Habermas was essential research methods reading here, often in the context of the alleged debate he was having with the postmodernists and post-structuralists. His ideas on science were truly schoolboy and uppity, clearly conceiving of it as a kind of half-learning. Critical Theory more generally was quite popular in our business schools, alongside Foucault and other saints like Derrida. The basic idea was you couldn't be a positivist, the debate so stupid you could add 'like Popper' to that - he was clearly no positivist at all. Durkhein, Mauss, Weber, Marx, Soddy, ED Morel and lots more from 100 years ago is more radical - even Adam Smith and Andrew George.
Lots has been written on Habermas' impact in the English speaking world - e.g. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2777774?sid=21105532000851&uid=4&uid=2&uid=3738032 - so if you wanted an easy paper ... I could help with the window washing! None of this stuff looks like argument to me at all. Must cook tea. On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 4:55:26 PM UTC, frantheman 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/ >>>>>> 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 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.
