User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 68

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haight View Post
    I was thinking the same thing; however, I could also hear Popper telling me, pragmatically, that words are our medium for exchange. Hence, they mean everything.
    Words don't have to be our only medium for exchange. Non-verbal communication can become quite sophisticated if we allowed it to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    What's next? Post-postmodernism?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-postmodernism

    Though we certainly don't have to call what follows something so lame.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  2. #22
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Words don't have to be our only medium for exchange. Non-verbal communication can become quite sophisticated if we allowed it to be.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-postmodernism

    Though we certainly don't have to call what follows something so lame.
    Facial expression, body language and tone of voice count for way more than what is said already as it is, especially in stressful situations.

    Content of what is actually said counts for like five percentage when you break it down. Its part of the reason that I like text based conversation its more a thinkers medium, even then its not perfect. Far from it. Got to agree with Habermas on a lot of what he has to say about communication.

  3. #23
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    This throwing our hands up and saying "all classifications are arbitrary" is exactly the type of thing we are reduced to if we do not avail ourselves to quantitative reasoning.
    I didn't say that.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    I didn't say that.
    Hmm. That's what it seemed like to me. Can you highlight the distinction?

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  5. #25
    Doesn't Read Your Posts Haight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    6,243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Words don't have to be our only medium for exchange. Non-verbal communication can become quite sophisticated if we allowed it to be.
    Correct, but it is our dominant form of communication for obvious reasons. Non-verbal communication is severely limited. The only way for it to be mass-communicated - or transportable, if you will - is via pictures in books or on the internets. Then, of course, we would have words to describe those pictures. I think you see where I am going.

    I believe you have correctly identified that postmodernism is predominantly concerned with deconstructing previously stated beliefs that were transported to us via words in books. However, your stated solution is impractical. If I were you, I would stick to the fact that postmodernism is meaningless, and that it is nothing in and of itself. To me, it is simply a system, which no one can articulate, that was designed to critique philosophies and histories.

    I apologize if I have stated the obvious.
    "The only time I'm wrong is when I'm questioning myself."
    Haight

  6. #26
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Hmm. That's what it seemed like to me. Can you highlight the distinction?
    Ages are simply periods of time. Time is an artificial construct. Yes, I can see how you would consider my statement to be a component of postmodernism, yet ages are not quantifiable "things". Time periods are concepts we developed to compensate for our ignorance of the space around us.

    If you think this simple notion constitutes all of postmodernism, then you're using unnecessary broad strokes. There are plenty of things out there I believe can be quantified.

  7. #27
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haight View Post
    If I were you, I would stick to the fact that postmodernism is meaningless, and that it is nothing in and of itself. To me, it is simply a system, which no one can articulate, that was designed to critique philosophies and histories.
    Agreed.

    It really has little relevance outside of academics, and was mostly just a mood...a reactionary period of "theorization." And nowadays, such nonsense is merely carried on as a kind of elite jargon for those that want power within certain disciplines in academia. Otherwise no one else in the world could give a fuck about this shit.

    It really did nearly ruin the humanities, though.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  8. #28
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Yes?



    What sort of reductionism are you referring to? I believe I proposed an expansion, not a reduction. Mixed states are exactly the type of thing I am advocating.

    EDIT:

    Maybe I should take another tack at what I am saying, because I think some ethos, and pathos should balance the logos in my original post:

    When I was a child, I saw the Berlin Wall fall on TV, and the end of the U.S.S.R. They credited these things to the ability to communicate through bulletin boards, sort of a similar to what happened in the Arab Spring. This played more than a small part in my decision to go into Computer Engineering. I was also quite fascinated with the ideas related to the inherent subjectivity of many things. I remember writing more than once in my journal that "Perspective matters, and it's perhaps the only thing that matters." My favorite programming language (Perl) was based largely on the postmodern leanings of its creator (Larry Wall) and the community that formed around it. I really liked "leaving the interpretation up to the reader." I loved Thomas Kuhn's ideas. I had been, for a long time, strongly influenced by postmodernism.

    But then reality set in.

    Are Russians really living free of oppression? Are the Egyptians really better of after the revolution? I certainly cannot answer those things. But one thing I do realize is that "revolution" is not all great, and brings along with it a lot of strife. What are the Egyptians going to do now that reality has set in? Is there going to be revolt against the new leader? What will happen in Syria after the war? Will a state of constant rebellion accomplish anything? They have to rebuild. What does post-modernism offer post-revolution?

    Whimsy and bucking trends can certainly be fun. But what do we have to do to eat and live?

    If "it is all subjective," how can we come to an agreement about anything? Why should we even bother? Why even try to dissuade me about my notions of postmodernism, then?

    At this point, pretty much everybody is aware of the messages of postmodernism. Everybody knows that who we are influences what we do and vice versa. So what? Now what?

    We need to live, to work, to do what we do. The Grand Narrative of No Narrative looses its value after a while. We need to grow up, and make decisions. We can see ourselves in the machine, but need to continue acting.

    Perhaps "evolution" is the better and more powerful force than "revolution" (I would say that revolutions are just punctuated points in evolution anyways). Like the tortoise and hare, perhaps the tortoise, steadily marching forward will not just get where it intends faster than the unsteady hare, but live longer too.
    I just mean, you can quantitatively analyze real world processes that are conglomerations of different processes. To analyze them individually breaks them down and then results in useless data because it cannot be applied to the whole because the # of degrees of freedom that the interaction takes place upon is different so the emergent pattern is different (I know you know). So, for example in the analytical measurement of emotional state for you can look at large indicators of affect such as facial muscle movement, galvanic skin response, neurotransmitter levels, etc but you have to view each of those as existing within a range of expression, so two people who report the same emotional state might not only be achieving it by means of different formulations of their constituent interactions, but two people with "identical" interactions may be having subjectively different states because there are environmental variations that we cannot mitigate. No matter what model you will build there will be a limit to your capacity to model behavior as a reflection of reality. If you built the perfect model it would be reality and at that scale it everything would change because now you have a tandem process that interacts with that which it is trying to analyze so information will drift between the two systems. So, what I am trying to get at is that "absolute truth" is a notion that is in the realm of "words" to use your own language but, we have no physical system which is capable of storing data in that fashion or that is able to interact cohesively as a whole in reality.
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haight View Post
    Correct, but it is our dominant form of communication for obvious reasons. Non-verbal communication is severely limited. The only way for it to be mass-communicated - or transportable, if you will - is via pictures in books or on the internets. Then, of course, we would have words to describe those pictures. I think you see where I am going.

    I believe you have correctly identified that postmodernism is predominantly concerned with deconstructing previously stated beliefs that were transported to us via words in books. However, your stated solution is impractical. If I were you, I would stick to the fact that postmodernism is meaningless, and that it is nothing in and of itself. To me, it is simply a system, which no one can articulate, that was designed to critique philosophies and histories.

    I apologize if I have stated the obvious.
    To be clear, I am not advocating abandoning words altogether. I am just pointing out for a great many objectives (and ever increasing number of objectives), words are exceedingly inefficient. I see a great practicality in using visual or quantitative means where verbal means are ill suited.

    I was thinking that for the initiated, these sorts of things would be quite meaningful:



    But it requires learning the visual symbolic language. The number of words to describe what is "described" so well above in mostly non-verbal form humbles me beyond words

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    Ages are simply periods of time. Time is an artificial construct. Yes, I can see how you would consider my statement to be a component of postmodernism, yet ages are not quantifiable "things". Time periods are concepts we developed to compensate for our ignorance of the space around us.

    If you think this simple notion constitutes all of postmodernism, then you're using unnecessary broad strokes. There are plenty of things out there I believe can be quantified.
    Certainly, I don't think it constitutes all of post-modernism. However, I have observed that post-modernism (in present times) is a luxury of those who don't need to work for food and shelter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Agreed.

    It really has little relevance outside of academics, and was mostly just a mood...a reactionary period of "theorization." And nowadays, such nonsense is merely carried on as a kind of elite jargon for those that want power within certain disciplines in academia. Otherwise no one else in the world could give a fuck about this shit.

    It really did nearly ruin the humanities, though.
    What saved the humanities from ruin? Have non-verbal modalities made as large an inroads into this Ivory Tower as they have in the Ivory Tower of academic science?

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  10. #30
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    What saved the humanities from ruin? Have non-verbal modalities made as large an inroads into this Ivory Tower as they have in the Ivory Tower of academic science?
    I have no idea what you're talking about, nor do I care to engage in this aspect of the conversation. Also, the only thing saving the humanities these days is nostalgia.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

Similar Threads

  1. The end of innovation?
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-15-2011, 04:39 AM
  2. The end of freedom of speech?
    By Sahara in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 03:45 PM
  3. Forget Big Brother: Facebook, Corporations, and the End of Free Speech
    By speculative in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-23-2009, 11:40 AM
  4. why is taking semester off the end of the world?
    By prplchknz in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 11-06-2009, 01:53 PM
  5. Man on the Moon: The End of Day (New Kid Cudi Album)
    By metaphours in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-02-2009, 01:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO