Bye-bye, Miss American Pie. You had your chance, your golden opportunity, but you squandered it.
The 2008 presidential election was won on the “hope & change” slogan, and thus far the prediction has been half-right.…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments2176 - Cindy
I am going to retrieve a quote from the video which provides a brief description, that hits home for me, relating to our interconnection with the hierarchical power structure.
2177 - jeannie danna
#225, was a good comment, but now the two of you wont even read it, the page turned.
2178 - jeannie danna
I'll bring you something to see!
2179 - jeannie danna
Approximately twenty percent of the homeless in America have full time or part-time jobs, yet cannot afford their own apartment or house. Forty percent of the homeless living at the New Orleans Mission homeless shelter have full times jobs, yet cannot afford outside housing. Let’s face it, in our troubled economic times working is no longer a guarantee that protects us from poverty and homelessness. President-elect Barack Obama is right; there cannot be a strong wall street without a strong middle class economy.
:0 Don't hate me.
2180 - roger nowosielski
I've read it Jeannie. You shouldn't be jumping to conclusions just because you don't get a direct response.
2181 - roger nowosielski
#2179
That was one of the poignant messages from Cindy's video about America's ruling class - that even min0mum wage jobs do not alleviate poverty, and that the working stiffs are the ones who are engaged in philanthropy, not the rich, because they end up supporting everyone one who benefits from their measly wages.
2182 - jeannie danna
I have to finish watching it, I think when I saw your little swine comment I stopped!
:) I'll be back, then, gotta do my home-work.
2183 - Cindy
the working stiffs are the ones who are engaged in philanthropy, not the rich, because they end up supporting everyone one who benefits from their measly wages (cheap labor)
Yes, that was a point worth remembering from Barbara Ehrenreich.
(That was in the other video, Jeannie. The one in the sidebar, not the one you started.)
2184 - Cindy
(Now keep in mind this is not a Chomsky video, it is a collage of many bits of film and many speakers by mr1001nights. These points simply feature Chomsky.)
Okay, here is the quote and a lead up to it:
Approximately 42-43 minutes in: Chomsky is talking about the corporation's job of creating a consumer culture in which people mindlessly buys things they don't want. He is describing how this is done through 'created wants' and focusing people's attention on meaningless things in life, such as fashion trends. He notes he is getting this from the business literature. He suggests this makes sense for busienesses to do --to create people who are totally dissociated fom one another, whose sense of value is how many created wants can I satisfy. He mentions how the advertising industry's goal is to mold people, from infancy, into this desired pattern. So, at this point he brings up sports. "Take sports, that's another crucial example of the indoctrination system in my view, for one thing because it offers people something to pay attention to, that's of no importance..." So, he continues with the common point--the 'bread and cirucs' point. But then he mentions something else that is very intriguing, to me.
This is where he asks himself, in school, why he cares if his school team wins, why is he cheering for them when he doesn't even know anyone on the team. He says it makes no sense. Then he says, but it does make sense. "It's a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority--group cohesion behind leadership elements. In fact, it's training in irrational jingoism. That's also a feature of competitive sports. I think if you look closely at these things, typically they do have functions."
2185 - Cindy
2176 - I chose a different quote.
2186 - jeannie danna
I want to say a special gnight to both of you.
and,
Thank You Roger and Cindy for a great thread!
:} If you have home-work for me, leave it over there, and, I'll watch or answer in the morning. I want you both to check out the little church my husband and I belong to. nite...
2187 - jeannie danna
Yes, I watched that. It was areal eye-opener. It is sad, that sports take precedent over everything.
I can't wait for tomorrow now, I'll have more energy then.:]
2188 - roger nowosielski
#2184,
Yes, good quote.
2189 - Cindy
(Mark, I thought I would say the classes are up on Znet again. I want to take about 5 this time. I wish they would spread them out through the year. I only could focus on one last time and wasted my money. I am taking Andrej's class an one other. If you take something, let me know I will join you.)
2190 - Cindy
Oh and registration ends soon...
2191 - Cindy
And if you're "analytical," you don't need facts. (taken from another thread)
Can you explain to me what you mean by analytical here? I need to know something about that.
2192 - Mark
(Just saw 2189, Cindy, I doubt that I'll take any courses this year. Too many projects going on.)
2193 - roger nowosielski
He took it from me, Cindy.
2194 - roger nowosielski
I just realized, Cindy and Mark,
I'm waisting my time on politics and all that nonsense. Time to get back to serous writing.
Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream was just on, or some other such silly thing, like Mendelssohn's incidental music - whatever.
Sorry, but the Muse is calling.
Later
PS: I'm not going to ignore either of you. But I just got to recover my literary voice.
2195 - Cindy
He took it from me, Cindy.
???
I was serious. I'll try again another time. I am trying to understand what you mean by that. It seems like it is something I tried to explain in different words and it didn't work out for me.
2196 - roger nowosielski
It simply means that there are two kinds of thinking - analytical and empirical,
2197 - Cindy
That makes sense. Thanks.
2198 - Cindy
2192 - Okay, thanks Mark.
2194 - That's great, Roger. You haven't written much lately, I just realized.
2199 - roger nowosielski
Cindy,
I haven't written much for BC because of our postmodernism studies. As to other kind of writing, I need inspiration.
Check by the way the Vijai thread, my #75 in particular, and tell me what you think.
You are proceeding according to plan, no?
2200 - Cindy
OK, I am going to that thread next. Yes, according to plan.
2201 - Cindy
Roger,
Did you give up on Joseph? Today would be a good day to respond if you meant to as I am snowed in today. All I have to do is shovel a bit at a time as I goofed off yesterday.
2202 - roger nowosielski
You mean Realist?
I left a message on his weblog, but he did not respond. I don't have access to his email, so that's all I could do.
2203 - roger nowosielski
Sorry, you meant Miranda. No.
Why don't you give me a gist of your thought first and we can take it from there.
2204 - Cindy
See 2117 re Joseph - bbiab, time to shovel
2205 - roger nowosielski
Come in then when you're ready.
2206 - Cindy
Roger,
I already wrote my comment.
(now it's your turn)
2207 - roger nowosielski
OK, I'm pasting it"
2117 - Cindy
Feb 19, 2010 at 1:19 pm
I reserve the right to change my mind any moment (and I frequently do) and to act like an ass now and then.
Okay, Joseph is adding to my perspective in an extraordinary way. The way I really like. I see this problem that she's describing. I have never thought about it. For example, not to belabor the feminist theme again, but there are feminist 'communities' I stay out of just for the reasons that Joseph is describing. So, that experience fits. Feministing is a white, middle-class feminist community, which often ends up hurting hurt those who are transgendered, not white, not middle-class, or handicapped and they are also an insult to those of us who like to think we are on occasion intelligent.
I am wondering if this is going to be an exploration of key element in the (unintentional) creation of hierarchy. If it is what I think it will be then it is a breakthrough.
Let me think.
2208 - roger nowosielski
My first reaction is that I want to discuss more general, conceptual issues.
The gay community (to include feminism) is just a test case - the raw material for all kinds of observations and generalizations and insight.
I am more interested in the concept of community as such, the possibility of a community and the viability of a community, any community, then any particular community, however much the concrete cases may inform our thinking.
I'm just informing you of my intellectual bias, so you know.
2209 - roger nowosielski
Next I'll reread the introduction and pose a number of questions.
2210 - Cindy
My first reaction is that I want to discuss more general, conceptual issues.
The gay community (to include feminism) is just a test case - the raw material for all kinds of observations and generalizations and insight.
Well, yes, of course, Roger. I understand that. Didn't you get that from my comment?
To wit: "I am wondering if this is going to be an exploration of key element in the (unintentional) creation of hierarchy. If it is what I think it will be then it is a breakthrough."
Further to that idea...hierarchy is normalized for us. So much so that we apparently automatically create it, if I am guessing correctly about what I think Joseph's book will show. If so, this is a phenomenal breakthrough. If you can't see why, I'll try to explain.
2211 - Cindy
I will finish reading the intro now. (I never went back to it.)
2212 - roger nowosielski
BTW, skip the last section. It's just a preview of what's to follow.
We'll deal with it later.
2213 - roger nowosielski
OK, Cindy, let's resume.
Let me cite, however, a passage from a review from recent work:
"The essays in The Seductions of Community demonstrate the critical value of using community as the focus of analysis, rather than simply an empty category of convenience. Arising from the advanced seminar “Reconsidering Community: The Unintended Consequence of an Intellectual Romance” in Santa Fe in April of 2003, the essays offer no alternative and virtually no hope, no solution. Gandhi stressed the importance of conversation as the means to the resolution of ‘difference’ in society. And Pandey concludes The Seductions of Community by saying that we still have the need for an idea, a concept, a dream such as community. www.sirreadalot.org has a special interest in and commitment to community building, so this book was unsettling. Better for most of us to continue the romance, says this reviewer."
see the link posted in #1895, namely, The Seduction of Community, click on it in the index.
Let it serve as a preamble to the ensuing discussion.
Your turn, or in case you're dumbfounded, I will extrapolate.
PS: the fact I have to refer to a comment five pages ago suggests we had better streamline and reserve this thread for strictly post-modernists discussion.
Any other topics, of personal or peripheral interest, have better be allocated to another, "dedicated" thread, don't you think?
2214 - Cindy
Very interesting, Roger. Looks like another good book.
2215 - Cindy
...the essays offer no alternative and virtually no hope, no solution. Gandhi stressed the importance of conversation as the means to the resolution of ‘difference’ in society. And Pandey concludes The Seductions of Community by saying that we still have the need for an idea, a concept, a dream such as community. www.sirreadalot.org has a special interest in and commitment to community building, so this book was unsettling. Better for most of us to continue the romance, says this reviewer.
Interesting comment by the reviewer.
2216 - roger nowosielski
Sure is - in both cases.
I can pick this thread up in the evening. Have got to do housecleaning first after three months of hibernation.
2217 - Cindy
ROFLOL!(men's style housecleaning)
2218 - Cindy
(pictures Roger asleep with his head half under the bed, arm outstretched, reaching for a dust bunny when exhaustion overcame him)
2219 - roger nowosielski
Not really, Cindy. I will pick it up tomorrow, OK?
2220 - roger nowosielski
So Cindy,
Before we resume, are you just going to pick my brains for whatever you may find useful, or will you be willing to reconsider your positions in light of the dialog?
There is a substantial difference between the two, and I should know where you stand.
Anyway, think about that and I should be back late morning or early afternoon.
2221 - roger nowosielski
To help you think this through, consider what I regard as major difference between our styles of thought.
I happen to believe that your commitment to your positions stems mainly from, shall I say? your "experiences" (which were validated time and again); and that's one reason I stated earlier that in a sense, you are an empiricist.
By contrast, I've been trained to proceed from the vantage point of the logic of language and Wittgenstein's idea of grammar. (This could be mischaracterized, and caricatured, as form of "conceptual analysis, but I don't mind, since phrasing it so still highlights the basic difference(s) between our approaches.)
There is an added assumption that the logic of our language and the terms we use reflects the logic, coherency, and consistency of our practices; in fact that the former is grounded in the latter.
Which is perhaps one reason - but now we're coming to the practical consequences of our two different thinking styles - why I seem less committed (than you seem to be) to whatever positions I happen to hold at the time.
Why? Because my experience has shown me the logic of language will not lead me astray and will always lead me to ever greater clarity. (By "experience" I mean here experience with the methodology.)
Anyway, dialogue, exchange and true engagement always ought to lead to greater understanding (rather than in reinforcing commitment to the old). But of course, this again is predicated on there being open minds.
So I just thought I scribble these few thoughts down to help you understand where I stand and where possibly we differ.
Later!!!
2222 - roger nowosielski
Let me elaborate, Cindy.
Consider your interest in how we learn, in particular, with how children learn, a subject dear to your heart, we both know.
Well, we've got different learning theories, such as Piaget's, for instance, to draw upon, lots of experimental data from all kinds of social research, controlled or uncontrolled experiments, not to mention our own experiences with children learning of personal nature, and that's regardless of whether we are professional educators or just lay persons. And all these could be regarded as parts of "learning theory," full-fledged or just bits and pieces, a number of generalizations we arrive at, or hypotheses about, say, "children learning" or learning in general.
Compare this now with scientific theories concerning, say, the behavior of subatomic particles, or planetary movements, or relativity theory for that matter.
Now, consider again the kind of understanding we're capable of when it comes to something we make/build/construct - say a watchmaker's when it comes to knowing/understanding how a watch works; or an engineer's when it comes to understanding the workings of a combustion engine, or any mechanical or electrical system of an automobile.
Consider, too, what we know about our own physical bodies, as a result of years of medical practice, experimentation, the way we feel after say, a good workout, and the way we feel when we are sedentary or sluggish, or when we abuse our bodies either through addiction or even improper diet.
Lastly, consider the kind of understanding that's available to us as regards our own (human) practices - not necessarily from the vantage point of why we do what we do, in the sense of the unconscious or the subconscious, because that, again, get's us into the realm of psychological theories, the stress is on the word "theories" - but from the vantage point of understanding the very practices themselves, the logic of these practices, the reasons behind those practices, why do they persist, and if they persist, the functionality behind them.
And this last thing, I suggest, is the kind of knowledge/understanding that is available to us if we are attentive to our language, if we think about the language we employ, if we are not just the users of the language but self-reflexive users of the language.
So here we are - different kinds of understanding and knowledge, some of it theoretical, some of it less so, some of it none at all (in the rather strict sense of the word); some more remote, some less; some very intimate in fact - what I would dub "personal knowledge" - and some quite extraneous and far removed from who and what we are.
1) Scientific understanding (physical theories)
2) Social scientific understanding (of education, for example)
3) Understanding of a mechanism of our own making (of how a watch works, for instance)
4) Understanding how our physical bodies work and function
5) Understanding of our human practices (which translates to self-understanding or self-knowledge, but not in terms of psychological theories)
Well, you can figure how do all these compare and how do they all differ.
For your information, my philosophical interest and bent concerns itself with #5.
2223 - roger nowosielski
BTW, Cindy, you will be interested in the following, right down your alley:
"The Teen Brain: It's Not Just Grown Up Yet."
It's from NPR's "Morning Edition" show. You have to click on the "Listen" button; I can't access the text itself.
2224 - roger nowosielski
Also check out another segment from the same show, "The Aging Brain Is Less Quick, But More Shrewd," on the same page.
2225 - Cindy
2220 is a misconception of what I intended. I already explained it. If you didn't understand what I meant I will re-explain it. Simply put: we don't always know what someone else needs, often when we think we do, we are wrong, and it turns out they needed something (took something from us) we didn't consider.
The rest...my explanation based on experience is sort of true and sort of false. I used the word 'experience' for everything. I am not sure I can be much clearer now than I was before. Let me say I did understand and agree with both what you and Mark said. I understand that we interpret facts. Had my position been validated, I could have then gone forward to consider new ideas. But telling me that physical things don't work the way we know they do work is no way to convince me of my errors. Next time simply try acknowledging the truth in what I am saying and then suggest going beyond that. It is going to be hard to convince me I am wrong and need to change my mind about 'facts', while failing to acknowledge that when we fall off a cliff we die.
I have changed my position on 'facts', slowly over the last several months. It became a question the day I told you I was 'all about the facts'. Mark suggested I reconsider that. So, I have been. Slowly. I made progress in Bob's thread when I was ready to and when I saw how something worked. (Now, if I say I had experience in my discussion with Bob, that opened up my awareness...you are going to claim I am empirical... Okay, whatever! Call it what you wish. I learned something, I think it's valuable.)
I can't make much sense out of what you said. I try to use a lot of different things to confirm what I think. Perhaps 'facts' and 'experience' was the the only language I had for explaining how I confirm my conclusion. Perhaps the fault lies in that I can't accurately state what that would best be called. Or maybe I just changed my mind. It's hard to say. It's hard to recall which day a change in one's thinking happened (you know?).
I am not sure that I can agree with you that what needs to be done is endless progress on all fronts. We build knowledge. There is no reason for me to dispose of knowledge that I have that works. All I need to do is be open to new awareness. I think I am. I think I examine my ideas and make advanced regularly. I don't really know anyone who does that more than I do. So, I'm not sure what you mean that I am simply trying to reconfirm what I already know. That's inaccurate and saying such a thing shows me that you don't really see me very clearly. Anyone who did would notice a huge amount of change over the last 2 years.
Thanks for the links. I will have a look when I get some time.
Forgive me for being a little tiny bit grumpy. I don't understand why the subject keeps coming back to analysis of me personally. I am very involved with seeing all that I can. I am not very involved in analyzing you. Not that I couldn't be. But, what is the point? You best know what you need.