>>> culturally in our own particular place, but sharing enough to bring >>>>>>> some >>>>>>> kind of communication into being - a wonderful, organic, continually >>>>>>> self-creating kind of thing, with all sorts of levels, eddies, >>>>>>> side-effects. An orchestral symphonic symbolic performance of memes and >>>>>>> tropes. And that's just when it's carried out between people who >>>>>>> "share" a >>>>>>> common language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Accurate, one-to-one translation/conveyance of meaning is >>>>>>> impossible; even between two speakers of the same language. >>>>>>> Communication >>>>>>> becomes something else, something independent. The German theorist, >>>>>>> Niklas >>>>>>> Luhmann <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann>, has some >>>>>>> interesting ideas in this area. It's a deeply counter-intuitive way of >>>>>>> seeing things - and useful as an instrument to challenge one's own >>>>>>> assumptions, even if you don't go all the way with him. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nobody - as far as I know - has translated Luhmann's major works >>>>>>> from German into English. Understandably - it's hard enough trying to >>>>>>> figure out what exactly he's saying in one language without trying to >>>>>>> express it in another, and when you move to his discussions and >>>>>>> arguments >>>>>>> with Habermas <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Habermas> >>>>>>> (another >>>>>>> German master of the complicated obtuse) ... forgeddaboudit! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Though translation programmes have improved in the past decade, >>>>>>> they're still a long way from being good. Because "meaning"/"sense" is >>>>>>> always contextual (human subjective contextual), therefore always fluid >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> shifting. This is more than just "fuzzy logic." I suspect we will need >>>>>>> genuine AI as the basis of operating systems to make them really work. >>>>>>> Two >>>>>>> people from different lingusitic backrounds with very limited >>>>>>> vocabularies >>>>>>> can communicate better - agree that they have achieved some kind of >>>>>>> understanding - than a programme which has access to comprehensive >>>>>>> dictionaries. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the past months I've been formally studying - in the academic >>>>>>> sense - in German. *Kulturwissenschaft *at that. It's a weird >>>>>>> experience - there's stuff I can understand better in English, other >>>>>>> stuff >>>>>>> works better in German. There isn't even a good translation of the >>>>>>> subject >>>>>>> I'm doing my Masters in. A literal English translation of >>>>>>> *Kulturwissenschaft >>>>>>> *would be "cultural science" but English academia generally calls >>>>>>> it "cultural studies." Which, when you think about it, means something >>>>>>> else. Well, it's a post-modernist phenomenon anyway, which, arguably, >>>>>>> allows one to be multidimensional with reference to meaning! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And sometimes it can be enormously productive to take an ordinary, >>>>>>> everyday word in a particular language and twist it, mine it, pummel >>>>>>> it, *rape >>>>>>> *it, alienate it. Poets do this all the time. Sometimes even >>>>>>> academics (a pretty mediocre lot for the most part) manage it. The use >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> the German word *Verstehen >>>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verstehen> *["to understand"] is one >>>>>>> example. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am Sonntag, 1. März 2015 01:56:27 UTC+1 schrieb Chris Jenkins: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Was passiert, wenn der einzige Weg, wie wir kommunizieren konnte, >>>>>>>> war durch Fremdsoftware nicht in der Lage zu verstehen, unsere >>>>>>>> Emotionen? >>>>>>>> Die digitale Kommunikation nicht Ton jetzt vermitteln, sich >>>>>>>> vorstellen, >>>>>>>> wenn sie verloren auch Nuancen in der Übersetzung? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ich denke an das, weil ich die Gespräche in dieser Gruppe häufig >>>>>>>> brechen in zwei Menschen aneinander vorbei sprechen. Ich frage mich, >>>>>>>> wenn >>>>>>>> sie die anderen Lautsprecher verstehen überhaupt. Wenn unsere Worte >>>>>>>> verloren nicht nur ihr Ton, sondern auch ihre heimatlichen Dialekt; >>>>>>>> wenn >>>>>>>> sie etwas wurde noch der Sprecher nicht verstehen, bevor sie von einer >>>>>>>> anderen Person erhalten, würden wir in der Lage, überhaupt zu >>>>>>>> kommunizieren? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ich wünschte, Fran waren hier, um zu wiegen; er würde haben >>>>>>>> Einblick Ich würde wertvoll wie ein englischer Muttersprachler, die so >>>>>>>> viel >>>>>>>> Zeit in einem Land mit einer anderen als seiner Muttersprache >>>>>>>> verbracht >>>>>>>> hat, zu finden. Gabby hat ähnliche Einsicht gegeben, wie viel Zeit sie >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> englischer Sprache bei uns verbringt, (und wie oft habe ich gefragt, >>>>>>>> ob ich >>>>>>>> einen Sinn in der Übersetzung verpasst), aber ich nehme an, sie werden >>>>>>>> meist nur Spaß meines schlecht übersetzt machen Deutsch. : D >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in >>>>>>> the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to >>>>>>> pic/minds-eye/wo_ToDMnO4s/unsubscribe. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>>>> [email protected]. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>>>> Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ >>>>> topic/minds-eye/wo_ToDMnO4s/unsubscribe. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>> [email protected]. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> ""Minds Eye"" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > >
-- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
