Do you have a reference for your use of "epistemological realism"? The claim
you cite defines an interactionist view of the relationship of mind to body.
What has it to do with epistemology , the theory of knowledge? I would think
that epistemological realism would be the view that what we know is
:Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Pomotismo
The question of whether objective [*gegenstandliche] truth can be
attributed to human thinking is not a quesion of theory but is a
*practical*
question. In practice man must prove the truth, that is, the reality
and]
power, the this-sidedness [*Diesseitigkiet
> >
> >I don't want to be a stick in the mud.
>
> why not?
Because given your next sentence, you're playing that role :-)
>
> you're right, _if_ I lived in the year 2060. But I'm currently
> living in 2000.
Thanks for missing my point.
> maybe, but at present we're stuck with what we've got
The question of whether objective [*gegenstandliche] truth can be
attributed to human thinking is not a quesion of theory but is a
*practical*
question. In practice man must prove the truth, that is, the reality
and]
power, the this-sidedness [*Diesseitigkiet*] of his thinking. The
dispute
ove
At 09:10 AM 9/6/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Uh, Jim,
>
>I don't want to be a stick in the mud.
why not?
>But let's say you lived to 2060. Would you really be able to say whether
>it was a super duper neural network hooked up to an big ol' database of
>human knowledge you were conversing with on the
Uh, Jim,
I don't want to be a stick in the mud. But let's say you lived to 2060.
Would you really be able to say whether it was a super duper neural network
hooked up to an big ol' database of human knowledge you were conversing with
on the "other side" of your screen or a human person? Could you
Nico wrote:
> >If there is no such thing as objective thought then there is no such thing
> >as objective reality, since reality is all in our heads anyway.
I said:
>If it's all in our heads, how do I know that you exist? Might you be a
>mirage or simply a Turing-type computer program?
Nico now
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 1:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Pomotismo
Barkley wrote:
> Except of course there are situations where
>2+2 does not equal 4, such as when one is adding
>angles on the surface of the earth...
this says that t
: Re: Re: Pomotismo
Where do you get the idea that I assume that everyone knows that 2 plus 2 is
4 or that Ottawa is the capital of Canada? I don't. Why should I. It would
be a false assumption, as you point out. Not false for you and false for me
but just plain ordinary false. What signifi
ct: [PEN-L:1203] Re: RE: Re: Re: Pomotismo
G'day Nicole,
>You are assuming that everyone knows that 2 + 2 = 4 or Ottawa is the
capital
>of Canada. Some people could care less and it may or may not be a part of
>what makes up their reality. If something is not part of
Barkley wrote:
>>> Except of course there are situations where
>>>2+2 does not equal 4, such as when one is adding
>>>angles on the surface of the earth...
I wrote:
>>this says that the nature of truth depends on the objective context. It
>>doesn't deny the importance of objective context
In a message dated 9/4/00 2:37:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Most "truths" aren't of the 2+2=4 variety, at least the truths of
political economy. Is a certain income distribution fair? Is a
certain production process efficient? Are men and women equal? Where
doe
not
be necessary. BTW, ever met anyone who didn't know the capital of Canada?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Carrol Cox
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 4:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:1199] Re: RE: R
Barkley must be a disciple of Mill. For most philosophers 2 plus 2 is 4 does
not entail any empirical claim and that would include the claim that a two
degree angle and another two degree angle add up to a four degree angle on
the surface of the earth--assuming this is what Barkley is talking abou
Jim Devine wrote:
>Barkley wrote:
>> Except of course there are situations where
>>2+2 does not equal 4, such as when one is adding
>>angles on the surface of the earth...
>
>this says that the nature of truth depends on the objective context.
>It doesn't deny the importance of objective
Barkley wrote:
> Except of course there are situations where
>2+2 does not equal 4, such as when one is adding
>angles on the surface of the earth...
this says that the nature of truth depends on the objective context. It
doesn't deny the importance of objective context. On the other hand
r 04, 2000 2:13 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:1208] Re: RE: Re: Re: Pomotismo
>>You are assuming that everyone knows that 2 + 2 = 4 or Ottawa is the
capital
>>of Canada. Some people could care less and it may or may not be a part of
>>what makes up their reality.
>
>If you know any one
RE the 'fact' that 2+2 = 4:
2 + 2 = 11 to someone using base 3.
Eric
ly
- Original Message -
From: Nicole Seibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 11:26 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:1183] RE: Re: Re: Pomotismo
> You are assuming that everyone knows that 2 + 2 = 4 or Ottawa is the
capital
> of Canada.
>G'day Nicole,
>
>>You are assuming that everyone knows that 2 + 2 = 4 or Ottawa is the
>capital
>>of Canada. Some people could care less and it may or may not be a part of
>>what makes up their reality. If something is not part of a person's
>reality
>>then it can not possibly influence what th
>You are assuming that everyone knows that 2 + 2 = 4 or Ottawa is the capital
>of Canada. Some people could care less and it may or may not be a part of
>what makes up their reality.
If you know any one whose reality doesn't include 2 + 2 = 4, I
*strongly* recommend that you urge them to trade
G'day Nicole,
>You are assuming that everyone knows that 2 + 2 = 4 or Ottawa is the
capital
>of Canada. Some people could care less and it may or may not be a part of
>what makes up their reality. If something is not part of a person's
reality
>then it can not possibly influence what they think
Nicole Seibert wrote:
> You are assuming that everyone knows that 2 + 2 = 4 or Ottawa is the capital
> of Canada. Some people could care less and it may or may not be a part of
> what makes up their reality. If something is not part of a person's reality
> then it can not possibly influence w
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 12:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:1181] Re: RE: Pomotismo
In a message dated 9/2/00 6:01:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAI
!
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Rob Schaap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, September 02, 2000 1:29 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:1145] Re: Re: Re: Re: Pomotismo
>G'day Doug,
>
>No need for you and I to go at it again, ma
Hey, we all know that Doug's true identity is to be
Sergeant Joe Friday, :-).
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Brad DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, September 02, 2000 12:26 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:1142] Re: Re:
Nicole,
Well, since I'm still here
I think Doug is right that narratives are important.
I also think that pomo may have served a useful purpose
at certain points in helping some people get outside of
confining mental structures and perspectives. Where
I have a problem with it (and
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2000 3:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:1159] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pomotismo
Brad DeLong wrote:
>>I think people who comm
You are assuming that everyone knows that 2 + 2 = 4 or Ottawa is the capital
of Canada. Some people could care less and it may or may not be a part of
what makes up their reality. If something is not part of a person's reality
then it can not possibly influence what they think "the truth" is. T
Doug Henwood wrote:
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >Butler merely shows here that she is consistently a fraud
>
> Why can't you just say you disagree with her? Why must you repeat
> this nasty characterization?
Because I'm more sure she is a fraud than that I disagree with her. I am using as
my crite
Carrol Cox wrote:
>Butler merely shows here that she is consistently a fraud
Why can't you just say you disagree with her? Why must you repeat
this nasty characterization? You're doing exactly what she was
rightly complaining about, collapsing a complex body of scholarship
into a symptom - or
Doug Henwood wrote:
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >I agree. Butler's almost habitual failure to observe this elementary
> >decency is the reason that I finally decided that she was a fraud. I
> >have made this complaint about her frequently (in specific reference to
> >her article in NLR) on several di
Brad DeLong wrote:
>>I think people who comment on "pomos" should show some evidence of
>>having read some, and should cite actual texts to make their points
>>instead of impressions. But maybe I'm just being a stick-in-the-mud.
>>
>>Doug
>
>No, but you are being pre-post-modernist. Imposing th
G'day Doug,
No need for you and I to go at it again, mate. Shouldn't really have
posted that vehement rant, but I was just back from a wet lunch. Being
Friday'n'all.
To quote one or two now would look like I'm just picking particularly
crappy bits for my own ends ... speaking of which! What a
>I think people who comment on "pomos" should show some evidence of
>having read some, and should cite actual texts to make their points
>instead of impressions. But maybe I'm just being a stick-in-the-mud.
>
>Doug
No, but you are being pre-post-modernist. Imposing the grid of
explicit text-ci
and Hegel.
-Nico
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Louis Proyect
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 3:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pomotismo
>I think people who comment on "pomos" should
RE
> I must confess that I too got an English degree ...
I can't take the pressure any more... I must confess that I too have a degree
in English Lit. Please forgive me. I was young and didn't know what I was
doing.
Eric
Carrol Cox wrote:
>I agree. Butler's almost habitual failure to observe this elementary
>decency is the reason that I finally decided that she was a fraud. I
>have made this complaint about her frequently (in specific reference to
>her article in NLR) on several different maillists but no defende
Doug Henwood wrote:
> I think people who comment on "pomos" should show some evidence of
> having read some, and should cite actual texts to make their points
> instead of impressions. But maybe I'm just being a stick-in-the-mud.
I agree. Butler's almost habitual failure to observe this elemen
> They are armed, but not dangerous, or maybe it is the other way around. --jks
>
>
Don't you mean: "They are 'armed', but not 'dangerous'"?
Brd DeLong
At 02:53 PM 9/1/00 -0400, you wrote:
>I think people who comment on "pomos" should show some evidence of having
>read some, and should cite actual texts to make their points instead of
>impressions. But maybe I'm just being a stick-in-the-mud.
I totally agree. I agree that all theoretical argum
>I think people who comment on "pomos" should show some evidence of
>having read some, and should cite actual texts to make their points
>instead of impressions. But maybe I'm just being a stick-in-the-mud.
>
>Doug
I have read lots of this stuff myself:
Lyotard: The Postmodern Condition
Derrid
I think people who comment on "pomos" should show some evidence of
having read some, and should cite actual texts to make their points
instead of impressions. But maybe I'm just being a stick-in-the-mud.
Doug
Nice one, Eric!
This quote fits nicely, too. Apologies to Giddens-haters (I feel your
pain; for an anti-pomoista, he can write awful wank, and be politically
awfully uncommitted - unless you consider 'The Third Way' a mode of
commitment, I s'pose), but here 'tis:
"Postmodernism, if it means any
Jim Devine wrote:
>it's important to have sense of priority (e.g., that capitalism is
>more important than the Rotarian International).
>
>I should mention that many of these pomotistas continue to be
>politically engaged in good left-wing causes.
Yeah, Rick Wolff ran for city council in New H
Jim wrote
In the context of Amherst, a pomotista is a Wolf/Resnick
postmodernist-Marxist (or Marxist-postmodernist). As I understand their
view, it is that (1) there's no way to decide between neoclassical and
Marxist theory except via moral commitment (leaning toward epistemological
nihilism) an
46 matches
Mail list logo
