His ideas on Structuralism opened up the world to me, as I began to
see the patterns of language and ideas in the context of history,
thanks to his writing. RIP
I thought there was something in this stuff for a while. A book on
'The Making of a European Business Elite' was broadly structuralist
and showed a lot I knew to be true about the nepotism and old boy (now
girl too) networks. These days I think the structuralist movement
told us nothing and really ended-up with a bunch of typical chattering
class heroes incapable of working out socialism was a failure and this
needed to be said and some real model of science embraced more
clearly. Claude was a nice man according to those who knew him and I
liked reading his work - eye-opening up until the point of trying to
make sense of modern society and his rather intense way of trying to
generalise concepts like the Trickster. I sold my copy of Triste
Tropiques a few days before he died and had a last scan of it then
before posting it off. It felt weak and reminded me I think sociology
is dead.
On 6 Nov, 17:08, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> His ideas on Structuralism opened up the world to me, as I began to
> see the patterns of language and ideas in the context of history,
> thanks to his writing. RIP
I meet either is daughter or grand daughter she asked a very interesting
question (simple) and the person she asked had no answer. Fascinating lady
(about 33 years ago in El Paso TX)
Allan
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:59 AM, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I thought there was something in this stuff for a while. A book on
> 'The Making of a European Business Elite' was broadly structuralist
> and showed a lot I knew to be true about the nepotism and old boy (now
> girl too) networks. These days I think the structuralist movement
> told us nothing and really ended-up with a bunch of typical chattering
> class heroes incapable of working out socialism was a failure and this
> needed to be said and some real model of science embraced more
> clearly. Claude was a nice man according to those who knew him and I
> liked reading his work - eye-opening up until the point of trying to
> make sense of modern society and his rather intense way of trying to
> generalise concepts like the Trickster. I sold my copy of Triste
> Tropiques a few days before he died and had a last scan of it then
> before posting it off. It felt weak and reminded me I think sociology
> is dead.
> > His ideas on Structuralism opened up the world to me, as I began to
> > see the patterns of language and ideas in the context of history,
> > thanks to his writing. RIP
I find the thought of living one hundred years mind boggling, but I
suppose the continual development of ideas allows a certain amount of
agelessness. I looked at his material from a linguistic viewpoint,
and didn't delve too far into the anthropology, stopping at
mythologies and their cultural context. It seems to me he lead the way
for Joseph Campbell.
I do vividly remember, while studying structuralism, being struck by
the idea that different cultures in different eras used language in
their own way to convey meaning. I walked around for months analyzing
the use of language as it was spoken, having been given greater
insight into the application of working patterns that are often
unconscious to the speaker, learned from the environment. To this
day, I look to this to get a feeling for what a person has studied and
their previous experience, based on the words they use and how they
are applied in language. There can be a cohesiveness or lack of
cohesiveness to the patterns. There can also be a mere regurgitation
of the educated mind (what is learned) or an inspired use presented
with cohesion that only genius allows. Of course, there are many
other patterns and all of them convey a great deal of information
about the writer or speaker.
On Nov 7, 5:01 am, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I meet either is daughter or grand daughter she asked a very interesting
> question (simple) and the person she asked had no answer. Fascinating lady
> (about 33 years ago in El Paso TX)
> Allan
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:59 AM, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I thought there was something in this stuff for a while. A book on
> > 'The Making of a European Business Elite' was broadly structuralist
> > and showed a lot I knew to be true about the nepotism and old boy (now
> > girl too) networks. These days I think the structuralist movement
> > told us nothing and really ended-up with a bunch of typical chattering
> > class heroes incapable of working out socialism was a failure and this
> > needed to be said and some real model of science embraced more
> > clearly. Claude was a nice man according to those who knew him and I
> > liked reading his work - eye-opening up until the point of trying to
> > make sense of modern society and his rather intense way of trying to
> > generalise concepts like the Trickster. I sold my copy of Triste
> > Tropiques a few days before he died and had a last scan of it then
> > before posting it off. It felt weak and reminded me I think sociology
> > is dead.
> > > His ideas on Structuralism opened up the world to me, as I began to
> > > see the patterns of language and ideas in the context of history,
> > > thanks to his writing. RIP
The mere regurgitation element is particularly frightening these
days. Television news is full of it and the people working in it do
not seem to be able to find any way of sensing how biased they are and
the extent to which they simply network myth. Nothing cuts to a chase
and there is nothing empirical outside the text, almost like the
structuralist and post-structuralist claims. Even Plato was aware of
and wrote about fears that language changed so much one could not rely
on meaning between generations in Greece.
Turning away from the great man, I'm struck by the way even vision has
substantial learned components - suggesting that we may be 'designed'
to adapt to very different realities - perhaps ones so different we
can't imagine them, yet could adapt to them.
On 7 Nov, 16:44, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I find the thought of living one hundred years mind boggling, but I
> suppose the continual development of ideas allows a certain amount of
> agelessness. I looked at his material from a linguistic viewpoint,
> and didn't delve too far into the anthropology, stopping at
> mythologies and their cultural context. It seems to me he lead the way
> for Joseph Campbell.
> I do vividly remember, while studying structuralism, being struck by
> the idea that different cultures in different eras used language in
> their own way to convey meaning. I walked around for months analyzing
> the use of language as it was spoken, having been given greater
> insight into the application of working patterns that are often
> unconscious to the speaker, learned from the environment. To this
> day, I look to this to get a feeling for what a person has studied and
> their previous experience, based on the words they use and how they
> are applied in language. There can be a cohesiveness or lack of
> cohesiveness to the patterns. There can also be a mere regurgitation
> of the educated mind (what is learned) or an inspired use presented
> with cohesion that only genius allows. Of course, there are many
> other patterns and all of them convey a great deal of information
> about the writer or speaker.
> On Nov 7, 5:01 am, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I meet either is daughter or grand daughter she asked a very interesting
> > question (simple) and the person she asked had no answer. Fascinating lady
> > (about 33 years ago in El Paso TX)
> > Allan
> > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:59 AM, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > I thought there was something in this stuff for a while. A book on
> > > 'The Making of a European Business Elite' was broadly structuralist
> > > and showed a lot I knew to be true about the nepotism and old boy (now
> > > girl too) networks. These days I think the structuralist movement
> > > told us nothing and really ended-up with a bunch of typical chattering
> > > class heroes incapable of working out socialism was a failure and this
> > > needed to be said and some real model of science embraced more
> > > clearly. Claude was a nice man according to those who knew him and I
> > > liked reading his work - eye-opening up until the point of trying to
> > > make sense of modern society and his rather intense way of trying to
> > > generalise concepts like the Trickster. I sold my copy of Triste
> > > Tropiques a few days before he died and had a last scan of it then
> > > before posting it off. It felt weak and reminded me I think sociology
> > > is dead.
> > > > His ideas on Structuralism opened up the world to me, as I began to
> > > > see the patterns of language and ideas in the context of history,
> > > > thanks to his writing. RIP
Yes, we are so often unaware of the ways that language and ideas shape
our lives, or where the words have come from and how they have evolved
through cultures. While facilitating groups, I find semantic barriers
to understanding are often cultural in origin, and once brought to
light, are no longer a barrier. Letting go of these many learned
components may be where Husserl was going in letting go of social
structures to get to the essential. At this point, do we adapt to
reality, or create our experience with a little imagination and trust
that who we are essentially and life are symbiotic?
On Nov 10, 12:09 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The mere regurgitation element is particularly frightening these
> days. Television news is full of it and the people working in it do
> not seem to be able to find any way of sensing how biased they are and
> the extent to which they simply network myth. Nothing cuts to a chase
> and there is nothing empirical outside the text, almost like the
> structuralist and post-structuralist claims. Even Plato was aware of
> and wrote about fears that language changed so much one could not rely
> on meaning between generations in Greece.
> Turning away from the great man, I'm struck by the way even vision has
> substantial learned components - suggesting that we may be 'designed'
> to adapt to very different realities - perhaps ones so different we
> can't imagine them, yet could adapt to them.
> On 7 Nov, 16:44, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I find the thought of living one hundred years mind boggling, but I
> > suppose the continual development of ideas allows a certain amount of
> > agelessness. I looked at his material from a linguistic viewpoint,
> > and didn't delve too far into the anthropology, stopping at
> > mythologies and their cultural context. It seems to me he lead the way
> > for Joseph Campbell.
> > I do vividly remember, while studying structuralism, being struck by
> > the idea that different cultures in different eras used language in
> > their own way to convey meaning. I walked around for months analyzing
> > the use of language as it was spoken, having been given greater
> > insight into the application of working patterns that are often
> > unconscious to the speaker, learned from the environment. To this
> > day, I look to this to get a feeling for what a person has studied and
> > their previous experience, based on the words they use and how they
> > are applied in language. There can be a cohesiveness or lack of
> > cohesiveness to the patterns. There can also be a mere regurgitation
> > of the educated mind (what is learned) or an inspired use presented
> > with cohesion that only genius allows. Of course, there are many
> > other patterns and all of them convey a great deal of information
> > about the writer or speaker.
> > On Nov 7, 5:01 am, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I meet either is daughter or grand daughter she asked a very interesting
> > > question (simple) and the person she asked had no answer. Fascinating lady
> > > (about 33 years ago in El Paso TX)
> > > Allan
> > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:59 AM, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > I thought there was something in this stuff for a while. A book on
> > > > 'The Making of a European Business Elite' was broadly structuralist
> > > > and showed a lot I knew to be true about the nepotism and old boy (now
> > > > girl too) networks. These days I think the structuralist movement
> > > > told us nothing and really ended-up with a bunch of typical chattering
> > > > class heroes incapable of working out socialism was a failure and this
> > > > needed to be said and some real model of science embraced more
> > > > clearly. Claude was a nice man according to those who knew him and I
> > > > liked reading his work - eye-opening up until the point of trying to
> > > > make sense of modern society and his rather intense way of trying to
> > > > generalise concepts like the Trickster. I sold my copy of Triste
> > > > Tropiques a few days before he died and had a last scan of it then
> > > > before posting it off. It felt weak and reminded me I think sociology
> > > > is dead.
> > > > > His ideas on Structuralism opened up the world to me, as I began to
> > > > > see the patterns of language and ideas in the context of history,
> > > > > thanks to his writing. RIP
I'd go for more complication on your question Molly. You start with
something that sounds simple - bringing cultural 'issues' to light
where they cease to be a barrier - I used to condense 3 days of
strategic management into the notion of getting everyone to 'surface a
common language'. We know even this 'start' is difficult for many.
Deeper analysis into the questions of socially structured learning -
scalding pain and a run to the cooling waters of 'a little imagination
and trust ...'?
I know you have a grasp on what I would mean. I'd jump to the strange
experience of combat - a world those without the experience can only
imagine. All my imagination was as nothing in the experience. I
found fear and courage I am now equally ashamed of - amongst revulsion
traumas distinctly post modo. Secret society experience is equally
more about the 'after' even in the experience, something one has to
drop to have the experience. Group experience as we refer to it often
has the taste of 'forced cure' rather than your more courageous gentle
touch (though I see the fist). Too many of my colleagues lapse into
dreadful 'post-mortems' in which the facilitators discuss what has
really been happening and this rather tells you who the event was
for. The point here is not snide one-upmanship, but about what can be
dared in not being as essential - by analogy the mathematical
potentials of what might (even should) crystallise as social
structures but don't. Classic group play can be as miraculously
excluding or variably unlike 'real life' as to be little more than
training nitinol (a metal amalgam) to remember its shape next time it
is in hot water rather than producing 'shape-shifting' that works in
normal conditions. I would want a radical understanding of adaptation
and our great facilities to be engaged in it before we know (an an
infant learning 'sight' or coping without it as a Greenland shark)
before thinking and feeling on what reality we might create in being
comfortably authentic in relating with others as real and not an
extension of self for manipulation.
On 10 Nov, 14:39, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, we are so often unaware of the ways that language and ideas shape
> our lives, or where the words have come from and how they have evolved
> through cultures. While facilitating groups, I find semantic barriers
> to understanding are often cultural in origin, and once brought to
> light, are no longer a barrier. Letting go of these many learned
> components may be where Husserl was going in letting go of social
> structures to get to the essential. At this point, do we adapt to
> reality, or create our experience with a little imagination and trust
> that who we are essentially and life are symbiotic?
> On Nov 10, 12:09 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > The mere regurgitation element is particularly frightening these
> > days. Television news is full of it and the people working in it do
> > not seem to be able to find any way of sensing how biased they are and
> > the extent to which they simply network myth. Nothing cuts to a chase
> > and there is nothing empirical outside the text, almost like the
> > structuralist and post-structuralist claims. Even Plato was aware of
> > and wrote about fears that language changed so much one could not rely
> > on meaning between generations in Greece.
> > Turning away from the great man, I'm struck by the way even vision has
> > substantial learned components - suggesting that we may be 'designed'
> > to adapt to very different realities - perhaps ones so different we
> > can't imagine them, yet could adapt to them.
> > On 7 Nov, 16:44, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I find the thought of living one hundred years mind boggling, but I
> > > suppose the continual development of ideas allows a certain amount of
> > > agelessness. I looked at his material from a linguistic viewpoint,
> > > and didn't delve too far into the anthropology, stopping at
> > > mythologies and their cultural context. It seems to me he lead the way
> > > for Joseph Campbell.
> > > I do vividly remember, while studying structuralism, being struck by
> > > the idea that different cultures in different eras used language in
> > > their own way to convey meaning. I walked around for months analyzing
> > > the use of language as it was spoken, having been given greater
> > > insight into the application of working patterns that are often
> > > unconscious to the speaker, learned from the environment. To this
> > > day, I look to this to get a feeling for what a person has studied and
> > > their previous experience, based on the words they use and how they
> > > are applied in language. There can be a cohesiveness or lack of
> > > cohesiveness to the patterns. There can also be a mere regurgitation
> > > of the educated mind (what is learned) or an inspired use presented
> > > with cohesion that only genius allows. Of course, there are many
> > > other patterns and all of them convey a great deal of information
> > > about the writer or speaker.
> > > On Nov 7, 5:01 am, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I meet either is daughter or grand daughter she asked a very interesting
> > > > question (simple) and the person she asked had no answer. Fascinating lady
> > > > (about 33 years ago in El Paso TX)
> > > > Allan
> > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:59 AM, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I thought there was something in this stuff for a while. A book on
> > > > > 'The Making of a European Business Elite' was broadly structuralist
> > > > > and showed a lot I knew to be true about the nepotism and old boy (now
> > > > > girl too) networks. These days I think the structuralist movement
> > > > > told us nothing and really ended-up with a bunch of typical chattering
> > > > > class heroes incapable of working out socialism was a failure and this
> > > > > needed to be said and some real model of science embraced more
> > > > > clearly. Claude was a nice man according to those who knew him and I
> > > > > liked reading his work - eye-opening up until the point of trying to
> > > > > make sense of modern society and his rather intense way of trying to
> > > > > generalise concepts like the Trickster. I sold my copy of Triste
> > > > > Tropiques a few days before he died and had a last scan of it then
> > > > > before posting it off. It felt weak and reminded me I think sociology
> > > > > is dead.
> > > > > > His ideas on Structuralism opened up the world to me, as I began to
> > > > > > see the patterns of language and ideas in the context of history,
> > > > > > thanks to his writing. RIP
> I'd go for more complication on your question Molly. You start with
> something that sounds simple - bringing cultural 'issues' to light
> where they cease to be a barrier - I used to condense 3 days of
> strategic management into the notion of getting everyone to 'surface a
> common language'. We know even this 'start' is difficult for many.
> Deeper analysis into the questions of socially structured learning -
> scalding pain and a run to the cooling waters of 'a little imagination
> and trust ...'?
> I know you have a grasp on what I would mean. I'd jump to the strange
> experience of combat - a world those without the experience can only
> imagine. All my imagination was as nothing in the experience. I
> found fear and courage I am now equally ashamed of - amongst revulsion
> traumas distinctly post modo. Secret society experience is equally
> more about the 'after' even in the experience, something one has to
> drop to have the experience. Group experience as we refer to it often
> has the taste of 'forced cure' rather than your more courageous gentle
> touch (though I see the fist). Too many of my colleagues lapse into
> dreadful 'post-mortems' in which the facilitators discuss what has
> really been happening and this rather tells you who the event was
> for. The point here is not snide one-upmanship, but about what can be
> dared in not being as essential - by analogy the mathematical
> potentials of what might (even should) crystallise as social
> structures but don't. Classic group play can be as miraculously
> excluding or variably unlike 'real life' as to be little more than
> training nitinol (a metal amalgam) to remember its shape next time it
> is in hot water rather than producing 'shape-shifting' that works in
> normal conditions. I would want a radical understanding of adaptation
> and our great facilities to be engaged in it before we know (an an
> infant learning 'sight' or coping without it as a Greenland shark)
> before thinking and feeling on what reality we might create in being
> comfortably authentic in relating with others as real and not an
> extension of self for manipulation.
> On 10 Nov, 14:39, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, we are so often unaware of the ways that language and ideas shape
> > our lives, or where the words have come from and how they have evolved
> > through cultures. While facilitating groups, I find semantic barriers
> > to understanding are often cultural in origin, and once brought to
> > light, are no longer a barrier. Letting go of these many learned
> > components may be where Husserl was going in letting go of social
> > structures to get to the essential. At this point, do we adapt to
> > reality, or create our experience with a little imagination and trust
> > that who we are essentially and life are symbiotic?
> > On Nov 10, 12:09 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > The mere regurgitation element is particularly frightening these
> > > days. Television news is full of it and the people working in it do
> > > not seem to be able to find any way of sensing how biased they are and
> > > the extent to which they simply network myth. Nothing cuts to a chase
> > > and there is nothing empirical outside the text, almost like the
> > > structuralist and post-structuralist claims. Even Plato was aware of
> > > and wrote about fears that language changed so much one could not rely
> > > on meaning between generations in Greece.
> > > Turning away from the great man, I'm struck by the way even vision has
> > > substantial learned components - suggesting that we may be 'designed'
> > > to adapt to very different realities - perhaps ones so different we
> > > can't imagine them, yet could adapt to them.
> > > > I find the thought of living one hundred years mind boggling, but I
> > > > suppose the continual development of ideas allows a certain amount of
> > > > agelessness. I looked at his material from a linguistic viewpoint,
> > > > and didn't delve too far into the anthropology, stopping at
> > > > mythologies and their cultural context. It seems to me he lead the way
> > > > for Joseph Campbell.
> > > > I do vividly remember, while studying structuralism, being struck by
> > > > the idea that different cultures in different eras used language in
> > > > their own way to convey meaning. I walked around for months analyzing
> > > > the use of language as it was spoken, having been given greater
> > > > insight into the application of working patterns that are often
> > > > unconscious to the speaker, learned from the environment. To this
> > > > day, I look to this to get a feeling for what a person has studied and
> > > > their previous experience, based on the words they use and how they
> > > > are applied in language. There can be a cohesiveness or lack of
> > > > cohesiveness to the patterns. There can also be a mere regurgitation
> > > > of the educated mind (what is learned) or an inspired use presented
> > > > with cohesion that only genius allows. Of course, there are many
> > > > other patterns and all of them convey a great deal of information
> > > > about the writer or speaker.
> > > > On Nov 7, 5:01 am, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I meet either is daughter or grand daughter she asked a very interesting
> > > > > question (simple) and the person she asked had no answer. Fascinating lady
> > > > > (about 33 years ago in El Paso TX)
> > > > > Allan
> > > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:59 AM, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I thought there was something in this stuff for a while. A book on
> > > > > > 'The Making of a European Business Elite' was broadly structuralist
> > > > > > and showed a lot I knew to be true about the nepotism and old boy (now
> > > > > > girl too) networks. These days I think the structuralist movement
> > > > > > told us nothing and really ended-up with a bunch of typical chattering
> > > > > > class heroes incapable of working out socialism was a failure and this
> > > > > > needed to be said and some real model of science embraced more
> > > > > > clearly. Claude was a nice man according to those who knew him and I
> > > > > > liked reading his work - eye-opening up until the point of trying to
> > > > > > make sense of modern society and his rather intense way of trying to
> > > > > > generalise concepts like the Trickster. I sold my copy of Triste
> > > > > > Tropiques a few days before he died and had a last scan of it then
> > > > > > before posting it off. It felt weak and reminded me I think sociology
> > > > > > is dead.
> > > > > > > His ideas on Structuralism opened up the world to me, as I began to
> > > > > > > see the patterns of language and ideas in the context of history,
> > > > > > > thanks to his writing. RIP
> "what reality we might create in being
> comfortably authentic in relating with others as real"
> at this point it is all real and, as Vam points out, all true
> "not an extension of self for manipulation." in this state, doubt can
> be a handy tool as it still implies separation through manipulation.
> On Nov 10, 12:07 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I'd go for more complication on your question Molly. You start with
> > something that sounds simple - bringing cultural 'issues' to light
> > where they cease to be a barrier - I used to condense 3 days of
> > strategic management into the notion of getting everyone to 'surface a
> > common language'. We know even this 'start' is difficult for many.
> > Deeper analysis into the questions of socially structured learning -
> > scalding pain and a run to the cooling waters of 'a little imagination
> > and trust ...'?
> > I know you have a grasp on what I would mean. I'd jump to the strange
> > experience of combat - a world those without the experience can only
> > imagine. All my imagination was as nothing in the experience. I
> > found fear and courage I am now equally ashamed of - amongst revulsion
> > traumas distinctly post modo. Secret society experience is equally
> > more about the 'after' even in the experience, something one has to
> > drop to have the experience. Group experience as we refer to it often
> > has the taste of 'forced cure' rather than your more courageous gentle
> > touch (though I see the fist). Too many of my colleagues lapse into
> > dreadful 'post-mortems' in which the facilitators discuss what has
> > really been happening and this rather tells you who the event was
> > for. The point here is not snide one-upmanship, but about what can be
> > dared in not being as essential - by analogy the mathematical
> > potentials of what might (even should) crystallise as social
> > structures but don't. Classic group play can be as miraculously
> > excluding or variably unlike 'real life' as to be little more than
> > training nitinol (a metal amalgam) to remember its shape next time it
> > is in hot water rather than producing 'shape-shifting' that works in
> > normal conditions. I would want a radical understanding of adaptation
> > and our great facilities to be engaged in it before we know (an an
> > infant learning 'sight' or coping without it as a Greenland shark)
> > before thinking and feeling on what reality we might create in being
> > comfortably authentic in relating with others as real and not an
> > extension of self for manipulation.
> > On 10 Nov, 14:39, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Yes, we are so often unaware of the ways that language and ideas shape
> > > our lives, or where the words have come from and how they have evolved
> > > through cultures. While facilitating groups, I find semantic barriers
> > > to understanding are often cultural in origin, and once brought to
> > > light, are no longer a barrier. Letting go of these many learned
> > > components may be where Husserl was going in letting go of social
> > > structures to get to the essential. At this point, do we adapt to
> > > reality, or create our experience with a little imagination and trust
> > > that who we are essentially and life are symbiotic?
> > > On Nov 10, 12:09 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > The mere regurgitation element is particularly frightening these
> > > > days. Television news is full of it and the people working in it do
> > > > not seem to be able to find any way of sensing how biased they are and
> > > > the extent to which they simply network myth. Nothing cuts to a chase
> > > > and there is nothing empirical outside the text, almost like the
> > > > structuralist and post-structuralist claims. Even Plato was aware of
> > > > and wrote about fears that language changed so much one could not rely
> > > > on meaning between generations in Greece.
> > > > Turning away from the great man, I'm struck by the way even vision has
> > > > substantial learned components - suggesting that we may be 'designed'
> > > > to adapt to very different realities - perhaps ones so different we
> > > > can't imagine them, yet could adapt to them.
> > > > > I find the thought of living one hundred years mind boggling, but I
> > > > > suppose the continual development of ideas allows a certain amount of
> > > > > agelessness. I looked at his material from a linguistic viewpoint,
> > > > > and didn't delve too far into the anthropology, stopping at
> > > > > mythologies and their cultural context. It seems to me he lead the way
> > > > > for Joseph Campbell.
> > > > > I do vividly remember, while studying structuralism, being struck by
> > > > > the idea that different cultures in different eras used language in
> > > > > their own way to convey meaning. I walked around for months analyzing
> > > > > the use of language as it was spoken, having been given greater
> > > > > insight into the application of working patterns that are often
> > > > > unconscious to the speaker, learned from the environment. To this
> > > > > day, I look to this to get a feeling for what a person has studied and
> > > > > their previous experience, based on the words they use and how they
> > > > > are applied in language. There can be a cohesiveness or lack of
> > > > > cohesiveness to the patterns. There can also be a mere regurgitation
> > > > > of the educated mind (what is learned) or an inspired use presented
> > > > > with cohesion that only genius allows. Of course, there are many
> > > > > other patterns and all of them convey a great deal of information
> > > > > about the writer or speaker.
> > > > > On Nov 7, 5:01 am, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I meet either is daughter or grand daughter she asked a very interesting
> > > > > > question (simple) and the person she asked had no answer. Fascinating lady
> > > > > > (about 33 years ago in El Paso TX)
> > > > > > Allan
> > > > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:59 AM, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > I thought there was something in this stuff for a while. A book on
> > > > > > > 'The Making of a European Business Elite' was broadly structuralist
> > > > > > > and showed a lot I knew to be true about the nepotism and old boy (now
> > > > > > > girl too) networks. These days I think the structuralist movement
> > > > > > > told us nothing and really ended-up with a bunch of typical chattering
> > > > > > > class heroes incapable of working out socialism was a failure and this
> > > > > > > needed to be said and some real model of science embraced more
> > > > > > > clearly. Claude was a nice man according to those who knew him and I
> > > > > > > liked reading his work - eye-opening up until the point of trying to
> > > > > > > make sense of modern society and his rather intense way of trying to
> > > > > > > generalise concepts like the Trickster. I sold my copy of Triste
> > > > > > > Tropiques a few days before he died and had a last scan of it then
> > > > > > > before posting it off. It felt weak and reminded me I think sociology
> > > > > > > is dead.
> > > > > > > > His ideas on Structuralism opened up the world to me, as I began to
> > > > > > > > see the patterns of language and ideas in the context of history,
> > > > > > > > thanks to his writing. RIP
well, if we are manipulating some "thing" or some "other" since to
manipulate requires an object to control, manage, or utilize - the
object is separate from us, and so we can manipulate it. If it weren't
we would be manipulating ourselves (and we are in a state of
unification)
On Nov 10, 3:58 pm, Doris Ragland <dr4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Could you explain to me about the manipulation and why it separation
> causes this
> On Nov 10, 9:22 am, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "what reality we might create in being
> > comfortably authentic in relating with others as real"
> > at this point it is all real and, as Vam points out, all true
> > "not an extension of self for manipulation." in this state, doubt can
> > be a handy tool as it still implies separation through manipulation.
> > On Nov 10, 12:07 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > I'd go for more complication on your question Molly. You start with
> > > something that sounds simple - bringing cultural 'issues' to light
> > > where they cease to be a barrier - I used to condense 3 days of
> > > strategic management into the notion of getting everyone to 'surface a
> > > common language'. We know even this 'start' is difficult for many.
> > > Deeper analysis into the questions of socially structured learning -
> > > scalding pain and a run to the cooling waters of 'a little imagination
> > > and trust ...'?
> > > I know you have a grasp on what I would mean. I'd jump to the strange
> > > experience of combat - a world those without the experience can only
> > > imagine. All my imagination was as nothing in the experience. I
> > > found fear and courage I am now equally ashamed of - amongst revulsion
> > > traumas distinctly post modo. Secret society experience is equally
> > > more about the 'after' even in the experience, something one has to
> > > drop to have the experience. Group experience as we refer to it often
> > > has the taste of 'forced cure' rather than your more courageous gentle
> > > touch (though I see the fist). Too many of my colleagues lapse into
> > > dreadful 'post-mortems' in which the facilitators discuss what has
> > > really been happening and this rather tells you who the event was
> > > for. The point here is not snide one-upmanship, but about what can be
> > > dared in not being as essential - by analogy the mathematical
> > > potentials of what might (even should) crystallise as social
> > > structures but don't. Classic group play can be as miraculously
> > > excluding or variably unlike 'real life' as to be little more than
> > > training nitinol (a metal amalgam) to remember its shape next time it
> > > is in hot water rather than producing 'shape-shifting' that works in
> > > normal conditions. I would want a radical understanding of adaptation
> > > and our great facilities to be engaged in it before we know (an an
> > > infant learning 'sight' or coping without it as a Greenland shark)
> > > before thinking and feeling on what reality we might create in being
> > > comfortably authentic in relating with others as real and not an
> > > extension of self for manipulation.
> > > > Yes, we are so often unaware of the ways that language and ideas shape
> > > > our lives, or where the words have come from and how they have evolved
> > > > through cultures. While facilitating groups, I find semantic barriers
> > > > to understanding are often cultural in origin, and once brought to
> > > > light, are no longer a barrier. Letting go of these many learned
> > > > components may be where Husserl was going in letting go of social
> > > > structures to get to the essential. At this point, do we adapt to
> > > > reality, or create our experience with a little imagination and trust
> > > > that who we are essentially and life are symbiotic?
> > > > On Nov 10, 12:09 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > The mere regurgitation element is particularly frightening these
> > > > > days. Television news is full of it and the people working in it do
> > > > > not seem to be able to find any way of sensing how biased they are and
> > > > > the extent to which they simply network myth. Nothing cuts to a chase
> > > > > and there is nothing empirical outside the text, almost like the
> > > > > structuralist and post-structuralist claims. Even Plato was aware of
> > > > > and wrote about fears that language changed so much one could not rely
> > > > > on meaning between generations in Greece.
> > > > > Turning away from the great man, I'm struck by the way even vision has
> > > > > substantial learned components - suggesting that we may be 'designed'
> > > > > to adapt to very different realities - perhaps ones so different we
> > > > > can't imagine them, yet could adapt to them.
> > > > > > I find the thought of living one hundred years mind boggling, but I
> > > > > > suppose the continual development of ideas allows a certain amount of
> > > > > > agelessness. I looked at his material from a linguistic viewpoint,
> > > > > > and didn't delve too far into the anthropology, stopping at
> > > > > > mythologies and their cultural context. It seems to me he lead the way
> > > > > > for Joseph Campbell.
> > > > > > I do vividly remember, while studying structuralism, being struck by
> > > > > > the idea that different cultures in different eras used language in
> > > > > > their own way to convey meaning. I walked around for months analyzing
> > > > > > the use of language as it was spoken, having been given greater
> > > > > > insight into the application of working patterns that are often
> > > > > > unconscious to the speaker, learned from the environment. To this
> > > > > > day, I look to this to get a feeling for what a person has studied and
> > > > > > their previous experience, based on the words they use and how they
> > > > > > are applied in language. There can be a cohesiveness or lack of
> > > > > > cohesiveness to the patterns. There can also be a mere regurgitation
> > > > > > of the educated mind (what is learned) or an inspired use presented
> > > > > > with cohesion that only genius allows. Of course, there are many
> > > > > > other patterns and all of them convey a great deal of information
> > > > > > about the writer or speaker.
> > > > > > On Nov 7, 5:01 am, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > I meet either is daughter or grand daughter she asked a very interesting
> > > > > > > question (simple) and the person she asked had no answer. Fascinating lady
> > > > > > > (about 33 years ago in El Paso TX)
> > > > > > > Allan
> > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:59 AM, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I thought there was something in this stuff for a while. A book on
> > > > > > > > 'The Making of a European Business Elite' was broadly structuralist
> > > > > > > > and showed a lot I knew to be true about the nepotism and old boy (now
> > > > > > > > girl too) networks. These days I think the structuralist movement
> > > > > > > > told us nothing and really ended-up with a bunch of typical chattering
> > > > > > > > class heroes incapable of working out socialism was a failure and this
> > > > > > > > needed to be said and some real model of science embraced more
> > > > > > > > clearly. Claude was a nice man according to those who knew him and I
> > > > > > > > liked reading his work - eye-opening up until the point of trying to
> > > > > > > > make sense of modern society and his rather intense way of trying to
> > > > > > > > generalise concepts like the Trickster. I sold my copy of Triste
> > > > > > > > Tropiques a few days before he died and had a last scan of it then
> > > > > > > > before posting it off. It felt weak and reminded me I think sociology
> > > > > > > > is dead.
> > > > > > > > > His ideas on Structuralism opened up the world to me, as I began to
> > > > > > > > > see the patterns of language and ideas in the context of history,
> > > > > > > > > thanks to his writing. RIP
> "what reality we might create in being
> comfortably authentic in relating with others as real"
> at this point it is all real and, as Vam points out, all true
> "not an extension of self for manipulation." in this state, doubt can
> be a handy tool as it still implies separation through manipulation.
> On Nov 10, 12:07 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I'd go for more complication on your question Molly. You start with
> > something that sounds simple - bringing cultural 'issues' to light
> > where they cease to be a barrier - I used to condense 3 days of
> > strategic management into the notion of getting everyone to 'surface a
> > common language'. We know even this 'start' is difficult for many.
> > Deeper analysis into the questions of socially structured learning -
> > scalding pain and a run to the cooling waters of 'a little imagination
> > and trust ...'?
> > I know you have a grasp on what I would mean. I'd jump to the strange
> > experience of combat - a world those without the experience can only
> > imagine. All my imagination was as nothing in the experience. I
> > found fear and courage I am now equally ashamed of - amongst revulsion
> > traumas distinctly post modo. Secret society experience is equally
> > more about the 'after' even in the experience, something one has to
> > drop to have the experience. Group experience as we refer to it often
> > has the taste of 'forced cure' rather than your more courageous gentle
> > touch (though I see the fist). Too many of my colleagues lapse into
> > dreadful 'post-mortems' in which the facilitators discuss what has
> > really been happening and this rather tells you who the event was
> > for. The point here is not snide one-upmanship, but about what can be
> > dared in not being as essential - by analogy the mathematical
> > potentials of what might (even should) crystallise as social
> > structures but don't. Classic group play can be as miraculously
> > excluding or variably unlike 'real life' as to be little more than
> > training nitinol (a metal amalgam) to remembe its shhape next time it
> > is in hot water rather than producing 'shape-shifting' that works in
> > normal conditions. I would want a radical understanding of adaptation
> > and our great facilities to be engaged in it before we know (an an
> > infant learning 'sight' or coping without it as a Greenland shark)
> > before thinking and feeling on what reality we might create in being
> > comfortably authentic in relating with others as real and not an
> > extension of self for manipulation.
> > On 10 Nov, 14:39, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Yes, we are so often unaware of the ways that language and ideas shape
> > > our lives, or where the words have come from and how they have evolved
> > > through cultures. While facilitating groups, I find semantic barriers
> > > to understanding are often cultural in origin, and once brought to
> > > light, are no longer a barrier. Letting go of these many learned
> > > components may be where Husserl was going in letting go of social
> > > structures to get to the essential. At this point, do we adapt to
> > > reality, or create our experience with a little imagination and trust
> > > that who we are essentially and life are symbiotic?
> > > On Nov 10, 12:09 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > The mre regurrgitation element is particularly frightening these
> > > > days. Television news is full of it and the people working in it do
> > > > not seem to be able to find any way of sensing how biased they are and
> > > > the extent to which they simply network myth. Nothing cuts to a chase
> > > > and there is nothing empirical outside the text, almost like the
> > > > structuralist and post-structuralist claims. Even Plato was aware of
> > > > and wrote about fears that language changed so much one could not rely
> > > > on meaning between generations in Greece.
> > > > Turning away from the great man, I'm struck by the way even vision has
> > > > substantial learned components - suggesting that we may be 'designed'
> > > > to adapt to very different realities - perhaps ones so different we
> > > > can't imagine them, yet could adapt to them.
> > > > > I find the thought of living one hundred years mind boggling, but I
> > > > > suppose the continual development of ideas allows a certain amount of
> > > > > agelessness. I looked at his material from a linguistic viewpoint,
> > > > > and didn't delve too far into the anthropology, stopping at
> > > > > mythologies and their cultural context. It seems to me he lead the way
> > > > > for Joseph Campbell.
> > > > > I do vividly remember, while studying structuralism, being struck by
> > > > > the idea that different cultures in different eras used language in
> > > > > their own way to convey meaning. I walked around for months analyzing
> > > > > the use of language as it was spoken, having been given greater
> > > > > insight into the application of working patterns that are often
> > > > > unconscious to the speaker, learned from the environment. To this
> > > > > day, I look to this to get a feeling for what a person has studied and
> > > > > their previous experience, based on the words they use and how they
> > > > > are applied in language. There can be a cohesiveness or lack of
> > > > > cohesiveness to the patterns. There can also be a mere regurgitation
> > > > > of the educated mind (what is learned) or an inspired use presented
> > > > > with cohesion that only genius allows. Of course, there are many
> > > > > other patterns and all of them convey a great deal of information
> > > > > about the writer or speaker.
> > > > > On Nov 7, 5:01 am, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I meet either is daughter or grand dauhtee she askeed a very interesting
> > > > > > question (simple) and the person she asked had no answer. Fascinating lady
> > > > > > (about 33 years ago in El Paso TX)
> > > > > > Allan
> > > > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:59 AM, archytas <nwte...@googlemal.coom> wrote:
> > > > > > > I thought there was something in this stuff fr a whille. A book on
> > > > > > > 'The Making of a European Business Elite' was broadly structuralist
> > > > > > > and showed a lot I knew to be true about the nepotism and old boy (now
> > > > > > > girl too) networks. These days I think the structuralist movement
> > > > > > > told us nothing and really ended-up with a bunch of typical chattering
> > > > > > > class heroes incapable of working out socialism was a failure and this
> > > > > > > needed to be said and some real model of science embraced more
> > > > > > > clearly. Claude was a nice man according to those who knew him and I
> > > > > > > liked reading his work - eye-opening up until the point of trying to
> > > > > > > make sense of modern society and his rather intense way of trying to
> > > > > > > generalise concepts like the Trickster. I sold my copy of Triste
> > > > > > > Tropiques a few days before he died and had a last scan of it then
> > > > > > > before postin it offf. It felt wea and remiinded me I think sociology
> > > > > > > is dead.
> > > > > > > > His ideas on Structuralism opened up the world to me, as I began to
> > > > > > > > see the patterns of language and ideas in the context of history,
> > > > > > > > thanks to his writing. RIP
I am reminded of Aesop's Tales - perhaps as extrapolated in Philip K
Dick and some creature offering blissful contentment after it swallows
you. My own aliens tend to be multi-specied combinations. Not seen
this amongst humans, though many forms of life are captured in what we
are as individuals (mitochondria etc). The effort required to KISS
(keep it simple stupid) in team games is generally not understood -
the intellectual and emotional efforts to get near authenticity are
ideal and always in a wider reality. 'Warp 10' solutions won't work.
It is because one recognises the Other that one will not manipulate.
I suspect this may be an energy equation.
On 10 Nov, 21:52, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Na, Molly, <true> is just as nonsensical as <extrapolation> is.
> On 10 Nov., 18:22, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "what reality we might create in being
> > comfortably authentic in relating with others as real"
> > at this point it is all real and, as Vam points out, all true
> > "not an extension of self for manipulation." in this state, doubt can
> > be a handy tool as it still implies separation through manipulation.
> > On Nov 10, 12:07 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > I'd go for more complication on your question Molly. You start with
> > > something that sounds simple - bringing cultural 'issues' to light
> > > where they cease to be a barrier - I used to condense 3 days of
> > > strategic management into the notion of getting everyone to 'surface a
> > > common language'. We know even this 'start' is difficult for many.
> > > Deeper analysis into the questions of socially structured learning -
> > > scalding pain and a run to the cooling waters of 'a little imagination
> > > and trust ...'?
> > > I know you have a grasp on what I would mean. I'd jump to the strange
> > > experience of combat - a world those without the experience can only
> > > imagine. All my imagination was as nothing in the experience. I
> > > found fear and courage I am now equally ashamed of - amongst revulsion
> > > traumas distinctly post modo. Secret society experience is equally
> > > more about the 'after' even in the experience, something one has to
> > > drop to have the experience. Group experience as we refer to it often
> > > has the taste of 'forced cure' rather than your more courageous gentle
> > > touch (though I see the fist). Too many of my colleagues lapse into
> > > dreadful 'post-mortems' in which the facilitators discuss what has
> > > really been happening and this rather tells you who the event was
> > > for. The point here is not snide one-upmanship, but about what can be
> > > dared in not being as essential - by analogy the mathematical
> > > potentials of what might (even should) crystallise as social
> > > structures but don't. Classic group play can be as miraculously
> > > excluding or variably unlike 'real life' as to be little more than
> > > training nitinol (a metal amalgam) to remembe its shhape next time it
> > > is in hot water rather than producing 'shape-shifting' that works in
> > > normal conditions. I would want a radical understanding of adaptation
> > > and our great facilities to be engaged in it before we know (an an
> > > infant learning 'sight' or coping without it as a Greenland shark)
> > > before thinking and feeling on what reality we might create in being
> > > comfortably authentic in relating with others as real and not an
> > > extension of self for manipulation.
> > > > Yes, we are so often unaware of the ways that language and ideas shape
> > > > our lives, or where the words have come from and how they have evolved
> > > > through cultures. While facilitating groups, I find semantic barriers
> > > > to understanding are often cultural in origin, and once brought to
> > > > light, are no longer a barrier. Letting go of these many learned
> > > > components may be where Husserl was going in letting go of social
> > > > structures to get to the essential. At this point, do we adapt to
> > > > reality, or create our experience with a little imagination and trust
> > > > that who we are essentially and life are symbiotic?
> > > > On Nov 10, 12:09 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > The mre regurrgitation element is particularly frightening these
> > > > > days. Television news is full of it and the people working in it do
> > > > > not seem to be able to find any way of sensing how biased they are and
> > > > > the extent to which they simply network myth. Nothing cuts to a chase
> > > > > and there is nothing empirical outside the text, almost like the
> > > > > structuralist and post-structuralist claims. Even Plato was aware of
> > > > > and wrote about fears that language changed so much one could not rely
> > > > > on meaning between generations in Greece.
> > > > > Turning away from the great man, I'm struck by the way even vision has
> > > > > substantial learned components - suggesting that we may be 'designed'
> > > > > to adapt to very different realities - perhaps ones so different we
> > > > > can't imagine them, yet could adapt to them.
> > > > > > I find the thought of living one hundred years mind boggling, but I
> > > > > > suppose the continual development of ideas allows a certain amount of
> > > > > > agelessness. I looked at his material from a linguistic viewpoint,
> > > > > > and didn't delve too far into the anthropology, stopping at
> > > > > > mythologies and their cultural context. It seems to me he lead the way
> > > > > > for Joseph Campbell.
> > > > > > I do vividly remember, while studying structuralism, being struck by
> > > > > > the idea that different cultures in different eras used language in
> > > > > > their own way to convey meaning. I walked around for months analyzing
> > > > > > the use of language as it was spoken, having been given greater
> > > > > > insight into the application of working patterns that are often
> > > > > > unconscious to the speaker, learned from the environment. To this
> > > > > > day, I look to this to get a feeling for what a person has studied and
> > > > > > their previous experience, based on the words they use and how they
> > > > > > are applied in language. There can be a cohesiveness or lack of
> > > > > > cohesiveness to the patterns. There can also be a mere regurgitation
> > > > > > of the educated mind (what is learned) or an inspired use presented
> > > > > > with cohesion that only genius allows. Of course, there are many
> > > > > > other patterns and all of them convey a great deal of information
> > > > > > about the writer or speaker.
> > > > > > On Nov 7, 5:01 am, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > I meet either is daughter or grand dauhtee she askeed a very interesting
> > > > > > > question (simple) and the person she asked had no answer. Fascinating lady
> > > > > > > (about 33 years ago in El Paso TX)
> > > > > > > Allan
> > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:59 AM, archytas <nwte...@googlemal.coom> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I thought there was something in this stuff fr a whille. A book on
> > > > > > > > 'The Making of a European Business Elite' was broadly structuralist
> > > > > > > > and showed a lot I knew to be true about the nepotism and old boy (now
> > > > > > > > girl too) networks. These days I think the structuralist movement
> > > > > > > > told us nothing and really ended-up with a bunch of typical chattering
> > > > > > > > class heroes incapable of working out socialism was a failure and this
> > > > > > > > needed to be said and some real model of science embraced more
> > > > > > > > clearly. Claude was a nice man according to those who knew him and I
> > > > > > > > liked reading his work - eye-opening up until the point of trying to
> > > > > > > > make sense of modern society and his rather intense way of trying to
> > > > > > > > generalise concepts like the Trickster. I sold my copy of Triste
> > > > > > > > Tropiques a few days before he died and had a last scan of it then
> > > > > > > > before postin it offf. It felt wea and remiinded me I think sociology
> > > > > > > > is dead.
> > > > > > > > > His ideas on Structuralism opened up the world to me, as I began to
> > > > > > > > > see the patterns of language and ideas in the context of history,
> > > > > > > > > thanks to his writing. RIP
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> well, if we are manipulating some "thing" or some "other" since to
> manipulate requires an object to control, manage, or utilize - the
> object is separate from us, and so we can manipulate it. If it weren't
> we would be manipulating ourselves (and we are in a state of
> unification)
> On Nov 10, 3:58 pm, Doris Ragland <dr4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Could you explain to me about the manipulation and why it separation
> > causes this
> > On Nov 10, 9:22 am, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "what reality we might create in being
> > > comfortably authentic in relating with others as real"
> > > at this point it is all real and, as Vam points out, all true
> > > "not an extension of self for manipulation." in this state, doubt can
> > > be a handy tool as it still implies separation through manipulation.
> > > On Nov 10, 12:07 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'd go for more complication on your question Molly. You start with
> > > > something that sounds simple - bringing cultural 'issues' to light
> > > > where they cease to be a barrier - I used to condense 3 days of
> > > > strategic management into the notion of getting everyone to 'surface
> a
> > > > common language'. We know even this 'start' is difficult for many.
> > > > Deeper analysis into the questions of socially structured learning -
> > > > scalding pain and a run to the cooling waters of 'a little
> imagination
> > > > and trust ...'?
> > > > I know you have a grasp on what I would mean. I'd jump to the
> strange
> > > > experience of combat - a world those without the experience can only
> > > > imagine. All my imagination was as nothing in the experience. I
> > > > found fear and courage I am now equally ashamed of - amongst
> revulsion
> > > > traumas distinctly post modo. Secret society experience is equally
> > > > more about the 'after' even in the experience, something one has to
> > > > drop to have the experience. Group experience as we refer to it
> often
> > > > has the taste of 'forced cure' rather than your more courageous
> gentle
> > > > touch (though I see the fist). Too many of my colleagues lapse into
> > > > dreadful 'post-mortems' in which the facilitators discuss what has
> > > > really been happening and this rather tells you who the event was
> > > > for. The point here is not snide one-upmanship, but about what can
> be
> > > > dared in not being as essential - by analogy the mathematical
> > > > potentials of what might (even should) crystallise as social
> > > > structures but don't. Classic group play can be as miraculously
> > > > excluding or variably unlike 'real life' as to be little more than
> > > > training nitinol (a metal amalgam) to remember its shape next time it
> > > > is in hot water rather than producing 'shape-shifting' that works in
> > > > normal conditions. I would want a radical understanding of
> adaptation
> > > > and our great facilities to be engaged in it before we know (an an
> > > > infant learning 'sight' or coping without it as a Greenland shark)
> > > > before thinking and feeling on what reality we might create in being
> > > > comfortably authentic in relating with others as real and not an
> > > > extension of self for manipulation.
> > > > > Yes, we are so often unaware of the ways that language and ideas
> shape
> > > > > our lives, or where the words have come from and how they have
> evolved
> > > > > through cultures. While facilitating groups, I find semantic
> barriers
> > > > > to understanding are often cultural in origin, and once brought to
> > > > > light, are no longer a barrier. Letting go of these many learned
> > > > > components may be where Husserl was going in letting go of social
> > > > > structures to get to the essential. At this point, do we adapt to
> > > > > reality, or create our experience with a little imagination and
> trust
> > > > > that who we are essentially and life are symbiotic?
> > > > > On Nov 10, 12:09 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > The mere regurgitation element is particularly frightening these
> > > > > > days. Television news is full of it and the people working in it
> do
> > > > > > not seem to be able to find any way of sensing how biased they
> are and
> > > > > > the extent to which they simply network myth. Nothing cuts to a
> chase
> > > > > > and there is nothing empirical outside the text, almost like the
> > > > > > structuralist and post-structuralist claims. Even Plato was
> aware of
> > > > > > and wrote about fears that language changed so much one could not
> rely
> > > > > > on meaning between generations in Greece.
> > > > > > Turning away from the great man, I'm struck by the way even
> vision has
> > > > > > substantial learned components - suggesting that we may be
> 'designed'
> > > > > > to adapt to very different realities - perhaps ones so different
> we
> > > > > > can't imagine them, yet could adapt to them.
> > > > > > > I find the thought of living one hundred years mind boggling,
> but I
> > > > > > > suppose the continual development of ideas allows a certain
> amount of
> > > > > > > agelessness. I looked at his material from a linguistic
> viewpoint,
> > > > > > > and didn't delve too far into the anthropology, stopping at
> > > > > > > mythologies and their cultural context. It seems to me he lead
> the way
> > > > > > > for Joseph Campbell.
> > > > > > > I do vividly remember, while studying structuralism, being
> struck by
> > > > > > > the idea that different cultures in different eras used
> language in
> > > > > > > their own way to convey meaning. I walked around for months
> analyzing
> > > > > > > the use of language as it was spoken, having been given greater
> > > > > > > insight into the application of working patterns that are often
> > > > > > > unconscious to the speaker, learned from the environment. To
> this
> > > > > > > day, I look to this to get a feeling for what a person has
> studied and
> > > > > > > their previous experience, based on the words they use and how
> they
> > > > > > > are applied in language. There can be a cohesiveness or lack
> of
> > > > > > > cohesiveness to the patterns. There can also be a mere
> regurgitation
> > > > > > > of the educated mind (what is learned) or an inspired use
> presented
> > > > > > > with cohesion that only genius allows. Of course, there are
> many
> > > > > > > other patterns and all of them convey a great deal of
> information
> > > > > > > about the writer or speaker.
> > > > > > > On Nov 7, 5:01 am, iam deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I meet either is daughter or grand daughter she asked a very
> interesting
> > > > > > > > question (simple) and the person she asked had no answer.
> Fascinating lady
> > > > > > > > (about 33 years ago in El Paso TX)
> > > > > > > > Allan
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:59 AM, archytas <
> nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I thought there was something in this stuff for a while. A
> book on
> > > > > > > > > 'The Making of a European Business Elite' was broadly
> structuralist
> > > > > > > > > and showed a lot I knew to be true about the nepotism and
> old boy (now
> > > > > > > > > girl too) networks. These days I think the structuralist
> movement
> > > > > > > > > told us nothing and really ended-up with a bunch of typical
> chattering
> > > > > > > > > class heroes incapable of working out socialism was a
> failure and this
> > > > > > > > > needed to be said and some real model of science embraced
> more
> > > > > > > > > clearly. Claude was a nice man according to those who knew
> him and I
> > > > > > > > > liked reading his work - eye-opening up until the point of
> trying to
> > > > > > > > > make sense of modern society and his rather intense way of
> trying to
> > > > > > > > > generalise concepts like the Trickster. I sold my copy of
> Triste
> > > > > > > > > Tropiques a few days before he died and had a last scan of
> it then
> > > > > > > > > before posting it off. It felt weak and reminded me I
> think sociology
> > > > > > > > > is dead.
> > > > > > > > > On 6 Nov, 17:08, Molly Brogan <mollybro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > One of the worlds great thinkers, Levi-Strauss, passed
> away Nov. 4 at
> > > > > > > > > > age 100
> > > > > > > > > > His ideas on Structuralism opened up the world to me, as
> I began to
> > > > > > > > > > see the patterns of language and ideas in the context of
> history,
> > > > > > > > > > thanks to his writing. RIP
|
