George H. Smith Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Then why do they judge our culture?--BrantReally if you ask questions like that you can never find out anything or know anything.Yeah, Brant. We have a true intellectual in our midst, at long last, so shut up and pay attention! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Intellectuals...aren't they the first ones dragged out of their houses by their hair....stood up against the wall...and shot?Justice comes out of the barrel of a gun... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I liked Moneyball a great deal; in fact, I watched it twice, even though I'm not much of a baseball fan. But I don't recall the "Foucauldian Grid of power/knowledge in linguistic action." I thought it was a just good sports movie that happens to be true. Maybe the Foucauldian stuff happened during the locker-room pep talk. Not being versed in Foucauldian analysis, I may have missed the the complex subtleties that are previewed here: Well now that you have been suitably enlightened, can you see it. A rose is a rose is a rose. Theme is OK but it does not open any more information to you, it just labels what you have seen. There are no resonances except what is like it in theme or not like it in theme, but a Foucault reading allows you to see the power/knowledge/capital relation in action, in it dynamics rather than stasis. An object does not exist until and unless it is observed. - William Burroughs And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar -- as the saying goes in Freudian folklore.- Or as Rand says about the impossibility of seeing something everyone refuses to see. Rand paraphrase so give me the correct quote one of you trivial pursuit people. There's another famous one but I forget who. I forget a lot you know. Thank heavens for blessings.Do you seriously think that Rand somewhere backs up the quotation from Burroughs? Or is this the result of a "Foucault reading" that enables us to see Rand in "dynamics rather than stasis"?GhsShe does. Do I haffta go hunt for my quote link? Go to google Rand quotes and you will find it faster. Here I did it: “The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see.” ―Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead google/goodreads/quotesLet me get this straight. You think that the passage from Rand says essentially the same thing as, or something very similar to, the line you quoted from Burroughs? -- i.e., "An object does not exist until and unless it is observed."Is this another one of your loony Foucauldian readings? Or are you merely unable to understand what you read? Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Then why do they judge our culture?--BrantReally if you ask questions like that you can never find out anything or know anything.Yeah, Brant. We have a true intellectual in our midst, at long last, so shut up and pay attention!Yeah! Geez, Brant. Shape up. You call those questions? You should be ashamed in front of the whole Lycee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Notice how ND only jumps in to post another brief insult.Would you prefer a more lengthy insult next time? All you need do is ask, and ND would almost certainly oblige.GhsHere's a somewhat longer braying ass video for Phil. We aim to please.In related news, the DIM Hypothesis is coming out this year, for sure!Indeed, he says to brace yourself for its arrival in September! I plan to "read it through Spengler".http://www.peikoff.c...dim-hypothesis/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 “The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see.”Let me get this straight. You think that the passage from Rand says essentially the same thing as, or something very similar to, the line you quoted from Burroughs? -- i.e., "An object does not exist until and unless it is observed."Hey hey, that's reads a lot like Upton Sinclair's: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."That's it, Rand was a socialist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 > "Also on thedailykos are my embarrassing awful posts on Obama that I wish I could gt back...But as long as past dirt is being scummed up I'll give you the worst. "[seymour]Don't worry about it. The proper way to view posts is an -informal- form. Like emails, a bit. You are not writing for the ages and people understand (or ought to) that you will revise, change your mind, say things too strongly. Or not strongly enough.> "I have read hundreds of biographies. Have you? I am fully qualified, although not by the Sorbonne, to read them and judge them as a reader. Are you?"Carol, rather than judge her qualifications or compare credentials, it would be interesting to hear your answers to my questions about what makes a good bio and what were the best you've read. Your posts and opinions are always worth reading."> Foucault this > Foucault that >Foucault the other thing....> Foucault oui > Foucault non."Fouc dat. I haven't read him. So I can't even Derride him, even in a Laconic way. I wish I were Mao knowledgeable so I could make my Marx in this discussion. I can't even find the meaning Heideggering in some of these posts, so I have to plead for Lenincy and a lack of Deconstructive criticism of my ignorance. I been Habermasing a hard time with all this jargon. But maybe that's because there is just nuttin' honey outside of da text?What post are you quoting from? I've searched but I cannot find it. This is very annoying. If you will not use the quote function, you could at least give a post number, especially when posts have been appearing at a rapid rate, as they have tonight on this thread.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Notice how ND only jumps in to post another brief insult.Would you prefer a more lengthy insult next time? All you need do is ask, and ND would almost certainly oblige.GhsHere's a somewhat longer braying ass video for Phil. We aim to please.In related news, the DIM Hypothesis is coming out this year, for sure!Indeed, he says to brace yourself for its arrival in September! I plan to "read it through Spengler".http://www.peikoff.c...dim-hypothesis/Notice how ND only jumps in to post another brief insult.Would you prefer a more lengthy insult next time? All you need do is ask, and ND would almost certainly oblige.GhsHere's a somewhat longer braying ass video for Phil. We aim to please.In related news, the DIM Hypothesis is coming out this year, for sure!Indeed, he says to brace yourself for its arrival in September! I plan to "read it through Spengler".http://www.peikoff.c...dim-hypothesis/I shall absorb it through "Rilla of Ingleside" as I do everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I can't imagine a statement more profoundly un-Randian than the Burroughs quote. Even if one knew nothing about her ideas or writings, knowing merely that "Objectivism" was her chosen name for those ideas, plus a bit of etymological literacy, would be enough to tip one off that she is not a solipsist.For comparable ignorance of the topic you'd have to go back to Newsweek's 1961 review of For the New Intellectual, which stated, as nearly as I can recall, "the evidence of the senses, she argues, is for muddleheads only; the reality of a thing is the logical construct based upon it."Apparently this sort of thing comes alone once in a century. The good news is that we can expect to be safe for another 88 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 As I understand it, Foucault's basic point was that it is inappropriate to judge Islamic culture -- including its horrendous treatment of women -- by Western standards. Correct?Yes. Islamic countries are within the Sacred Order not the Order of Production, not a Secular order. You cannot judge them from within ours, tempting as that may be. Your division between Sacred and Secular Orders merely reflects the inherent bias and warped perspective of your own culture and institutions, especially universities. You therefore cannot dub Islamic countries "Sacred Orders," however tempting that may be. Nor can you criticize westerners who judge Islamic cultures, however tempting that may be, because such criticisms are nothing more than a manifestation of your own cultural bias, as informed by Foucault.Or have you learned some magical way to transcend the limits of Foucault's vicious relativism and assess things objectively, without cultural bias? If you have, please fill the rest of us in on the secret.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 >>After my initial dismissal of Foucault, recall how Janet>>mistakenly assumed that I had never read anything by him and>>then told me that only an "expert" could legitimately>>criticize him.>>Don't worry about it. The proper way to view posts is an ->informal- form. Like emails, a bit. You are not writing>for the ages and people understand (or ought to) that you>will revise, change your mind, say things too strongly. Or>not strongly enough.>>Carol, rather than judge her qualifications or compare>credentials, it would be interesting to hear your answers to>my questions about what makes a good bio and what were the>best you've read. Your posts and opinions are always worth>reading.What post are you quoting from? I've searched but I cannot find it. This is very annoying. If you will not use the quote function, you could at least give a post number, especially when posts have been appearing at a rapid rate, as they have tonight on this threadI am pretty sure that this came from the OWL list, George.Does this not seem familar? Emphases added ...From: "Philip Coates" <philcoates@worldnet.att.net>To: "owl" <objectivism@wetheliving.com>Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:36:39 -0700Subject: How NOT to Invest Time on OWL>Eyal said [4/6]:>>so far it looks to me like you've simply stated a position; I don't see>>that you've given any argument for it.>Eyal, this whole discussion is another OWL time-waster.>Not every post has to be an argument:>There is value in simply boiling down and summarizing in bullet form the key>aspects of the Objectivist positions. For one thing, it shows how they hang>together. In many cases the arguments i) have already been made in the>literature and do not need to be endlessly repeated often less competently>on OWL ( a very secondary and inferior venue with lots of newbies and people>who have a shaky grasp of Objectivism before they come to criticize), ii)>come from other branches of knowledge such as biology and psychology...and>the reader has to be well-read enough to supply on his own, or iii) are in>part introspective. [instead of finding what I -did- offer interesting and>worth chewing, you skip past it.]>>if she ever expressed the view that a baby acquires rights at the instant>>of birth, I am not aware of it; and in that case please let me know where to>>find it.>I don't know. Focus and respond on the -logic- of it instead, please.>>I'll be interested in hearing more from you about your reasons in support>>of your view, and what problems you see with Will Thomas's view.>To repeat: My view is that the rights of a child or infant are neither 0 nor>100%, but often vary as one gains (or loses) intellectual, moral, practical>capacity. I didn't give a complete analysis nor am I particularly focused on>whether Rand said it first.>But I showed by example (criminal and civil offense) it is -possible- for>rights to exist *in degree*, in case anyone wants to be so foolish as to>argue that rights never exist in degree. (I also hinted at how my "degree">formulation can help resolve conundrums about the mentally impaired or>deficient..a more complex issue than children.)>To me, that a child has -zero- rights is so instantly contrary to the nature>of rights that no argument could possibly be advanced for it. Far more>important and more positive, that rights exist in degree as a child matures>is so commonsensically obvious, that I am reluctant to spend my time on it.>The average man on the street would get this immediately. This is not rocket>science (and it was actually observational knowledge that was available at>the start of adolescence whenever one observes a sibling, prior to>Objectivism).>Of course, none of this will stop wide-eyed OWLs, comatose during daylight>hours, from flapping their wings and beating this to death for another fifty>posts.>--Philip Coates>[ PS, I just want to say in passing, that this thread and OWL in general>reminds me of why I don't publish. I have done a lot of work and written>hundreds of thousands of works in my own journals on solutions to many of>the more difficult philosophical problems associated with Objectivism---from>induction, to additional virtues to add to the existing eight, to a complete>taxonomy of all the forms of cause and effect that exist in the special>sciences, to concretization, to thinking skills, to practical tips on>reaching and sustaining benevolence, to how to educate children. The>material is original and has the virtue of being true.>Every time I think of doing it all I have to do is read OWL or attend the>TOC "Advanced Seminar". What always stops me from pulling them together and>publishing them is the extreme pickiness and tunnel-vision of OWLsters and>TOCsters of the more academic variety. I wouldn't want the prospect of being>nibbled to death by non-benevolent ducks.>Objectivists are the last audience I would want to write for. Give me a>commonsense dentist or engineer or bricklayer any day.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I shall absorb it through "Rilla of Ingleside" as I do everything.Shoot, Anne of Green Gables, I've never touched any of it. Peikoff is claiming to have developed a new approach to analyzing history, and Spengler did that with Decline of the West. It's a tough book, but loaded with facts that are well researched and quite reliable, so whatever you think of his thesis (it amounts to an unfalsifiable argument by analogy), it's still an absorbing read. I don't expect Peikoff to measure up, not by a loooooong shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 As I understand it, Foucault's basic point was that it is inappropriate to judge Islamic culture -- including its horrendous treatment of women -- by Western standards. Correct? Yes. Islamic countries are within the Sacred Order not the Order of Production, not a Secular order. You cannot judge them from within ours, tempting as that may be. Your division between Sacred and Secular Orders merely reflects the inherent bias and warped perspective of your own culture and institutions, especially universities. You therefore cannot dub Islamic countries "Sacred Orders," however tempting that may be. Nor can you criticize westerners who judge Islamic cultures, however tempting that may be, because such criticisms are nothing more than a manifestation of your own cultural bias, as informed by Foucault. Or have you learned some magical way to transcend the limits of Foucault's vicious relativism and assess things objectively, without cultural bias? If you have, please fill the rest of us in on the secret. GhsGee I thought you could tell me since you are so free of cultural bias. Please tell me. I haven't criticized westerners. I feel the same as you do but it's like criticizing Catholics for having their kids confess sins at six years after confirmation. How are you gonna win that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 As I understand it, Foucault's basic point was that it is inappropriate to judge Islamic culture -- including its horrendous treatment of women -- by Western standards. Correct? Yes. Islamic countries are within the Sacred Order not the Order of Production, not a Secular order. You cannot judge them from within ours, tempting as that may be. Your division between Sacred and Secular Orders merely reflects the inherent bias and warped perspective of your own culture and institutions, especially universities. You therefore cannot dub Islamic countries "Sacred Orders," however tempting that may be. Nor can you criticize westerners who judge Islamic cultures, however tempting that may be, because such criticisms are nothing more than a manifestation of your own cultural bias, as informed by Foucault. Or have you learned some magical way to transcend the limits of Foucault's vicious relativism and assess things objectively, without cultural bias? If you have, please fill the rest of us in on the secret. Ghs Gee I thought you could tell me since you are so free of cultural bias. Please tell me. I haven't criticized westerners. I feel the same as you do but it's like criticizing Catholics for having their kids confess sins at six years after confirmation. How are you gonna win that one?On the assumption that you did not understand my point, I will repeat it: How is your distinction between Sacred and Secular Orders anything other than yet another bit of cultural bias, a prejudice that you picked up from western academics, such as Foucault? In other words, it has no objective status whatsoever.Got it now, hon? Or do I need to make it even simpler for you?Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I liked Moneyball a great deal; in fact, I watched it twice, even though I'm not much of a baseball fan. But I don't recall the "Foucauldian Grid of power/knowledge in linguistic action." I thought it was a just good sports movie that happens to be true. Maybe the Foucauldian stuff happened during the locker-room pep talk. Not being versed in Foucauldian analysis, I may have missed the the complex subtleties that are previewed here: Well now that you have been suitably enlightened, can you see it. A rose is a rose is a rose. Theme is OK but it does not open any more information to you, it just labels what you have seen. There are no resonances except what is like it in theme or not like it in theme, but a Foucault reading allows you to see the power/knowledge/capital relation in action, in it dynamics rather than stasis. An object does not exist until and unless it is observed. - William Burroughs And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar -- as the saying goes in Freudian folklore.- Or as Rand says about the impossibility of seeing something everyone refuses to see. Rand paraphrase so give me the correct quote one of you trivial pursuit people. There's another famous one but I forget who. I forget a lot you know. Thank heavens for blessings.Do you seriously think that Rand somewhere backs up the quotation from Burroughs? Or is this the result of a "Foucault reading" that enables us to see Rand in "dynamics rather than stasis"?GhsShe does. Do I haffta go hunt for my quote link? Go to google Rand quotes and you will find it faster. Here I did it: “The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see.” ―Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead google/goodreads/quotesDo you know how difficult it was for Pasteur to get his ideas across when the Discourse pooh-poohed them? Or S...........to convince gentlemen doctors to wash their hands before delivering babies. What? Is he implying gentlemen have dirty hands? They ridiculed him, sent him out of the profession and he died crazy in an asylum. The Discourse kills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 People know what they say.They frequently even know why they say what they say.But what they don't know is what they say does. - Michel Foucault Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 People know what they say. They frequently even know why they say what they say. But what they don't know is what they say does. - Michel FoucaultIt is clear what you say does. It clears you of any responsibility to deal seriously with ideas.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 As I understand it, Foucault's basic point was that it is inappropriate to judge Islamic culture -- including its horrendous treatment of women -- by Western standards. Correct? Yes. Islamic countries are within the Sacred Order not the Order of Production, not a Secular order. You cannot judge them from within ours, tempting as that may be. Your division between Sacred and Secular Orders merely reflects the inherent bias and warped perspective of your own culture and institutions, especially universities. You therefore cannot dub Islamic countries "Sacred Orders," however tempting that may be. Nor can you criticize westerners who judge Islamic cultures, however tempting that may be, because such criticisms are nothing more than a manifestation of your own cultural bias, as informed by Foucault. Or have you learned some magical way to transcend the limits of Foucault's vicious relativism and assess things objectively, without cultural bias? If you have, please fill the rest of us in on the secret. Ghs Gee I thought you could tell me since you are so free of cultural bias. Please tell me. I haven't criticized westerners. I feel the same as you do but it's like criticizing Catholics for having their kids confess sins at six years after confirmation. How are you gonna win that one?On the assumption that you did not understand my point, I will repeat it: How is your distinction between Sacred and Secular Orders anything other than yet another bit of cultural bias, a prejudice that you picked up from western academics, such as Foucault? In other words, it has no objective status whatsoever.Got it now, hon? Or do I need to make it even simpler for you?GhsOrthodox Hebrews hold Saturday sacred. They do not work or use electricity from sun up to sun down. Or any utilities. (I wonder if they turn their heat off in the winter or the air-con in the summer.)Are you gonna try to get one of them to help you start your car or change a tire. Try explaining that it won't matter if they do. How about the Jews in the concentration camps that were starving, observing fasting on holy days. Doesn't make any sense. The secular orders and the sacred orders are not just between countries or cultures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 People know what they say. They frequently even know why they say what they say. But what they don't know is what they say does. - Michel FoucaultIt is clear what you say does. It clears you of any responsibility to deal seriously with ideas.GhsPeople know what they say. They frequently even know why they say what they say. But what they don't know is what they say does. - Michel FoucaultIt is clear what you say does. It clears you of any responsibility to deal seriously with ideas.GhsWhy should we believe Foucault is not "people" either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Do you know how difficult it was for Pasteur to get his ideas across when the Discourse pooh-poohed them? Or S...........to convince gentlemen doctors to wash their hands before delivering babies. What? Is he implying gentlemen have dirty hands? They ridiculed him, sent him out of the profession and he died crazy in an asylum. The Discourse kills.Well, maybe you should exit OL before you die crazy in an asylum. You are already over halfway there, and you probably should not push your luck.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 People know what they say. They frequently even know why they say what they say. But what they don't know is what they say does. - Michel FoucaultIt is clear what you say does. It clears you of any responsibility to deal seriously with ideas.GhsSeriously bah as far as you are concerned. You just want to fight. I don't mind. I like to duel too. Keep it up. Yeh that's probably what's going on, it keeps it up. Testosterone parade here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 People know what they say. They frequently even know why they say what they say. But what they don't know is what they say does. - Michel FoucaultIt is clear what you say does. It clears you of any responsibility to deal seriously with ideas.GhsPeople know what they say. They frequently even know why they say what they say. But what they don't know is what they say does. - Michel FoucaultIt is clear what you say does. It clears you of any responsibility to deal seriously with ideas.GhsWhy should we believe Foucault is not "people" either?Of course it applies to him. He is acutely aware of this. What he has said has done a lot.Please don't tell me you are really worried about all these poor Arab women with their cut clits and draped faces. You don't give a snit for their clits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 On the assumption that you did not understand my point, I will repeat it: How is your distinction between Sacred and Secular Orders anything other than yet another bit of cultural bias, a prejudice that you picked up from western academics, such as Foucault? In other words, it has no objective status whatsoever. Got it now, hon? Or do I need to make it even simpler for you? Ghs Orthodox Hebrews hold Saturday sacred. They do not work or use electricity from sun up to sun down. Or any utilities. (I wonder if they turn their heat off in the winter or the air-con in the summer.)Are you gonna try to get one of them to help you start your car or change a tire. Try explaining that it won't matter if they do. How about the Jews in the concentration camps that were starving, observing fasting on holy days. Doesn't make any sense. The secular orders and the sacred orders are not just between countries or cultures.Do you really not understand the philosophical point I am making about relativism? Have you never studied philosophy or the philosophy of the social sciences at all? Can you really be that dense?Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 On the assumption that you did not understand my point, I will repeat it: How is your distinction between Sacred and Secular Orders anything other than yet another bit of cultural bias, a prejudice that you picked up from western academics, such as Foucault? In other words, it has no objective status whatsoever. Got it now, hon? Or do I need to make it even simpler for you? Ghs Orthodox Hebrews hold Saturday sacred. They do not work or use electricity from sun up to sun down. Or any utilities. (I wonder if they turn their heat off in the winter or the air-con in the summer.)Are you gonna try to get one of them to help you start your car or change a tire. Try explaining that it won't matter if they do. How about the Jews in the concentration camps that were starving, observing fasting on holy days. Doesn't make any sense. The secular orders and the sacred orders are not just between countries or cultures.Do you really not understand the philosophical point I am making about relativism? Have you never studied philosophy or the philosophy of the social sciences at all? Can you really be that dense?GhsOf course I do. Does that mean I have to agree with how you spin it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Do you know how difficult it was for Pasteur to get his ideas across when the Discourse pooh-poohed them? Or S...........to convince gentlemen doctors to wash their hands before delivering babies. What? Is he implying gentlemen have dirty hands? They ridiculed him, sent him out of the profession and he died crazy in an asylum. The Discourse kills.Well, maybe you should exit OL before you die crazy in an asylum. You are already over halfway there, and you probably should not push your luck.GhsBye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now