"Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho. Western Civ has GOT to GO!"
h/t - David Brin
Irony - UCSD, home of Herbert Marcuse and the New Left movement. The masters of "Outrage".
So "be positive" as David suggests, and join the "Achievement Society". As Klaus Schwab says, "You will own nothing (ala Star Trek), and you will be happy!" Live a life of second order observations. A life of myths, without the actual 1st order pains and struggles of reality.
Richard Jackson, "The Maid's Room"
55 comments:
:-))))
Watched "Hidden figures". You know, that film, where they showed that success of NASA was based on some brown-skinned ladies showing their smarts...
Which shows -- that incentives, is the must have thing.
For the achievement society to function, everyone needs to believe that they can achieve. As Barrack Obama famously said, "Yes we can".
"No you can't" is a verboten phrase.
As David Brin says, "be positive!".
For the positive makes everything and everyone "the same".
Disciplinary society is a society of negativity. It is defined by the negativity of prohibition. The negative modal verb that governs it is May Not. By the same token, the negativity of compulsion adheres to Should. Achievement society, more and more, is in the process of discarding negativity. Increasing deregulation is abolishing it. Unlimited Can is the positive modal verb of achievement society. Its plural form—the affirmation, “Yes, we can”—epitomizes achievement society’s positive orientation. Prohibitions, commandments, and the law are replaced by projects, initiatives, and motivation. Disciplinary society is still governed by no. Its negativity produces madmen and criminals. In contrast, achievement society creates depressives and losers. - Byung-Chul Han
"You Should" is replaced by "I Must". "Yes, I can!"
...until I burnout from trying, and failing to achieve, denied by the computer algorithms that serve as gatekeepers... selecting for loyalty to maintenance of the status quo social hierarchy and norms.
Well... at least you in USA have start-ups subculture. ;-)
... that rob the Wozniaks and Sutskevers of much credit for their genius. At least in the early 19th century the Edison's and Tesla's got credit for their innovative contributions.
The "author" is dead. All credit to the "publishers" and money men!
It's the commercial equivalent of "stolen valour". All credit to the "brand" and its' stockholders! (The 2nd/3rd order signifiers).
Plato, "Symposium"
But Love desires the beautiful; and then arises the question, What does he desire of the beautiful? He desires, of course, the possession of the beautiful;—but what is given by that? For the beautiful let us substitute the good, and we have no difficulty in seeing the possession of the good to be happiness, and Love to be the desire of happiness, although the meaning of the word has been too often confined to one kind of love. And Love desires not only the good, but the everlasting possession of the good. Why then is there all this flutter and excitement about love? Because all men and women at a certain age are desirous of bringing to the birth. And love is not of beauty only, but of birth in beauty; this is the principle of immortality in a mortal creature. When beauty approaches, then the conceiving power is benign and diffuse; when foulness, she is averted and morose.
But why again does this extend not only to men but also to animals? Because they too have an instinct of immortality. Even in the same individual there is a perpetual succession as well of the parts of the material body as of the thoughts and desires of the mind; nay, even knowledge comes and goes. There is no sameness of existence, but the new mortality is always taking the place of the old. This is the reason why parents love their children—for the sake of immortality; and this is why men love the immortality of fame. For the creative soul creates not children, but conceptions of wisdom and virtue, such as poets and other creators have invented. And the noblest creations of all are those of legislators, in honour of whom temples have been raised. Who would not sooner have these children of the mind than the ordinary human ones? (Compare Bacon's Essays, 8:—'Certainly the best works and of greatest merit for the public have proceeded from the unmarried or childless men; which both in affection and means have married and endowed the public.')
I will now initiate you, she said, into the greater mysteries; for he who would proceed in due course should love first one fair form, and then many, and learn the connexion of them; and from beautiful bodies he should proceed to beautiful minds, and the beauty of laws and institutions, until he perceives that all beauty is of one kindred; and from institutions he should go on to the sciences, until at last the vision is revealed to him of a single science of universal beauty, and then he will behold the everlasting nature which is the cause of all, and will be near the end. In the contemplation of that supreme being of love he will be purified of earthly leaven, and will behold beauty, not with the bodily eye, but with the eye of the mind, and will bring forth true creations of virtue and wisdom, and be the friend of God and heir of immortality.
Such, Phaedrus, is the tale which I heard from the stranger of Mantinea, and which you may call the encomium of love, or what you please.
Achilles and Odysseus and Ajax and Diomedes weren't the heroes of Troy, only Agamemnon (or the collective Hellenes) was/ were.
In light of this environment, the "subculture" you speak of will not long last.
...for it robs men of their immortality.
...and love for their vocations.
...is it any wonder that "merit" in the workplace has been replaced by DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) as the sine qua non of values?
\\The "author" is dead. All credit to the "publishers" and money men!
Well... go became an author that can create without much help from others. ;-)
\\In light of this environment, the "subculture" you speak of will not long last.
"And this will pass"(c)
How DiDi trying to play "I AM SMART" card. :-)))))))))))))))))))0
\\ Blogger Dave Dubya said...
\\ Foreigner,
\\ Why won't you tell me what country you're in?
And WHY I should show ANY courtesy to you?
After your absolutely cowardly and indecent behavior??? Miserly pre-moderation. Name-calling. Waterfalls of anti-logical BS.
Am I an idiot???
\\And why should I answer your questions when you don't answer mine?
Answer. Or not answer.
I am smart enough to devise the answer from your behavior. ;-P
\\Is the internet censored where you are?
You think that in USA it NOT censored??? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Are you unfamiliar with search engines?
And you? Your previous question suggests it. ;-P
\\BLM and Floyd protests were largely peaceful, data confirms
That "6Jan insurrection" was "largely peaceful" too.
And that, it seems, disturbs DEMNs the most.
After all that howling about "insurrection, insurrection, they want to OVERTHRONE our Holy Biden"... there was what? Some people with their pocket knifes branded as "Deadly Weapon of Insurrection". :-)))))))))))))))))))))0000
\\93% of Black Lives Matter Protests Have Been Peaceful, New Report Finds
Yep.
Same as 99% of school lessons are peaceful.
So, it's not BIG DEAL, isn't it? ;-P
HINT: When people start talking using %% -- read, it's a LIE.
Because... WHO KNOWS what they INCLUDED... and what they EXCLUDED... to receive that numbers?
And pShaw!
\\Blogger Dave Miller said...
\\ -FJ... you'd have more credibility if you simply answered a direct question or offered your own solution to a problem.
Go! Demonstrate it to us here -- how YOU doing it. ;-P
Pity that you said it under Anonymous. While you deserve more profound name.
Like Voice of Truth, for that said:
""
In 2016 they won the presidency. According to the polls they will win the 2024 presidential election. Call then nuts or whatever you want. They are our fellow citizens, and they seem to be in the majority.
""
\\Blogger Shaw Kenawe said...
\\ Next time PAY ATTENTION AND THINK before you both make a fools of yourselves.\
It changing that conclusion? That that was anti-Semitic attack. HOW???
\\Nope. In 2016, Hillary Clinton received 3 million more votes than Trump.
Whatever.
Go CHANGE voting system. Then start whining.
\\ Anonymous OLD ADAGE said...
Re: Foreigner
Empty vessels make the most noise.
Those with the least knowledge and the least talent are the ones who often speak the loudest AND THE MOST!
WHO are you... and WHY you calling my name? Here? Where NONE of my comments disclosed.
\\-FJ
Foreigner
Thersites
Joe Conservative
\\Are all one and the same.
Still bent of showing itself ignorant and stooopid?
Suit yourself.
Yawn.
Half of those conversations will likely disappear from pShaw's blog...
If it weren't for double standards they'd have none at all.
Yep.
And that is... most hilarious.
At least for me, because as foreigner, I do not care much about it all.
\\...until I burnout from trying, and failing to achieve, denied by the computer algorithms that serve as gatekeepers... selecting for loyalty to maintenance of the status quo social hierarchy and norms.
Just received confirmation of it... from Captcha. :-)))))))))))))))0
Showed to me bicycles this time...
with two fake ones. Well, one are "technically" is bicycle -- though just a made of metal profile fence in a form of one.
And second -- just on a street sign.
And... Captcha DID NOT allowed to me to NOT choose that incorrect one sample. :-)))))))))))))))))0
Sounds like it's getting increasingly clever... AI?
Naaah.
That is mistake of someone who was forming that training data pool... it seems.
"AI" making it's own judgment? Never heard about such thing, still. ;-)
Not Deep learning?
Dunno.
...an emergent property? Clustering?
Have I not declared my attitude toward "emergent" here?
...from multiple lower level intelligences? Remind me, please.
The swarm solution?
Wisdom of crowds? Wisdom of experts? Wisdom of organizational decision maker (power)?
Your example sounds like the semiotic "experts" won. As the "sign" and "signified" were different.
....although as the Capcha picture was a sign signifier too, the answer could have been different as its' "solution" implied a "1st order" relation, whereas a 2nd order solution could have also been applied, as the Capcha was also just a "sign" too, and not the actual "signified".
...but it was ultimately 'dumb" because it didn't allow for multiple perspective paths for arriving at the solution... that the solution was singular when there were multiple solutions.
The "ranked voting" fallacy.
\\...from multiple lower level intelligences? Remind me, please.
That that is logically questionable. And is phylosophical dead end.
So... I prefer to re-declare it that there is NO such things.
Just incalculable myriads of atoms.
\\Your example sounds like the semiotic "experts" won. As the "sign" and "signified" were different.
Most surely that was just a shortcut choosen by a layman worker. ;-P
Another words -- just a Henlon's Razor.
Usual thing in the world of programmers. ;-)
Are you familiar with term "bloatware"?
Or "chinese/indian programmers"?
Remember the days of 64k of RAM?
It's ALL bloatware now. Indian/Chinese programmers? They're paid by "lines of code"?
Henlon's razor. I need to remember that. :)
I used to apply Henlon's Razor to our voting/ election systems. I no longer do.
\\Remember the days of 64k of RAM?
It all gone past me. (shy)
You can call me late-bloomer. ;-P
\\It's ALL bloatware now. Indian/Chinese programmers? They're paid by "lines of code"?
Yeah.
But that is only partially true.
ALL programmers. At least ones who do that for money -- paid by LOCs. This way, or another.
That's why there is Open Source Software -- as try of slaves to run away. :-)))
\\I used to apply Henlon's Razor to our voting/ election systems. I no longer do.
And I... decided to postpone all such thing to a time when "I'll became smarter". :-)))
But, as you can see -- it was yet one "things rarely go in accordance with plan". (that's why ""A" Team" is so hilarious)
Intelligence Planners usually have Plan A and at least one Plan B. On J6, we saw both. The fedsurrection, and the DNC/RNC bombers. Both sufficient to create a parliamentary emergency. Subsequent persecution priorities were all assigned to Plan A, and dropped for B.
...and yes, waiting for all the information is preferable to deciding on the spot whilst the data is still flowing in. But there is a clock ticking. The statute of "limitations" on prosecution of offenses. Tik-Tok.
I am not player in that game... yawn.
So, in what status I can engage in discussion of it?
Here. Maybe that one is more suiting opponent for this topics.
And you can go to his blog, while I can't do that, as anonimous.
\\Blogger Dave Miller said...
\\ Today Former President Trump asserted in court that he "could order Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival and, if he had not first been impeached and convicted, would be immune from prosecution" forever.
\\ Stop and let that sink in for a moment.
Yeah. I agree. Obama should prosecuted for killing Osama. :-)))))
\\-FJ is another. Not only does he always disagree, but he won't even offer up a Levine as someone he will trust.
Because... that comments where he did it -- was not disclosed. ;-P
That's how Thought Control through censure works.
\\This is not normal. Not at all.
\\And not good for America.
Yeah. I agree with you.
Trying to prosecute political opponent through fake criminal trial -- it's bad for Democracy.
Oh, sorry, you meant other way around -- you DON'T give a shit about Democracy.
Democracy for you -- that is when DEMNs WIN, ONLY.
\\And if anyone shows up here, and defends Trump at this point, claiming he will be good for America, even with his Kingly theology, that would explain why our country is struggling.
Being he good or bad. That's still unsure thing.
Well... he WAS. And sky DID NOT fell.
But... using fake criminal accusations against political opponent -- that is SURELY damaging!
Or... you will try to defend that point? I don't think so. ;-P
Dave wants me to say that I repeat Mark Levin's talking points? Why, because I'm a talking points puppet like he is a puppet? lol!
He trying to accuse you in insincerity.
It can happen because of some of your comments banned by pShaw, probably.
Well... tried to watch CNN for a little.
Thing called "state of the race"...
where they talk about "Trump are loser"... while people in studio nodding aggressively, and laughing in agreement.
Such an apparent psychological manipulation tactic.
So... what can I say here -- is only -- my condolences, for so many people in your country having noodles in place of brains...
But... like it MUCH different in any other country...
deep sigh here
The US media live in a "coastal (east/west)" bubble. They never visit the heartland except to "spin" their bubble views.
At DiBi's. ;-)
\\ Blogger John Viril said...
Well, since you are not putting forth any particular argument for me (or anyone) to refute, I'm not clear on what basis you critique my refutation.
Larry,
I'm using a field of study called "classical rhetoric," which is all about determining if an argument structure is based on sound logic or fallacious reasoning. It's where lists of "logical fallacies" come from.
Up till around 100 years ago, classical rhetoric was a required course to get a liberal arts degree. Somewhere along the line, rhetoric got removed from the curriculum. I THINK it had something to do with the idea that rhetoric wasn't necessary due to instruction in the scientific method, but I'm not sure.
Oh, I wanna that Viril. To dug my teeth in it. Yammy!!!
from the Jowett summary of Plato's "Phaedrus"
The first rule of good speaking is to know and speak the truth; as a Spartan proverb says, 'true art is truth'; whereas rhetoric is an art of enchantment, which makes things appear good and evil, like and unlike, as the speaker pleases. Its use is not confined, as people commonly suppose, to arguments in the law courts and speeches in the assembly; it is rather a part of the art of disputation, under which are included both the rules of Gorgias and the eristic of Zeno. But it is not wholly devoid of truth. Superior knowledge enables us to deceive another by the help of resemblances, and to escape from such a deception when employed against ourselves. We see therefore that even in rhetoric an element of truth is required. For if we do not know the truth, we can neither make the gradual departures from truth by which men are most easily deceived, nor guard ourselves against deception.
Socrates then proposes that they shall use the two speeches as illustrations of the art of rhetoric; first distinguishing between the debatable and undisputed class of subjects. In the debatable class there ought to be a definition of all disputed matters. But there was no such definition in the speech of Lysias; nor is there any order or connection in his words any more than in a nursery rhyme. With this he compares the regular divisions of the other speech, which was his own (and yet not his own, for the local deities must have inspired him). Although only a playful composition, it will be found to embody two principles: first, that of synthesis or the comprehension of parts in a whole; secondly, analysis, or the resolution of the whole into parts. These are the processes of division and generalization which are so dear to the dialectician, that king of men. They are effected by dialectic, and not by rhetoric, of which the remains are but scanty after order and arrangement have been subtracted. There is nothing left but a heap of 'ologies' and other technical terms invented by Polus, Theodorus, Evenus, Tisias, Gorgias, and others, who have rules for everything, and who teach how to be short or long at pleasure. Prodicus showed his good sense when he said that there was a better thing than either to be short or long, which was to be of convenient length.
Still, notwithstanding the absurdities of Polus and others, rhetoric has great power in public assemblies. This power, however, is not given by any technical rules, but is the gift of genius. The real art is always being confused by rhetoricians with the preliminaries of the art. The perfection of oratory is like the perfection of anything else; natural power must be aided by art. But the art is not that which is taught in the schools of rhetoric; it is nearer akin to philosophy. Pericles, for instance, who was the most accomplished of all speakers, derived his eloquence not from rhetoric but from the philosophy of nature which he learnt of Anaxagoras. True rhetoric is like medicine, and the rhetorician has to consider the natures of men's souls as the physician considers the natures of their bodies. Such and such persons are to be affected in this way, such and such others in that; and he must know the times and the seasons for saying this or that. This is not an easy task, and this, if there be such an art, is the art of rhetoric.
I know that there are some professors of the art who maintain probability to be stronger than truth. But we maintain that probability is engendered by likeness of the truth which can only be attained by the knowledge of it, and that the aim of the good man should not be to please or persuade his fellow-servants, but to please his good masters who are the gods. Rhetoric has a fair beginning in this.
Ancient wisdoms tend to became inprecise and even outdated... with time.
Means. There was NO computers in that time. Means -- one can try to use rhetoric against computer -- to feel oneself miserable, till one's heart content. ;-P
Another word -- "Shuddup. And show me your code... working". ;-)
Rhetoric affects pathos, not logos. THAT is the wisdom that is never outdated.
Logos appeals to the audience's reason, building up logical arguments. Ethos appeals to the speaker's status or authority, making the audience more likely to trust them. Pathos appeals to the emotions, trying to make the audience feel angry or sympathetic, for example.
Philosophers try and stick to logos.
Rhetoriticians use all three.
\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
\\ Rhetoric affects pathos, not logos. THAT is the wisdom that is never outdated.
But... still... it can became imprecise. ;-)
Like scientists (or lawyers, or programmers) do not need to use rhetoric.
\\Logos appeals to the audience's reason, building up logical arguments.
As we see it... in numerous brawls here and there.
That is false notion.
That "logos" works only when it excuse to submit to a force. ;-)
\\Pathos appeals to the emotions, trying to make the audience feel angry or sympathetic, for example.
Yawn.
Whatever.
Fools can be fooled in just too many different way... to count em comprehensibly. :-)
\\Philosophers try and stick to logos.
Doubt it.
Never met that philosophers.
Same as never met dodos. ;-)
\\Rhetoriticians use all three.
Ditto.
Show me your code...working. ;P
Already did.
Well... it is pseudo-code, still.
Because there no "computer" to run it on.
Post a Comment