We are OK Archytas..... Sorry for the "classist" charge... I didn't believe it for a minute...My game was soccer if I hadn't told you before... HAR, don't swipe my HAR.... Process Philosophy... I did some looking into Mr. Whitehead... more in-depth than the summary below... http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/ The fellow got into some some odd permutations.... extending "psychological" modes of analysis and workings into the physical world... as for his contribution to the "systems theory" part... His notions of extension of "events" in time and space seems practical and useful enough.... But the notion of some sort of transmission of "some "essential-as -in - universal" thing" from one existent to another completely different existent by non-physical and non-communicative means (I forget now what W. termed it)... that was somewhat sci-fi. I'll leave it to (and for) you to evaluate the merits of his (W.'s) own and others' advancements in "process or system theory"... just try to maintain a tie or relation to actual physical "things" (RES), with that system stuff, to keep me happy....make it "empirically" proveable and applicable, OK? Question for you.... epistemologically, what would you call Whitehead?...
"Your may not be as 'smart' as me Nom - no cock length test meant (you do too much of that sometimes)" Archytas.... I've known you on and off for years....I like you, respect you, all of that.... please take a cue... My material... thematic dialectic "stuff", is not half bad (at all)... it has been around for quite a while and has been picked over and plagiarized piecemeal by quite a few "greater" intellects than you might think....but then, you'll just say I'm paranoid.... HAR.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile Is this the Jimmy Savile you meant? Hadn't heard of him....Penn State University had a similar situation with a (US) football assistant coach... Jerry Sandusky... you may have heard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal Sorry states of affairs...speaks ill of institutions, maybe more so than the men themselves.... Closer to my "home"... there has been the Sandy Hook shooting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting Too fresh to comment on for me.... so I won't.... Sorry to end on a tragic note... next post I'll try to go another route.... Stephen hasn't written for a bit...maybe he'll drop by ... Socratus, also... mind body dualism... I wonder what kind or relation of dualism he favors? On Friday, January 11, 2013 9:10:42 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > HAR indeed mate - we should probably be sharing the tequila I'm > demolishing (family crap). I'd have been shooting your way against > King George. Appreciate what you say here, but you have me wrong! > Too many people take argument the wrong way - hence we lose Chaz > because people can't take him and think he insults them - the guy is > sweet. No - my view on university is that everyone should have access > - but we'd change the nature of the places to allow that. > Deconstruction as an academic genre is totally hapless. The idea of > me as a supporter of the elite is so fatuous I love it! HAR! > Sam Carena posted a vid in here ages ago with a bunch of climate > scientists doing a 'motherfucker rap' - wish I had the talent to come > up with one of the unlikely scenario of me as 'keeper of the Queen's > stool'. > Nah! Process philosophy gives us the chance to change the 'bricks' - > in essence it's speculative. I don't think you and I are arsed > whether nominalism is better than tropical fish realism and would both > go out of our way to help the old dear across the road. Universities > claim to be democratic and centres of excellence - all I can say about > the ones I went to was they were bloody good at rugby league when I > was at them! Some of you yankee boys weren't bad once over playing > without armour. > > Universities should be central to sport, theatre, art, collective > education, carnival and so on - they aren't. We should be able to do > university without the academic stuff if we aren't academic - it's > only a tiny part of learning after all. Much the same on schools. > The issues for me are about keeping Jimmy Saville types away - utterly > crap UK paedo if you haven't heard. > > Process philosophy is systems theory The maths I learned in > statistical mechanics wasn't (by today's standards) right but it did > 'work' reasonably well until we knew better - the crass normal > distributions of economics don't work at all - except to funnel money > to the rich. Most of my mates can't hack education like me - but they > can do stuff I can't. I put my time in hitting the big guys in rugby > with and without the ball - but I was protected from the attrition to > allow what running/kicking genius I had and no one would pick me to > stiff it out with the real physical specimens. I hope I gave people I > taught a real chance to do what they could - some were better > academics than me - but most couldn't get in that team. Just like > some of the 'big dumb bastards' who created the space for me in rugby > (some now professors) - there are those who fail school so badly they > can't get into university - so why not change the rules? Your may not > be as 'smart' as me Nom - no cock length test meant (you do too much > of that sometimes) - but if you want to meet someone who will outdo us > both an an practical intelligence tests come and meet my mate Ron. He > can't properly read or write. Where do we get round thinking > education (to make like a Duke) is a good thing? Proper discussion > would be more like you or Chaz than that crap that cries ad hominem - > though as I like you I resent or giggle at the notion of me presented > as King's brown nose! Hope we are OK with this Nom - I think I like > you! > > On Jan 11, 9:46 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Never been convinced of the presumed basis of ontological/ > > epistemological/methodological myself Nom. > > > > Oh sure.... next you'll tell me that you challenge mathematics..... > > counting atoms...the periodic table.. etc, bringing it back to your > > chemistry.....Maybe you can express your doubts as to lack of > "conviction"? > > or "convincedness" ? in ontology or epistemology.... as to methodology, > > well, that depends on the method, I suppose.... > > Deconstruct.... whenever I hear that word my skin crawls... now there's > a > > methodology that you should definitely debunk..... tripe.... > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction > > binary tripe, to be precise....what those "phenomenologists" do not take > > into account is the actual "structure" of the existing reality (be it , > as > > it is, a combination of Concept(idea) and reference(physical > > thing).....they go off in their binary oppositions and wind up confusing > > and confounding all "things" in all ways... > > > > Let's see if I can give you a fairly rudimentary example, from the Snow > > White tale analysis.... what is an "apple", in that context? > > Hello twonickles, > > > > Ok Nominal, I'm now throughly confused. Although I understand your > > circle of roles, I can't seem to visualize what you're saying here: > > > > >>You have seen the Sign "Triangle" above... the distinction between: > > > > .........................Vox (Sign)......................... > > > > Conceptus (Idea).......................... Res (Matter).... > > > > Deos my addition of the dots help you visualize the "Triangle", as a > > diagram? > > If you have difficulty with "how" or "what" a Vox(sign) > > "signifies"...... here's a very rough sample.... > > > > ...........................Apple.......................... > > > > Sustenance...............................Red,Round,Fruit.... > > > > Of course.... the concept and the reference side of the Sign "Apple" > > varies from one "individual" (variety) to another and also on the > > ammount of information that you want to supply on both sides.... talk > > to a farmer or to a biologist about "apples" and you may learn a lot > > more than you care to know.... > > > > nominal9 > > > > Twonickles & CC, et al (if you are still around).... > > before I get to your latest question of the tie in to my "circle" of > > roles.... I want you to consider how BillyO's "triangles" can be > > disposed in the "square" of opposition.... remember? > > **** > > > > Well that's enough for now.... Chew that over for a while. If y'all > > want to continue... try to think how BillyO's Sign Triangle can be > > used to "signify" the "Plan" and "Action" part of any given "Course of > > Action". Then... try to think how the BillyO's sign "Triangles" can be > > disposed in the traditional "Square" of logical Opposition.... If it > > interests y'all, of course. > > > > nominal9 > > **** > > Let's start with the "Sign" APPLE (since that's the one I happened to > > use as an example). I said that the sign APPLE could be thought of as > > the following "Triangle": > > ..................Apple................. > > > > Sustenance................... Red, Round, Fruit > > > > Now... here's a chance (?) complication.... what do y'all know about > > Apple Seeds? Here are two links that explain what I'm getting at... > http://www.hsus.org/pets/pet_care/protec... > > > > http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ge... > > > > So... it would appear that APPLE SEEDS, to the contrary, have the > > following "triangle": > > ...............Apple Seed........ > > > > Poison.........................Small, Brown, Pit > > > > So.... If you dispose the Possible "sign aspects" in the logical > > "square".... you come up with something like the following: (Concept- > > based Disposition... notice) > > > > Sustenance/Fruit.....................Poison/Pit > > > > Sustenance/ Pit......................Poison/Fruit > > > > (Whatta y'all think?.... Pretty neat, Huh????) > > Now, if y'all want to continue this.... Lemme know. > > nominal9 > > > > In the tale... the wicked queen took a sustenance "fruit"( reference) > and > > added a copious quantity of physical venom to it... thereby changing it > > into a poison fruit. > > > > so... what's the "binary" deconstruction there?.... there isn't any > because > > the deconstruction "methodology' is based on some half-arsed notions > that > > don't take into account that each and every "categorematic" (at least) > word > > is made up of more that one sort (as in both concept and reference) of > > "meaning" component.... deconstruct my foot... call it a hatchet job of > > "sense".... worse than nonsense....no sense whatsoever.... > > > > Deconstruction is like saying "liberty is the opposite of > cheese".....more > > often than not.... > > > > The rest of your post gets into all sorts of other issues that I would > like > > to discuss, but It would take some more specification.... I would like > to > > go back to the issue you raised of too many highly educated students > for > > too few job openings in the areas.... what do you propose, some sort of > > "classist" solution... let the rich children of "privilege" get the > > education since they will more than likely attain the choice jobs (one > way > > or another) and let the poor slobs remain ignorant, so they won't "know > > better" to challenge the upper r crust?....is the old boy English lord > > mentality coming out in you?... what do you propose as a solution? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, January 11, 2013 2:06:46 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > > > Never been convinced of the presumed basis of ontological/ > > > epistemological/methodological myself Nom. There's some kind of > > > deconstructive point in debunking clown ideologies and control frauds > > > (that lead to stuff like 'churching' women and slashing penises after > > > menstrual contact) - but then what do we do in terms of institutions > > > and building the present and future? How do we cope with history that > > > isn't data? Or the Idol of the theatre? Or research as pisswittering > > > that prevents change? Our financial system produces some brutal facts > > > on who gets the wealth - is there no alternative or is the system a > > > control fraud supported by rationalisation? One can debunk economics > > > (Steve Keen is good) but still find one has missed a key process (e.g. > > > that we mean to deprive others as in beggar thy neighbour to stop them > > > getting strong enough to challenge us). > > > One bit of debunking doing the rounds at the moment is that the > > > definition of money in economics arises from a mistaken thought > > > experiment on barter coming before money and being replaced by it > > > (Adam Smith) - no societies in which this actually occurred/occurs > > > have been found (David Graeber). Debt seems to come first - often in > > > the form of debt peonage or tally sticks. We have almost forgotten > > > that many (religious) terms for freedom mean freedom from debt and the > > > regular debt jubilees in history.I wonder how it is we exclude so many > > > possible angles or processes. This seems fair in the science > > > laboratory but what of unwarranted exclusion in human affairs more > > > generally? And perhaps closer to the modern form of the instruments > > > of torture? Philosophy might be part of such a mechanism of exclusion > > > because ... > > > > > On Jan 11, 3:40 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/humanities/2YYdPc... > > > > > > I thought about these "things" thirty years ago, give or take.... > > > > If the link above works, this will give you a glimpse of my own > thoughts > > > as > > > > to an approach to things, both physical and cultural...(scientific > and > > > > social) nominal9 thematic dialectic logic....I don't presume to > give > > > > "answers"... no philosopher's stone foror from me... just a method > of > > > > analysis to differentiate any particular author' s. "assignations" > of > > > > "ontological"(fact or fancy), "ethical" (good or bad) and yes, even > > > > "epistemological" ( subjective or objective) predicated values....I > > > remain > > > > true to the author I treat in order to properly "understand" him or > > > her.... > > > > but then... as a reader and as a human being in my own right, I > ask... > > > do I > > > > agree with those assignations or not?.... > > > > > > My "dialectic method" framework is in "signs"... call them > "semiotic" or > > > > whatever... that eventually > > > > "blossom" into language ... of all sorts, depending on the > author.... > > > > > > Positivism was never a singular / you said ... I say, roughly... it > was > > > > (is) true to the basic epistemological tenet of all "scientific > method" > > > > should be a mix of "theory" (thought) and "experiment" (empirical > > > > experience) Like I said Concept (subjective)/ Reference (objective). > > > > > > Etc. > > > > > > Can scientific method be applied to "human affairs"?.....depends.... > are > > > we > > > > talking about the physical human (reference)? I'd say yes: the > human > > > body > > > > is governed by all physical constraints .....or the thinking > (concept) > > > > human? I'd say no:mankind's thinking is all over the place and prone > to > > > > willfulness and error and all sorts of other unpredictable > vagaries.... > > > > > > So what's the problem.... Archytas.....? HAR > > > > > > What I try to get across is that "If it is one thing, it is not > > > > another".... the basic concept of "identity" that leads to > > > differentiation > > > > and distinction......and "contradiction and contrariety"..... > > > > > > From this, basis, then you go on... whichever way you (whomever) > > > chooses.... > > > > > > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 10:43:36 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > > > > > I'd say the in stuff is paraconsistent logics (modelling logics > from > > > > > practices that work) and neuroscience. Positivism was never a > singular > > > > > - there are many positivisms. The philosophers' stone in them was > to > > > > > find scientific method applicable to social issues. There was > even > > > > > the happy positivist Enfantin who wanted to include free sex. > You'd > > > > > need a book to describe the positivisms in Marx. > > > > > In a process philosophy manner we could look at the crap > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/7ZEGPETB-xQJ. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
