 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / ESL Teaching / May 2005gendo: informal study group in southern california
One of the most important developments going on in our time - perhaps the most important one - is that the age of the mechanical world view is now entering its decline. Many people now understand that something is up. We are in a curious position now, a kind of twilight zone. Dante said it of the last major metapolitical shift - the end of the Middle Ages - and it applies equally today: "In the middle of our journey through life, I awoke to find myself in a dark woods." It is clear that the old mode of discourse is starting to break down, and this leaves us, ostensibly, without any direction. It is also clear, at least to many, that if it is not starting to break down, we are doomed. Many of us are starting, if only privately, to realize that the price of the old paradigm, on a number of levels, is too high; we don't want to pay it. - Morris Berman gendo: a way of thinking... language as a path to liberation... .unconscious, erroneous assumptions imposed upon our thinking by the structure of the language (english) running in our skulls are responsible for most of what is wrong with the world in both the personal and planetary domains when: wednesday and saturday afternoons, between 3 and 5 where: the cafe at Borders Books (91 at Bloomfield in Cerritos) .look for the black and red gendo logo on my dark blue notebook on the table heron  SignatureunDO email address ___ Nature, heron stone to be commanded, mailto:heronstoneDO@comcast.net must be obeyed. http://home.comcast.net/~heronstone/ > One of the most important developments going on in our time - > perhaps the most important one - is that the age of the mechanical > world view is now entering its decline. Many people now understand > that something is up. We are in a curious position now, a kind of > twilight zone. Dante said it of the last major metapolitical hift - > the end of the Middle Ages - and it applies equally today: "In the > middle of our journey through life, I awoke to find myself in a dark > woods." It is clear that the old mode of discourse is starting to > break down, and this leaves us, ostensibly, without any direction. > It is also clear, at least to many, that if it is not starting to > break down, we are doomed. Many of us are starting, if only > privately, to realize that the price of the old paradigm, on a number > of levels, is too high; we don't want to pay it. > - Morris Berman [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > .look for the black and red gendo logo on my dark blue notebook > on the table OK, your quotation right back at you, Heron. I do admire your quest; but couldn't you be accused of applying a "mechanical world-view" to the use of language? The brain is a "wet" instrument, and any system it uses is sloppy, hit-and-miss, ad-hoc, unpredictable, infinitely variable, not readily (if at all) capable of being mapped or diagrammed. I wonder if what we see and hear in the language use around us is actually minute-by-minute proof that the mechanical world-view has never really taken hold of our mental processes. The medieval logicians wanted to reduce it all to syllogisms, and it was a tempting project: but, outside specialist (but important) fields, I see no sign that they had their way. SignatureMike. ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.usage.english.] >> gendo: a way of thinking... >> language as a path to liberation... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > but couldn't you be accused of applying a "mechanical world-view" to > the use of language? .i saw the photo of you at the AUE boink mike ?couldn't you be accused of mechanically conforming to contemporary british metrosexual fashions by sporting a beard ?that is a beard isn't it !hi ron > > One of the most important developments going on in our time - > > perhaps the most important one - is that the age of the mechanical [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > of levels, is too high; we don't want to pay it. > > - Morris Berman hi Mike .sorry it took so long to reply... i've been real busy and writing is a tedious task for me > OK, your quotation right back at you, Heron. I do admire your quest; > but couldn't you be accused .i think i just was ;-) > of applying a "mechanical world-view" to > the use of language? .yes, that's exactly what i'm doing .maps can be quite useful artifacts to assist in thinking about stuff .it's important, though, to remember that the map is not the territory .i'm not saying that this is THE WAY IT IS .i'm saying that this way of thinking about it sheds light on aspects of our experience that are dark under the old analyses .you don't have to choose between a topo map and a street map .each is useful in different circumstances, but neither is THE WAY IT IS > The brain is a "wet" instrument, and any system > it uses is sloppy, hit-and-miss, ad-hoc, unpredictable, infinitely > variable, .and these are its strong points, not deficits > not readily (if at all) capable of being mapped or > diagrammed. .many areas have already been mapped quite successfully .and besides, even if it is impossible to map it fully, that's no reason not to try... ?who knows what we might learn in the process > I wonder if what we see and hear in the language use around us is > actually minute-by-minute proof that the mechanical world-view has > never really taken hold of our mental processes. .you're right here .most sapes are still operating in aristotelian and pre-aristotelian modes of thought > The medieval logicians wanted to reduce it all to syllogisms, .the problem here is the phrase, "reduce it all"... THE WAY IT IS > and it was a > tempting project: but, outside specialist (but important) fields, I > see no sign that they had their way. .the specialists have transformed the nature of the world/reality in which we live SignatureunDO email address ___ Nature, heron stone to be commanded, mailto:heronstoneDO@comcast.net must be obeyed. http://home.comcast.net/~heronstone/ [...] > .you're right here > .most sapes are still operating in aristotelian and pre-aristotelian > modes of thought [...] "Sapes" is an interesting word. What is the singular form, in your usage? Is it short for "sapiens" or "sapients"? (Myself, I think of our species as "Carcinopithecus nocens") CDB > > .you're right here > > .most sapes are still operating in aristotelian and pre-aristotelian [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > usage? Is it short for "sapiens" or "sapients"? (Myself, I think of > our species as "Carcinopithecus nocens") CDB .i made it up... a variation on "sapiens" .it's my derogatory term of most of humanity .the singular is "sape"... one sape a herd of sapes a blight of sapes a clot of sapes a clump of sapes a crock of sapes a boil of sapes you get the idea .i refer to the emerging new species as transapes thanks heron SignatureunDO email address ___ Nature, heron stone to be commanded, mailto:heronstoneDO@comcast.net must be obeyed. http://home.comcast.net/~heronstone/ heron stone <heronstoneDO@comcast.net> wrote in news:heronstoneDO- 832DF6.18442508052005@news.giganews.com: (snip) > .i made it up... a variation on "sapiens" > .it's my derogatory term of most of humanity [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a boil of sapes > you get the idea Based on this, I would say that you have at least one s.r. which needs very badly to be corrected, so that you can do proper evaluation. Have you tried indexing and dating and using etc.? Looked at an S.D. lately? SignatureDavid Wright Sr. http://home.alltel.net/dwrighsr/index.html To e-mail me, remove 't' from dwrightsr > heron stone <heronstoneDO@comcast.net> wrote in news:heronstoneDO- > 832DF6.18442508052005@news.giganews.com: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Based on this, I would say that you have at least one s.r. which needs very > badly to be corrected, so that you can do proper evaluation. ?really... which one please > Have you tried indexing and dating and using etc.? Looked at an S.D. lately? .i have an SD hanging on the wall in my cell... along with a tapestry (made for me by a girlfriend many years ago) that reads... "THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY" .when people ask me how i got to be so weird, i tell them that alan watts got my epistemological virginity and alfred korzybski knocked me up heron [19:04, 241.02, (118.042280 W, 33.846666 N)] SignatureunDO email address ___ Nature, heron stone to be commanded, mailto:heronstoneDO@comcast.net must be obeyed. http://home.comcast.net/~heronstone/ >> heron stone <heronstoneDO@comcast.net> wrote in news:heronstoneDO- >> 832DF6.18442508052005@news.giganews.com: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > ?really... which one please The one which lets you confuse a false-to-fact inference and a series of false-to-fact descriptions as reality. Or do you claim to actually know 'most of humanity'? >> Have you tried indexing and dating and using etc.? Looked at an S.D. >> lately? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > IS NOT THE > TERRITORY" You appear to be using them strictly as wall decorations and haven't grasped their full meaning. > .when people ask me how i got to be so weird, i tell them that > alan watts got my epistemological virginity and alfred > korzybski knocked me up Have you actually read S&S all the way through? More than once? SignatureDavid Wright Sr. Have you ever stopped to think, and forgot to start again? To e-mail me, remove 't' from dwrightsr > >> > .i made it up... a variation on "sapiens" > >> > .it's my derogatory term of most of humanity [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > false-to-fact descriptions as reality. Or do you claim to actually know > 'most of humanity'? ?what false-to-fact inference, specifically ?what series of false-to-fact descriptions as reality, specifically > >> Have you tried indexing and dating and using etc.? Looked at an S.D. > >> lately? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You appear to be using them strictly as wall decorations and haven't > grasped their full meaning. .or, at least the meaning you have landed on ?do you really believe that your understanding of AK's work constitutes the full meaning > > .when people ask me how i got to be so weird, i tell them that > > alan watts got my epistemological virginity and alfred > > korzybski knocked me up > > > Have you actually read S&S all the way through? More than once? .4 times at least .apparently you and i have come to different understandings of ak's work and its implications heron SignatureunDO email address ___ Nature, heron stone to be commanded, mailto:heronstoneDO@comcast.net must be obeyed. http://home.comcast.net/~heronstone/ >> >> > .i made it up... a variation on "sapiens" >> >> > .it's my derogatory term of most of humanity [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > ?what false-to-fact inference, specifically The one where it appears appropriate to use a derogatory term for all of humanity. A) Granted for the sake of argument that such a term is appropriate for most of all the people that you have encountered[1], then unless you have actually, personally, encountered at least 1 person more than 50% of 'humanity', and evaluated them according to your criteria, then your derogatory term applied to 'all humanity' is an inference which has no basis in reality. B) The descriptions, including 'crock', 'blight' etc., is simply making more labels to go along with the main inference, labeling 'any' subgroup of 'humanity' with more derogatory terms. (snip) >> You appear to be using them strictly as wall decorations and haven't >> grasped their full meaning. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > alan watts got my epistemological virginity and alfred >> > korzybski knocked me up This produces a totally null semantic reaction in me. Can you clarify just what you are trying to say here? >> Have you actually read S&S all the way through? More than once? > > .4 times at least > .apparently you and i have come to different understandings of > ak's work and its implications That would appear to be obvious. Just what is your understanding? Explain the purpose of the Structural Differential and just what does it mean that 'the map is not the territory' and what does 'consciousness of abstraction' mean and what does 'confusion of levels of abstraction' mean? [1] Any evaluation that you make is based on your own s.r. and doesn't necessarily relate to any objective reality. (IOW, it is strictly 'your opinion' that derogatory terminology is appropriate for *any* specific group of individuals, and not at all for terms of higher abstraction). David Wright Sr. SignatureThe Heinlein Society is full of people who really believe, and really understand what he is trying to accomplish philosophically. They are a serious-minded group of individuals who are out to change the world for the better. - Virginia Heinlein > >> The one which lets you confuse a false-to-fact inference and a series > >> of false-to-fact descriptions as reality. Or do you claim to actually [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > David Wright Sr. hi David ?have you ever considered acquiring a sense of humor heron SignatureunDO email address ___ Nature, heron stone to be commanded, mailto:heronstoneDO@comcast.net must be obeyed. http://home.comcast.net/~heronstone/ heron stone <heronstoneDO@comcast.net> wrote in news:heronstoneDO- AF30F8.17273410052005@news.giganews.com: (snip) > hi David > > ?have you ever considered acquiring a sense of humor > > heron Ah, the old ad hominem attack. I'll let everyone draw their own inferences. Do svidanije. David Wright Sr. SignatureThe next meetings of the Heinlein Readers Group Thursday 5/26/05 @ 9:00 P.M. EST and Saturday 5/28/05 @ 5:00 P.M. EST The topic for this discussion will be: "Beware the stobor - Robots? in Heinlein" See: http://heinleinsociety.org/readersgroup/index.html >heron stone <heronstoneDO@comcast.net> wrote in news:heronstoneDO- >AF30F8.17273410052005@news.giganews.com: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Ah, the old ad hominem attack. I'll let everyone draw their own inferences. "Ad hominem attack" seems to be a very popular counter-charge in aue. Often, of course, a very accurate counter-charge. However, it's also a commonly misused counter-charge, and I think it's misused here. I rarely understand anything Heron's on about, and rarely understand what his point is. It doesn't appear here, though, that Heron is attacking the person rather than the argument. Rather, it seems that he is saying "lighten up in your view of this". That's not an attack on the person; it's an observation on style of interpretation. A not all-together inappropriate observation of David's discussive abilities. David Wright's style is extremely factual, always (as far as I can tell) dead-on accurate, and usually belted and braced with proper references. Lightness, though, is seldom present. So, obAUEing, is David's retort an "ad hominem attack" on Heron? That's my inference, and I'm sticking to it. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando FL > "Ad hominem attack" seems to be a very popular counter-charge in aue. > Often, of course, a very accurate counter-charge. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > That's my inference, and I'm sticking to it. Had Heron replied at all to any of my questions on the previous post, I would have happily countered them as best as I could. However, he appeared to choose to make personal comments about me rather than referring to the points of the discussion. That appears to me to be a classic ad hominem attack. Notice that I made no personal references to him, but only to his response. Even my first post to him was about comments that he had made with the observation that he, (yes, that was personal), needed to adjust his s.r.(Semantic Reaction in Korzybskian terminology), if he was, indeed, claiming to have used Korzybskian concepts in the philosophy that he appeared to be promoting, hence my questions to about the S.D., (Structural Differential), and his having read S&S, (Science & Sanity). He replied that we had different understandings of Korzybski's work. I concede that that might be possible, hence my questions to him for clarification so that we might see how we understood things differently. He chose to ignore that request. Yes, I will agree that when I am engaged in a serious conversation with anyone, here or elsewhere, I do tend to be serious. I appreciate the fact that you have described me as you did. I take it as a compliment. However, showing lightness in such a discussion would, generally, be counter productive IMHO. On other occasions, I am happy to join in whatever 'lightness' is called for. SignatureDavid Wright Sr. To find the end of Middle English, you discover the exact date and time the Great Vowel Shift took place (the morning of May 5, 1450, at some time between neenuh fiftehn and nahyn twenty-fahyv). Kevin Wald The faster I go, the behinder I get. >> "Ad hominem attack" seems to be a very popular counter-charge in aue. >> Often, of course, a very accurate counter-charge. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >hence my questions to him for clarification so that we might see how we >understood things differently. He chose to ignore that request. I won't add to my comments about Heron's style of rebuttal. I can seldom even work my way through one of his posts. As best as I can tell, Heron sits in some bookstore on designated days of the week with a distinctively colored notebook and waits for kindred souls to appear. I can't even tell what Heron considers to be "kindred". It would be in the realm of "ad hominem" to use "fellow whack-jobs" (1), but I have to admit that it may be my deficiency in understanding this Gendo thing. The main reason for my post was to question the proper application of "ad hominem". To me, it has to be a deliberate diversion of argument from substance to character. It can reflect the inability of the person to adequately respond to substance, or it can be just an ingrained characteristic of the person to denigrate anyone that disagrees with them. (2) I don't feel that comments pertaining to style, even if those comments are pervasively negative, are in the ad hominem category. Others may feel differently, but they are wrong-headed, illiterate, and the result of a lack of Midwestern upbringing with Hiberno-Whatever roots and a style of English named after them. (1) I've never figured out if this should be "wack-jobs" or "whack-jobs". The approved spelling is one of those many things in life that fails to spark my interest. (2) Anyone making the assumption that I'm thinking of CyberCypher is in my kindred category. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando FL (snip) > I don't feel that comments pertaining to style, even if those comments > are pervasively negative, are in the ad hominem category. Others may > feel differently, but they are wrong-headed, illiterate, and the > result of a lack of Midwestern upbringing with Hiberno-Whatever roots > and a style of English named after them. Having nothing to go on but his comments and not being familiar with anyone's attitudes about style, I didn't see this as a comment on my style, but "...a deliberate diversion of argument from substance to character." Your mileage, obviously, varies ;-)> SignatureDavid Wright Sr. http://home.alltel.net/dwrighsr/index.html To e-mail me, remove 't' from dwrightsr >(snip) > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >but "...a deliberate diversion of argument from substance to character." >Your mileage, obviously, varies ;-)> I do not believe that smileys belong in posts in this newsgroup. They are a violation of the style that should be employed in this venue. I feel that they generally indicate an inability to clearly express the attitudes and degree of seriousness the Writer intends. They are the lazy writer's crutch. They insult the Reader by the implication that the Reader will not sense the Writer's meaning without symbolic support. That said, I do not believe that I have made an ad hominem attack on you. I have criticized your style of posting, but I have not done so to divert the argument from substance to character. I have not impugned your character. The substance of the argument remains the same: comments on style are not attacks on character. I've also done it - deliberately - to bolster a point. I have done it with the hope that you will understand that this is no more than an exercise in the demonstration of the difference between style comments and character comments. I could end this post with a smiley indicating that I'm just foolin' around here, or with a comment that I feel your character is unassailable and that I hope that you take none of this to heart. I won't, though, because I give you credit for being able to figure that out on your own. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando FL (snip) >>Having nothing to go on but his comments and not being familiar with >>anyone's attitudes about style, I didn't see this as a comment on my [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the Reader will not sense the Writer's meaning without symbolic > support. I disagree with part of your statement. This is a conversation, but unlike a face-to-face conversation, all of the additional clues which would normally help to express one's attitudes and degree of seriousness are not available and such cannot always be expressed simply in words. As to the use of the terms "lazy writer's crutch", there is some truth in that. I could have said "...Your mileage, obviously, varies, Please note that the previous sentence is intended to express that I am doing my best to express to you that I don't mean to imply that your opinions on the matter at hand have no value and that I am not trying to put you down in any way." I used the smiley to limit the extent to which I am willing to keep writing and re-writing to try to make absolutely clear to you and anyone else the meaning that I intend. Primarily, this is due to the realization that *any statement* made by anyone can be interpreted differently by the hearer or reader, no matter what the intent. > That said, I do not believe that I have made an ad hominem attack on > you. I have criticized your style of posting, but I have not done so > to divert the argument from substance to character. I have not > impugned your character. The substance of the argument remains the > same: comments on style are not attacks on character. These comments demonstrate a prime example of what I was trying to convey above. To the best of my knowledge, I have never said or implied that *you* had made an ad hominem attack on me. My reference was strictly relating to the comments made by Heron Stone. I saw nothing and made no reference to anything that you said that might be considered an ad hominem attack by you. Your comments on my style I took strictly as an observation made by you according to your personal criteria, and one which I tried to address in my reply using a symbol to indicate to some degree the way I would have said it to you in a face-to-face conversation. > I've also done it - deliberately - to bolster a point. I have done it > with the hope that you will understand that this is no more than an > exercise in the demonstration of the difference between style > comments and character comments. What, precisely, have you done to demonstrate this and what did I say that indicated to you that I didn't understand this difference. I certainly do understand the difference, but as I tried to explain, I had no basis on which to think that Stone's comments were, indeed, a comment on style rather than *his*[1] attempt, in your own words, to make "...a deliberate diversion of argument from substance to character." I used your words to indicate that I, indeed, agreed with your definition. > I could end this post with a smiley indicating that I'm just foolin' > around here, or with a comment that I feel your character is > unassailable and that I hope that you take none of this to heart. I > won't, though, because I give you credit for being able to figure that > out on your own. Ok, Tell me next time how you really feel! [1] What do you think about using '*' to indicate a word or phrase is emphasized as it would have been in a verbal conversation? Should I have used "his(emphasis added here to indicate precisely whose comments I was referring to)". I hope that you realize of course that I am just fooling around with you. (Hmm, somehow that expression 'fooling around' doesn't feel right in the context of the need to express one's self in a more 'formal' manner on newsgroups dedicated to proper English Usage). How could I express that to get the same meaning and degree of lightness intended across to whomever might be reading this? David W. SignatureThe next meetings of the Heinlein Readers Group Thursday 5/26/05 @ 9:00 P.M. EST and Saturday 5/28/05 @ 5:00 P.M. EST The topic for this discussion will be: "Beware the stobor - Robots? in Heinlein" See: http://heinleinsociety.org/readersgroup/index.html >(snip) > >These comments demonstrate a prime example of what I was trying to convey >above. To the best of my knowledge, I have never said or implied that *you* >had made an ad hominem attack on me. I didn't think you had. > My reference was strictly relating to >the comments made by Heron Stone. I saw nothing and made no reference to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >in my reply using a symbol to indicate to some degree the way I would have >said it to you in a face-to-face conversation. I know, but I've admitted that I don't really read Heron's posts. I think he's intelligent, but he's not comprehensible. He just doesn't seem to be worth the bother of reading. I do read your posts. I was replying to a one-sided conversation in this respect. Heron is that tree in the forest that may or may not make a sound if it falls. >[1] What do you think about using '*' to indicate a word or phrase is >emphasized as it would have been in a verbal conversation? It's a style thing. I use the asterisks as a substitute for bold face or italics. Some use other means. I don't think it really makes a difference. I do dislike the jump to all caps, though. > Should I have >used I don't do "you should have..."s. I'm in no position to dictate what you should do. I'm *allowed* to criticize or compliment, but I'm not on the authorized list for rule-setting. >. (Hmm, somehow that expression 'fooling around' doesn't >feel right in the context of the need to express one's self in a more >'formal' manner on newsgroups dedicated to proper English Usage). How could >I express that to get the same meaning and degree of lightness intended >across to whomever might be reading this? I feel that the juxtaposition of the exceedingly formal and barefooted informality in writing is a good thing. It keeps the Reader watchful. The Reader feels that he/she/it has to actually read what is written and not to assume the Writer is just continuing in a pre-determined style. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando FL >>(snip) >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I didn't think you had. My apologies. Your comments seemed to me as if you thought you had. >> My reference was strictly relating to >>the comments made by Heron Stone. I saw nothing and made no reference to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > think he's intelligent, but he's not comprehensible. He just doesn't > seem to be worth the bother of reading. I probably wouldn't have responded, but I am currently researching a paper on Korzybski's influences in the works of Heinlein and I just couldn't believe that one who purported to be basing his philosophy, at least partially on Korzybski, could be publicly stating some things which seemed to me to be totally in apposition to what Korzybski was trying to teach. Based on what I have seen on his website, he seems to have thrown together bits and pieces of a lot of different sources into some sort of amalgam, but the final result doesn't appear to me to very true to what K wrote and taught. I was curious to know how he had done that and that is why I asked him to clarify. > I do read your posts. I was replying to a one-sided conversation in > this respect. Heron is that tree in the forest that may or may not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > or italics. Some use other means. I don't think it really makes a > difference. I do dislike the jump to all caps, though. To me asterisks as well as bold face or italics are simply ways of expressing something in writing that would be equivalent to spoken emphasis by tone or inflection. >> Should I have >>used > > I don't do "you should have..."s. I'm in no position to dictate what > you should do. I'm *allowed* to criticize or compliment, but I'm not > on the authorized list for rule-setting. I had no intentions to imply that you did. I was just asking you for your opinion since I learned both asterisks and smileys as symbols for such things, and didn't see any difference between the two. >>. (Hmm, somehow that expression 'fooling around' doesn't >>feel right in the context of the need to express one's self in a more >>'formal' manner on newsgroups dedicated to proper English Usage). How >>could I express that to get the same meaning and degree of lightness >>intended across to whomever might be reading this? I was joking about that as I am sure that you realized. On this group, I normally spend a great deal of time trying to make sure that what I write fits the, *usually*, more elevated prose than on the other groups that I inhabit, but I often will write more informally, because that is the way that I normally express myself and I don't always recognize 'more formal' constructs. This was part of the reason that I posed that questions about 'formal' and 'standard' speech a while back. > I feel that the juxtaposition of the exceedingly formal and barefooted > informality in writing is a good thing. It keeps the Reader watchful. > The Reader feels that he/she/it has to actually read what is written > and not to assume the Writer is just continuing in a pre-determined > style. Good point. Thanks again David W. SignatureTo find the end of Middle English, you discover the exact date and time the Great Vowel Shift took place (the morning of May 5, 1450, at some time between neenuh fiftehn and nahyn twenty-fahyv). Kevin Wald > I probably wouldn't have responded, but I am currently researching a paper > on Korzybski's influences in the works of Heinlein and I just couldn't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > taught. I was curious to know how he had done that and that is why I asked > him to clarify. ? is the following text what you got so worked up over > >> > .i made it up... a variation on "sapiens" > >> > .it's my derogatory term of most of humanity [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >> > a boil of sapes > >> > you get the idea .this is not an excerpt from an almanac .it was an attempt at being provocatively tongue-in-cheek .it's a damn poem... a word play... not a factual analysis .how anyone could misinterpret it as a statement of fact, to attack it for it's lack of rigor, is beyond me .hence, the "get a sense of humor" remark heron SignatureunDO email address ___ Nature, heron stone to be commanded, mailto:heronstoneDO@comcast.net must be obeyed. http://home.comcast.net/~heronstone/ >> I probably wouldn't have responded, but I am currently researching >> a paper [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > .hence, the "get a sense of humor" remark I liked it. A puzzlement of sapes, a jape of sapes, an encroachment of sapes. CDB > > .hence, the "get a sense of humor" remark > > I liked it. A puzzlement of sapes, a jape of sapes, an encroachment of > sapes. CDB good... here're some more... a clump of sapes a clunk of sapes a clink of sapes a clot of sapes a clod of sapes a lump of sapes a blight of sapes a herd of sapes a bunch of sapes a phlegm of sapes a dolt of sapes an oaf of sapes a doofus of sapes an ace of sapes a deuce of sapes a carbuncle of sapes a blotch of sapes a blot of sapes a boil of sapes a crock of sapes a pimple of sapes a crud of sapes a crutch of sapes a desecration of sapes a gout of sapes a hemorrhoid of sapes a hemorrhage of sapes an infection of sapes an inflamation of sapes an outbreak of sapes heron SignatureunDO email address ___ Nature, heron stone to be commanded, mailto:heronstoneDO@comcast.net must be obeyed. http://home.comcast.net/~heronstone/ heron stone <heronstoneDO@comcast.net> wrote in news:heronstoneDO- C65680.18073319052005@news.giganews.com: (snip) >> >> > .it's my derogatory term of most of humanity (snip) >>it was an attempt at being provocatively tongue-in-cheek Then you are now saying that you do not feel that derogatory terms are appropriate for 'most of humanity', and that this statement was an attempt at being humorous? Do I understand you correctly now? Do you wish to clarify that you, indeed, do not think derogatorily about 'most of humanity'. If that is true, then what, considering that you are a student of Korzybski's, do you think would be an appropriate Korzybskian term or statement about the phrase 'most of humanity'? SignatureDavid Wright Sr. http://home.alltel.net/dwrighsr/index.html To e-mail me, remove 't' from dwrightsr > heron stone <heronstoneDO@comcast.net> wrote in news:heronstoneDO- > C65680.18073319052005@news.giganews.com: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > or > statement about the phrase 'most of humanity'? Their name is Legionlegion. CDB ... and besides... something very close to 50% of humans are below average on any measure you care to take... intelligence, for instance .in previous agricultural/industrial clumps of sapes, there was a place for stupid people .until quite recently, most agricultural labor didn't require a PhD .stupidity might not even have been something to notice .somebody tells you to go dig a hole... you go dig a hole .but the world has changed .my parents' generation worked in industrial manufacturing... the auto industry, etc. .millions of morons could be trained to put nut A on bolt B, and they were payed enough to raise a family, buy a house and mother got to stay at home and personally tend her child .those jobs are gone now .there is no place for morons in the emerging capitalist, hi-tech world .some of the homeless people i see around me in south califiornia are actually crazy... but i suspect many more of them are just plain stupid, unimaginative, unenergized .now, don't get me wrong .i have nothing against morons .morons happen .there should be no shame in being stupid... any more than there should be shame in being shorter than average or uglier than average .my hope would be that we can figure out a way to include people of all abilities/talents .i see no reason why morons can't be accommodated .but this is an issue that needs to be addressed, and i've never heard mention of it in any media ?what are we gonna do with the bell curve heron SignatureunDO email address ___ Nature, heron stone to be commanded, mailto:heronstoneDO@comcast.net must be obeyed. http://home.comcast.net/~heronstone/ heron stone <heronstoneDO@comcast.net> wrote in news:heronstoneDO- 638B8C.20490419052005@news.giganews.com: > ... and besides... something very close to 50% of humans > are below average on any measure you care to take... > intelligence, for instance Now that is a really interesting fact. I would never have guessed it in a million years. Hey, why not use the term 'median', then you can get an exact figure, not just something 'close to'. > .in previous agricultural/industrial clumps of sapes, there > was a place for stupid people [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > heron ROFL. There you go. Joking again, I see. SignatureDavid Wright Sr. Have you ever stopped to think, and forgot to start again? To e-mail me, remove 't' from dwrightsr [wailing snipped] The longer your posts the dumber you show. > [wailing snipped] > > The longer your posts the dumber you show. That's an interesting inference. Can you clarify in more detail. I would be interested in what you believe I have posted to show that Can you be specific? SignatureDavid Wright Sr. Have you ever stopped to think, and forgot to start again? To e-mail me, remove 't' from dwrightsr > > One of the most important developments going on in our time - > > perhaps the most important one - is that the age of the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > of levels, is too high; we don't want to pay it. > > - Morris Berman * And how, by the way, does it compare with the price of the new paradigm, whatever that is? earle * In article <earle.jones-B988CF.22171315052005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, > > > One of the most important developments going on in our time - > > > perhaps the most important one - is that the age of the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > earle > * .it's much higher SignatureunDO email address ___ Nature, heron stone to be commanded, mailto:heronstoneDO@comcast.net must be obeyed. http://home.comcast.net/~heronstone/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.