The Styles At Affair: "Productive Style" And The So-Called Postmodern
Jeff Rubard
It seems that above all, the question of postmodernity -- which question
is now several decades old, as the term first appeared in a C. Wright
Mills essay in the 1960s -- is the question of style *as constitutive*.
The notion "constitutive", as it is used today by analytic philosophers,
first appeared in Kant's *Critique of Pure Reason* as "regulative
principles of reason": under this heading Kant included notions
pertaining to causality and materiality without which everyday
observations about the world could not be coherently thought. It is
used to good effect by Donald Davidson in discussing the philosophy of
psychology deriving from Bayesian decision theory/marginal-utility
economics, but has also appeared in a more sinister aspect as a dike
against the "fashionable nonsense" associated with the French
intellectual Sixties and Seventies.
Without seeking to completely "overdetermine" the apple cart, I will
begin by saying that this seems to completely miss the point of that
period's "new Nietzsche", which was to point out the amalgam of
modernism and mass culture had already made style an integral part of
the cognitive environs and that existentialist plainsong fell back
behind its own object. But what is this to us today? Honestly, nearly
everything, and in no very pleasing way; but there are a few cultural
landmarks (and recent aesthetic techniques) which suggest that a bit of
aesthetic apperception is still possible, and I would like to suggest
that something more rewarding than "reconciliation of the spirit with
itself" can be on the agenda as a result. With what does consideration
of "post-postmodernity" have to begin?
The answer I can come up with is "the reflexive closure of futurity",
but this requires some explanation as it is unlikely to please anyone.
The philosophy of time is an abysmal subdiscipline, from which tense
logics deserve to thoroughly liberated; but in this essay I will develop
these themes by considering the work of Niklas Luhmann, whose work is
still not as well-known in the United States as his work deserves to be.
This is partially because, like Juergen Habermas, Luhmann was a
follower of the sociologist Talcott Parsons, who has been almost
completely forgotten: and although one relevant essay of Luhmann's is
"The Future Cannot Begin", we cannot even begin with this until the
power of Parsons' scientific vision is understood.
Parsons' best-known work, *The Structure of Social Action*, is a
compendium of the views of "classic" sociologists: but even then Parsons
was a systematic thinker, not a systematizer, and the architectonic
dimension of his work increased over time. In fact, it seems to me
illuminating to say that the mature "systems theory" of Parsons is
*nothing but* architectonic, in contrast to the "anti-systematic"
approaches that were arising at the end of Parsons' life; Parsons' aim
was to develop the structures of social life, right down to the level of
individual experience, out of operations performed on formal automata
which play a constitutive role in social interactions. Although the end
result is often decried as arid and meaningless (and if you feel this
way about Parsons, you shouldn't read Luhmann), Parsons actually
developed many powerfully explanatory models of *trans-interactive*
social phenomena (structural features that cannot be subsumed under the
exchange of information and other delights between individuals).
Where Parsons' theory fails is in explaining "what it's like" to engage
in practical behavior in society (which encompasses both works and
days), unlike the "ethnomethodology" of the sociological Sixties in
America and Bourdieu's "reflexive sociology" of practice. Various
theories of the "micro-macro link" between social systems and
interaction were bruited in the 80s; but to me it seems that Luhmann's
Parsonsonianism is the most fruitfully considered one, because Luhmann's
program incorporates popular reflections on the "postmodern condition"
into structural-functionalism in a way sociologists in general failed to
do. For the curious, Luhmann *was* Hegel after Derrida; and thusly
examining what he has to tell us in the light of postmodern aesthetics
may be informative, if not quite as exciting.
In Germany, where he is well-read, Luhmann is often accused of being
technocratic: a very popular book containing a series of discussions
between Habermas and Luhmann was titled *Systemtheorie: Theorie der
Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie?*. But "social technology" in this
sense does not mean technology in society -- rather the understanding of
society as a sort of machine, of which the instrumental manipulation of
physical machines forms only one part. Luhmann avoided Wittgensteinian
objections to "super-rigid machines" as models of meaning not only
by not talking to Wittgensteinians, but by decentering "social physics"
from a "great chain of being" centered on the individual humanistically
considered, and constructing microsocial systems out of operations
performed upon larger ones (the largest, society in general, being a
nearly perfect analogue of the Derridean text: it is simply what no
communication is outside).
As a result, the individual that counts for social purposes -- and this
in a "constitutive" rather than "constructionist" sense -- is a
composite of characteristics acquired as *stipulated* parts of social
systems: not only "labels", but also relational properties: in the
terminology of analytic philosophy, we learn to attribute
*counterfactual* properties to people based on their utterances and
beliefs ascribed to them. We must for the purposes of social
interaction attribute some such properties, on pain of not being able
to communicate at all: this problem, posed by Parsons as "double
contingency", forms not the explicatum of Luhmann's theory of
interaction but its explicatum. The problem of double contingency is
what is preserved in observing social interaction; and preserved, not
"sublated", sublimated, or subliminated it often is in interaction itself.
This is all very enlightening to me, but a feeling people often have
reading sociological treatises (a feeling they should probably have more
often) is "What can that possibly mean?" And this is the problem of
double contingency, which I mentioned *first* in the high-sociological
style. Why? Well, as I said Luhmann's point is not that "socialization"
is the only way we can come to know other people -- perhaps we can't --
but in fact that the question of any other way does not even make sense.
From the perspective of Rousseauist concern with the authentic voice,
this seems "bass-ackward"; and this is rather clearly the intent of
Luhmann and other writers who employ such "front-loading" techniques.
Are they "problematizing" concepts, questioning widespread assumptions?
No, they are trying to get you to think of the issue in a certain
way, and by means which are devious on the printed page. So it's really
bad, even if intellectually empowering. But is there a remainder beyond
that?
Yes; what "closure under interaction" guarantees is not that you never
learn anything new, but that there is a dimension of linguistic *power*
beyond information communicated directly or indirectly --
"perlocutionary force" -- which can be coherently thought about. And
so what the widespread realization of such a phenomenon would bring
about would be the coming of Fichte's fourth age, the age of will to
power *or science*; and this would be postmodernity. But Luhmann goes
this one further, and excludes another possibility: the concrete future.
This is not the actual future; pure postmodernists maintain
surprisingly stable beliefs about the continuity of time and
institutions, and make statements about what it is they expect will
happen in a more-or-less despairing tone. But Luhmann argued very
seriously that modernity could
only persist, not be replaced, on the grounds that thought without *real
abstractions* gathered from social systems could not occur; this is the
future which cannot begin. (Horkheimer and Adorno's prescription "the
only cure for enlightenment is more enlightenment" appears positively
Brechtian in this light.)
Well, what would such real abstractions be in a period where eternal
fixities have subsided (known to Marxist theoreticians as "late
capitalism")? *Styles*, but Luhmann's point is that even this
"aestheticist relativism" cannot be done with cognitive questions on
account of micropower, and I would like to expand that out by
considering a hopeless case: the music of the band Royal Trux.
Formed out of the ashes of the shock-art band Pussy Galore, Royal Trux
are not what you would call popular (although they had their shot); and
they have not been "much-loved", especially during their highly
experimental phase which produced such masterpieces as *Twin
Infinitives*. What they are is *much-listened-to*, such that their
tours are very popular, and furthermore *controversial*; there has
always been some stink about Royal Trux, from a $100,000 record advance
spent on heroin addiction to Jennifer Herrema's retirement from recording.
What is the aesthetic effect of the music, though? "The Trux" is
canonically *trashy*; Herrema and Hagerty travel back to their tidewater
roots so often you'd think they hadn't left. And they really haven't,
but that's not the point: the experience is such that it is clear the
style is *detachable*, and as a result young people have probably known
a undistinguished white kid or two who acted real bad for no apparent
reason. But is more going on with Royal Trux's music than that? *Yes*,
and the shift back and forth between author-function and "authorial
persona" is critical here. In their self-dubbed "Intentionality Trio"
*Thank You*/*Sweet Sixteen*/*Accelerator*, the rock landmarks
of the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties are "blown up" to levels of
figuration you would not have believed possible before hearing the
records, but in the meantime an immensely realistic narrative
about the present day runs through Jennifer Herrema's "falsetto tenor"
and Hagerty's conceptualism (the band has explicitly claimed a
harmolodic focus).
These are enormously unsentimental records, extremely useful for riding
things out; but before "toughness" is taken for the mark of the
*productive style* -- which enables social interaction to take on a new
conformance, such as Luhmann declares the "language of romantic love"
appearing in the early-modern era to have done -- I invite the reader to
consider another artist,
to my mind the initiator of this tendency in American popular music,
Curtis Mayfield. Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions had a number of
crossover hits in the 60s, but today few people remember him as a major
figure except for those who can't forget his songs (and it is notable
that the music of *Superfly*, his best-selling solo record, is eminently
forgettable). Mayfield's role in the black cultural field was that
of creator: unlike most R&B artists he composed nearly all his own songs
(this was a selling point, such that he was sued for incorporating part
of a Holland-Dozier- Holland composition into "Can't Satisfy"), and
unlike James Brown there is a great deal of thematic variety
and *pointedness* to Mayfield songs.
Is "We're A Winner" message music? Not quite, and this point is
underscored by stage patter captured on live recordings. Is it intended
to have a formative effect? Not on the dedicated listener, but indeed
it is: and his solo recordings shift away from the onward-and-upward
thrust of Impressions records, towards a consideration of the black
community in its totality (although Mayfield is fairly well-known among
whites, it is patent that his "interlocutor" is in truth never one such)
and the black man qua individual. Mayfield is highly regarded for the
reason that he didn't just "have something to say", but something worth
saying to the point that repetition would be superfluous; Mayfield
lyrics are not catchphrases, but rather formed part of the "intuitive"
cultural framework of their period.
So, both acts demonstrate that another aesthetic goal beyond "exact
imagination", perfectly capturing the essence of a particular:
"effective reception", working a *self-chosen* change in people's
mindedness beyond the level of information communicated by making
figures available for personal use, either in language as vehicle or
language as medium of thought. And frankly, although the implications
of some work in this vein are frightening indeed, I could not imagine a
more extensive ambition for art.
John Timothy Hall
"The pure essence of any revelation can be obtained not only in the
case of the examination but in the regorous application of their preciples
that we do so cherish even though we go our separate ways..."
Professor Irwin Corey
--
Jeff Rubard
> "The pure essence of any revelation can be obtained not only in the
> case of the examination but in the regorous application of their preciples
> that we do so cherish even though we go our separate ways..."
>
>
> Professor Irwin Corey
>
John Timothy Hall
> ed...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Timothy Hall) wrote in message news:<bom8h4$4hf$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
>> "The pure essence of any revelation can be obtained not only in the
>> that we do so cherish even though we go our separate ways..."
>>
>>
>> Professor Irwin Corey
>>
> Well, if that's something you find enlightening, that's great.
It was supposed to be funny but i screwed it up with typos and thanks for
not calling attention to them. The "Professor" is a comedian whose act is
to parody people like Gregory Bateson, who are fond of being long winded or
you might say overly vebose.
--
Jeff Rubard
funny and things are not as funny in general here :(
Jeffrey Rubard
Jeffrey Rubard
pataphor
productive style, here's a picture from a guy who's a little full of
himself, but I have to read his page because there's kpop.
https://kpopalypse.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/cancel.jpg?w=640
Do you recognize the guy on the left, he looks a bit like you to me.
I'm not the guy on the right, but, since I mentioned kpop, I guess I
might be thrown into that pit.
And why would you not put things on usenet, are you afraid some people
might read it for real.
Jeffrey Rubard
>
> Do you recognize the guy on the left, he looks a bit like you to me.
> I'm not the guy on the right, but, since I mentioned kpop, I guess I
> might be thrown into that pit.
>
> And why would you not put things on usenet, are you afraid some people
> might read it for real.
pataphor
Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreyda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I can't even tell who said what and why here anymore. But about
> > productive style, here's a picture from a guy who's a little full
> > of himself, but I have to read his page because there's kpop.
> >
> > https://kpopalypse.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/cancel.jpg?w=640
>
> Oh, do you now target K-pop fans? What if they're not as wimpy as you
> presume they are?
that produced or found that picture you chose not to comment on. But
sure, as an artist he's probably still a weakly interacting massive particle,
you know, like retired Marxists or programmers.
> > Do you recognize the guy on the left, he looks a bit like you to
> > me. I'm not the guy on the right, but, since I mentioned kpop, I
> > guess I might be thrown into that pit.
> >
>
> I was more into Japanese punk rock, myself. But that's "old guy
> stuff" by now.
about that one zaq song, or perfume
> > And why would you not put things on usenet, are you afraid some
> > people might read it for real.
>
> Yeah, like, they're that bored...
over to interview, because they "don't want" the job. Projecting much?
Jeffrey Rubard
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 13:26:09 -0800 (PST)
> Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreyda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I can't even tell who said what and why here anymore. But about
> > > productive style, here's a picture from a guy who's a little full
> > > of himself, but I have to read his page because there's kpop.
> > >
> > > https://kpopalypse.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/cancel.jpg?w=640
> >
> > Oh, do you now target K-pop fans? What if they're not as wimpy as you
> > presume they are?
> It's the opposite, I greatly admire the creative deconstruction
> that produced or found that picture you chose not to comment on. But
> sure, as an artist he's probably still a weakly interacting massive particle,
> you know, like retired Marxists or programmers.
> > > Do you recognize the guy on the left, he looks a bit like you to
> > > me. I'm not the guy on the right, but, since I mentioned kpop, I
> > > guess I might be thrown into that pit.
> > >
> >
> > I was more into Japanese punk rock, myself. But that's "old guy
> > stuff" by now.
> Japanese music seems to be too advanced for me, unless you're talking
> about that one zaq song, or perfume
"Advanced" is not exactly the feeling.
> > > And why would you not put things on usenet, are you afraid some
> > > people might read it for real.
> >
> > Yeah, like, they're that bored...
> Your boss must have been quite mad at you for inviting people like me
> over to interview, because they "don't want" the job. Projecting much?
finely-honed psychopathic predilections "aren't going to be a thing"
I'm going to need to worry about, for one reason or another.
Am I right?
pataphor
Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreyda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's the opposite, I greatly admire the creative deconstruction
> > that produced or found that picture you chose not to comment on.
> > But sure, as an artist he's probably still a weakly interacting
> > massive particle, you know, like retired Marxists or programmers.
>
> ...But you don't rape them? Either gender? (That's awesome, guy.)
say you doth complain too much.
> > Japanese music seems to be too advanced for me, unless you're
> > talking about that one zaq song, or perfume
>
> Teengenerate? Guitar Wolf? The 5.6.7.8.'s, who were in that one movie
> you are "au fait" with? "Advanced" is not exactly the feeling.
cultures often find different things important, then, if trying to make
things even better, of course some things can seem out of touch with
the original spirit, as the context is not enhanced equally, or at least
adapted. Like you have a mathematician try very hard to determine truth,
when Wittgenstein at that point had already claimed that a camera
can not make a picture of itself. Not that that seems impossible, it
just needs the specific kind of recursion mathematicians suck at the
most.
> > Your boss must have been quite mad at you for inviting people like
> > me over to interview, because they "don't want" the job. Projecting
> > much?
>
> This is like a "favorite word", this "projecting". I am "projecting"
> that your finely-honed psychopathic predilections "aren't going to be
> a thing" I'm going to need to worry about, for one reason or another.
> Am I right?
point might enable you to just fly away by constantly missing the
floor, Douglas Adams style.
Jeffrey Rubard
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 15:38:10 -0800 (PST)
> Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreyda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > It's the opposite, I greatly admire the creative deconstruction
> > > that produced or found that picture you chose not to comment on.
> > > But sure, as an artist he's probably still a weakly interacting
> > > massive particle, you know, like retired Marxists or programmers.
> >
> > ...But you don't rape them? Either gender? (That's awesome, guy.)
> If you were a lady, and hadn't canceled Shakespeare for misogyny, I'd
> say you doth complain too much.
widely known for unkindness to female characters, then or since.)
> > > Japanese music seems to be too advanced for me, unless you're
> > > talking about that one zaq song, or perfume
> >
> > Teengenerate? Guitar Wolf? The 5.6.7.8.'s, who were in that one movie
> > you are "au fait" with? "Advanced" is not exactly the feeling.
> Don't know these, but what I meant with 'advanced' is different
> cultures often find different things important, then, if trying to make
> things even better, of course some things can seem out of touch with
> the original spirit, as the context is not enhanced equally, or at least
> adapted. Like you have a mathematician try very hard to determine truth,
> when Wittgenstein at that point had already claimed that a camera
> can not make a picture of itself. Not that that seems impossible, it
> just needs the specific kind of recursion mathematicians suck at the
> most.
devoid of attention to the topic on the level of either K-pop or J-rock
(For the audience: I think we've discussed these things before, years
ago.) I believe the Wittgenstein quote is intended to be "apocryphal",
that it does not refer to even something similar to what is sketched.
"Dummy." The talk about recursion is also "woo-woo": it's not how
the concept actually works, but like a Roach Motel for people that
don't know that.)
> > > Your boss must have been quite mad at you for inviting people like
> > > me over to interview, because they "don't want" the job. Projecting
> > > much?
> >
> > This is like a "favorite word", this "projecting". I am "projecting"
> > that your finely-honed psychopathic predilections "aren't going to be
> > a thing" I'm going to need to worry about, for one reason or another.
> > Am I right?
> I guess so, since your superhuman faculties of failing to address the
> point might enable you to just fly away by constantly missing the
> floor, Douglas Adams style.
I've been not cowed and amused for so long, it's not true, maybe your
remark just sucks?
pataphor
Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreyda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you were a lady, and hadn't canceled Shakespeare for misogyny,
> > I'd say you doth complain too much.
>
> Yeah, that's a rapist move. (Is, people. Both parts; Shakespeare not
> widely known for unkindness to female characters, then or since.)
desiring to be be raped.
> > Don't know these, but what I meant with 'advanced' is different
> > cultures often find different things important, then, if trying to
> > make things even better, of course some things can seem out of
> > touch with the original spirit, as the context is not enhanced
> > equally, or at least adapted. Like you have a mathematician try
> > very hard to determine truth, when Wittgenstein at that point had
> > already claimed that a camera can not make a picture of itself. Not
> > that that seems impossible, it just needs the specific kind of
> > recursion mathematicians suck at the most.
>
> Are your hands just "itching to grab" as you write this? Also
> completely devoid of attention to the topic on the level of either
> K-pop or J-rock (For the audience: I think we've discussed these
> things before, years ago.) I believe the Wittgenstein quote is
> intended to be "apocryphal", that it does not refer to even something
> similar to what is sketched. "Dummy." The talk about recursion is
> also "woo-woo": it's not how the concept actually works, but like a
> Roach Motel for people that don't know that.)
not relevant in a thread about productive style ...
And you don't still hope for me to begin talking about specific kpops,
as I'm sure they'd all be dragged into some corner where they'd be
equipped with some motives to do onto you what you can't admit to
yourself as to be asking, something I think would kind of fall under
Wittgenstein's purview, as it technically complies with his ideas about
things one cannot talk about, while still missing the point of his
theories in a way that isn't even wrong.
> > > This is like a "favorite word", this "projecting". I am
> > > "projecting" that your finely-honed psychopathic predilections
> > > "aren't going to be a thing" I'm going to need to worry about,
> > > for one reason or another. Am I right?
>
> > I guess so, since your superhuman faculties of failing to address
> > the point might enable you to just fly away by constantly missing
> > the floor, Douglas Adams style.
>
> Wow, I think you need to go "back to the drawing board" on this one.
> I've been not cowed and amused for so long, it's not true, maybe your
> remark just sucks?
is wrong (my supposed 'predilections'), one can derive anything from
that. Or as a programmer would say it, more to the point, "garbage in,
garbage out".
Jeffrey Rubard
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 16:43:43 -0800 (PST)
> Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreyda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If you were a lady, and hadn't canceled Shakespeare for misogyny,
> > > I'd say you doth complain too much.
> >
> > Yeah, that's a rapist move. (Is, people. Both parts; Shakespeare not
> > widely known for unkindness to female characters, then or since.)
> So now you have to even protect Shakespeare, in order to not be seen as
> desiring to be be raped.
monster, and the formula is schizoid but in the form of actively evil.
"coining a phrase". Furthermore, Wittgenstein was pretty much
obviously not keen on the European "subtle aggressors" of his day.
(The ones of our day all talk like this, and people "see through it",
but perhaps just not enough.)
> > > > This is like a "favorite word", this "projecting". I am
> > > > "projecting" that your finely-honed psychopathic predilections
> > > > "aren't going to be a thing" I'm going to need to worry about,
> > > > for one reason or another. Am I right?
> >
> > > I guess so, since your superhuman faculties of failing to address
> > > the point might enable you to just fly away by constantly missing
> > > the floor, Douglas Adams style.
> >
> > Wow, I think you need to go "back to the drawing board" on this one.
> > I've been not cowed and amused for so long, it's not true, maybe your
> > remark just sucks?
> But it is true, as any mathematician could tell you: When the premise
> is wrong (my supposed 'predilections'), one can derive anything from
> that. Or as a programmer would say it, more to the point, "garbage in,
> garbage out".
Jeffrey Rubard
pataphor
> On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 6:40:37 AM UTC-8, pataphor wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 16:43:43 -0800 (PST)
> > Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreyda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > If you were a lady, and hadn't canceled Shakespeare for
> > > > misogyny, I'd say you doth complain too much.
> > >
> > > Yeah, that's a rapist move. (Is, people. Both parts; Shakespeare
> > > not widely known for unkindness to female characters, then or
> > > since.)
> > So now you have to even protect Shakespeare, in order to not be
> > seen as desiring to be be raped.
>
> You disgust me. Nobody ever "doth protest too much", you subhuman
> monster, and the formula is schizoid but in the form of actively evil.
like, after struggling for weeks with a rubik's cube I hear that it
might be related to group theory, then, if I decide to educate myself on
that, I am faced with wikipedia pages that insist on disconnecting
myself from my lived experience with solving rubik's cubes,
in favor of accepting a multitude of different terminologies that I
can't quickly decide upon the relevance of, because you know what, when
I look at the pages where those terms are supposed to be explained,
those pages also insist that, before I get to see what the page is
about, they require one to also first accept a new set of terminologies,
and once again one hasn't gotten a single step further with deciding if
it might be relevant for the previous page, in the sense of creating a
terminology that helps me think about rubik's cubes, especially if I am
trying to program them.
I have spent too many hours kind of contemplating that maybe I am the
problem, maybe I am too dumb to grasp that stuff, and things would
become better if I just merge myself with that world for long enough,
but then the same thing happens when looking up stuff about quantum
physics, which seems to depend on Lie groups or whatever, or weird
matrices, with which I once again have some basic hands on
experience, when trying to figure out permutations of 2 or 3 dimensional
puzzles or games, or just because permutations interest me very much,
along with integer partitioning and set partitioning or whatever
interesting programming problems that are connected with that, and yes,
it can be clustering algorithms, simplex models, minimal spanning
trees, hamilton circuits, hamming distances, cryptography, compression
theory, all that kind of stuff, up to AI and game engines. Oh, and
fuzzy set theory and genetic algorithms. I might have forgotten some.
But all these places are blocked by these intellectual squatters that
insist on enforcing their terminology and on cross linking it to every
possible thing under the sun, that is then also shaded by their
infinite ego and manifestation compulsion.
So these people are a pest, even if they appear to be 'helpful' in
'assisting' people to get their terminology right, instead of opting
for a more human friendly view that considers where people might be
coming from, what level they currently are, and where they want to go.
What's even more exasperating is that some of these people, thinking
they thus have gained intellectual dominance in field A, acquire the
chutzpah to also start 'defining' terms for others in fields they know
next to nothing about, like kpop, or recursion.
If you ever played chess, you'd have noticed the effect that, when going
to a chess club, unless you are a natural genius, most of the lower
level players would beat you every time, unless one slowly works oneself
up the hard way, and even then, at some point progress that way is
slowed, maybe even halts. My experience was not so much with chess,
more with go, but I figure it's not too different in that respect.
But even so, there are people listening to kpop every day, thinking
about computer algorithms, yes, involving recursion, playing chess or
go, while involving themselves in discussions about politics or
philosophy.
Such people really don't need being lectured and forced into an
intellectual framework and technology that only applies to specialists
in a very obscure field, instead of doing the reasonable thing,
continuously creating, borrowing and adapting language and thought
forms that are adequate for communication between people coming from
very diverse sets of backgrounds.
Doing anything else quickly becomes a form of intellectual oppression
and limits expression.
Am I afraid that by inconveniencing the intellectual elite in the
various specialties in this way, I might tempt them to retreat in
their ivory towers, never to enlighten us again with their superior
terminology and methods? No, not at all, I'd even vastly prefer for
them to fuck off, taking all their knowledge with them if we can't have
it any other way, because what we'd get back is a very much broader
base, that would recover most of what they were hoarding for themselves
anyway, in a relatively short time, but what's more important, that way
we'd get an intellectual momentum forwards that is not capped by these
crazy egocentrics. And also, I'm afraid they might have deprived us of
many alternative routes and solutions they can't themselves see anymore,
after locking themselves away in some fixed terminology, and worldview,
because language is an important way of defining the world via our
first attention, even though vastly inferior to our possible second or
third attentions, that however can't materially sustain themselves for
now, unless first given the opportunity to grow up enough to reach a
point where they can become self sustaining, throwing off the linguistic
straight jacket like it is some skin, or a shell, that has grown too
small or too stiff.
Now as to the persons that willing counteract this process, out of ego,
obstinacy or even stupidity, yes you are gross and disgusting, however
politically incorrect I might sound here.
You fucking intellectual sadist and language rapist.
> > > > > This is like a "favorite word", this "projecting". I am
> > > > > "projecting" that your finely-honed psychopathic
> > > > > predilections "aren't going to be a thing" I'm going to need
> > > > > to worry about, for one reason or another. Am I right?
> > >
> > > > I guess so, since your superhuman faculties of failing to
> > > > address the point might enable you to just fly away by
> > > > constantly missing the floor, Douglas Adams style.
> > >
> > > Wow, I think you need to go "back to the drawing board" on this
> > > one. I've been not cowed and amused for so long, it's not true,
> > > maybe your remark just sucks?
>
> > But it is true, as any mathematician could tell you: When the
> > premise is wrong (my supposed 'predilections'), one can derive
> > anything from that. Or as a programmer would say it, more to the
> > point, "garbage in, garbage out".
>
> *Ex falso quodlibet*. Is that, then, why you talk so much garbage?
>
> Jeffrey Rubard
Jeffrey Rubard
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 11:00:33 -0800 (PST)
> Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreyda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 6:40:37 AM UTC-8, pataphor wrote:
> > > On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 16:43:43 -0800 (PST)
> > > Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreyda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > If you were a lady, and hadn't canceled Shakespeare for
> > > > > misogyny, I'd say you doth complain too much.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, that's a rapist move. (Is, people. Both parts; Shakespeare
> > > > not widely known for unkindness to female characters, then or
> > > > since.)
> > > So now you have to even protect Shakespeare, in order to not be
> > > seen as desiring to be be raped.
> >
> > You disgust me. Nobody ever "doth protest too much", you subhuman
> > monster, and the formula is schizoid but in the form of actively evil.
> Actually, you are the disgusting one, for reason I'll explain below.
behavioral problem that is just fantastically obvious to everyone but you.
> I have spent too many hours kind of contemplating that maybe I am the
> problem, maybe I am too dumb to grasp that stuff, and things would
> become better if I just merge myself with that world for long enough,
> but then the same thing happens when looking up stuff about quantum
> physics, which seems to depend on Lie groups or whatever, or weird
> matrices, with which I once again have some basic hands on
> experience, when trying to figure out permutations of 2 or 3 dimensional
> puzzles or games, or just because permutations interest me very much,
> along with integer partitioning and set partitioning or whatever
> interesting programming problems that are connected with that, and yes,
> it can be clustering algorithms, simplex models, minimal spanning
> trees, hamilton circuits, hamming distances, cryptography, compression
> theory, all that kind of stuff, up to AI and game engines. Oh, and
> fuzzy set theory and genetic algorithms. I might have forgotten some.
>
> But all these places are blocked by these intellectual squatters that
> insist on enforcing their terminology and on cross linking it to every
> possible thing under the sun, that is then also shaded by their
> infinite ego and manifestation compulsion.
>
> So these people are a pest, even if they appear to be 'helpful' in
> 'assisting' people to get their terminology right, instead of opting
> for a more human friendly view that considers where people might be
> coming from, what level they currently are, and where they want to go.
>
> What's even more exasperating is that some of these people, thinking
> they thus have gained intellectual dominance in field A, acquire the
> chutzpah to also start 'defining' terms for others in fields they know
> next to nothing about, like kpop, or recursion.
>
Yiddish words, though? The "joys" of the language may have been
exaggerated a little.
> If you ever played chess, you'd have noticed the effect that, when going
> to a chess club, unless you are a natural genius, most of the lower
> level players would beat you every time, unless one slowly works oneself
> up the hard way, and even then, at some point progress that way is
> slowed, maybe even halts. My experience was not so much with chess,
> more with go, but I figure it's not too different in that respect.
>
> But even so, there are people listening to kpop every day, thinking
> about computer algorithms, yes, involving recursion, playing chess or
> go, while involving themselves in discussions about politics or
> philosophy.
>
> Such people really don't need being lectured and forced into an
> intellectual framework and technology that only applies to specialists
> in a very obscure field, instead of doing the reasonable thing,
> continuously creating, borrowing and adapting language and thought
> forms that are adequate for communication between people coming from
> very diverse sets of backgrounds.
>
> Doing anything else quickly becomes a form of intellectual oppression
> and limits expression.
>
> Am I afraid that by inconveniencing the intellectual elite in the
> various specialties in this way, I might tempt them to retreat in
> their ivory towers, never to enlighten us again with their superior
> terminology and methods? No, not at all, I'd even vastly prefer for
> them to fuck off, taking all their knowledge with them if we can't have
> it any other way, because what we'd get back is a very much broader
> base, that would recover most of what they were hoarding for themselves
> anyway, in a relatively short time, but what's more important, that way
> we'd get an intellectual momentum forwards that is not capped by these
> crazy egocentrics. And also, I'm afraid they might have deprived us of
> many alternative routes and solutions they can't themselves see anymore,
> after locking themselves away in some fixed terminology, and worldview,
> because language is an important way of defining the world via our
> first attention, even though vastly inferior to our possible second or
> third attentions, that however can't materially sustain themselves for
> now, unless first given the opportunity to grow up enough to reach a
> point where they can become self sustaining, throwing off the linguistic
> straight jacket like it is some skin, or a shell, that has grown too
> small or too stiff.
>
Probably more than I even know, too.
> Now as to the persons that willing counteract this process, out of ego,
> obstinacy or even stupidity, yes you are gross and disgusting, however
> politically incorrect I might sound here.
>
> You fucking intellectual sadist and language rapist.
diametrically different things.
> > > > > > This is like a "favorite word", this "projecting". I am
> > > > > > "projecting" that your finely-honed psychopathic
> > > > > > predilections "aren't going to be a thing" I'm going to need
> > > > > > to worry about, for one reason or another. Am I right?
> > > >
> > > > > I guess so, since your superhuman faculties of failing to
> > > > > address the point might enable you to just fly away by
> > > > > constantly missing the floor, Douglas Adams style.
> > > >
> > > > Wow, I think you need to go "back to the drawing board" on this
> > > > one. I've been not cowed and amused for so long, it's not true,
> > > > maybe your remark just sucks?
> >
> > > But it is true, as any mathematician could tell you: When the
> > > premise is wrong (my supposed 'predilections'), one can derive
> > > anything from that. Or as a programmer would say it, more to the
> > > point, "garbage in, garbage out".
> >
> > *Ex falso quodlibet*. Is that, then, why you talk so much garbage?
> >
> > Jeffrey Rubard
> quodlibet ad astra
Jeffrey Rubard
pataphor
Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreyda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now, that's not "nice" language, it's sort of like you have an
> extensive behavioral problem that is just fantastically obvious to
> everyone but you.
there
Jeffrey Rubard
Or did you "get into" a human being without their permission and
then injured them when they violently protested your assault?