Who wants to be a history professor?
Kater Moggin
Kater Moggin <mog...@mediaone.net>:
[quoting Weber]
>> The process of separation, which Hartz later designated
>> as one of 'fragmentation,' thus entailed two, correlative,
>> but not unambiguous gestures. The first was that of
>> _universalization_. It was not that the Lockean tenet of
>> naturally free individuals claimed universal validity, for
>> that was true of the European paradigm no less than the
>> American. Rather, the implicit but decisive context in
>> which those claims operated was transformed drastically
>> due to the absence of the historical antagonists against
>> which Lockean thought developed its articulations. In
>> short, without Robert Filmer, as the spokeman for a
>> feudally oriented, aristocratic society, the status of
>> Locke's thought was altered: it became _static_
>> precisely for want of the other.
marko_...@hotmail.com (Marko Amnell):
> I wonder if the situation was different in the Southern States?
> given that the old, pre-Civil War social order had many
> similarities to feudalism. Some historians (such as Barrington
> Moore) saw the Civil War as a conflict between a feudal South,
> and a bourgeois North. The American Civil War was, for Moore,
> "the last bourgeois revolution". I don't know enough about
> American history to judge whether the Civil War would thus
> have introduced more "conflict" into the development of
> American liberalism (assuming the validity of Hartz's theory).
Given the antebellum South was an example of feudalism, as
opposed to an _Ivanhoe_-reading wannabe, Hartz' thesis
wouldn't apply there. (And after all, Atlanta is the corporate
headquarters of the Real Thing.) On the other hand, think
of the civil rights era, when liberalism momentarily recaptured
its historic role. How come? Because it was belatedly
warring against the still-feudal society of the southern states.
I'd argue that the U.S. never abandoned feudalism with the
thoroughness Hartz' claims, since liberalism has failed to
make any headway in most social institutions. Take schools and
businesses, which operate -- allowing for some exceptions --
in the traditional, top-down, yes-m'lord style. Liberalism has
a fairly small role in U.S. society, considering its reign
over the political system, and efforts to change that are often
fiercely opposed, as in the case of Jim Crow.
>> Instead of advancing its
>> claims to univeral validity within a social and political
>> sphere that was anything but homogeneous, it could present
>> them as being coextensive with that sphere itself (which,
>> in a certain sense, they were, since the emigrated
>> American colonials did not reinstate the force of the
>> European feudal past, but only that of its burgeoning
>> bourgeois present). The Lockean paradigm thus was able to
>> institutionalize itself as what Hartz calls an "absolutist"
>> or "compulsive" liberalism that dominated -- and still
>> dominates -- the American intellectual tradition.
>> The second gesture implied in this process, a correlative
>> of the first, entails the _status of conflict_, ethically,
>> epistemologically, politically. By thus universalizing
>> itself, American liberalism no longer accepted the
>> necessity of historial and social conflict as had been the
>> case, inevitably, for its European version. As Hartz puts
>> it, it lost "that sense of relativity, that spark of
>> philosophy, which European liberalism acquired through an
>> internal experience of social diversity and social
>> conflict." This does not, of course, mean that American
>> liberalism denied conflict entirely -- which would have
>> been a rather remarkable feat -- but rather, that it
>> redefined the place and the nature of conflict, precisely
>> by placing it _within_ a "natural" context, which, qua
>> natural, could not itself be considered as subject to
>> conflict or to (legitimate) controversy. Thus, the most
>> aggressive competition among private individuals and
>> groups could be encouraged, whereas any challenge to the
>> "natural" hierarchy subordinating public to private was
>> not. Conflict was accepted only as a technical instrument
>> in order to achieve ends that were held to be above
>> (legitimate) conflict.
Marko:
> It occurs to me that there were political radicals in the
> United States during the 19th and early 20th centuries.
> Anarchism, for example, was born the in US, and was
> subsequently brutally crushed. And Noam Chomsky makes a
> great deal of the anti-union violence during the early
> 20th century. From one point of view, this supports Hartz's
> analysis, as the brutality of the government reaction to
> political radicalism shows that it was considered to be
> totally unacceptable and alien. On the other hand, the very
> existence of anarchism and socialism in American politcal
> history casts doubt on claims it was "static".
It doesn't make the above claims doubtful, since anarchism
-- bomb-throwing anarchism, even more -- is considered
illegimate in the U.S. ("But that would be anarchy!" is rarely
offered as a recommendation.) Revolutionary violence is
totally unacceptable, despite a precedent that couldn't be more
obvious.
Moggin:
>> Weber's own interest, in this essay, lies in the reception
>> of pomos by U.S. academia, and what it indicates about the
>> nature of the university, where pluralism, so-called, functions
>> "precisely to deny the necessity of conflict."
>> Whatever the merits of Hartz's arguments as an explanation
>> of American political culture -- and my feeling is that
>> they deserve more serious consideration than they have
>> received -- they undoubtedly cast considerable light on
>> the transformation undergone by certain French thinkers
>> as they have been imported into the United States (and
>> perhaps, more generally, into the English-language
>> universe of discourse). If authors such as Derrida,
>> Foucault, and, to a lesser extent, Lacan, have been
>> granted admission to the American Academy, the price they
>> have had to pay has generally entailed the
>> universalization and individualization of their work,
>> which has thereby been purged of its conflictual and
>> strategic elements and presented instead as a
>> self-standing metholody.
Marko:
> I think Weber's interpretation is questionable because Derrida
> and Foucault were operating within the French intellectual
> tradition, which has always been highly cosmopolitan and
> universalistic.
Weber's point is that when their ideas were extracted from
their original setting, their "conflictual and strategic
elements" were obscured, as Hartz claims happened to Locke when
he was exported to America. But de Man used the very same
logic to smooth over conflicts that arose here when pomo -- not
his term -- got to the U.S.: he argued it would be less
threatening when understood in context of the European agonisms
it emerged from.
I don't notice Weber denying that French intellectuals are
cosmopolitan, or that they have their own universalizing
impulses. He says thru Hartz that Locke's liberal universalism
-- an example of European philosophy imported by America --
was a revolutionary criticism of Robert Filmer's feudalism, but
became naturalized and totalizing when moved overseas and
lifted from the social and political arena it initially battled
in.
Then he suggests that the same sorta thing happened to the
pomos.
> Of course post-1789 French political thought
> was dominated by the long shadow of the Revolution and Terror
> (and then Napoleon and the Restoration), and this was very
> evident in the "conflictual" nature of the political theories
> of the 1968 generation (of which Derrida, Foucault and Deleuze
> were a part).
> But I think the nature of the American postmodernism is more
> determined by the anti-intellectualism of American society
> outside academia. This is the most striking thing about
> American society for an educated European visitor. Intellectuals,
> including pomo academics, simply feel like outsiders in the
> US. They are ignored by the plutocratic elite. That is
> totally different from the European context, where "Society"
> has always included leading representatives from academia,
> business, politics, and the professions. American postmodernism,
> to me, seems like a form of escapism. Since the Left in the
> US is totally, absolutely incapable of real social change,
> and found this out after 1968, radical politics retreated
> into the Ivory Tower and turned from the criticism of society
> to the criticism of language. Academics found a realm of
> freedom from social constraint within the study of language.
I've heard that theory before -- it's what Eagleton argues
in _The Illusions of Post-modernism_. But unlike you,
Eagleton doesn't confine his case to the U.S. -- he applies the
same reasoning to pomo in general, claiming that it was a
response to the political defeat of the New Left. I don't find
that convincing, but he's right about one thing: the 60's
left was defeated in Europe as well as the U.S. The revolution
didn't happen in either place.
(To be accurate, Eagleton doesn't quite admit the left was
defeated -- he takes the position that leftists first lost
their nerve, then went on to act as tho they had been beaten in
the field.)
> Later this led to Political Correctness, so that if no social
> change was possible, at least people could be coerced into
> speaking in a non-sexist, non-racist manner. The whole thing
> (American academia, and the humanities especially) is a big
> mess, but at least the Universities provide lucrative
> employment for many intelletuals.
Yeah. Thank god Stanley Fish can afford a Jaguar to drive
around in.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
Lew Mammel <l.ma...@worldnet.att.net>:
> When I pointed out how ridiculous Eco's
> textbook on Semiotics was ( A textbook, mind you. ) no one cared to
> defend it.
What of it? I've read _The Name of the Rose_, _Travels in
Hyperreality_, and _Foucault's Pendulum_. The first two I
liked, but I don't feel obligated to defend them on every score.
The third I wouldn't defend on _any_ score.
I know -- you're talking about a bad textbook. (I'll take
your word it's bad.) And you know where I'm gonna go with
that. The problem isn't that Eco wrote a bad book; the problem
is students are forced to read the thing.
You want ridiculous, then talk about an educational system
that's authoritarian from grade school thru grad school --
except for those few progressive programs sufficiently advanced
to run the liberal shuck-and-jive.
ObBook: Philip K. Dick, _We Can Build You_.
> It was passe.
> "Where to? What next?"
and you may ask yourself, what is that beautiful house
and you may ask yourself, where does that highway go
and you may ask yourself, am i right, am i wrong
and you may tell yourself, my god, what have i done
"Come on, Antonio. Don't think about it anymore or you'll
go crazy." Cesar in _Open Your Eyes_.
-- Moggi
Kater Moggin
The Other <a_a_...@mail.com>:
> Maybe a theory is good enough to suggest some good reforms
> here and there -- for instance, I think it was socialists who
> suggested the shorter work week about a century ago.
Reforms from within have been well compared to efforts to
raise one's self by the boot-straps: they excite our
attention, but are ineffective; for this reason they are
always recommended by those interested in maintaining the
status quo.
A.E. Newton, "The Greatest Book in the World"
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
Kater Moggin <mog...@mediaone.net> quotes Sam Weber:
>> To use the familiar terms
>> of speech-act theory, the Lockean paradigm thus lost its
>> performative connotations when it emigrated to America,
>> where it imposed its authority all the more effectively
>> by presenting itself as an essentially constantive act.
Dylan Bryan-Dolman <DylanBD*SPAM*B*GONE*@earthlink.net>:
> Well, the terms of speech-act theory are not familiar to me, and I
> don't understand exactly what Weber means by "performative".
> But I don't see how a theory *can* stop being performative as I
> understand the word. Any theory is always going to be in the
> business of self-assertion through rhetoric.
He's not claiming it loses its performative dimension; his
point is that it loses the connotations deriving from its
performance in its original context, so that rather than an act
of resistance to feudalism, it becomes a supposedly
contextless truth fit to serve as the foundation of the liberal
state.
> And it seems
> to me that our cultural amnesia is one part of what makes America dynamic
> in its thinking, not static. Since most of our ideas appear to us out of
> their original cultural contexts, we have to find new ways to ground them
> and connect them to each other and to ordinary life. Look at the way we
> gobble up eastern ideas and of course the poor old Frenchies. Dynamic!
> Performative!
Weber doesn't argue that U.S. culture resists new thoughts
-- he's making a point about the way it appropriates them.
Locke's philosophy became a static system rather than a dynamic
gesture. Ditto the pomos' thinking. Those ideas -- he
contends -- are robbed of their context and turned into statues
of themselves.
-- Moggin
Dylan Bryan-Dolman
> The Other <a_a_...@mail.com>:
> > Maybe a theory is good enough to suggest some good reforms
> > here and there -- for instance, I think it was socialists who
> > suggested the shorter work week about a century ago.
>
I don't think you can really call the early labor movement "reform from
within". Both parties certainly felt and acted adversarial enough.
Clark Goble
| I know -- you're talking about a bad textbook. (I'll
| take your word it's bad.) And you know where I'm
| gonna go with that. The problem isn't that Eco
| wrote a bad book; the problem is students are
| forced to read the thing.
Bad as a textbook (heaven knows there are plenty of those) or bad as a
discussion of semiotics? BTW - which book are you referring to? _A Theory
of Semiotics_? If so, was that ever intended as a textbook? I can't
imagine trying to learn semiotics from it. Perhaps a few pages photocopied
here or there would be of aid to a teacher, but that's all I could imagine.
___ Moggin ___
| I've read _The Name of the Rose_, _Travels in
| Hyperreality_, and _Foucault's Pendulum_. The first
| two I liked, but I don't feel obligated to defend
| them on every score. The third I wouldn't defend on
| _any_ score.
___
Interesting. I thought _Name of the Rose_ was interesting, although not as
good as the hype. _The Island of the Day Before_ I never was able to really
finish. _Foucault's Pendulum_ though is still one of my all time favorite
works of fiction. _Travels in Hyperreality_ I've never read.
Lewis Mammel
Clark Goble wrote:
>
> ___ Moggin ___
> | I know -- you're talking about a bad textbook. (I'll
> | take your word it's bad.) And you know where I'm
> | gonna go with that. The problem isn't that Eco
> | wrote a bad book; the problem is students are
> | forced to read the thing.
> ___
>
> Bad as a textbook (heaven knows there are plenty of those) or bad as a
> discussion of semiotics? BTW - which book are you referring to? _A Theory
> of Semiotics_? If so, was that ever intended as a textbook? I can't
> imagine trying to learn semiotics from it. Perhaps a few pages photocopied
> here or there would be of aid to a teacher, but that's all I could imagine.
Bad as a discussion of semiotics. I called it a textbook because of
its title and evident expository aim. You can find my 1991 article
critiquing the "watergate" model with a google groups search on
[ mammel eco watergate ] ... it's the first match.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Kater Moggin
> I don't think you can really call the early labor movement "reform
> from within". Both parties certainly felt and acted adversarial enough.
Agreed. The Wobblies et al. weren't aiming at mere reform.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
I thought _Name of the Rose_ was interesting, although not
> as good as the hype. _The Island of the Day Before_ I never was able
> to really finish. _Foucault's Pendulum_ though is still one of my
> all time favorite works of fiction. _Travels in Hyperreality_ I've
> never read.
Essay collection. I thought it was good fun, but FC bored
me, so you might not agree.
-- Moggin
Clark Goble
___ Lewis ___
| Bad as a discussion of semiotics. I called it a textbook
| because of its title and evident expository aim. You
| can find my 1991 article critiquing the "watergate" model
| with a google groups search on [ mammel eco watergate ]
| ... it's the first match.
Interesting. Especially since that section and model wasn't originated by
Eco at all. Rather he is following Tullio De Mauro who presented it way
back in 1966.
I'll not summarize the argument (it is on pages 33-35) but your criticism is
OK, what he's saying is that two bulbs are always
lit. But why? A second ago he was talking about
mutually exclusive 'levels of signal'. Now with
four 'signals' we have something like a TouchTone,
but why the jump? And why bring up 16 ordered pairs
just to knock them back down to C(4,2)? Does he
really have a clear idea of what he's doing here?
It sure doesn't seem like it.
He's explaining a system to detect danger. Thus he wants to observe
*transitions*. Basically he has a level guage that corresponds to colored
lights, represented by the letters A, B, C & D.
------------
| A B C D |
------------
D is the lowest level of water on up to the highest. These are set of by
some buoy in the water. Depending upon the height of the buoy it signals
some electrical pulse or the like that goes to the monitor. Thus physically
we have something like this:
|
| A 6"
| B 5"
| C 4" --<*>------- water level
| D 3"
|
Thus you start at some level, say C. Then you move up (more water) to B.
The monitor shows light C and light B on. We don't care about the
difference between CB and BC because all we have is the monitor, not some
time based recording. Presumably the monitor works so that a new signal hits
a transitor and turns off the previous one. (It's been too long since I
worked with transitors and the like, so don't ask for the circuit. Given
the state of electronics back in 1966 I'm sure its simple though) Anyway,
for the purpose of the illustration all we get to see are what two lights
are on, representing the last transition. By that reasoning we reject
transitions A->A, B->B, and so forth because there is no change and thus no
real transition. i.e. if you are at level B and stay at level B no trigger
takes place so the display remains constant.
This gives us in a straightforward way the following possible displays
AB, BC, CD, AD, AC, BD.
From those signals we could construct extra circuits that do different
things based upon what two lights have power. Eco says that AB, for
instance represents danger. That means that either the water has gone from
5" to 6". So that is danger. Now you might argue what about the water
staying at 6"? Well in that case the signal stays the same. What about it
moving from 6" to 5"? Well the signal still stays the same. It will remain
the same until it drops to 4" at which case we'll get BC.
About the only confusing problem might be the transition from either 6" to
3" or vice versa (AD). That registers "insuffiency." I'm not sure how you
could get that. Presumably it is an unused sign and the engineer used it to
signal something unusual via some other mechanism. Likewise the signals AC
or BD are unused and could represent something special. Actually perhaps AD
happens when the water drops so fast that the signalling mechanism couldn't
keep up -i.e. a rapid flow of water which means a big leak somewhere. This
seems right as Eco then says that AC is synonymous with AB. (Presumably
when water is rising rapidly as opening the gate would always result in AD)
The reason for the illustration is to show synonymy, how complexity can be
represented by a few signs (something that happens a lot in natural
languages), and so forth. Further it illustrates a few grammatical issues.
(i.e. in many languages "Bob ran" and "ran Bob" mean the same thing) It
isn't meant to really teach Semiotics. As I said, _A Theory of Semiotics_
is *not* a good book for the beginner. But it has quite a few very
interesting chapters. It's a nice summary of issues for those who have
already read their Pierce, Saussure, and so forth.
Getting back to the model, what he uses it for is shown on pages 36-46.
They are the basic topics that he then delves into more depth in later.
Anyway, if your entire criticism of Eco is "I didn't understand the
Watergate model" then I'm not too impressed. <Grin>
Lewis Mammel
Clark Goble wrote:
>
> ___ Lewis ___
> | Bad as a discussion of semiotics. I called it a textbook
> | because of its title and evident expository aim. You
> | can find my 1991 article critiquing the "watergate" model
> | with a google groups search on [ mammel eco watergate ]
> | ... it's the first match.
> ___
>
> Interesting. Especially since that section and model wasn't originated by
> Eco at all. Rather he is following Tullio De Mauro who presented it way
> back in 1966.
Wow, after 11 years someone steps up to the plate. There is hope.
That's interesting about Mauro.
> I'll not summarize the argument (it is on pages 33-35) but your criticism is
>
> OK, what he's saying is that two bulbs are always
> lit. But why? A second ago he was talking about
> mutually exclusive 'levels of signal'. Now with
> four 'signals' we have something like a TouchTone,
> but why the jump? And why bring up 16 ordered pairs
> just to knock them back down to C(4,2)? Does he
> really have a clear idea of what he's doing here?
> It sure doesn't seem like it.
>
> He's explaining a system to detect danger. Thus he wants to observe
> *transitions*. Basically he has a level guage that corresponds to colored
> lights, represented by the letters A, B, C & D.
>
> ------------
> | A B C D |
> ------------
>
> D is the lowest level of water on up to the highest. These are set of by
> some buoy in the water. Depending upon the height of the buoy it signals
> some electrical pulse or the like that goes to the monitor.
Do you have any idea what you even mean by this?
> Thus physically
> we have something like this:
>
> |
> | A 6"
> | B 5"
> | C 4" --<*>------- water level
> | D 3"
> |
>
> Thus you start at some level, say C. Then you move up (more water) to B.
> The monitor shows light C and light B on. We don't care about the
> difference between CB and BC because all we have is the monitor, not some
> time based recording. Presumably the monitor works so that a new signal hits
> a transitor and turns off the previous one.
Then as the water level rises you'd have DC -> CB -> BA, which are
entirely equivalent to C,B,and A in the simple level scheme.
> (It's been too long since I
> worked with transitors and the like, so don't ask for the circuit. Given
> the state of electronics back in 1966 I'm sure its simple though)
Now THAT's funny!
> Anyway,
> for the purpose of the illustration all we get to see are what two lights
> are on, representing the last transition. By that reasoning we reject
> transitions A->A, B->B, and so forth because there is no change and thus no
> real transition. i.e. if you are at level B and stay at level B no trigger
> takes place so the display remains constant.
Constant at what?
>
> This gives us in a straightforward way the following possible displays
>
> AB, BC, CD, AD, AC, BD.
Yeah, this is C(4,2), like I said in my critique. That is, combinations of
four things taken 2 at a time. Why then did he display the array of 16
signals, only to discount 10 of them? I guess he's "explaining" the dimly
comprehended idea of combinations. It's like trying to figure out what
my cat is thinking.
> From those signals we could construct extra circuits that do different
> things based upon what two lights have power. Eco says that AB, for
> instance represents danger. That means that either the water has gone from
> 5" to 6". So that is danger. Now you might argue what about the water
> staying at 6"? Well in that case the signal stays the same.
The same as what? AB ? So AB only represents danger if it was "just lit",
but this is no different than having the four lights and watching for A to
come on.
> What about it
> moving from 6" to 5"? Well the signal still stays the same.
The same as what?
> It will remain
> the same until it drops to 4" at which case we'll get BC.
Why? There's no concept here of how this thing actually works.
> About the only confusing problem might be the transition from either 6" to
> 3" or vice versa (AD). That registers "insuffiency." I'm not sure how you
> could get that.
Yeah, me neither.
> Presumably it is an unused sign and the engineer used it to
> signal something unusual via some other mechanism. Likewise the signals AC
> or BD are unused and could represent something special. Actually perhaps AD
> happens when the water drops so fast that the signalling mechanism couldn't
> keep up -i.e. a rapid flow of water which means a big leak somewhere.
Yes, especially considering the state of electronics in 1966.
> This
> seems right as Eco then says that AC is synonymous with AB. (Presumably
> when water is rising rapidly as opening the gate would always result in AD)
> The reason for the illustration is to show synonymy, how complexity can be
> represented by a few signs (something that happens a lot in natural
> languages), and so forth. Further it illustrates a few grammatical issues.
> (i.e. in many languages "Bob ran" and "ran Bob" mean the same thing) It
> isn't meant to really teach Semiotics. As I said, _A Theory of Semiotics_
> is *not* a good book for the beginner. But it has quite a few very
> interesting chapters. It's a nice summary of issues for those who have
> already read their Pierce, Saussure, and so forth.
Peirce, you mean. He makes some kind of sense at least.
> Getting back to the model, what he uses it for is shown on pages 36-46.
> They are the basic topics that he then delves into more depth in later.
>
> Anyway, if your entire criticism of Eco is "I didn't understand the
> Watergate model" then I'm not too impressed. <Grin>
I'm saying his exposition is incoherent, and you're reinforcing the
impression.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Clark Goble
| Do you have any idea what you even mean by this?
Yeah. It's not that difficult to figure out what is going on. After I
posted that last message I figured out what probably was used. I strongly
suspect that these were actual devices used in Europe back in the 50's and
60's.
You have a buoy on a rod. The rod rotates a gear, lets say from between -25
degrees to 25 degrees. That is then connected through gearing so that it
ends up rotating a device through a full 360 degrees. The device that
rotates through the full 360 degree has a size of say 80 degrees. On the
circle there are four electric pads, each one taking up about 90 degrees.
Thus as the water level changes it raises and lowers the buoy which in teurn
moves the pad so that *two* connectors are always touched. I'll try and
draw the device, although given ASCII it will be rather primitive.
_ |
/ \____________<*> As buoy moves up it changes angle
\_/ |######### of rod which rotates a disc.
|#########
/-----\
| A|B | As the disc rotates 360 degrees representing the
|--|--| range between high and low water it moves a plate
| D|C | that activates two circuits.
\-----/
Thus for any position we have two places activated which on the screen
lights up two lights. The reason for wanting two lights lit up rather than
simply one is to reduce noise. It is harder to accidentally trigger the
right pattern than it is with a single light. (Eco points this out in the
chapter)
___ Lewis ___
| Then as the water level rises you'd have DC -> CB -> BA,
| which are entirely equivalent to C,B,and A in the simple
| level scheme.
___
Yes. Eco actually started with an even simpler version that was a trigger
of A, B, AB, or both off. He says that the complexity is added to deal with
noise, but mainly to illustrate some semiotic principles. I reread the
first two chapters last night (first time in quite some time) and it does an
admirable job. Especially when he deals with things like iconic signs and
the like.
___ Lewis ___
| Why then did he display the array of 16 signals, only to
| discount 10 of them?
___
Why as a a practical device or why as an illustration? The discounting of
possible signals was important because for any language most of what is
possible is not used. Consider the sign sfklyu. That is a possible
combination of English letters but is not a valid English word. Why doesn't
English use it? The fact is that for any sign system the basis for that
sign system has many possible patterns that are unused. This then relates
to the issue of entropy. He spends several pages on that and I was
surprised at how clearly it allows one to see the two meanings of entropy
relevant to semiotics and how it clearly shows how information theory
applies. The more I read the more impressed I became with the model as an
illustrating principle.
___ Lewis ___
| I'm saying his exposition is incoherent, and you're
| reinforcing the impression.
___
<lol> It wasn't that hard to figure out. I picked up the book and figured
it out in about 5 minutes. Now your objections, those I can't figure out.
There is no inconsistency I can see. It is more complex than the simple
case (which Eco also presented) but so what? It was for illustrating
semiotics not for what the ideal way of making a water monitor. Further it
was written back in the 1960's when technology was quite different. If you
mean it is hard for more modern people to understand the example, perhaps
you are right. I had the same problem trying to teach "clockwise" and
"counterclockwise" when dealing with spin in freshman physics classes. Most
students never use analog watches and so are clueless at understanding spin.
Presumably were Eco to have written the book today he would have used a
different example. I strongly suspect though that in the Italy of the
1960's the example was one most of his original readers would have been
familiar with. (Remember that what we have is a translation)
Lewis Mammel
Kater Moggin wrote:
> I know -- you're talking about a bad textbook. (I'll take
> your word it's bad.) And you know where I'm gonna go with
> that. The problem isn't that Eco wrote a bad book; the problem
> is students are forced to read the thing.
Are you willing to take it on my authority as Joe Science that
his exposition of the "watergate model" is incoherent ?
Note he was Professor of Semiotics at Indiana University when
he wrote this.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Lewis Mammel
Clark Goble wrote:
>
> ___ Lewis ___
> | Do you have any idea what you even mean by this?
> ___
>
> Yeah. It's not that difficult to figure out what is going on. After I
> posted that last message I figured out what probably was used. I strongly
> suspect that these were actual devices used in Europe back in the 50's and
> 60's.
You're out of your freakin' mind.
> You have a buoy on a rod. The rod rotates a gear, lets say from between -25
> degrees to 25 degrees. That is then connected through gearing so that it
> ends up rotating a device through a full 360 degrees. The device that
> rotates through the full 360 degree has a size of say 80 degrees. On the
> circle there are four electric pads, each one taking up about 90 degrees.
> Thus as the water level changes it raises and lowers the buoy which in teurn
> moves the pad so that *two* connectors are always touched. I'll try and
> draw the device, although given ASCII it will be rather primitive.
>
> _ |
> / \____________<*> As buoy moves up it changes angle
> \_/ |######### of rod which rotates a disc.
> |#########
>
> /-----\
> | A|B | As the disc rotates 360 degrees representing the
> |--|--| range between high and low water it moves a plate
> | D|C | that activates two circuits.
> \-----/
>
> Thus for any position we have two places activated which on the screen
> lights up two lights. The reason for wanting two lights lit up rather than
> simply one is to reduce noise. It is harder to accidentally trigger the
> right pattern than it is with a single light. (Eco points this out in the
> chapter)
One problem. Nothing here constitutes a signal on a wire. Your device
mechanically establishes a separate circuit for each lamp. As vague as
he is, Eco speaks of "an electric signal which travels through a channel
( an electric wire ) and is picked up downstream by a receiver;" Your
conception is completely at odds with Eco's description.
>
> ___ Lewis ___
> | Then as the water level rises you'd have DC -> CB -> BA,
> | which are entirely equivalent to C,B,and A in the simple
> | level scheme.
> ___
>
> Yes. Eco actually started with an even simpler version that was a trigger
> of A, B, AB, or both off. He says that the complexity is added to deal with
> noise, but mainly to illustrate some semiotic principles. I reread the
> first two chapters last night (first time in quite some time) and it does an
> admirable job. Especially when he deals with things like iconic signs and
> the like.
>
> ___ Lewis ___
> | Why then did he display the array of 16 signals, only to
> | discount 10 of them?
> ___
>
> Why as a a practical device or why as an illustration? The discounting of
> possible signals was ...
But the 4 by 4 array doesn't specify possible signals. The possible
signals are combinations of 4 things. Interestingly, the 4 lamps
with two states ( on/off ) have 2^4 = 16 possible states. Eco should
have specified the C(4,2) = 6 states out of these possible 16 as his
valid codes. I hypothesize that he had some vague awareness of this
4 bit system having 16 states, and thought that his 4 by 4 array
accounted for it somehow.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Silke-Maria Weineck
Lewis Mammel wrote:
> I hypothesize that he had some vague awareness of this
> 4 bit system having 16 states, and thought that his 4 by 4 array
> accounted for it somehow.
My students are quite good at telling me how everybody they read has it wrong,
too; I think they're taught to operate that way in highschool. I sometimes tell
them to imagine how the writer in question would have responded to their
objections. The results are often interesting.
Of course, it's always possible that Eco would say, "damn, I didn't think of that!
Thanks, Lew!"
s
Lewis Mammel
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>
> Lewis Mammel wrote:
>
> > I hypothesize that he had some vague awareness of this
> > 4 bit system having 16 states, and thought that his 4 by 4 array
> > accounted for it somehow.
>
> My students are quite good at telling me how everybody they read has it wrong,
> too; I think they're taught to operate that way in highschool. I sometimes tell
> them to imagine how the writer in question would have responded to their
> objections. The results are often interesting.
Except that Eco is off his turf here. I'm a Ph.D. in physics with
a twenty year career in telephony. I hardly feel myself in the
position of an undergrad being introduced to some new topic.
By your remark, you seem to grant Eco authority over me in
matters of electric signaling, although on what basis I can't
imagine.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Lewis Mammel
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>
> Of course, it's always possible that Eco would say, "damn, I didn't think of that!
> Thanks, Lew!"
One very, very rarely gets satisfaction in these matters. When
I was in grad school my mathematical physics prof gave a bad
definition of linear dependence in class. He said, "If a sum
can be formed with nonzero coefficients .." and I interrupted
to correct him, "a set of coefficients not ALL zero!" He reacted
jocularly but defensively, "What, you don't like my definition!"
and he never acknowledged the point. Since this was physics he
probably didn't think it was very important. One has a
functional understanding and doesn't worry about foundations.
In Eco's case, if some outlandish set of circumstances could
be imagined to arise such that he felt obliged to respond to
some nobody, I would guess that he would respond much the way
Clark Goble ( hmmm ) did - by completely ignoring the substance
of my criticism and patiently reiterating some portion of his
development.
Let's be real. He's in pretty deep with this thing. He's not
going to suddenly chuck it overboard on my say-so. These things
take time and professors of all stripes just don't have it to spare.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Silke-Maria Weineck
Lewis Mammel wrote:
> Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> >
> > Lewis Mammel wrote:
> >
> > > I hypothesize that he had some vague awareness of this
> > > 4 bit system having 16 states, and thought that his 4 by 4 array
> > > accounted for it somehow.
> >
> > My students are quite good at telling me how everybody they read has it wrong,
> > too; I think they're taught to operate that way in highschool. I sometimes tell
> > them to imagine how the writer in question would have responded to their
> > objections. The results are often interesting.
>
> Except that Eco is off his turf here. I'm a Ph.D. in physics with
> a twenty year career in telephony. I hardly feel myself in the
> position of an undergrad being introduced to some new topic.
Neither, presumably, does Eco.
>
>
> By your remark, you seem to grant Eco authority over me in
> matters of electric signaling, although on what basis I can't
> imagine.
As I said, it's quite possible that you're entirely right and he's entirely wrong. Is
there really nothing in between that you can imagine?
s
Clark Goble
Are you objecting to Eco's illustration because you don't think anyone would
build a water monitor in this way or because you don't think it illustrates
the semiotic principles he presents? Thus far all your criticisms seem to
be in the former. Yet surely you'd acknowledge that illustrations,
especially of some abstract principle, don't use real world situations. For
instance most of the illustrations in my E&M textbook are not things that
exist or would likely be used. (Although some might be idealizations of
some situations)
If you criticism is simply, "no one makes monitors like that" or "Eco wasn't
clear or accurate in the real world device" then it's kind of pointless to
continue. That's simply a rather superficial criticism. If that isn't your
criticism then I'm at a loss to see what your criticism is.
___ Lewis ___
| Nothing here constitutes a signal on a wire.
___
A cable can be made up on individual wires. There are dozens of ways to
wire that. One way is to have a single battery and 8 wires (4 down, 4 back)
to make a closed circuit. You could do it with 5 wires as well. Eco
doesn't go through the details of the mechanism as that isn't his point.
His point is the semiotics, not the engineering. Remember that it is a book
on semiotics not electric circuits.
___ Lewis ___
| Eco speaks of "an electric signal which travels through
| a channel ( an electric wire ) and is picked up downstream
| by a receiver;"
___
If you look that was for the simple case of a single signal. That took
place on page 33 and the top of 34. Yet you are using that to apply to the
more comples model that is on 34-35. Yet Eco says nothing about how the
signal is communicated, merely that it is. Indeed the "how" in this case is
irrelevant to what is discussed in the chapter. Since Eco has compicated
the situation described on page 33, it seems fair to assume that the device
is more complex as well. I simply described one way the device could be
made.
___ Lewis ___
| But the 4 by 4 array doesn't specify possible signals. The
| possible signals are combinations of 4 things.
___
Sorry, I used the wrong term. Each letter is a signal and each message is a
combination of two signals. The 4x4 matrix represents possible messages.
Some of the theoretical messages aren't possible, however, because of the
limits on the system that Eco described. Thus he throws out AA, BB, CC, &
DD.
___ Lewis ___
| Eco should have specified the C(4,2) = 6 states out of these
| possible 16 as his valid codes.
___
We start with 16 messages possible in theory. (n^2) 4 of those are thrown
out as being physically impossible in the system. (This gets us to P(4,2)
Of the remaining 12 messages several are the same message (i.e. AB = BA )
and thus we end up with the final answer of what possible messages the
engineer has available:
AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD
That ends up being what you get from combinatorics C(4,2), but Eco is simply
going through why you end up with the six possibilities. The average reader
probably has little math background. While Eco could have gone into such
things, he chose not to. (Although he did surprisingly bring in a little
information theory, but mainly to illustrate a few other principles)
___ Lewis ___
| I hypothesize that he had some vague awareness of this
| 4 bit system having 16 states, and thought that his
| 4 by 4 array accounted for it somehow.
___
The 4x4 matrix is all possible ways of combining four characters as a set of
two. He then narrows what are allowable, which happens to match
combinatoric requirements. But he doesn't bring in the math. Once again he
is simply trying to aid in the illustration and show why we get the six
possibilities.
Surely your objection isn't that he should have assumed more of a math
background in his readers. I rather doubt that most science majors know
what the notation C(n,r) means, let alone that you evaluate it by
n!/(n-r)!r!. Further you'd have to explain why you use C(n,r) rather than
P(n,r) (=12) or simply the number of possible mixings with duplications (the
4x4 = 16 choices) for the physical system in question. Thus Eco would have
had to explain himself just as he did anyway. In which case why bring in
combinatorics? While combinatorics explains what is going on, it does so
with a theoretical basis that Eco doesn't need.
Certainly there were no mathematical mistakes in what Eco did. So I'm
rather at a loss to the objection.
Just out of curiosity, do you have any objections to the semiotics?
Clark Goble
| I would guess that he would respond much the way
| Clark Goble ( hmmm ) did - by completely ignoring
| the substance of my criticism and patiently
| reiterating some portion of his development.
Honestly, I can't figure out the substance of your criticism. I don't say
that to be snarky or argumentative in the least. It is just that I'm
totally unclear on what you see as being in error.
If you think I'm simply reiterating something beside the point, I apologize.
Yet if I do so it is simply because you've not been clear in where you think
Eco wrong. As I mentioned it *sounds* like you don't like that the machine
he describes isn't described in detail so you could build it. But that
isn't really the point.
___ Lew ___
| By your remark, you seem to grant Eco authority over
| me in matters of electric signaling, although on what
| basis I can't imagine.
___
I don't think Silke is saying Eco has "authority" over you in electric
signalling. I think he is just asking if perhaps you've missed Eco's point.
That can happen to the best and the brightest. For instance I also have a
degree in physics and work in computational linguistics. Yet I obviously
missed your point in your criticism. If Eco is unclear (and I admit that he
might be to some) then the criticism goes both ways as I am having a much
harder time understanding you that I am Eco.
Clark Goble
| I rather doubt that most science majors know
Whoops. That should have read NON-science majors. . .
Lewis Mammel
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> You may try to be more lucid.
Always a possibility. My reply to Clark Goble is way more lucid
than my previous remarks, IMHO.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Lewis Mammel
Clark Goble wrote:
>
> Before I get to my main responses, let me cut to the heart of the matter.
> Are you objecting to Eco's illustration because you don't think anyone would
> build a water monitor in this way or because you don't think it illustrates
> the semiotic principles he presents?
I'm saying that it doesn't make sense. [ His remarks presume different
foundations at different times, and there is no coherent physical
model which underlies the whole thing. ] - that's where I started; as
I composed this I scaled the "different times" back to two times, and
the 4x4 matrix is the focus of the whole problem. If he had done
this right, I think I would have followed him.
>
> ___ Lewis ___
> | Nothing here constitutes a signal on a wire.
> ___
>
> A cable can be made up on individual wires. There are dozens of ways to
> wire that. One way is to have a single battery and 8 wires (4 down, 4 back)
> to make a closed circuit. You could do it with 5 wires as well. Eco
> doesn't go through the details of the mechanism as that isn't his point.
> His point is the semiotics, not the engineering. Remember that it is a book
> on semiotics not electric circuits.
He's talking about light bulbs and electric signals.
>
> ___ Lewis ___
> | Eco speaks of "an electric signal which travels through
> | a channel ( an electric wire ) and is picked up downstream
> | by a receiver;"
He says its a wire! So you say oh maybe it's 8 wires? No! It's one
cock-a-doody wire! Well, a "loop" which carries a telephone signal
is a pair of wires, but a single circuit. You can send a signal over
a single wire if you ground both ends forming a circuit. I'll stipulate
that Eco intends a single circuit, but you really have a point, the
emphasis should be on "channel". Certainly a single electrical circuit
has plenty of bandwidth to accommodate his intentions.
> If you look that was for the simple case of a single signal. That took
> place on page 33 and the top of 34. Yet you are using that to apply to the
> more comples model that is on 34-35.
He just says that more codes are added.
> Yet Eco says nothing about how the
> signal is communicated, merely that it is.
He says its an electric signal transmitted over a wire.
> Indeed the "how" in this case is
> irrelevant to what is discussed in the chapter. Since Eco has compicated
> the situation described on page 33, it seems fair to assume that the device
> is more complex as well. I simply described one way the device could be
> made.
He describes the whole setup with the diagram of source->transmitter etc.
and it's inconsistent with your conception. When he first starts
talking about signals A and B, he talks about their "presence or
absence" on the wire, which suggests that "sending A" ( A+ ) means the
presence of, say, a certain audio tone on the wire. If it's turned on
light A goes on, if it's turned off, light A goes off. So far so good.
He even says, "I shall consider both the message to the destination
and the bulbs as two aspects of the same phenomenon" .
His designation of B+ as "feedback" is kind of goofball. That's not
what feedback means. What he's trying to get at here is redundancy.
He's got 11 = 1, 00 = 0, 01 = 10 = error, B is a "check bit" and he's
got a single error detecting code.
Then he expands to four parallel signals.
The 16 possible "messages" consist of a steady state transmission of
some subset of the four signals ( imagine four different audio tones ).
Note that on page 50 he even uses a binary representation of the signals
AB = 1100 etc. so this is clearly what he has in mind here. It's
a four-bit bus with a zero baud rate.
Also, this setup is equivalent to having four wires each with a hi/lo
voltage state, so we could admit your device I suppose, even though it
contradicts Eco's description.
But there is a little quirk. Usually we would consider such a state of
transmission to be a single token or character in a stream, and the
sequence of them would constitute the message. Eco's message is
a steady state transmission ( zero baud rate. )
Then, with the introduction of the 4x4 matrix, he just goes straight
to hell. The sixteen possible messages are (null), A,B,C,D,AB,AC,AD,BC,
BD,CD,ABC,ABD,ACD,BCD,ABCD - not AA,AB,AC,AD,BA,BB,BC,BD,CA,CB,CC,CD,
DA,DB,DC,DD. His comments about disallowing AA, and AB = BA are pure
blather. I don't think there can be any question about it, Dave.
Note he even mentions the senseless messages ABC and ABCD on
page 35. How is it that these senseless but possible messages
are not in his matrix, yet the designation AA is, when AA doesn't
even signify a possible encoding according to his setup?
You'll note that if we allow a sequence of tokens, we can get AA
in the form of 1000-1000, and Eco seems to have suddenly switched
his thinking into such a scheme, just so he can work his way
through his 4x4 matrix, but it's completely ungrounded in his
previous description.
He seems to revert to the original four-bit idea in subsequent
discussion, but this 4x4 matrix sent me over the edge. So really,
if I ignore the 4x4 matrix I guess there is a pretty consistent
model, but his discussion there is not consistent with the rest
of it and really threw me off. The way he just bulls his way
through it says to me that he will just bull his way through anything.
> Just out of curiosity, do you have any objections to the semiotics?
I didn't get that far. I couldn't get past the watergate thing. I do
periodically return to Peirce's essay, though.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Kater Moggin
> Are you willing to take it on my authority as Joe Science that
> [Eco's] exposition of the "watergate model" is incoherent ?
Said I'd take your word it was a bad book -- whatever book
it is -- did you and Clark get that straightened out? --
didn't I? I don't promise never to change my mind. Maybe I'll
read the book and think differently. But I had no plans to
read it before now, and what I've seen here hasn't given me any
enthusiasm. So your word still goes.
And my point still stands. There are lots of bad books in
the world. Piles and piles of them. Ah, but this is a
textbook, you tell me. So I agree there's a problem: not that
it's a bad book, but rather that it's required reading.
Students can't happily ignore it. Some have to read it because
it's on the syllabus.
That's where the problem lies -- not in the fact the world
has another bad book (note I'm still taking your word it's
bad), but in the fact most schools are dictatorial institutions.
> Note he was Professor of Semiotics at Indiana University
> when he wrote this.
Noted.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> "Michael S. Morris":
>> By the way, C.S. Lewis in _The Abolition of Man_ is particularly
>> fine on this distinction between Laws of Nature and Natural
>> Law. He more or less argues that Natural Law *is* hardwired
>> into creation, that it---ethical laws, or the Tao, as he terms it
>> ---is the only *real* Law (which of course we may choose to break,
>> but never circumvent or repeal), whereas Laws of Nature aren't
>> laws at all---God may repeal or circumvent them at any time
>> He wishes.
> This is expressed in Proverbs 8 - "Doth not wisdom cry" etc. "The LORD
> possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
> I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth
> was." Evidence of the powerful appeal the idea has, at least.
Oh, it's powerfully appealing. Just look at the grip it's
got on Mike. But also look at the brand of wisdom you're
alluding to -- e.g. the wisdom of the powers-that-be, according
to 8:14-16: "Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am
understanding; I have strength. By me kings reign, and princes
decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all
the judges of the earth." Dunno about you, but I have a pretty
low opinion of the wisdom of earthly rulers.
1 Cor. 2:5-8 is the antithesis. Again God is said to have
ordained wisdom before the world -- but it's an entirely
different concept of wisdom, and quite possibly a different God.
... Your faith should not stand in the wisdom of
men, but in the power of God. Howbeit we speak wisdom
among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this
world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to
nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even
the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world
unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world
knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified
the Lord of glory.
> I've had the thought that Rock bands provide evidence that
> "hard work" is an immutable virture. You see them talking about
> their grueling tour schedules and so on, and obviously to be
> successful in such a competitive field involves full time
> scrambling, however carefully they cultivate their image as
> round-the-clock hell raisers.
The immutable part is where? Virtue-wise, the above shows
duplicity as much as anything else. (I started off, "You
illustrated...," but I worried that you might take it the wrong
way. The things I do for you.)
-- Moggin
Clark Goble
1. He used the word wire when talking about the simple model. You feel he
should have either not talked about *how* the signal is transmitted at all
or developed a real working circuit and gone off that. So basically this
objection reduces to that you feel that single word in one sentence should
have either been "channel" or "wires."
2. He misused the word "feedback," or rather did not use it in its technical
meaning as found in engineering.
3. Instead of talking about all the ways to combine four letters in two
signals you feel he should have just talked about the possible codes.
Is that about right? If so, I'm sorry, but that is simply a superficial
critique. If it happens to be your pet peeve, so be it. There are books
that make superficial mistakes that are my pet peeves which keep me from
getting into them. Yet other than the fact Eco doesn't give a rigorous
machine to generate his code, you have no real objection. You objection
reduces to Eco doesn't care about the engineering issues.
Let me deal with the objections in more detail now.
1. As I mentioned, the sentence you refer to here was for the *simple* case
and *not* the more complex case. You can't take the former discription and
*assume* it applies to the later. At worst Eco is guilty of slightly poor
word choice.
2. The feedback is not electrical feedback as you suggest. Rather it is
what action is taken due to the signal. Eco makes this explicit when he
says, "the distination may accordingly be instructed in order to release
three kinds of response." By paralleling the table on page 34 to table 4 on
page 35 we can see that this akin to "water dumping" or the like. Exactly
what "feedback" means in this context isn't clear. I assumed when reading
that he meant some noise or draining water. But the point is it is simply
some arbitrary action.
Further, realize that this is a translation, so your quibble is more with
the choice of the translator. In any case, quibbling over such a minor
issue as word choice when the choice doesn't affect the meaning (except to
someone trying to understand the apparatus rather than the semiotics) is
asking a bit much.
3. You say that Eco should consider the two letters as a single token and
then sequences of those as messages. But this is really just a quibble over
terminology. Eco isn't using the terminology of your discipline, but of
semiotics. (I don't know your background, other than it was physics and
communication - I don't know how much semiotics you have) For Eco's
discussion (which follows over the next few dozen pages) he needs to have
those two characters be a kind of message. Now we can quibble about
messages being made up of sub-messages, or however you wish to express that.
(Much like words are made of letters, sentences made of words, paragraphs
made of sentences and so forth) The point is that Eco wishes to have two
lights light up out of four and for those not as familiar with electronics
as you, he goes through the three different ways of combining them so as to
arrive at the right answer.
His comments about why he disallows AA and equates AB with BA aren't bunk.
They are demanded by the system he describes. You can call in bunk or
blather, but I'm afraid you'll have to give a little more explanation of why
you think that.
You then mention "senseless" messages like ABC or the like. So yes, in
terms of possibilities that include "errors" Eco should use the full
possibilities of all four characters. Yet by the system when it functions
*properly* (as a sign system) those aren't possible and thus are rejected,
except as noise. To make a parallel with English, while any combination of
characters can be a word, only a certain subset which fit English vocabulary
are allowed. Eco is, with the six "tokens", establishing a vocabulary.
Once again I don't want to quibble too much with vocabulary here. The fact
is that many groups look at these sorts of systems but don't share the same
vocabulary. When you include the fact that Eco is writing in Italian and
someone else translated his text, you increase the difficulty of terminology
accordingly. You'll find that in many philosophical texts word choice for
translations is problematic. What is often important is the consistency of
word choice and then figuring out what *concept* it corresponds to rather
than whether it necessarily corresponds to the jargon of a given discipline,
unless the author is writing in that discipline.
Basically your whole problem, as you mention, is with the 4x4 matrix.
Because you and I are already familiar with combinatorics and the like from
physics (got to love thermodynamics) we see the issues immediately. Yet he
is trying to explain these things to an audience in the humanities. (Most
people in semiotics come from that field, although clearly there are
scientists as well) The issue then is how to explain reducing all the
possible permutations of 4 things in 2 positions to the correct answer of
C(4,2). I think he did a fairly good job for 2 pages. I'd agree he could
have done better, but as I said, that's a small matter to me. The fact is
that once he gets his system up it illustrates many basic semiotic
principles amazingly well.
I think what happened is that he made a few offhand presentations in a field
you are expert in and it was a pet peeve. Thus you didn't try to see what
he was saying because of your pet peeve. As you said, "the way he just
bulls his way through it says to me that he will just bull his way through
anything." I can understand. I have a pet peeve about people not running
out of ammo in movies and never reloading. I don't know why, but when that
happens I can't accept the rest of the movie. Everyone tells me I'm being
too picky or silly. But it is my pet peeve. Of course the reloading isn't
key to the action, plot or so forth normally. I ought to just assume they
reloaded or ignore the number of shots fired. But I can't. I suspect that
something similar is going on with you and Eco.
I'd say give it an other chance, but really it is a fairly technical book
about semiotics and not worth the effort unless you are interested in those
aspects of semiotics. I think _Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language_ is
more approachable. Further I think that there are plenty of introductions
of semiotics that explain things much better. I do think Eco is an
important thinker, especially as he tries to deal with Peirce. Indeed I
think the sort of renaissance of appreciation of Peirce is largely due to
Eco. Certainly that's why I went back to Peirce after being exposed to him
while studying pragmatism. I think that in many ways Peirce was ahead of
his time. I still am grappling with pragmatics (in the linguistic sense)
and the problem of reference in Peirce. Eco touches on this in some other
papers, but not in a satisfactory way (IMO). But then the same problem
arises in Levinas, Derrida and others. I think that is why the issue of
transcendence has re-arisen in French philosophy. I think though that
Peirce may have some interesting things to say here, but I've not yet read a
sufficient amount of Peirce to say for sure. But I just bought a few books
to add to my collection. So we'll see.
Clark Goble
| Said I'd take your word it was a bad book -- whatever book
| it is -- did you and Clark get that straightened out?
It is _A Theory of Semiotics_. It really isn't a bad book nor is it a
textbook. As I said I can't imagine anyone using it as a textbook, although
perhaps an advanced class might have sections as required readings.
BTW - I am not aware of a single bad review of it, other that Lewis. And
his objection are really to the engineering of a sign system that Eco uses.
Had Eco simply skipped the explanation of the construction of the system and
simply given the possible messages even this objection would disappear.
Realize that this was simply a few paragraphs and Lewis doesn't appear to
object to the result, just the way in which Eco loosely presented the
underlying physical system that used the sign system.
Whether one agrees with everything Eco wrote or the clarity with which he
wrote it, the book is very important in the field. And of course many
authors, especially philosophers, aren't known for the clarity of their
writing. (Kant anyone?)
Kater Moggin
> It is _A Theory of Semiotics_.
Thanks.
> It really isn't a bad book nor is it a textbook.
Well, maybe not -- but if it reads anything like I'd guess
from this thread, it ain't my idea of a good one. You
enjoyed _Foucault's Pendulum_, remember, so we must have pretty
different tastes.
-- Moggin
Clark Goble
| Well, maybe not -- but if it reads anything like I'd
| guess from this thread, it ain't my idea of a good one.
This thread covers about 5 paragraphs and doesn't really represent those
terribly well. It's not the kind of book you read cover to cover. I've
never read the whole thing. Rather you look up various topics. It is
closer to a technical encyclopedia of issues and problems in semiotics. It
has over the years been quite helpful. Like I said, I wouldn't want to
learn semiotics from it. Lewis is right in that it "reads" like a textbook
in some ways.
_Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language_ is similar in that it is more a
collection of various topics. Yet it is probably a tad more interesting and
not quite as "dense."
Lewis Mammel
Kater Moggin wrote:
>
> l.ma...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > I've had the thought that Rock bands provide evidence that
> > "hard work" is an immutable virture. You see them talking about
> > their grueling tour schedules and so on, and obviously to be
> > successful in such a competitive field involves full time
> > scrambling, however carefully they cultivate their image as
> > round-the-clock hell raisers.
>
> The immutable part is where? Virtue-wise, the above shows
> duplicity as much as anything else. (I started off, "You
> illustrated...," but I worried that you might take it the wrong
> way. The things I do for you.)
"Immutable" is the wrong word. How about "ineluctable" ? "Hard work"
or industriousness is part of an ethic, so many feel compelled to
practice it because they've been indoctrinated with that ethic.
Rock bands generally represent rebellion against such indoctrination
and the embrace of hedonism, so that's their starting point. But
when they undertake to pursue money and glory, those among them
who, whether from natural inclination or cold calculation, are
given to "hard work" are the ones most likely to achieve these goals.
In fact, it seems to be a necessary, though certainly not sufficient,
condition for success in this field. If you watch VH1 you find this
stuff out.
Thus we see the emergence of the work ethic even
where rebellion and hedonism are exalted, giving it
the appearance of an ineluctable principle.
... and say, are you calling me a liar?
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Lewis Mammel
Clark Goble wrote:
> His comments about why he disallows AA and equates AB with BA aren't bunk.
> They are demanded by the system he describes. You can call in bunk or
> blather, but I'm afraid you'll have to give a little more explanation of why
> you think that.
Let's go with this.
My engineer and I have designed a signal system with a readout consisting
of four lights, each of which can be read as "on" or "off". Then I say:
"I shall consider both the message to the destination and the bulbs
as two aspects of the same phenomenon. At this point the engineer
has - at least from a theoretical point of view - 16 messages at his
disposal: ..."
OK, now you tell me. What are these 16 messages?
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Lewis Mammel
Kater Moggin wrote:
>
> Lew:
>
> > Are you willing to take it on my authority as Joe Science that
> > [Eco's] exposition of the "watergate model" is incoherent ?
>
> Said I'd take your word it was a bad book -- whatever book
> it is -- did you and Clark get that straightened out? --
Wh88 a t ? &*3 .../// you 8s r* sig)))nal'8888s
///// brea .king u .....
??????????///////////I &**** ll call yo*8 8u back .......
Le *888888888888//////////////////
Clark Goble
___ Lew ___
| Let's go with this.
|
| My engineer and I have designed a signal system with a readout consisting
| of four lights, each of which can be read as "on" or "off". Then I say:
|
| "I shall consider both the message to the destination and the bulbs
| as two aspects of the same phenomenon. At this point the engineer
| has - at least from a theoretical point of view - 16 messages at his
| disposal: ..."
|
|
| OK, now you tell me. What are these 16 messages?
But of course that's not all that he said.
Lets play it a little differently. "Suppose that the engineer now disposes
of four positive signals and establishes that every messages must be
composed of two signals."
What are the signals? It will be the 4x4 matrix.
Lewis Mammel
Not so. As per the "two aspects" remark that he/I stipulated. Each
signal must be represented by the bulbs.
1) How is AA represented by the bulbs?
2) How are AB and BA uniquely represented by the bulbs?
Well, they aren't - in contradiction to his statement that the
engineer has these signals "at his disposal".
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Clark Goble
| As per the "two aspects" remark that he/I stipulated. Each
| signal must be represented by the bulbs.
|
| 1) How is AA represented by the bulbs?
|
| 2) How are AB and BA uniquely represented by the bulbs?
|
| Well, they aren't - in contradiction to his statement that
| the engineer has these signals "at his disposal".
And that would be a great criticism had Eco not said exactly the same thing
over the next two paragraphs.
Lewis Mammel
Clark Goble wrote:
> 2. The feedback is not electrical feedback as you suggest. Rather it is
> what action is taken due to the signal.
OK, that's right.
> Eco makes this explicit when he
> says, "the distination may accordingly be instructed in order to release
> three kinds of response." By paralleling the table on page 34 to table 4 on
> page 35 we can see that this akin to "water dumping" or the like. Exactly
> what "feedback" means in this context isn't clear.
I believe it refers to the fact that corrective action is taken. This
is "negative feedback" meaning that the rising water causes, via the
signal, an action to have an opposite effect, like a governor on a
steam engine.
Also, I said, "He's got 11 = 1, 00 = 0, 01 = 10 = error, B is a
"check bit" and he's got a single error detecting code."
... which is the right idea, but not what he describes. He has 10 = 0 ( rest )
01 = 1 ( feedback ) 00 = 11 = error. This is a single error correcting
code, but with odd parity. You can still call B a "check bit" without
effecting the substance of the semantics that Eco describes, and this is
the way I would have expressed it.
For some reason he chooses to call the codes A+ and B+ and explain as a
separate condition that A must be off when B is on, and vice versa, rather
than just saying A-B+ and A+B- are the codes. I would call this idiosyncratic,
but perfectly allowable, since in the end it expresses a coherent concept,
which is all that I insist upon.
> I assumed when reading
> that he meant some noise or draining water. But the point is it is simply
> some arbitrary action.
Well, you are too easily satisfied.
> Further, realize that this is a translation, so your quibble is more with
> the choice of the translator.
" I decided ( in 1973 ) to give up and re-write the book directly in
English - with the help of David Osmond-Smith, who has put more work into
adapting my semiotic pidgin than he would have done if translating a new
book, though he should not be held responsible for the results of this
symbiotic adventure"
This refers to Eco's semiotic terminology, I assume. I don't suppose
one could say who produced "feedback", but the question is moot, as
it makes good sense when understood properly.
> In any case, quibbling over such a minor
> issue as word choice when the choice doesn't affect the meaning (except to
> someone trying to understand the apparatus rather than the semiotics) is
> asking a bit much.
I don't think it's a quibble at all. It seems to be a hapax legomenon -
always an object of mystery.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Lewis Mammel
"These go to eleven." Know that line?
He's contradicting himself, is the point. Is AA one of the "16 possible
messages" ? No it is not! Where are the "16 possible messages that the
engineer has at his disposal" ? There are in fact 16 possible messages,
and they are readily identifiable, so why doesn't he name them?
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Lewis Mammel
You see, once he "diposes of four positive signals" he has the 2^4
light combinations to play with. If he "establishes that every message
must be composed of two signals" then he reduces this number to the
six combinations of two lights. Very simple! To me, this matches perfectly
what he's saying here. The 4x4 matrix he produces, OTOH, bears no relation
to his stated model.
Also, this choice of allowed messages establishes a single error correcting
code in exact analogy with the first example, so this is a perfectly
logical extension of it. ( Except 0000 and 1111 could be allowed and
it would still take two "wrong bulbs" to create an undetected error.
Eco mentions the possibility of using 1111 ( i.e. ABCD ) but states
erroneously that this would create a "greater risk of noise" )
I would think it likely, in fact, that De Mauro's choice of these
models was based on a study of Hamming codes, since they are both
simple examples of it. You don't suppose there's any possiblity of
scaring up De Mauro's original, do you? The reference is in Italian!
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Steve Hayes
A language question:
What do you mean by "disposes of"?
To me it means to throw in the rubbish bin, like a disposable nappy. I believe
that to bureaucrats it means "to deal with the matter and close the file". But
how would you "dispose of" the four lights other than by throwing them away?
--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: haye...@yahoo.com
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/litmain.htm
Kater Moggin
> "Immutable" is the wrong word. How about "ineluctable" ? "Hard work"
> or industriousness is part of an ethic, so many feel compelled to
> practice it because they've been indoctrinated with that ethic.
> Rock bands generally represent rebellion against such indoctrination
> and the embrace of hedonism, so that's their starting point. But
> when they undertake to pursue money and glory, those among them
> who, whether from natural inclination or cold calculation, are
> given to "hard work" are the ones most likely to achieve these goals.
> In fact, it seems to be a necessary, though certainly not sufficient,
> condition for success in this field. If you watch VH1 you find this
> stuff out.
> Thus we see the emergence of the work ethic even
> where rebellion and hedonism are exalted, giving it
> the appearance of an ineluctable principle.
I was with you almost all the way to the end, but I've got
to differ with the conclusion unless you're hard-pedaling
"appearance" -- and you've probably got your foot on
"ineluctable." I'd put it like this: the values on display in
your example are fame and fortune. Hard work and hypocrisy
are the means to those ends. Comments on life under capitalism.
No evidence the work-ethic in unavoidable.
And what about the stuff in the scriptures? Wisdom's said
to pre-exist the world in both Proverbs and 1 Corinthians.
But on inspection, they give antithetical descriptions. Wisdom
guides the decrees of earthly rulers, according to Proverbs
8:15 -- 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 opposes the wisdom of this world to
the wisdom of God and claims "none of the princes of this
world" have the kind which counts. Direct contradiction on the
nature of wisdom -- on the divine, too.
I've mentioned before (more than once) that Jesus preaches
against the work-ethic in the Gospels, e.g. in Matthew
6:24-34, the passage which says you can't serve both mammon and
God. He offers birds, who don't sow, reap, or gather, and
flowers, which don't toil nor spin, as models. Over in Luke he
predicts destruction for those who buy and sell. Of course
his prophesy wasn't fulfilled -- but it's not hard to see where
he stands.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> This thread covers about 5 paragraphs and doesn't really represent those
> terribly well. It's not the kind of book you read cover to cover. I've
> never read the whole thing. Rather you look up various topics. It is
> closer to a technical encyclopedia of issues and problems in semiotics.
> It has over the years been quite helpful. Like I said, I wouldn't want to
> learn semiotics from it. Lewis is right in that it "reads" like a
> textbook in some ways.
> _Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language_ is similar in that it is more a
> collection of various topics. Yet it is probably a tad more interesting
> and not quite as "dense."
O.k., thanks for the tip. If I ever wanna read Eco's more
technical stuff (a day that may never come), I'll try to
remember to look at _The Philosophy of Language_ instead of the
other one. But odds are I'll pick up _Island of the Day
Before Yesterday_ (_Day Tomorrow Can't Recall_? _Day Last Week
Forgot_?) or the one on perfect languages.
-- Moggin
Lewis Mammel
Kater Moggin wrote:
>
> Lew:
>
> > "Immutable" is the wrong word. How about "ineluctable" ? "Hard work"
> > or industriousness is part of an ethic, so many feel compelled to
> > practice it because they've been indoctrinated with that ethic.
>
> > Rock bands generally represent rebellion against such indoctrination
> > and the embrace of hedonism, so that's their starting point. But
> > when they undertake to pursue money and glory, those among them
> > who, whether from natural inclination or cold calculation, are
> > given to "hard work" are the ones most likely to achieve these goals.
> > In fact, it seems to be a necessary, though certainly not sufficient,
> > condition for success in this field. If you watch VH1 you find this
> > stuff out.
>
> > Thus we see the emergence of the work ethic even
> > where rebellion and hedonism are exalted, giving it
> > the appearance of an ineluctable principle.
>
> I was with you almost all the way to the end, but I've got
> to differ with the conclusion unless you're hard-pedaling
> "appearance" -- and you've probably got your foot on
> "ineluctable." I'd put it like this: the values on display in
> your example are fame and fortune. Hard work and hypocrisy
> are the means to those ends.
( I'm not familiar with the idiom, "got your foot on". Is this
like "stepping in it", or "putting your foot in it" ? )
Industriousness is a virtue, which means strength. It reflects a
personal quality that is valuable for success in life, much as
physical strength or intelligence, and it comes to be valued
for this reason. I'm not so sure how the rock bands are necessarily
hypocritical in this. They're just doing what they have to do.
It does create a conflict, though, which can culminate in
rank hypocrisy when they become assimilated into corporate culture.
Rock culture expresses awareness of this with the term "selling out",
although the resentment and contempt carried by this accusation
fails to credit the, ah, ineluctable forces at work.
Actually though, I think the culture has pretty much given up
on the old Rock ethos. Marilyn Manson is a perfect example. His
outrageous persona seems to be entirely confined to his
stage act. The commodification of rebellion.
> Comments on life under capitalism.
So under socialism laziness prevails?
> No evidence the work-ethic in unavoidable.
Nevertheless, it keeps popping up. Of course Proverbs touts it.
"As the door turneth upon its hinge, so turneth the sluggard
on his bed." Did they have capitalism in those days?
"The rich man's wealth is his strong city: the destruction of
the poor is their poverty." ... maybe so.
> And what about the stuff in the scriptures? Wisdom's said
> to pre-exist the world in both Proverbs and 1 Corinthians.
> But on inspection, they give antithetical descriptions. Wisdom
> guides the decrees of earthly rulers, according to Proverbs
> 8:15 -- 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 opposes the wisdom of this world to
> the wisdom of God and claims "none of the princes of this
> world" have the kind which counts. Direct contradiction on the
> nature of wisdom -- on the divine, too.
Yes, I think we can see there are a few points of variance.
> I've mentioned before (more than once) that Jesus preaches
> against the work-ethic in the Gospels, e.g. in Matthew
> 6:24-34, the passage which says you can't serve both mammon and
> God. He offers birds, who don't sow, reap, or gather, and
> flowers, which don't toil nor spin, as models. Over in Luke he
> predicts destruction for those who buy and sell. Of course
> his prophesy wasn't fulfilled -- but it's not hard to see where
> he stands.
I agree. My thought is that early Christianity represented a radical
psychological break with the social order of the time, which was
stultifying and offered no hope of respite. It reminds me of Phil Och's
song "I declare the war is over." Christianity declared that Roman rule
was over, do what they will.
So in this resepect, Christianity is just like the Rock bands. The work
ethic resurfaced among them in very short order. Yet, they had to hang
on to their roots, didn't they? Just like Americans are perpetually
identified with the American Revolution. The heroes of Star Wars are
of course the rebels, even if the storm troopers bear a nagging
resemblance to the U.S. Army Rangers.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Lewis Mammel
Lewis Mammel wrote:
>
> Also, this choice of allowed messages establishes a single error correcting
> code in exact analogy with the first example, so this is a perfectly
> logical extension of it.
Arrgh! I've been saying "single error correcting" when I meant
"single error detecting". A single error correcting code has multiple
check bits which allow you to locate and correct any single error.
"Did I say Aristotle? I meant of course St. Paul!" - Rev. Spooner
Lew Mammel, Jr.
smw
Lewis Mammel wrote:
That's like saying that cowardice is a virtue because it leads to longer life
under a variety of circumstances.
Moggin has it right -- working hard is necessary to achieve what is valued
in the cases you describe, i.e. fame, glamour, etc. The underlying virtue, if
you insist on detecting one here, would be prudence. Ambition might fit in as
well, but I don't think it's unanimously coded virtuous.
obwebsite: www. positivepsychology.org
Lewis Mammel
smw wrote:
>
> Lewis Mammel wrote:
> >
> > Industriousness is a virtue, which means strength. It reflects a
> > personal quality that is valuable for success in life, much as
> > physical strength or intelligence, and it comes to be valued
> > for this reason.
>
> That's like saying that cowardice is a virtue because it leads to longer life
> under a variety of circumstances.
But is cowardice a strategy for success in life ?
Do we need to wonder why Joe Blow who ran away and was never seen
again is not held in esteem?
> Moggin has it right -- working hard is necessary to achieve what is valued
> in the cases you describe, i.e. fame, glamour, etc. The underlying virtue, if
> you insist on detecting one here, would be prudence. Ambition might fit in as
> well, but I don't think it's unanimously coded virtuous.
Are you saying hard work is it not "coded virtuous"?
I really thought it was.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
smw
Lewis Mammel wrote:
I think it is, too, by many. I'm not sure you've made the case for rock bands. I
agree with you that they do have to work hard to be able to convey an image of
reckless self-indulgence, and that there is irony there, but I don't think they
project hard work as a value. Sweat, perhaps, but rather as an erotic incentive.
Sports might work better.
s
ObPhilosopher: Weber
Lewis Mammel
smw wrote:
>
> I think it is, too, by many. I'm not sure you've made the case for rock bands. I
> agree with you that they do have to work hard to be able to convey an image of
> reckless self-indulgence, and that there is irony there, but I don't think they
> project hard work as a value. Sweat, perhaps, but rather as an erotic incentive.
The point is they have had to adopt hard work as a value, no matter how loathe
they are to admit it. This was my case for the ineluctability of hard work.
As many of them became tycoons, and people started talking about how
Guns 'n Roses played golf with Alice Cooper, they started to be a little
less reticent about being seen in this light. This was a big joke in Wayne's
World, where Wayne and Garth get backstage passes at an Alice Cooper
concert and find themseleves being lectured on the civic history of
Milwaukee. This is where Wayne delivers his famous line, "I was not
aware of that!" ( The delivery is more famous than the line. )
> Sports might work better.
Sports have always valorized hard work. The whole point is that the
Rock stars had to adopt it in spite of themselves. Get it? Get it?
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Clark Goble
| If I ever wanna read Eco's more technical stuff
| (a day that may never come), I'll try to
| remember to look at _The Philosophy of Language_
| instead of the other one. But odds are I'll
| pick up _Island of the Day Before Yesterday_
| (_Day Tomorrow Can't Recall_? _Day Last Week
| Forgot_?) or the one on perfect languages.
_The Island of the Day Before_ is as much a kind of deconstructive novel
based on _Candide_ and _Robinson Curoso_ (sp?) as anthing else. It still
uses a lot of his historical and linguistic knowledge but I had a really
hard time reading it. As I said, I never ended up finishing it.
_The Search for the Perfect Language_ is a history of that search in
European history and is rather entertaining. It covers the two tendencies
in these languages - full metaphoric expression or a close correspondence to
the way things "are." This then ends up being tied to Eco's concern with
the open vs. closed text, that he has discussed in several books.
Interestingly a lot of the stories found in _Foucalt's Pendulum_ are found
here as well, but treated in a more scholarly way. My favorite was
Descartes worrying about being thought a Rosicrucian.
It's also interesting as it relates to the two tendencies in western
thought, especially during and immediately after the Renaissance. Some
looked forward to a created utopia both of language and culture. Others
thought we'd devolved from some high state and sought a rediscovery of what
Adam, Moses, Enoch or Thoth once had. It's always interesting when both
trends are combined in one person, such as an Isaac Newton.
Lewis Mammel
Clark and I were echoing Eco's usage of course, but it's perfectly appropriate:
"dispose of 1: to place, distribute, or arrange esp. in an orderly way"
- Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
I think "disposing of" trash is a euphemism that came to dominate
the usage, as the original meaning fell into relative disuse.
The Latin root is disponere, to arrange.
( Don't they have dictionaries in your part of the world? )
Lew Mammel, Jr.
smw
Lewis Mammel wrote:
I get what you're saying, dear. I just think you're wrong. "They had to adopt it,"
yes. "As a value," no. Uh, get it?
s
Robert Bannister
I think the writer meant 'has at his disposal'. I searched a number of
dictionaries, but none of them gives this meaning of 'dispose of'. I wonder
whether a similar word has that meaning in another language, ie is the writer a
native English speaker?
--
Rob Bannister
Lewis Mammel
OK. I retract, "had to adopt hard work as a value". What I meant
was that they had to acquire or practice it as a virtue, since I think
we may say virtue is as virtue does. So they will find that they
have become hard-working. Then when we observe, perhaps against
expectations, that the stars among Rock musicians have this virtue,
we might thoughtfully conclude that rewards ineluctably require hard
work, and that the work ethic is grounded in natural law.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Lewis Mammel
Robert Bannister wrote:
>
> Steve Hayes wrote:
>
> > On 23 Feb 2002 13:54:05 -0600, "Clark Goble" <cl...@lextek.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > ___ Lew ___
> > >| Let's go with this.
> > >|
> > >| My engineer and I have designed a signal system with a readout consisting
> > >| of four lights, each of which can be read as "on" or "off". Then I say:
> > >|
> > >| "I shall consider both the message to the destination and the bulbs
> > >| as two aspects of the same phenomenon. At this point the engineer
> > >| has - at least from a theoretical point of view - 16 messages at his
> > >| disposal: ..."
> > >|
> > >|
> > >| OK, now you tell me. What are these 16 messages?
> > > ___
> > >
> > >
> > >But of course that's not all that he said.
> > >
> > >Lets play it a little differently. "Suppose that the engineer now disposes
> > >of four positive signals and establishes that every messages must be
> > >composed of two signals."
> > >
> > >What are the signals? It will be the 4x4 matrix.
> >
> > A language question:
> >
> > What do you mean by "disposes of"?
> >
> > To me it means to throw in the rubbish bin, like a disposable nappy. I believe
> > that to bureaucrats it means "to deal with the matter and close the file". But
> > how would you "dispose of" the four lights other than by throwing them away?
>
> I think the writer meant 'has at his disposal'.
"to have [ something ] at your disposal" just means that you can
"dispose of" it as you please, so it's just a different form of the
same thought. So is "disposed", which means to be inclined to, by
way of being arranged or prepared, and "indisposed" which means not
arranged or prepared [ to meet visitors, e.g. - of course a euphemism ]
and so is "disposition" which means how something has been arranged or
"disposed of". To "dispose of" garbage is a euphemism.
> I searched a number of
> dictionaries, but none of them gives this meaning of 'dispose of'.
Throw out these dictionaries and get Webster's Collegiate.
> I wonder
> whether a similar word has that meaning in another language, ie is the writer a
> native English speaker?
In the Diamond Italian Dictionary ( an It/Eng dictionary I bought
at Borders for $1.98 ) The english "dispose" has the entry
vt disporre; to ~ of vt ( time, money ) disporre di;
( unwanted goods ) sbarazzarsi di ; ...
So the euphemism which has become dominant in English does not
translate into Italian, Eco's native language. I might guess
he used "disporre di" in the original on which his English rewrite
is based, although the examples of time and money don't really
make clear whether the idea of arranging or preparing obtains.
Surely it is cognate, though, via the Latin root.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Lewis Mammel
I was just reviewing Peirce's essay, Logic as Semiotic: The Theory of Signs,
and he talks about letters being used as "indices", as per his system,
and gives the example "If A and B are married ..." etc. in legal jargon.
This got me to thinking of the letters and other signs that Eco uses
in his discussion, and how the confusion over the 4x4 matrix has a
semiotic origin.
He first introduces "two different levels of signal" which
seems to mean two different modes, such as two distinct tones, each of
which can have its own level, hence "two levels".
He says: "The engineer can establish the following code: presence
of signal ( +A ) versus absence of signal ( -A )" and similarly for
+B and -B. Here, "signal" clearly refers to the transmission on the
wire. We may refer to the four distinct signal combinations of the
two modes as 10, 01, 00, 11, which notation Eco does subsequently
use for four modes, but here he calls them +A, +B, -AB, +AB, respectively.
Then he says that the engineer "disposes of three signals" because he
groups 00 and 11 together as an error signal. This is inconsistent with
his just established use of "signal".
Now he expands to "four different levels" represented by four light
bulbs, says the engineer has "16 possible messages at his disposal"
and produces the infamous matrix:
AA BA CA DA
AB BB CB DB
AC BC CC DC
AD BD CD DD
which is the first occurrence of the signs 'C' and 'D', and the first
occurrence of the two letter pairs without +/- signs. In later usage,
the letter pairs are equated to bit designations: AB = 1100, CD = 0011,
etc.
We can establish the following equivalence among the three different
sign systems he has established by reference.
AB = +A +B -C -D = 1100
Of course, we could write out all sixteen combinations corresponding
to the light bulb configuration and equivalently the states of the
transmission modes.
What then is AA ? It has no interpretant in the model! Note that
if he had written +A+A, we would have interpreted the repetition
as a redundant specification "A is present. A is present." and likewise
we would see +A+B +B+A as the equivalent specifications "A is present.
B is present" , "B is present. A is present."
As it is, we are invited to leave the model and find new interpretants
in terms of sequential signals, "A is present. Then A is present again."
and "First A is present, then B is present." vs. "First B is present,
then A is present." but this is an entirely new ground of interpretation,
and these are, in Peirce's terms, new signs, since "a sign is a
representamen with a mental interpretant"
Eco even acknowledges this when he says, "the temporal succession of
two signals is not being considered in this case" when rationalizing
the equivalence of AB and BA. Also, he says, "Since AA,BB,CC,DD are
simply repetitions of a single signal, and therefore cannot be
instantaneously emitted" they are discarded.
So his method of explanation is to examine the interpretant of
the signs on the new ground of repetitive signals, then dismiss
them as meaningless to the model under consideration. Under this
logic all the signs should be dismissed, of course. Semiotically,
he does not retain any of the signs, but reuses six of the representamens
as new signs in the ground of the orginal model.
All this is entirely inconsistent with his statement that the matrix
represents "possible messages". So why did he do it?
I believe the only reasonable explanation is that he confused
the 16 combinations of four things, which do represent
the possible messages of the model, with the 16 ordered pairs
of four things. To me, its a display of horrible confusion, and
the way he deals with it in this facile manner is quite damning.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Steve Hayes
Quite possibly -- but once you have disposed of them, they are surely no
longer at your disposal. To me when you have "disposed of" something you have
finally settled it.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Kater Moggin
> ( I'm not familiar with the idiom, "got your foot on". Is this
> like "stepping in it", or "putting your foot in it" ? )
Did I make that up? Sorry. I meant emphasis. If you had
been saying "giving it the APPEARANCE of an ineluctable
principle," I'd have gone along, but I took you to mean "giving
it the appearance of an INELUCTABLE principle."
> Industriousness is a virtue, which means strength. It reflects a
> personal quality that is valuable for success in life, much as
> physical strength or intelligence, and it comes to be valued
> for this reason.
Especially by people who value a) life and b) success. So
the virtue of hard work remains up for debate. Jeff once
offered a wonderfully simple way to test supposedly
ground-level values. "So what?" The answer typically comes as
another value, which you can test the same way.
"Industriousness is a strength." So what? "Strength is needed
for success in life." So what? Etc.
> I'm not so sure how the rock bands are necessarily
> hypocritical in this.
They aren't, necessarily; just the ones that you described.
They advertise hedonism but practice hard work, like a
minister who preaches chastity and faithfulness, then drives to
a cheap motel with his mistress.
Then again, one could say that their industry -- so-called
-- is a form of leisure. Stick me in a band and send me to
play clubs for the next six months. I might get tired of motel
rooms, but I wouldn't call it working.
Also under the then-again heading: isn't the minister who
gets some on the side a more appealing figure than one who
embodies the puritanism that he preaches? Ditto the hedonistic
rock'n'roller who writes songs all day.
> They're just doing what they have to do.
> It does create a conflict, though, which can culminate in
> rank hypocrisy when they become assimilated into corporate culture.
> Rock culture expresses awareness of this with the term "selling out",
> although the resentment and contempt carried by this accusation
> fails to credit the, ah, ineluctable forces at work.
Yeah, the forces are very strong. But pointing out things
people are forced into doing hardly makes a case for the
ineluctability of their values. The question moves back a step
to the forces at work.
> Actually though, I think the culture has pretty much given up
> on the old Rock ethos. Marilyn Manson is a perfect example. His
> outrageous persona seems to be entirely confined to his
> stage act. The commodification of rebellion.
Sure enough.
Moggin:
>> Comments on life under capitalism.
Lew:
> So under socialism laziness prevails?
Those bands illustrate a point about life under capitalism
for the good and simple reason that's where they're living.
To conclude that they're demonstrating the necessity of certain
values is a big leap.
Yes, I can imagine a society where things would be
otherwise, either cuz artists and musicians weren't required to
sell themselves on the streetcorner, or because (miracle de
Dieu!) the economic system didn't threaten everybody there with
homelessness and starvation. Call that socialism if you'd
like -- I'd call it the very minimum necessary for civilization.
Moggin:
>> No evidence the work-ethic in unavoidable.
Lew:
> Nevertheless, it keeps popping up. Of course Proverbs touts it.
> "As the door turneth upon its hinge, so turneth the sluggard
> on his bed." Did they have capitalism in those days?
> "The rich man's wealth is his strong city: the destruction of
> the poor is their poverty." ... maybe so.
It's all over the place, I agree -- commonest thing in the
world, or anyway one of them. That's what makes Jesus'
criticism of the idea in the Gospels remarkable. No
coincedence it's part of his rejection of this world as a whole.
Moggin:
>> And what about the stuff in the scriptures? Wisdom's said
>> to pre-exist the world in both Proverbs and 1 Corinthians.
>> But on inspection, they give antithetical descriptions. Wisdom
>> guides the decrees of earthly rulers, according to Proverbs
>> 8:15 -- 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 opposes the wisdom of this world to
>> the wisdom of God and claims "none of the princes of this
>> world" have the kind which counts. Direct contradiction on the
>> nature of wisdom -- on the divine, too.
Lew:
> Yes, I think we can see there are a few points of variance.
Two antithetical perspectives on the nature of wisdom (and
God) -- even though they both accept the premise that it's
something which existed before the Creation. Nobody taking the
position it's the product of social, cultural or historical
contingencies -- but we still end up with diametrically opposed
descriptions.
Moggin:
>> I've mentioned before (more than once) that Jesus preaches
>> against the work-ethic in the Gospels, e.g. in Matthew
>> 6:24-34, the passage which says you can't serve both mammon and
>> God. He offers birds, who don't sow, reap, or gather, and
>> flowers, which don't toil nor spin, as models. Over in Luke he
>> predicts destruction for those who buy and sell. Of course
>> his prophesy wasn't fulfilled -- but it's not hard to see where
>> he stands.
Lew:
> I agree. My thought is that early Christianity represented a radical
> psychological break with the social order of the time, which was
> stultifying and offered no hope of respite. It reminds me of Phil Och's
> song "I declare the war is over." Christianity declared that Roman rule
> was over, do what they will.
I think the Gospels are more Dylan-esque: "The times they
are a-changing." The kingdom of God signifies a break with
the cosmic order as well as the social one. (Obvious in "a new
heavens and a new earth," although that's elsewhere.) Paul
has eschatalogical hopes, too, but the epistles take a far more
conservative stand on work. E.P. Sanders suggests that he
never got around to re-evaluating all his conventional thinking
in light of the revelation he received. Sanders is talking
about P's attitude to homosexuality, but he could have made the
same point here.
The work-ethic belongs to the wisdom of the world rejected
in 1 Corinthians -- in fact it's a perfect example. So
logically it shouldn't have a place in Paul. Yet it's accepted
as a matter of course in the epistles. I switched over to
passive voice because we don't after all know what parts if any
were written by the historical fella. They may contain
conflicts simply because they're stating more than one person's
views. If that's the case, then I admire the rebel and
visionary, but I've got no respect for the conservative. Which
tells you what my values are.
Incidentally, I should have cited the farmers and builders
in Luke, since buying and selling is a different issue.
Related, of course, but not the same. We're talking about work
-- not the market -- so I named the wrong case. The outcome
doesn't change, tho: Jesus prophesies they'll all be destroyed
by the coming of God's kingdom.
> So in this resepect, Christianity is just like the Rock bands. The work
> ethic resurfaced among them in very short order. Yet, they had to hang
> on to their roots, didn't they? Just like Americans are perpetually
> identified with the American Revolution.
You'll have that. The waters part only for a moment, then
sweep back in again -- if they part at all.
Almost forgot. ObBangles: "Going Down To Liverpool To Do
Nothing."
-- Moggin
K. Edgcombe
Robert Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >Lets play it a little differently. "Suppose that the engineer now disposes
>> >of four positive signals and establishes that every messages must be
>> >composed of two signals."
>> >
>> >What are the signals? It will be the 4x4 matrix.
>>
>> A language question:
>>
>> What do you mean by "disposes of"?
>>
>> To me it means to throw in the rubbish bin, like a disposable nappy. I believe
>> that to bureaucrats it means "to deal with the matter and close the file". But
>> how would you "dispose of" the four lights other than by throwing them away?
>
>I think the writer meant 'has at his disposal'. I searched a number of
>dictionaries, but none of them gives this meaning of 'dispose of'. I wonder
>whether a similar word has that meaning in another language, ie is the writer a
>native English speaker?
>
It sounds to me like a straight translation from French (or possibly from
another Romance language). A false friend.
Katy
smw
Lewis Mammel wrote:
> OK. I retract, "had to adopt hard work as a value". What I meant
> was that they had to acquire or practice it as a virtue, since I think
> we may say virtue is as virtue does. So they will find that they
> have become hard-working. Then when we observe, perhaps against
> expectations, that the stars among Rock musicians have this virtue,
> we might thoughtfully conclude that rewards ineluctably require hard
> work, and that the work ethic is grounded in natural law.
>
Oh, we're doing a Morris parody! sorry it took me a while to get with the program.
s
Michael S. Morris
Monday, the 25th of February, 2002
Lew:
OK. I retract, "had to adopt hard work as a value".
What I meant was that they had to acquire or practice
it as a virtue, since I think we may say virtue is
as virtue does. So they will find that they have
become hard-working. Then when we observe, perhaps
against expectations, that the stars among Rock
musicians have this virtue, we might thoughtfully
conclude that rewards ineluctably require hard
work, and that the work ethic is grounded in natural
law.
Silke:
Oh, we're doing a Morris parody! sorry it took me
a while to get with the program.
And where is the parody in it? I mean, the idea is
straightforward---humans by their very nature require
certain things in order to live and to live well.
Behaviours, then, which enable humans to obtain these
necessary things then, quite naturally,
become valued highly.
There are obvious reasons why hard work might come to be
valued by human beings, and why not valuing it isn't
much of an option. But, hard work certainly isn't the
only value that would seem to have a natural basis. It
seems to me science springs right from the human need to
question and to know, and the succesful and human-fulfilling
pursuit of science imposes certain values and certain
ethics and politics upon us (cf. Jacob Bronowski _Science
and Human Values_). Heck, even environmentalist values
seem to arise quite naturally from the direct threat-to-
humans inherent in the fouling of our own nest---our need
to drink pure water, breathe pure air, and so forth.
The idea that we are autonomous (self-law-giving) as
distinct from free-willed (able to choose to follow or no
the ethical laws which bound us) is counterfactual.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Lewis Mammel
Kater Moggin wrote:
> Then again, one could say that their industry -- so-called
> -- is a form of leisure. Stick me in a band and send me to
> play clubs for the next six months. I might get tired of motel
> rooms, but I wouldn't call it working.
Yeah, it sounds more like torture. Surely you've heard
Money For Nothing by Dire Straits ? Or did you ever see the
documentary account of "the day the music died" ?
> Also under the then-again heading: isn't the minister who
> gets some on the side a more appealing figure than one who
> embodies the puritanism that he preaches?
No.
> Ditto the hedonistic
> rock'n'roller who writes songs all day.
We feel this redeems him, I think. Ever see Sid and Nancy? That's
what gave me this thought originally. In particular, the scene where
Sid is so drunk or drugged out or whatever that he can't play his
guitar on stage at a club. The punk audience is disgusted with him,
starkly revealing the paradox that he is expected to have discipline
so he can properly express rage, chaos, rebellion and anarchy. He
was their champion, but has now become merely pathetic. Good for nothing.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Lewis Mammel
"Michael S. Morris" wrote:
> Silke:
> Oh, we're doing a Morris parody! sorry it took me
> a while to get with the program.
>
> And where is the parody in it? ...
Thanks, Mike, but um ah ...
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Kater Moggin
> Kater Moggin wrote:
>> ... the hedonistic
>> rock'n'roller who writes songs all day.
> We feel this redeems him, I think.
We couldn't possibly feel that redeemed him unless we also
already felt that hedonism was damnation -- and those of us
who believe _that_ are mostly religious fundamentalists of some
kind.
> Ever see Sid and Nancy?
Great movie. Directed by Alex Cox, who also did _Repo Man_.
> That's
> what gave me this thought originally. In particular, the scene where
> Sid is so drunk or drugged out or whatever that he can't play his
> guitar on stage at a club. The punk audience is disgusted with him,
> starkly revealing the paradox that he is expected to have discipline
> so he can properly express rage, chaos, rebellion and anarchy. He
> was their champion, but has now become merely pathetic. Good for nothing.
Words Never Said Category: "I'm disgusted with Sid's lack
of a work-ethic. I expected him to have discipline so he
could properly express my rage and rebellion." Sid Vicious fan.
-- Moggin
Lewis Mammel
Proverbs represents a primal and unselfconscious form of knowledge
to me: "My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not. If they say,
Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily
for the innocent without cause... walk not thou in the way
with them."
Whew! He's not really slicing it very thin here, is he?
I'm impressed by Proverbs just because it is so primitive. There's
a strangeness in its voice which grants it an authenticity, and
yes, even an authority, because it awakens my own primitive awe.
When he says, "the sluggard turneth upon his bed" I go,
"Whoa, he's in my head."
So I put great significance on "Doth not Wisdom cry?" etc. It
represents a deep intuition to me. Paul's letter to the Corinthians
is beside the point.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Clark Goble
| Also, I said, "He's got 11 = 1, 00 = 0, 01 = 10 = error, B
| is a "check bit" and he's got a single error detecting code."
| ... which is the right idea, but not what he describes.
___
Now if only we can get you to criticize him for what he did say rather than
what you think he ought to have talked about. . . <grin>
For Eco it is an error *not* because he is developing error as a unique
linguistical or semiotic sign, but simply because it is *not* a coded sign.
It is an error the same way the word /asxify/ is an error in English.
You keep wanting to read him as speaking about electrical engineering. Get
it out of your system. Read him as speaking about semiotics. I promise to
be equal opportunity in this. If some French postmodernist starts spouting
off on the freudian imagery of imaginary numbers I'll criticize them the
same way. <Grin>
We know that this is how Eco is talking about errors because he says, "it is
probable that any wrong activation will give rise to a 'senseless' message,
such as ABC or ABCD." Further, we know that in the chapter and footnotes
the parallels and analogies he makes are all to linguistics. Most
importantly his ultimate point in the chapter is to distinguish s-codes from
codes and from possibilities of the signals. This is made rather clear on
pages 44-45 where he discusses how a s-code (basically a vocabulary and
grammar) change the entropy. Once again he isn't using the sort of
discussion you'll find in most mathematics, computer science, or engineering
papers on Shannon. However that is because he is interested in semiotics,
not engineering.
Indeed with the s-code he finally selects there are only 4 messages - AB,
BC, CD, AD. The ultimate messages are *arbitrary*.
Anyway, if you jump over to chapter 2 I think you'll see why Eco limited
things the way he did in his model.
___ Lewis ___
| Is AA one of the "16 possible messages" ? No it is not!
___
Yes it is. That's why I quoted the sentence where Eco gives the theoretical
case. "Suppose that the engineer now disposes of four positive signals and
establishes that every messages must be composed of two signals."
Eco distinguishes the 16 as a "theoretical possibility" from the physical
possibilities when the boundary conditions are applies. (i.e. each light
can only be on once and position doesn't matter) In that theoretical
situation (and that is the very term Eco uses) we have 4^2 possibilities.
For the situtation with the boundary conditions we have C(4,2)
possibilities.
What Eco is doing is akin to way back when you were first learning mechanics
in physics. You set up the general case and then continue to add boundary
conditions until you have the right equations. Then you start to manipulate
the equations.
While you may be gifted enough so as to be able to write down the right
equations just by looking, most of us have to step through applying the
boundary conditions. So have pity on us mere mortals who have to think
about the equations so as to get them. . . <grin>
___ Lewis ___
| There are in fact 16 possible messages, and they are
| readily identifiable, so why doesn't he name them?
___
Um. He did. That was the whole point of the 4x4 table.
___ Lewis ___
| You see, once he "diposes of four positive signals" he has
| the 2^4 light combinations to play with.
___
But he doesn't simply dispose of the four signals. He disposes of them with
messages composed of two signals.
Eco starts with the general case of four in two places which gives the 4x4
matrix. Then he throws out repititions for 12 messages. Finally he
eliminates differences due to position giving 6. As I said, it makes
perfect sense to me. He goes through applying the boundary conditions.
That's probably the last I'll say on that point as I just don't see any of
your complaints as being that significant.
___ Lewis ___
| Also, this choice of allowed messages establishes a single
| error correcting code in exact analogy with the first
| example, so this is a perfectly logical extension of it.
___
Except that Eco clearly doesn't designate it that way. Now you may do that
in your field of electric communications. But Eco isn't writing a paper in
that field. He is writing on semiotics. The analogy he wishes to establish
is with general sign systems including natural language. The effort he
makes to establish an iconic type of sign with the binary presentation shows
that. (See pg. 39)
The problem still is that you want a real engineering device and that is
what you are concerned with. Eco, on the other hand, is concerned with
illustrating several semiotic principles.
___ Lewis ___
| I would think it likely, in fact, that De Mauro's choice
| of these models was based on a study of Hamming codes,
| since they are both simple examples of it.
___
That might be. As I said I think that there was some real world device that
inspired all of this. I assumed a real water system, but who knows.
Whether the model as presented follows it closely is an other matter, of
course, But then illustrations need not follow such things too closely.
___ Lewis ___
| You don't suppose there's any possiblity of scaring up De
| Mauro's original, do you? The reference is in Italian!
___
Inter-library loan should be able to get it no problem. At least one
university in the states is bound to have a copy of the journal it was
published in. Generally they'll send a photocopy to your local library. I
must confess that I'm not motivated enough so as to pay the $5 though since
I don't see any problems with the illustration.
___ Lewis ___
| "These go to eleven." Know that line?
___
Nope. Never heard it at all unless it is a line from _Oceans Eleven_.
Actually I'll guess _Alice in Wonderland_. (Everyone always quotes Carol
when trying to convince people how irrational someone else is - sort of like
philosophers tend to call the figure they disagree with a mystic)
___ Clark ___
| In any case, quibbling over such a minor issue as word
| choice when the choice doesn't affect the meaning (except
| to someone trying to understand the apparatus rather
| than the semiotics) is asking a bit much.
|
___ Lewis ___
| I don't think it's a quibble at all. It seems to be a
| hapax legomenon - always an object of mystery.
___
Unless you choose to tell me in a further post, it will also always be an
object of mystery why you chose to write "hapax legomenon" instead of saying
"it is indeterminate." One of the greatest discoveries I made in life was to
realize that somethings can forever be a mystery and not matter. I'm fine
with it. I don't know the name of the first person to use a wheel and axel
either. But it doesn't affect me as I drive my car.
Kater Moggin
> _The Island of the Day Before_ is as much a kind of deconstructive novel
> based on _Candide_ and _Robinson Curoso_ (sp?) as anthing else. It still
> uses a lot of his historical and linguistic knowledge but I had a really
> hard time reading it. As I said, I never ended up finishing it.
You also weren't too pleased by _The Name of the Rose_, so
don't rush out to the library, but _The Club Dumas_, by
Perez-Reverte (the book Joan and me were talking about a little
while ago) is very Eco-ish. Even drops his name. It's a
novel about book-collecting, Satan's fall, and green-eyed girls.
One in specific. Not quite so good as I'm making it sound --
the whole is less than the sum of the parts -- but worth a look.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> Proverbs represents a primal and unselfconscious form of knowledge
> to me: "My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not. If they say,
> Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily
> for the innocent without cause... walk not thou in the way
> with them."
> Whew! He's not really slicing it very thin here, is he?
> I'm impressed by Proverbs just because it is so primitive. There's
> a strangeness in its voice which grants it an authenticity, and
> yes, even an authority, because it awakens my own primitive awe.
> When he says, "the sluggard turneth upon his bed" I go,
> "Whoa, he's in my head."
How so? To me Proverbs is umpety pages of Polonius-style
sermonizing, with occasional exceptions. Maybe I've been
missing something. I admit I've never given it close attention
-- just leafed through.
> So I put great significance on "Doth not Wisdom cry?" etc. It
> represents a deep intuition to me. Paul's letter to the Corinthians
> is beside the point.
Impossible, since it makes exactly the same point that you
found in Proverbs. You quoted from Proverbs 8, which says
wisdom preceded the world, to show the "powerful appeal" of the
idea. Alright, fine. The notion turns up again in 1
Corinthians 2, which says wisdom was "ordained before the world."
Gotta be relevant: it's the same theme.
But it plays _very_ differently in 1 Cor. than in Proverbs.
They differ fundamentally about what wisdom is and by
implication about the divine. Proverbs 8:15 states that wisdom
lies in the decrees of kings and princes -- by contrast, 1
Cor. 2:6 says that the wisdom of God is not "the wisdom of this
world, nor of the princes of this world."
In their wisdom, the princes of this world crucified Jesus.
From Paul's perspective that says everything about them.
Proverbs says that rulers are guided by God-given wisdom, while
1 Cor. 2 says their wisdom is the opposite of divine. The
same premise, but antithetical concepts of wisdom. Even of God.
I'll add the usual qualification that the Pauline epistles
are nothing like consistent. There are definitely some
passages (I'm thinking of the beginning of Romans 13) much more
in tune with Proverbs.
-- Moggin
Michael S. Morris
Tuesday, the 26th of February, 2002
Silke:
Oh, we're doing a Morris parody! sorry it took me
a while to get with the program.
I said:
And where is the parody in it? ...
Lew:
Thanks, Mike, but um ah ...
Yeah, I know, but it does seem to me with the
"hard work" thing you are arguing exactly the
hardwiring of some ethics in much the way I
think of it. That is, given human values that
arise as primitive requirements either for human
life itself, or human potentialities realized (such
as friendship, love, the vita contemplativa), and
given a physical and social environment with
predictable (or semi-predictable) empirical laws,
some rather complex *oughts* may be deduced.
The ethical relativist tries one of two arguments---
either questions the primitive requirements
on fundamental principles or stresses the vagaries
of social environment. Both are beside the point.
Questioning the primitive requirements (like people
need to breathe and eat and love and so forth) is like
questioning the metaphysical foundations of science---sure,
we have no guarantee that gravity will work in the way
science says it does if we step off a 12th-story balcony,
but even the pomos do not seem to be trying it. And,
stressing the vagaries of social environment misses
the point that a complex ought pertains to a given social
environment. Sure, working hard might not be valuable
if we lived naked on a tropical island where food
a-plenty falls off the trees, and we can spear
fish for a feast in half-an-hour's wading in the surf.
But, we don't live there. And, if we did, men with ships
and airplanes and guns might descend on us and enslave
us in such a way that we might well regret we had not
valued hard work better and developed metallurgy when
we had it good.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
James Whitehead
<msmo...@netdirect.net> writes
>Questioning the primitive requirements (like people
>need to breathe and eat and love and so forth) is like
>questioning the metaphysical foundations of science---sure,
>we have no guarantee that gravity will work in the way
>science says it does if we step off a 12th-story balcony,
>but even the pomos do not seem to be trying it.
http://www.cca.kiev.ua/exhib/museum/museum19.html
--
James Whitehead
Joan Marie Shields
>> _The Island of the Day Before_ is as much a kind of deconstructive novel
>> based on _Candide_ and _Robinson Curoso_ (sp?) as anthing else. It still
>> uses a lot of his historical and linguistic knowledge but I had a really
>> hard time reading it. As I said, I never ended up finishing it.
Kater Moggin <mog...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> You also weren't too pleased by _The Name of the Rose_, so
>don't rush out to the library, but _The Club Dumas_, by
>Perez-Reverte (the book Joan and me were talking about a little
>while ago) is very Eco-ish. Even drops his name. It's a
>novel about book-collecting, Satan's fall, and green-eyed girls.
>One in specific. Not quite so good as I'm making it sound --
>the whole is less than the sum of the parts -- but worth a look.
But not too Eco-ish. I liked THE NAME OF THE ROSE but couldn't quite
get into FOUCAULT'S PENDULUM. I enjoyed THE CLUB DUMAS though I prefered
THE FENCING MASTER and THE FLANDERS PANEL (Perez-Reverte). I don't know
if I can say that any of them, with the exception of FP, are that
deconstructive. You might make an arguement that TFP uses deconstruction,
of the painting and of the main character's life, but it's only as a tool
and used sparingly - i.e., the painting is still whole by the time they
are finished.
ObDeconMovie: UNFORGIVEN - deconstructs and rebuilds the western
yiwf,
joan
--
Joan Shields jshi...@uci.edu
http://www.ags.uci.edu/~jshields
University of California - Irvine School of Social Ecology
Department of Environmental Analysis and Design
Clark Goble
___ Joan ___
| UNFORGIVEN - deconstructs and rebuilds the western
I remember when _Unforgiven_ came out how people were calling it
deconstructive. I just don't get it. Exactly how is it deconstructive? It
is an excellent movie. It is complex and nuanced. It critiques some of the
views that existed in westerns. But then the same could be said of _The
Wild Bunch_, _Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid_ and so forth. Heavens, we
could even say that _The Searchers_ was deconstructive.
Now I think an argument could be made for a film like _Blazing Saddles_
being deconstructive. However even there I think that's questionable. (In
the same way that I don't think Bob Hope talking to the audience in his old
movies is deconstructive any more than a character in a Shakespeare play is
deconstructive)
About the only *real* movie I can think of off the top of my head that is
definitely deconstructive is _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead_. Even
films that I once thought were deconstructive, such as David Lynch's _Lost
Highway_, I've changed my mind about.
Clark Goble
| _The Island of the Day Before_ is as much a kind of
| deconstructive novel based on _Candide_ and _Robinson
| Curoso_ (sp?) as anthing else. It still uses a lot
| of his historical and linguistic knowledge but I had
| a really hard time reading it. As I said, I never
| ended up finishing it.
|
| You also weren't too pleased by _The Name of the
| Rose_,
That's not quite accurate. I didn't think it lived up to the hype, but I
still liked it a lot. That weird apocalyptic dream towards the end is still
masterful.
I had a little bias as at the time I didn't know much about medieval
philosophy or the like and plus saw the movie before the book. While the
movie adopts the plot of the book, it really misses the "heart" of the book.
So it wasn't what I expected.
_Foucalt's Pendulum_ I think I liked more because I read it right around the
same time I was first getting into the Internet. I was meeting all these
quacks who typed in upper case making all these weird conspiracy theories.
Likewise at the same time (I was a sophmore in college) I was meeting these
folks who belonged to various groups in the book. Then in history I was
learning about gnostics and kabbalists. Finally in philosophy I was first
encountering the problems of the open vs. closed texts. So it was kind of a
culimination of all these rather odd new things I was being exposed to. And
Eco really did put it all together in a very humorous way. I found it funny
as all get out. I leant the book to about four or five friends who were
also physics majors and everyone loved it. I don't know why, but all the
non-physics majors I leant it to didn't see the humor and didn't like it.
Must be something corrupting about our major...
Jeff Inman
"Michael S. Morris" wrote:
>
> Tuesday, the 26th of February, 2002
>
> Silke:
> Oh, we're doing a Morris parody! sorry it took me
> a while to get with the program.
> I said:
> And where is the parody in it? ...
> Lew:
> Thanks, Mike, but um ah ...
>
> Yeah, I know, but it does seem to me with the
> "hard work" thing you are arguing exactly the
> hardwiring of some ethics in much the way I
> think of it. That is, given human values that
> arise as primitive requirements either for human
> life itself, or human potentialities realized (such
> as friendship, love, the vita contemplativa), and
> given a physical and social environment with
> predictable (or semi-predictable) empirical laws,
> some rather complex *oughts* may be deduced.
>
> The ethical relativist tries one of two arguments---
> either questions the primitive requirements
> on fundamental principles or stresses the vagaries
> of social environment. Both are beside the point.
Why wouldn't he just say that, even supposing that these
values were necessary for human life (I'd debate that
point under other circumstances) ... that that doesn't
reduce to a logical necessity, i.e. to an *ought*. The
ObBook is too obvious to mention, especially given that it
would be coming from me. In other words, your "oughts"
are founded on instinct, rather than on argument. I don't
think it should be otherwise, but just that it seems
distasteful to make a rationale about it. The rationale
turns out to be a rationalization.
> Questioning the primitive requirements (like people
> need to breathe and eat and love and so forth) is like
> questioning the metaphysical foundations of science---sure,
> we have no guarantee that gravity will work in the way
> science says it does if we step off a 12th-story balcony,
> but even the pomos do not seem to be trying it. And,
> stressing the vagaries of social environment misses
> the point that a complex ought pertains to a given social
> environment. Sure, working hard might not be valuable
> if we lived naked on a tropical island where food
> a-plenty falls off the trees, and we can spear
> fish for a feast in half-an-hour's wading in the surf.
> But, we don't live there. And, if we did, men with ships
> and airplanes and guns might descend on us and enslave
> us in such a way that we might well regret we had not
> valued hard work better and developed metallurgy when
> we had it good.
Why isn't that a justification for the value of descending
on poorly armed people and enslaving them?
Jeff
Joan Marie Shields
___ Joan ___
>| UNFORGIVEN - deconstructs and rebuilds the western
> ___
Clark Goble <Cl...@lextek.com> wrote:
>I remember when _Unforgiven_ came out how people were calling it
>deconstructive. I just don't get it. Exactly how is it deconstructive? It
>is an excellent movie. It is complex and nuanced. It critiques some of the
>views that existed in westerns. But then the same could be said of _The
>Wild Bunch_, _Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid_ and so forth. Heavens, we
>could even say that _The Searchers_ was deconstructive.
UNFORGIVEN isn't a deconstructive movie per sae - it deconstructs then
reconstructs the myth of the gunfighter. What's interesting is that the
first view (myth) and the final view (reconstruction) are pretty much the
same. It tears apart the myth (deconstruction) and then rebuilds it.
>Now I think an argument could be made for a film like _Blazing Saddles_
>being deconstructive. However even there I think that's questionable. (In
>the same way that I don't think Bob Hope talking to the audience in his old
>movies is deconstructive any more than a character in a Shakespeare play is
>deconstructive)
No, BLAZING SADDLES is a parody of the western - a fond one.
>About the only *real* movie I can think of off the top of my head that is
>definitely deconstructive is _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead_. Even
>films that I once thought were deconstructive, such as David Lynch's _Lost
>Highway_, I've changed my mind about.
IMO, ROSENCRANTZ AND GUILDENSTER ARE DEAD is more a different perspective
than deconstructive although there may be some elements in the film.
All in all I'm not all that fond of deconstructism - or rather, I'm often
very suspicious of it. It seems to me that it's an ends rather than a
means of understanding something better. Reducing it to parts so small
that it all becomes meaningless is not very helpful, imo. It's like
someone taking Decartes clock apart until there's nothing left but springs
and coils. It's one thing to look at each piece and dispute it - it's
another to see how all the inconsequencial pieces fit together and create
something else. In UNFORGIVEN, the individual pieces are examined and
many are found to be flawed or patently untrue - however, at the end of the
movie they all fall into place and make the myth of the gunfighter real.
smw
Joan Marie Shields wrote:
> All in all I'm not all that fond of deconstructism - or rather, I'm often
> very suspicious of it. It seems to me that it's an ends rather than a
> means of understanding something better. Reducing it to parts so small
> that it all becomes meaningless is not very helpful, imo.
"Reducing to small parts" is not a very helpful description of deconstruction,
either, so the two of you are even.
s
Joan Marie Shields
Joan Shields wrote:
>> All in all I'm not all that fond of deconstructism - or rather, I'm often
>> very suspicious of it. It seems to me that it's an ends rather than a
>> means of understanding something better. Reducing it to parts so small
>> that it all becomes meaningless is not very helpful, imo.
smw <s...@umich.edu> wrote:
>"Reducing to small parts" is not a very helpful description of deconstruction,
>either, so the two of you are even.
Well, why don't you explain, in simple terms so that even a dimwitted
scientist like me can understand, exactly what is deconstructism? Most
of what I have seen is people taking things a part and examining each
piece individually. Is it simply another philosophical direction (as
some I've read say) or perspective? Does it give new directions for
humans to persue or does it simply move to negate what has come before
it? As a scientist I take things a part and examine them - but then I
also have to look at how all these parts work together.
I'm all for questioning basic assumptions about life, the universe and
everything but most of what I've seen coming from self-defined
deconstructionists is a seeming desire to artificailly convolute ideas
beyond recognition. I've also noted a great arrogance that, while it
questions previous arguments and assumptions, has a very difficult time
allowing the same for its arguments and assumptions. Then again, maybe
these are things common to most philosophers.
I'll tell you what - you explain decostructism and I'll explain
PCR (polymerase chain reaction).
tejas
"Clark Goble" <Cl...@lextek.com> wrote in message
news:3c7bd1fd$0$50907$45be...@newscene.com...
>
> ___ Joan ___
> | UNFORGIVEN - deconstructs and rebuilds the western
> ___
>
> I remember when _Unforgiven_ came out how people were calling it
> deconstructive. I just don't get it. Exactly how is it deconstructive?
It
> is an excellent movie. It is complex and nuanced. It critiques some of
the
> views that existed in westerns. But then the same could be said of _The
> Wild Bunch_, _Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid_ and so forth. Heavens,
we
> could even say that _The Searchers_ was deconstructive.
Mighty bold talk for a guy named "Clark Goble".
Do you give a damn?
TRUE GRIT is more decon, I'd reckon, but I've been a one-eyed fat man.
--
Ted Samsel
tbsa...@infi.net
http://home.infi.net/~tbsamsel
tejas
"Joan Marie Shields" <jshi...@taurus.oac.uci.edu> wrote in message
news:a5grdl$onm$1...@news.service.uci.edu...
> I'll tell you what - you explain decostructism and I'll explain
> PCR (polymerase chain reaction).
Yeehaugh!
Clark Goble
| Well, why don't you explain, in simple terms so that even a
| dimwitted scientist like me can understand, exactly what is
| deconstructism?
Unfortunately it is a rather complex thing - especially when done right.
(Most of what goes under the name deconstructionism isn't deconstructionism
at all - which was rather my point) Trying to explain it in a few short
sentences is akin to trying to explain quantum loop theory in a few short
sentence. <Grin> (OK, perhaps not that bad, but still, it is rather
complex)
Probably the best book I've seen that explains it in an easy to read fashion
without requiring a lot of philosophical or linguistical background is
Christopher Norris' _Deconstructionism: Theory and Practice_. I like
Norris' approach because it avoids the "oh this is great" school as well as
the "this is bunk" school. It is a nice balanced reading that goes through
both the strengths and weaknesses as well as how deconstructionism has been
"corrupted" by many in more literary fields.
Having made all those caveats I'll leap in to where angels fear to tread and
give my own error-filled explaination.
Basically any kind of writing has "foundational metaphors." By that we
generally mean notions or ideas upon which the entire framework of
discussion rest. Often those underlying notions are obscured or ignored.
Yet they are always there. In philosophical texts those underlying
structures, while still not always obvious, are often a little easier to
track down than in your typical story or film. Thus, in my opinion, the
best deconstructive readings are of philosophical texts.
What the deconstructive reader does is see these foundational notions and
how they establish a series of oppositions. For instance we might have the
opposition in many philosophical texts of utterances and perception. Often
in those sorts of papers one is given a priveldege or status above an other.
For instance in most philosophical papers direct perception is considered
more primal than discussions of those perceptions. (i.e. for an empiricist
"sense-data" comes before linguistical generalizations) What the
deconstructionist does is try to show how the very logic and structure these
oppositions occur in undercut the opposition. For instance, many
postmodernists like Gadamer, play with how perception is always made against
a linguistic horizon that allows us to make the perception but the
linguistic horizon is itself constituted by our history of perceptions.
In other words deconstructionism focuses the light of analysis on these
foundations and shows that the differences that the larger work depends on
are themselves ungrounded. Further they are ungrounded in a chicken and egg
kind of way. (This is often very disconcerting and is why the epithet of
"mystic" is thrown at deconstructionists) However in a sense (a very loose
sense) it is akin to what happened in physics. We had this nice opposition
between particles and waves and then quantum mechanics blew this opposition
away. We had this nice opposition between energy and matter, and then
relativity blew that away. Now this wasn't a problem to the physicist,
unless they had a great attachment to the old foundations of how to think
about the world. In a sense what deconstructionism does is find the
foundations of any text and demolish it in a similar way.
The most typical approach (IMO) of a deconstructionist is to see how the
"metaphors" of presence and absence work within a work. There are
historical reasons for this going back to Husserl and phenomenology, but
they really don't matter for our purposes that much. The point is that
texts uses these metaphors, often in an unconscious way.
If you want to read some deconstructive works, I'd suggest picking up _A
Derrida Reader_ by Peggy Kamuf. It has about two dozen different works by
Derrida (often excepts from larger works). While many are his more
philosophical writings, others tend to move more into literary themes.
Clark Goble
| ...most of what I've seen coming from self-defined
| deconstructionists is a seeming desire to artificailly
| convolute ideas beyond recognition.
Well, that's the difference between good deconstructionism and bad
deconstructionism. If it is "artificial" then it isn't deconstructionism
but simply intentional misreadings and twistings. If it is a "natural"
reading demanded by a close examination of the texts own structure then it
is more what Derrida intended.
Having said that, I'd say there is quite a bit of bad deconstructionism and
very little good deconstructionism.
Of course those who feel like language can do more than deconstructionism
allows will say that all deconstruction is artificial and its practitioners
charlatans. Indeed I suspect many pejorative labels will start flying at
any moment now that you've said this. <lol>
___ "s" ___
| "Reducing to small parts" is not a very helpful description
| of deconstruction, either, so the two of you are even.
___
Perhaps "reducing to fundamentally used small parts" and then adding "and
then undercut." i.e. the division between the small parts break down. But
allow me to return to the original topic: Clint Eastwood.
___ Joan ___
| UNFORGIVEN isn't a deconstructive movie per sae - it deconstructs
| then reconstructs the myth of the gunfighter. What's interesting
| is that the first view (myth) and the final view (reconstruction)
| are pretty much the same. It tears apart the myth
| (deconstruction) and then rebuilds it.
___
What you are describing isn't deconstructionism. It is structuralism. They
are related, but structuralism attempts to find the underlying structures
and then builds new works using those structures. The "hero myth" as
popularized by Joseph Campbell is one form of structuralism. Indeed it is
one used extensively by writers such as George Lucas.
I think that as a consciously structuralist analysis of the myth of the
gunfighter, _Unforgiven_ is a masterpiece. It brings out the various
structures that underlie the gunfighter genre, often focusing on structures
that many films overlook. (i.e. the unwilling hero, the eager but naive
character, etc.)
Some have said that it is deconstructive because it switches some types.
For instance in _Unforgiven_ Gene Hackman is the villain and Eastwood is the
hero, but Hackman is the lawman and Eastwood the criminal. Yet that is
hardly new in the genre. Indeed there are many, many films that do that.
(_Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid_ for one) Likewise Eastwood's regrets,
nightmares and so forth are well within the mainstream of the hero genre.
The film uses those structures to analyze and critique our facination with
violence. (The writer figure is important here) But it does so through
more of a structuralist analysis and *not* a deconstructionalist approach.
I brought up _Blazing Saddles_ as being more defensible because the movie
undercuts the foundational oppositions. For instance towards the end the
film starts to recognize that it is a film. Brooks and the other characters
then break out of the soundstage and the foundational division (film as
representation vs. film as fiction) is attacked by the film itself. It
includes a self-conscious awareness of its own genre that is then critiqued.
However, as you mentioned, while it does do this, it seems to do it more for
parody than for real deconstructive play. However I admit that this aspect
and a few others are deconstructive in nature. The reason I don't think it
really deconstructive is that the division between actor and audience has
always been undercut. Shakespeare had character speak to the audience
acknowledging the audience's existence and thus the status of the play as a
play. The "play" as a realist representation is more a product of this
century. Yet even here it breaks down. For instance Bob Hope used to step
outside of the framework of his films and start talking to the audience.
Yet that technique itself came from his Baudville background. So unless it
is the division the film depends on that is analyzed that is the topic of
the critique, I tend to not see it as deconstructive.
There are other attempts at deconstruction. Tarantino's _From Dusk to Dawn_
attempted it on one level, albeit in a superficial way. (I don't think it
worked terribly well either) _Shadow of the Vampire_ did as well, although
once again in a fairly limited fashion.
As I said, the only real deconstructive film I'm aware of is Thomas
Stoppard's film of his play _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead_. That
film is a very conscious deconstruction of _Hamlet_.
smw
Rajappa Iyer wrote:
> Bob Suruncle <Suru...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Deconstruction is an entire academic discipline; it cannot be
> > explained in the length of a usenet post.
>
> The first and last line of defense employed by charlatans: it cannot
> be explained until you join the church.
Oh, get off it. I know for a fact that you (and Joan) have been around those
many times people actually took the trouble, presented definitions, posted
quotes, recommended literature, etc.
> Except that tic-tac-toe is way too honest to merit comparison with
> deconstruction.
And where is the dishonesty in deconstruction, according to your in-depth
readings in the field?
s
Clark Goble
| You also weren't too pleased by _The Name of the Rose_, so
| don't rush out to the library, but _The Club Dumas_, by
| Perez-Reverte (the book Joan and me were talking about a
| little while ago) is very Eco-ish.
I just read a few reviews. It sounds a lot like that movie _The Ninth Gate_
by Polanski. Of course _The Ninth Gate_ sucked, although it had an
interesting premise. However it needed to be a little more self-conscious
and skeptical. Instead it was a little too overt and un-nuanced. Of course
I'm no Polanski fan, although I did like _Frantic_ even though it wasn't a
great movie. I'm still scarred from when our 9th grade English teachers
decided showing the school his version of _Macbeth_ was a good thing. Dang,
I'm still convinced they did it just to see if the three witches at the
beginning could actually scare teenagers into avoiding sex. . .
Anyway, the book sounds intriguing so I'll check it out.
Clark Goble
| Mighty bold talk for a guy named "Clark Goble".
| Do you give a damn?
Ah, but I'm Clark GOble not Clark GAble. That's like confusing differance
with difference or deconstructionism with structuralism. <LOL>
cms
Shields) wrote:
>
>Joan Shields wrote:
>>> All in all I'm not all that fond of deconstructism - or rather, I'm often
>>> very suspicious of it. It seems to me that it's an ends rather than a
>>> means of understanding something better. Reducing it to parts so small
>>> that it all becomes meaningless is not very helpful, imo.
>
>smw <s...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>"Reducing to small parts" is not a very helpful description of deconstruction,
>>either, so the two of you are even.
>
>Well, why don't you explain, in simple terms so that even a dimwitted
>scientist like me can understand, exactly what is deconstructism?
Well, here's an essay, written by an engineer with literary tastes,
which will not likely improve your opinion of it:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/communications/papers/habitat/deconstr.txt
cms --- I was going to put in my two bits, but then I got tired.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Said the Pooka, "And the question I ask in conclusion
is this, where did your talk come from the last time
you talked?" --- At Swim-Two-Birds
Brought to you by the letter 3, the number L, and beekiller.net
Joan Marie Shields
>>Well, why don't you explain, in simple terms so that even a dimwitted
>>scientist like me can understand, exactly what is deconstructism?
Bob Suruncle <Suru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Deconstruction is an entire academic discipline; it cannot be
>explained in the length of a usenet post.
>If you want to learn about it, you will need a good grounding in
>Foucault and Bloom, for starters. You might read Eco for literary
>sidelights.
I've read a bit though not a lot of Bloom or Foucault - however, I do
know enough that I'm surprised that you're not recommending a background
in what came before Foucault. As for Eco, I've read "The Name of the
Rose" and found it a very pleasent puzzle and a good read.
>Come back when you have at least those under your belt.
>>I'll tell you what - you explain decostructism and I'll explain
>>PCR (polymerase chain reaction).
>How amusing. It is like offering to explain how to play tic-tac-toe in
>exchange for an understanding of the Summa Theologica.
You've obviously never done any molecular biology. Actually, both do a
similar thing, PCR and Deconstructionism. Both are tools we use to
explore and explain life, the universe and everything. You can alter
certain parameters of a polymerase chain reaction and find out all kinds
of interesting things. The main difference is that PCR is seen as a
tool, not as an end-all.
Still, what good is a philosophy if only a few people actually use it?
Joan Marie Shields
Bob Suruncle <Suru...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> > Deconstruction is an entire academic discipline; it cannot be
>> > explained in the length of a usenet post.
Rajappa Iyer wrote:
>> The first and last line of defense employed by charlatans: it cannot
>> be explained until you join the church.
smw <s...@umich.edu> wrote:
>Oh, get off it. I know for a fact that you (and Joan) have been around those
>many times people actually took the trouble, presented definitions, posted
>quotes, recommended literature, etc.
I've been reading this newsgroup (except for a couple of breaks) for about
12 years now. I have asked for a simple explanation of deconstructism a
few times and sometimes I've gotten Bob's response and a few times I've
gotten an increadible mess with no one agreeing. I've even gotten the
old "Well, if you have to ask..."
Now, I can explain a fairly complex tool used in molecular biology to
even the dimmest undergraduate. No, they aren't experts at PCR after my
explanation but they do have a better grasp and appreciation of the tool.
Deconstructionism (or whatever the term of choice) is a tool - right?
It's a way of understanding and explaining and therefore changing a
system - right?
>> Except that tic-tac-toe is way too honest to merit comparison with
>> deconstruction.
>And where is the dishonesty in deconstruction, according to your in-depth
>readings in the field?
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's dishonest though given the responses
I would say that it's viewed by some as being much more than a tool.
Joan Marie Shields
>| Well, why don't you explain, in simple terms so that even a
>| dimwitted scientist like me can understand, exactly what is
>| deconstructism?
> ___
Clark Goble <Cl...@lextek.com> wrote:
>Unfortunately it is a rather complex thing - especially when done right.
>(Most of what goes under the name deconstructionism isn't deconstructionism
>at all - which was rather my point) Trying to explain it in a few short
>sentences is akin to trying to explain quantum loop theory in a few short
>sentence. <Grin> (OK, perhaps not that bad, but still, it is rather
>complex)
I realize that - however, imo and in my field, it's the responsiblity of
the scientist to explain things in terms that can be understood by the
layman. It's not necessary that the explanation be so total and complete
but it is important for us to disseminate to the public what we are doing
and why. I figure that if I can't explain something to a liberal arts
undergraduate with little science background then I really don't understand
it in the first place.
>Probably the best book I've seen that explains it in an easy to read fashion
>without requiring a lot of philosophical or linguistical background is
>Christopher Norris' _Deconstructionism: Theory and Practice_. I like
>Norris' approach because it avoids the "oh this is great" school as well as
>the "this is bunk" school. It is a nice balanced reading that goes through
>both the strengths and weaknesses as well as how deconstructionism has been
>"corrupted" by many in more literary fields.
I will look it up. John Searle's "Mind, Language and Society: Philosophy
in the Real World" was recommended to me and I have it here by the bed.
I started it the other day but a head cold is keeping me from reading
much more.
>Having made all those caveats I'll leap in to where angels fear to tread and
>give my own error-filled explaination.
[clip very nice explanation - well, part 1 at least]
Thank you. It's actually not all that complex - that is, it's something
that is done, at times, in the sciences - is what we are assuming actually
real? Is this region of the 18ssrDNA region in this genre variable or
not even though it's variable in a similar genre?
Does deconstructionism test those assumptions (foundations) or do they
assume that all are bunk?
Lewis Mammel
Clark Goble wrote:
> ___ Lewis ___
> | Is AA one of the "16 possible messages" ? No it is not!
> ___
>
> Yes it is. That's why I quoted the sentence where Eco gives the theoretical
> case. "Suppose that the engineer now disposes of four positive signals and
> establishes that every messages must be composed of two signals."
>
> Eco distinguishes the 16 as a "theoretical possibility" from the physical
> possibilities when the boundary conditions are applies. (i.e. each light
> can only be on once and position doesn't matter) In that theoretical
> situation (and that is the very term Eco uses) we have 4^2 possibilities.
WHAT theoretical situation? The 4x4 matrix represents nothing
that he has introduced so far.
> For the situtation with the boundary conditions we have C(4,2)
> possibilities.
These are not boundary conditions. The 4^2 ordered pairs of letters
apply to ordered sequences of two signals, which are not under
consideration. It's like Peter Shickele said of P.D.Q. Bach's Theme
with Variations, "The unusual thing about it is that the variations
have nothing whatsoever to do with the theme. But you know, why not?
That's just something everybody takes for granted. Apparently these
are variations on some other theme". Just so, the theory that Eco
represents with his matrix has nothing to do with the model, and is
apparently a description of some other model.
Also, Eco doesn't use the expression "theoretical possibility" here.
he makes the interjection " ... - at least from a theoretical point
of view - ..." without saying what this theoretical point of view
namely is.
As I noted in another post, since all of the messages represented by
the pairs are sequential, you cannot select six of them and say these
are the concurrent signals. All you can select are six pairs of letters,
which are now reinterpreted to represent the six combinations of 4 things.
It amounts to a sort of pun between two different sets of representations -
a semiotic confusion.
>
> ___ Lewis ___
> | There are in fact 16 possible messages, and they are
> | readily identifiable, so why doesn't he name them?
> ___
>
> Um. He did. That was the whole point of the 4x4 table.
>
> ___ Lewis ___
> | You see, once he "diposes of four positive signals" he has
> | the 2^4 light combinations to play with.
> ___
>
> But he doesn't simply dispose of the four signals. He disposes of them with
> messages composed of two signals.
Those are note Eco's words. He "disposes" first, then "establishes",
the disposition of the four signals allows for 16 messages, and the
established convention that each message be composed of 2 signals
restricts his choice to 6 of those 16.
We certainly might expect that his derivation would reflect the
implication of what he has just said. Instead he introduces his
irrelevant 4x4 matrix - obviously a mistake.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Joan Marie Shields
___ Joan ___
>| UNFORGIVEN isn't a deconstructive movie per sae - it deconstructs
>| then reconstructs the myth of the gunfighter. What's interesting
>| is that the first view (myth) and the final view (reconstruction)
>| are pretty much the same. It tears apart the myth
>| (deconstruction) and then rebuilds it.
> ___
>What you are describing isn't deconstructionism. It is structuralism. They
>are related, but structuralism attempts to find the underlying structures
>and then builds new works using those structures. The "hero myth" as
>popularized by Joseph Campbell is one form of structuralism. Indeed it is
>one used extensively by writers such as George Lucas.
But in the film, the perspective of the 'new guy' it's assumed that the
myth is just that, myth. Throughout the film the foundation of the western
gunslinger is undermined. At the end of the movie it's shown that even
though the foundations have been pulled out the myth is actually real.
Keep in mind that this is in terms of 1970s Eastwood westerns. He is as
good a gunslinger as the stories say - pulling down the foundations did
nothing to change the reality.
>I think that as a consciously structuralist analysis of the myth of the
>gunfighter, _Unforgiven_ is a masterpiece. It brings out the various
>structures that underlie the gunfighter genre, often focusing on structures
>that many films overlook. (i.e. the unwilling hero, the eager but naive
>character, etc.)
Yes and no. It took the various structural pieces and broke them.
>Some have said that it is deconstructive because it switches some types.
>For instance in _Unforgiven_ Gene Hackman is the villain and Eastwood is the
>hero, but Hackman is the lawman and Eastwood the criminal. Yet that is
>hardly new in the genre. Indeed there are many, many films that do that.
>(_Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid_ for one) Likewise Eastwood's regrets,
>nightmares and so forth are well within the mainstream of the hero genre.
>The film uses those structures to analyze and critique our facination with
>violence. (The writer figure is important here) But it does so through
>more of a structuralist analysis and *not* a deconstructionalist approach.
"Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" created the anti-hero - just as
"Bonny and Clyde" - even the ending didn't mar that, actually both endings.
The underlying assumptions were still there.
>I brought up _Blazing Saddles_ as being more defensible because the movie
>undercuts the foundational oppositions. For instance towards the end the
>film starts to recognize that it is a film. Brooks and the other characters
>then break out of the soundstage and the foundational division (film as
>representation vs. film as fiction) is attacked by the film itself. It
>includes a self-conscious awareness of its own genre that is then critiqued.
>However, as you mentioned, while it does do this, it seems to do it more for
>parody than for real deconstructive play. However I admit that this aspect
>and a few others are deconstructive in nature. The reason I don't think it
>really deconstructive is that the division between actor and audience has
>always been undercut. Shakespeare had character speak to the audience
>acknowledging the audience's existence and thus the status of the play as a
>play. The "play" as a realist representation is more a product of this
>century. Yet even here it breaks down. For instance Bob Hope used to step
>outside of the framework of his films and start talking to the audience.
>Yet that technique itself came from his Baudville background. So unless it
>is the division the film depends on that is analyzed that is the topic of
>the critique, I tend to not see it as deconstructive.
Wouldn't it depend on what you are deconstructing? Film as a whole or
the story?
>There are other attempts at deconstruction. Tarantino's _From Dusk to Dawn_
>attempted it on one level, albeit in a superficial way. (I don't think it
>worked terribly well either) _Shadow of the Vampire_ did as well, although
>once again in a fairly limited fashion.
Ugh. The best part of that film (other than the giggle factor) was
Tarantino's character getting iced.
>As I said, the only real deconstructive film I'm aware of is Thomas
>Stoppard's film of his play _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead_. That
>film is a very conscious deconstruction of _Hamlet_.
But isn't it a different perspective? While Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
are being manipulated in telling the story (they have no choice in the
matter) - in regards to HAMLET aren't they simply telling the story from
their POV instead of the traditional POV? Like Gardner's GRENDAL -
BEOWULF from the monster's perspective?
Joan Marie Shields
>| You also weren't too pleased by _The Name of the Rose_, so
>| don't rush out to the library, but _The Club Dumas_, by
>| Perez-Reverte (the book Joan and me were talking about a
>| little while ago) is very Eco-ish.
> ___
Clark Goble <Cl...@lextek.com> wrote:
>I just read a few reviews. It sounds a lot like that movie _The Ninth Gate_
>by Polanski. Of course _The Ninth Gate_ sucked, although it had an
>interesting premise. However it needed to be a little more self-conscious
>and skeptical. Instead it was a little too overt and un-nuanced. Of course
>I'm no Polanski fan, although I did like _Frantic_ even though it wasn't a
>great movie. I'm still scarred from when our 9th grade English teachers
>decided showing the school his version of _Macbeth_ was a good thing. Dang,
>I'm still convinced they did it just to see if the three witches at the
>beginning could actually scare teenagers into avoiding sex. . .
"The Ninth Gate" is a movie version of "The Club Dumas" though with a
lot of the good stuff taken out. To be honest, it would be hard to
make the entire book into a movie. I liked the book well enough - wasn't
all that thrilled with the movie though I did understand certain things
that someone who hadn't read the book would be confused about.
Like I said in an earlier post, "The Flanders Panel" and "The Fencing
Master" are better, imo.
Lewis Mammel
Clark Goble wrote:
> While you may be gifted enough so as to be able to write down the right
> equations just by looking, most of us have to step through applying the
> boundary conditions. So have pity on us mere mortals who have to think
> about the equations so as to get them. . . <grin>
Given four bulbs, designated A,B,C,and D, which are lit or not lit
accordingly as four corresponding signals are present or absent, we
call each definite state of illumination a message.
To find the distinct messages given the requirement
that exactly two bulbs are lit:
If A is lit, then one of B, C, or D must be lit, and we may label these
messages AB, AC, and AD,
otherwise, if B is lit, then one of C or D must be lit, and we may
label these messages BC, and BD,
otherwise C and D must be lit, and we may label this message CD.
Thus there are six messages, which we have labeled
AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, and CD.
---------------------------------
Notice that I reason directly from the stated requirements, then
assign labels to the derived combinations, avoiding the confusion
that Eco makes between the conceptual states of the model and the
designations of them.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
John P David
"Bob Suruncle" <Suru...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:UC5Y40UR37313.9896296296@frog.gilgamesh.org...
> Deconstruction is an entire academic discipline; it cannot be
> explained in the length of a usenet post.
No. It is a pseudo-academic discipline that first arose as an effort by a
few running-scared Post-Marxist French psychoanalysts (being pursued by a
horde of shrieking feminists and screaming gay blades) to take Freud apart
and then put him back together again minus the perceived "male chauvinist"
and "gay-bashing" offensive elements. The "theory" is quite simple and it
is politically motivated, entirely since the motive for all this
deconstruction is to ferret out perceived political, ethnic, or gender-based
bias, and then see what if anything is left.
In the case of Freud, it has been strictly from the wall of Humpty-Dumpty,
and nothing can ever put Sigmund back together again, certainly not the
Postmodern product of Neo-Skinnerian/Cognitive theory. When they cut the
sexual guts of Freudian theory out, excising the penis envy, the castration
angst and the fundamental doctrine that homosexuality is nothing but
psychoneurotic narcissism, it was all over for psychiatry as a
quasi-scientific metaphysics on the order of Kantian systems of synthetic
judgments _a priori_.
>
> If you want to learn about it, you will need a good grounding in
> Foucault and Bloom, for starters.
Good luck. There is no body of academic literature to arise in the past
fifty or sixty years that is so bereft of intellectual rigor and discipline
of theoretical integrity as the writings of those absurd fakes, and I count
Bloom as being chief amongst them. One look at his "Book of J", I mean, like
three pages of the damned thing is the tip-off of how ridiculous this whole
foolish fad of fogheaded fops at the courts of Academe can really get.
Read Paglia to get the straight news on this pseudo-intellectual trash.
Then go back to reading all that these nitwits have been flattering
themselves to think they have trashed. Start with Freud and find out what a
reasoned, intuitive, systematically *scientific* metaphysics within the
meaning of Kant's distinction between empirical and theoretical (pure
rational) science really looks like. And remember that like Freud, Einstein
didn't turn over one rock, he did not pour one test tube, he did not look
through one telescope in order to develop the totally hard scientific theory
of relativity--but what he did do, was to read Kant and therein find the
fundamental inspiration for his later intuitions about the nature of space
and time.
See this from the little known Einstein/Freud correspondence--from Einstein
to Freud . . .
"I greatly admire your passion to ascertain the truth--a passion that has
come to dominate all else in your thinking. You have shown with irresistible
lucidity how inseparably the aggressive and destructive instincts are bound
up in the human psyche with those of love and the lust for life. At the same
time, your convincing arguments make manifest your deep devotion to the
great goal of the internal and external liberation of man from the evils of
war. This was the profound hope of all those who have been revered as moral
and spiritual leaders beyond the limits of their own time and country, from
Jesus to Goethe and Kant. Is it not significant that such men have been
universally recognized as leaders, even though their desire to affect the
course of human affairs was quite ineffective?"
And this also from Einstein to Freud . . .
"I should like to use this opportunity to send you warm personal regards and
to thank you for many a pleasant hour which I had in reading your works. It
is always amusing for me to observe that even those who do not believe in
your theories find it so difficult to resist your ideas that they use your
terminology in their thoughts and speech when they are off guard."
What's good enough for Einstein, if it is not good enough for these
half-witted postmodern dupes of antifreudian cognitive quackery, it is
nevertheless good enough for me!
We've heard just about enough of these conceits flowing from both ends of
the continuum, as from the departments of Hard Science, and the Soft-Headed
departments of Psychology and the Humanities.
>You might read Eco for literary
> sidelights.
He's okay, if you like a writer who comes off the starting line looking like
a Gold Medallist but comes across the finish sputtering and blithering like
Agatha Christie
>
> Come back when you have at least those under your belt.
Pfft. Keep your Bromo Seltzer handy.
--
JPDavid long_go...@nobodyfeelsanypain.com
John's Joint:: http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
On-Line Novel, *Amador Green*, MP3's and Usenet Archive
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher
esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. --Friedrich
Nietzsche
Michael S. Morris
Tuesday, the 26th of February, 2002
Joan Marie Shields wrote:
ObDeconMovie: UNFORGIVEN - deconstructs
and rebuilds the western
Huh? It's classical tragedy.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Lewis Mammel
Lewis Mammel wrote:
> Notice that I reason directly from the stated requirements, then
> assign labels to the derived combinations, avoiding the confusion
> that Eco makes between the conceptual states of the model and the
> designations of them.
It just occurred to me that Eco could have introduced his 4x4 matrix
if he wanted to argue from the designations, which is in effect what
he is doing. He could say :
We want to label each message by the pair of signals present ( bulbs lit )
and there are sixteen possible designations AA, ..., DD. But AA, BB, CC, DD
designate the same signal twice, and therefore don't label a message.
The twelve remaining designations occur in pairs, { AB, BA } etc. which
label the same message, so we can select one designation from each pair,
labeling the six messages AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD.
-------------------
This is still pretty goofy, but it's at least logically and
semiotically correct. When you come to the end, all you really do
is write down AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD according to the obvious algorithm.
( The derivation I gave is an explication of that algorithm. )
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Clark Goble
| It is a pseudo-academic discipline that first arose as an
| effort by a few running-scared Post-Marxist French
| psychoanalysts (being pursued by a horde of shrieking
| feminists and screaming gay blades) to take Freud apart
| and then put him back together again minus the perceived
| "male chauvinist" and "gay-bashing" offensive elements.
Umm. That's not the history I know. Some people have brought in a kind of
psycho-analysis, but more because of Freud being the classic example of
applied semiotics. An applied semiotics that was goofy and unscientific,
which is partially why it is so facinating. (Of course some people still
take him seriously, but that's hardly due to deconstructionism)
Deconstructionism is pretty much a natural outgrowth of Husserl's attempts
to deal with neoKantianism yet retain his insights about "the givenness" of
experience. Heidegger and a few others recognized problems wiht Husserl's
approach and took the next step. Deconstructionism proper is more just
applying those insights (whether they come from Heidegger, Gadamer, Derrida,
or Levinas)
But you needn't accept Freud to look at Deconstructionism.
Michael S. Morris
Tuesday, the 26th of February, 2002
Jeff Inman wrote:
[Greetings, Mike.]
Howdy!
I was saying:
The ethical relativist tries one of two arguments---
either questions the primitive requirements
on fundamental principles or stresses the vagaries
of social environment. Both are beside the point.
Jeff:
Why wouldn't he just say that, even supposing that these
values were necessary for human life (I'd debate that
point under other circumstances) ... that that doesn't
reduce to a logical necessity, i.e. to an *ought*. The
ObBook is too obvious to mention, especially given that it
would be coming from me. In other words, your "oughts"
are founded on instinct, rather than on argument. I don't
think it should be otherwise, but just that it seems
distasteful to make a rationale about it. The rationale
turns out to be a rationalization.
I guess I don't understand why it doesn't reduce to an
ought. Ya wanna eat around these here woods, ya *oughter*
learn to shoot yoursel' some squirrels. The value of eating
versus not eating has to do with your stomach and how it
feels as a human being to eat/not eat. That's the primitive
"ought", when you agree with yourself that "I ought to eat".
This is the primitive, or axiomatic ought. It is thinkable,
I suppose, that you would deny the axiom, but I personally
don't know how to think it any more than I know how to
think that physics as we know it will suddenly alter next
Tuesday in such a way that stepping off 12th-story balconies
will allow you to float on air (i.e. denying a foundational
metaphysical axiom of physics). Then, more complex oughts---
like "I ought to practice plinking coke cans with my .22 in
order to get good enough to hit something"---flow from the
more primitive ought and *deductions* from the physical way
things work (like squirrels are the only thing to eat hereabouts,
and they're hard to hit, and there's a plentiful supply of
coke cans to practice plinking with). If you live on a
tropical paradise, maybe "I ought to learn to climb
palms to fetch down coconuts" is more in order.
We've been through this before with aeroplanes. I
*want* to have the power to travel, and waste as little
time in transportation as possible. Therefore, the
technology of an aeroplane is important to me, and
I value the knowledge and the programme of knowledge which
brings me that technology. Oughts flow naturally out of
technes for wants and needs---the rock musician wants
money, or at least the appreciation of an audience, he
earns only the audience's anger if he charges them
to listen to him and then doesn't show up to work on
time and in a state capable of performing. So, we
can tell him there's a work ethic he ought to respect,
given the society in which he lives, *if* he wants his
audiences to appreciate him.
I said:
Questioning the primitive requirements (like people
need to breathe and eat and love and so forth) is like
questioning the metaphysical foundations of science---sure,
we have no guarantee that gravity will work in the way
science says it does if we step off a 12th-story balcony,
but even the pomos do not seem to be trying it. And,
stressing the vagaries of social environment misses
the point that a complex ought pertains to a given social
environment. Sure, working hard might not be valuable
if we lived naked on a tropical island where food
a-plenty falls off the trees, and we can spear
fish for a feast in half-an-hour's wading in the surf.
But, we don't live there. And, if we did, men with ships
and airplanes and guns might descend on us and enslave
us in such a way that we might well regret we had not
valued hard work better and developed metallurgy when
we had it good.
Jeff:
Why isn't that a justification for the value of descending
on poorly armed people and enslaving them?
Well, I'm not sure I see that we have encountered a justification
yet. Perhaps a justification will arise when we examine what the
conquerors might get out of it. Of course, the problem is
and always was that what they get out of it doesn't end with slaves
fetching coconuts and spearing fish for them. The problem is
the slaves resent their enslavement and want something different,
so it might well turn out worse for the conquerors in the long run.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Lewis Mammel
Kater Moggin wrote:
>
> l.ma...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > Kater Moggin wrote:
>
> >> ... the hedonistic
> >> rock'n'roller who writes songs all day.
>
> > We feel this redeems him, I think.
>
> We couldn't possibly feel that redeemed him unless we also
> already felt that hedonism was damnation -- and those of us
> who believe _that_ are mostly religious fundamentalists of some
> kind.
Not so. People don't necessarily condemn hedonism per se, but they
frown at - disapprove of - worry about - turn away from dissipation
and self-destruction. There is a secular moral standard by which even
religions are judged. E.g. Mormons might be thought to be oddballs,
but remain respected for their upright conduct, etc.
The redemption of Rock stars from the depths of a drug and alcohol
saturated oblivion has become something of a cliche. I think Ozzie
Osborne is a prime example of this, although he remains a somewhat
ambiguous figure, just by the sheer force of his reputation.
> Words Never Said Category: "I'm disgusted with Sid's lack
> of a work-ethic. I expected him to have discipline so he
> could properly express my rage and rebellion." Sid Vicious fan.
I didn't say they SAID it, or even admitted it to themselves.
I'm saying ( or supposing ) that it happened. ( A bio on a Sid
Vicious fan site says only "Most of Sid's solo performance's
received horrible reviews" ) Of course, he was only a year or
so away from his literal self-destruction at this time.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Clark Goble
| But in the film, the perspective of the 'new guy'
| it's assumed that the myth is just that, myth.
In my own opinion, for it to be deconstructive it would have to be assumed
to be the structure of reality - of the framework of the film. Somewhat
like _Scream_ tried to do, although it didn't take the necessary next step.
Then the *oppositions* would have to play out in such a way that they break
down naturally. _Scream_, by the way, is an other one people call
deconstructive. But it isn't because the "rules" of the horror film are
only followed accidentally and aren't questioned or undercut.
Self-awareness of ones genre, as I said, isn't really sufficient to be
deconstructive.
For instance take a different hero film - say _Star Wars_. If _Star Wars_
was deconstructive we'd find out in an useasy way how Obi Wan was really the
cause of the rebellion (Empire as rebellion and rebels as rebellion) and how
trying to do good always led to things like Darth Vader. The only way to
kill Darth Vader would be for Luke to be evil. And then Darth Vader would
be the good guy. Yet even that new opposition would have to be unstable.
So Darth Vader would have to be the good guy in such a way that he was still
also the bad guy.
The ultimate "aim" of deconstructionism is to reach a point where the
opposition breaks down and you no longer can separate the players. (In the
_Star Wars_ example, the good hero and the bad villian) That's not a
terribly good example, of course.
A closer film to deconstructionism by Eastwood would probably be _High
Plains Drifter_. There you aren't sure if Eastwood is the good guy, a guy
bent on revenge, an angle, the devil, or what. It still doesn't go quite
far enough to make you question the division (it still adopts a lot of
archtypes and respects them too much).
Thinking about it, I might put Lynch in the same category as _Blazing
Saddles_, _High Plains Drifter_ and so forth. They really are pretty close.
In _Blue Velvet_, for instance, Jeffrey is both a hero and a villain,
innocent and corrupt, etc. The Dennis Hopper character is both a devil and
a father to Jeffrey. The town shifts from innocent 1950's to corrupt 1980's
in an unstable way. So I'm actually still willing to call _Blue Velvet_ a
deconstruction of "The Hardy Boys." Likewise _Mulholland Drive_, while
actually a pretty fixed narrative from one person's delusion, also has
extensive deconstructive elements. _Lost Highway_ is very deconstructive
and I'd forgotten about that one.
___ Joan ___
| It [_Unforgiven_] took the various structural pieces and
| broke them.
___
No, it took the various structural pieces and re-arranged them. None of
them were broken. All the elements in _Unforgiven_ are treated with a kind
of stability. It is revisionist, no doubt about it. But it still follows
the "code" of the western.
For instance the "myth" of the gunfighter isn't shown to actually be real.
Rather what is shown is that the "myth" was simply that there was no meaning
behind it. But that's not deconstructive, that is existential. That's what
the critique with the writer was to show. There are all these stories and
then you find out the truth, and it was completely different. At the end
the Hackman character says, "I don't deserve to die like this. I was
building a house," to which Eastwood answers, "deserves got nothing to do
with it." Yet that is the theme through the whole movie. It is a truth that
the film respects and communicates in a *consistent* fashion. There is no
instability.
For it to be deconstructive it would question whether we could ever have a
fixed truth like that. The very division of meaning/nihlism (and I'll leave
for now which side _Unforgiven_ or _High Plains Drifter_ comes down on)
would be itself distrusted and undercut in a deconstructed play.
The point of deconstructionism is that there is no resolution. The
"outside" which truth describes is never reached. We have an argument which
never quite deals with its content. (More on that in the other post)
Compare this to something like _Lost Highway_ (if you are familiar with it,
if not the following contains spoilers). In _Lost Highway_ we have the
ultimate example of 1st person perspective. We are granted the perspective
of a killer who "likes to remember things the way he wants to, not the way
they happen." The film is a never ending highway where Bill Pullman, the
killer, is constantly trying to justify himself by effectively imagining
himself as innocent. Figures in the movie come out of his subconsciousness,
representing aspects of his guilt, but he can't escape. The line between
his wife (whom he killed) as innocent victim or as corrupt femme fatal
deserving death blurs, twists and shifts. The interpretive process Pullman
partakes of while on death row can't be escaped. The metaphor is a shakey
dark highway that one drives down that is actually a moebius strip. One
side is innocence, the other side corruption. Yet both are one thing and
you can't escape the loop.
Now _Lost Highway_ is by no means Lynch's best work, but those aspects
demonstrate some of the deconstructive play. For instance the Pullman
character wakes up while on death row and is suddenly a different person.
The "devil" character is his conscience convicting him of his crimes, but
also his desires leading him on to his crimes. It's a very interesting film
for analysis, if not necessarily for viewing.
___ Joan ___
| He is as good a gunslinger as the stories say -
| pulling down the foundations did nothing to change
| the reality.
___
Yes, but that is a rather common thread in film. Very existential. That is
more nihlism than deconstructionism. And deconstructionism was itself tied
to Nietzsche's attempts to overcome nihlism without adopting the "problems"
that Kant brought. (I put "problems" in quotes since I'm sure the local
neoKantians won't see them as such)
___ Joan ___
| "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" created the
| anti-hero
___
Actually the anti-hero was alive and well way back in the 40's. Noir was
the name of the game and despite all the John Wayne clap-trap, there were
lots of subversive anti-heroics going on. The anti-hero was reborn in the
70's, partially in response to the studio situation, partially in response
to the Viet Nam war. But a lot of it was a kind of neoNoir. But once again
we have to be careful. Anti-heros aren't deconstructive. Even existential
meditations on evil and life, such as _Apocalypse Now_ aren't really
deconstructive. (I suppose some might say questioning Kurtz goodness is
deconstructive, but I think it is much more a meditation on evil and
madness, especially given the book it was based on)
I do notice though that a lot of more deconstructive films follow noir a
fair bit. An other obvious one I thought of is _Dark City_ which is
actually *very* deconstructive. It did what everyone claimed _The Matrix_
did, philosophically speaking. Of course _The Matrix_ was much more fun,
but hey. . .
Once again we have some noirish films called deconstructive when all they do
is replace a few binary pairs in an opposition. For instance the
Warchowski's film prior to _The Matrix_ was _Bound_, a traditional noir film
where the lead anti-hero is actually a lesbian and the lead femme fatal is
as well. While it was revisionist though, it wasn't really deconstructing
the genre. Likewise with _The Matrix_ (their Baudrillard quotations
notwithstanding) _The Matrix_ is much more a fixed gnostic reality than a
deconstruction of the very notion of reality. (Although I hear they will
shake things up much more in the next two films)
___ Joan ___
| Wouldn't it depend on what you are deconstructing?
| Film as a whole or the story?
___
That is ultimately the problem with deconstructionism in film. It is almost
impossible to do so in the kind of realist settings that audiences demand.
_Lost Highway_ did it by playing with the idea we are all in one persons'
head (as does _Mulhollan Drive_ which does the same thing, only much, much
better, albeit with far less deconstructive play) Yet both _MD_ and _LH_
are very unpopular with audiences because it seems so weird.
_Dark City_ got away with in via science fiction, as did _The Matrix_ to a
more limited extent. (Although _The Matrix_ also has a strong
religious/fantasy component) _High Plains Drifter_ plays the
religion/supernatural angle as well.
The problem is that deconstructionism is a kind of analysis. How do you do
that kind of analysis in a narrative? It is hard. That's why you can take
elements from deconstructionism (i.e. like _Scream_ does) but you can't
really go too far, otherwise audiences will get upset.
Deconstructionism works best as readings of other works. That's why
_Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead_ works so well. It is a reading /
playing of _Hamlet_ by characters in _Hamlet_. It questions many facets of
Shakespeare (all we have are words, says the characters while trying to
figure out what is going on - a reference both to the predictament posed by
deconstructionism and the fact that Shakespeare gives nothing but the words,
allowing the same play to mean so many things) The players (actors) who act
out a play for Hamlet in _Hamlet_ become less than actors but the only
audience within the film who actually know what is going on. But what is
going on? Every entrance is an exit, and vice versa. The play deals with
determinism - can actors in a play have free will? They do when the play is
not going on, suggesting the problems where so long as we don't demand a
structure the players in life are free to go as they will. Stoppard (the
author) then ties this to physics (a common thread in his plays).
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are free to explore castle Elsnor while their
lines in the play aren't needed, but as soon as they are, they spout the
lines Shakespear writes for them. Stoppard even plays up the play between
men and women, (although that is more pronounced in the stageplay rather
than the film). Actors at that time played both the roles of men and women,
and a transvestite in the film makes us question who is a woman and who is a
man. Even the division between madness and reason is questioned, although
that is a given since that is a topic in _Hamlet_ itself.
_The Matrix_ tries to do this, deconstructing all the action films, anime,
and so forth. But it ends up more borrowing than deconstructing. It isn't
"commenting" on the action films, per se. Nor is it commenting on the
religious aspects. The film _Prophecy_ with Christopher Walken tried to a
little bit, making the angel Michael the devil like character and the devil
doing a little good. But it didn't really go that far and, like _The
Matrix_, simply borrowed a lot of gnosticism rather than really questioning
the foundations of both gnosticism and Christianity.
___ Joan ___
| in regards to HAMLET aren't they simply telling the story
| from their POV instead of the traditional POV?
___
No. In fact the story of _Hamlet_ is interrogated over and over again with
each analysis itself deconstructed. My favorite part in the film is where
we are watching the film where Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are watching the
players act out Hamlet and as they act out Hamlet they are putting on an
other subplay with stick men also of Hamlet. And of course in the context
of the film we are never sure whether Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are the
real characters in Hamlet or simply participating in a play from when they
first meet the players at the beginning of the film. So we have in one
scene at least 6 levels of interrogation. The question then is, are they
telling the story as simply the POV of the characters in _Hamlet_, as an
audience trapped in _Hamlet_, or as two characters trapped in _Hamlet_
against their free will? Indeed the very notion of actors and audience is
heavily questioned in the film and play.
A lot of the effects work better on stage, as then you have actual physical
actors before you and the line between you the audience and the actors
really is blurred. You lose that effect in the film to a certain degree.
Who are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern? Are they the actors, the characters,
or two hapless people trapped in a narrative they can't escape?
Guil: But why? Was it all for this? Who are we that so much should
converge on our little deaths? (In anguish to the player) Who are *we*?
Player: You are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. That's enough.
Guil: No - it is not enough. To be told so little - to such an end - and
still, finally, to be denied an explanation. . .
That in a sense, is the "essence" (if we can use such a term) of
deconstructionism. Deconstructionism, as opposed to what is often claimed,
doesn't deny reality, truth, or so forth. However it does claim that when
we examine the foundations - the structures - that we are denied
explanations. And even here who kills Rosencrantz and Guildenstern? Is it
the actor as actor or the actor as the character he is playing? And
ultimately can we tell the two apart?
If you can get a copy of the play, it is well worth the purchase - the bit
that continues where Guildenstern questions the player about acting, that
same sort of questioning is going on in _Dark City_. What is it that makes
us human? What is it that is different about acting, about re-presenting,
about playing, about speaking? What makes the act, the representation, the
play, the text, different from the experience? And when we try to analyze
it, we are still trapped in the text. All we can do is, like Shakespeare,
offer words.
So, for _Unforgiven_ to be deconstructive that "it's all just a text"
element would have to be present. It isn't.
Jeff Inman
Well, you could approach it like this: suppose someone
you love is injured in such a way that they can't be moved,
and that you expect an attack at any moment. You know
that you need to eat in order to survive, yet (thinkably)
you don't go to get food.
That's just a starter. I think that that example misses the
more interesting point: even if there is no scenario in which
you can imagine controverting whatever your "axiomatic oughts"
are, you can still suppose that those oughts represent
values, rather than logical necessities. If whoever you care
to argue with happens to share those values with you, then you
have a chance of making cases about ethical issues.
But, is it really an "argument", in that case?
> We've been through this before with aeroplanes. I
> *want* to have the power to travel, and waste as little
> time in transportation as possible. Therefore, the
> technology of an aeroplane is important to me, and
> I value the knowledge and the programme of knowledge which
> brings me that technology. Oughts flow naturally out of
> technes for wants and needs---the rock musician wants
> money, or at least the appreciation of an audience, he
> earns only the audience's anger if he charges them
> to listen to him and then doesn't show up to work on
> time and in a state capable of performing. So, we
> can tell him there's a work ethic he ought to respect,
> given the society in which he lives, *if* he wants his
> audiences to appreciate him.
Doesn't mean that he has to actually *value* work. He
just has to work. (Moggin is supposed to be making
this argument -- and is doing so, elsewhere.) I personally
would hate to work at work that I would hate to work at, but
who wouldn't? Much better to work at something that you
love. But is that work? Maybe he's working at something
that he loves. The audience loves him loving it.
On the other hand, a person could conceivably be considered
unfortunate, if his experience included no pain.
(That's been my argument with Moggin, but nevermind.)
Seems to me that the "ineluctable" value is to make moral
"arguments" seem logically necessary. (Words like
"ineluctable" seem designed for just that purpose.)
But maybe that's because we take logic so seriously;
assuming that it has some necessary relationship with truth.
Maybe they will be long gone before the problem gets serious.
Or maybe they will call upon their techne. Or maybe we are
tangled in existence in such a way that we never have a clear
understanding of our own actions, in some way that can fit into
a rational structure that has integrity (i.e. which isn't just
a rationalization). The center is instinct, and it is in
relation to an Other, which relationship dynamically reveals the
self to the self; dynamically develops the self. That's Jung, by
way of Nietzsche -- my usual schtick.
Jeff
Clark Goble
| . . .in my field, it's the responsiblity of the scientist
| to explain things in terms that can be understood by the
| layman.
In my own field, physics, I've read dozens of excellent popular
presentations of what quantum mechanics is. I've questioned lots of people
who read them and try to understand it. I've found that even after books
with hundreds of pages the people still get it wrong. Unless you go through
the math (which, lets be honest, is non-trivial) you just can't "get it."
Further even the popularizations of quantum mechanics take pages and pages
to try and explain it to the layman. Even in my own case, I think it was
years before I even came close to getting a grip of quantum mechanics.
So I can appreciate what you say, but I think some topics simply don't lead
themselves to easy explanation. Further, "understanding" to the layman,
often is just being able to repeat a few facts or metaphors. (i.e. tell the
tale of Schrodenger's cat)
Of course I suppose the task of deconstructionism is simply to say that even
the best learned ultimately still has no ultimate explanation and really has
just a few facts and metaphors. As Feynman points out, can anyone really
explain quantum mechanics?
Anyway, I'm not sure of your field. But if it is molecular biology as I'm
guessing, then the mechanistic explanations are simple. You can say "this
molecule *does* this." You aren't really explaining though, you are simply
describing. The more fundamental, widespread, and away from your audience's
experience the topic is, however, the more difficult it is to explain. Try
explaining middle Platonism to a layman, for instance. It is hard because
that way of thinking is now so alien to us. It doesn't mean it isn't a way
people really thought once upon a time. It doesn't mean it can't be
described. But it sure is difficult.
___ Joan ___
| I figure that if I can't explain something to a
| liberal arts undergraduate with little science
| background then I really don't understand it in
| the first place.
___
This reminds me of a possibly apocryphal story about Feynman. He apparently
said something like the above when preparing his Lectures of Physics. By
the end of the class most of the people in the class were grad students and
other physicists. He'd written it for freshmen. Unfortunately it was a
horrible way to teach freshmen. But it was a brilliant illustration of
freshman physics.
Anyway, I sort of agree with what you are saying. That's partially why I
always told my students to try and form study groups and get someone in it
who had a hard time understanding. If they could explain it to the slower
student so that that person would understand, then they would have a grasp
on things much better. (The slower student didn't necessarily have a grasp
on things, although obviously even they understood better)
I just think that sometimes complex ideas take time to explain. Especially
if they are reacting to some other idea or framework you're not familiar
with.
___ Joan ___
| John Searle's "Mind, Language and Society: Philosophy
| in the Real World" was recommended to me and I have it
| here by the bed. I started it the other day but a head
| cold is keeping me from reading much more.
___
I like Searle a great deal, but he is about as diametrically opposed to
deconstructionism as you can get. In fact he and Derrida had a famous
"debate" over speech act theory (for which Searle is famous). The basis of
deconstructionism is to oppose the assumption of speech acts. Speech acts
comes out of the tradition which sees the meaning of sentences as being
found in their truth-value. For instance what any sentence on this page
means, according to Searle, are the propositions that are intended by those
sentences. (Propositions in philosophy are basically the only things that
can be considered true or false) Derrida and others reject this view and
suggest that this view "hides" or "suppresses" the rhetorical function of
language. For example truth-values can't really explain a sentence being
beautiful. Derrida (and others) tend to play this distinction up by
focusing in on suppressed rhetorical aspects of philosophy arguments that
people like Searle make.
The debate between Searle and Derrida took place when Derrida wrote a paper
criticizing the notion of performances in speech acts. Performances are
things like making an assertiong, asking a question, or so forth - those are
distinguished from the meaning of the act. So you could mean the same thing
in a question or an assertion but simply be making a different performance.
(Searle calls this the illocutionary force) Yet a specific performance or
utterance takes place at a specific time. Thus context is added. Meaning
is concerned with the general meaning of a sentence or act - in the abstract
or normed case. As soon as you perform a speech act though context becomes
significant.
Derrida questions this because he see a suppressed metaphor of seriousness
in speech acts. For instance consider an actor asking a question. Are they
asking that question in the same way that a person who wants an answer asks
the question? Do they mean the same thing? I won't get to the specific
criticism Derrida makes, it basically deals with how intentions must always
be present. Searle didn't like it though. He wrote a response basically
saying that Derrida missed the point. Basically Searle says that speech
depends upon people meaning what they say. It boils down to "expressions
are being *used* not mentioned." Yet that distinction is what Derrida sees
as a weakness.
Derrida's response is basically to play with context and various elements
Searle presents as "serious." He plays with who Searle the author is and so
forth. (A lot of the same stuff Stoppard does in _Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern are Dead_) Who is the author? Is Searle the author when he
first wrote the same as Searle the author at the end? What if Derrida
quotes Searle. Is the author within that quoted text Derrida or Searle? It
tries to demonstrate the very facts Searle denies. But because Searle
demands a kind of seriousness "meaning what you say" this acting or quoting
is to him simply craziness. (And rather mean-spirited in a way, to be fair
to Searle)
Anyway, the original paper, a summary of Searle's response (he refused to
let it be reprinted with Derrida's work), and then Derrida's final response,
can be found in _Limited Inc._ You might like it. I'd read that Norris
book first though. He gives a pretty good overview and analysis of the
whole encounter. He also has that rare gift of being amazingly concise and
informative at the same time.
___ Joan ___
| It's actually not all that complex
___
No. It really is a pretty simple idea that comes out of phenomenology. It
is basically just a way of dealing with the fact that experience is given
us. A way to interpret it is given us. Yet we never are able to fully move
beyond what is given to reality itself. Kant said we could, but
deconstructionism sees the "a priori" constructs that Kant put in to avoid
pure empiricism as also both given to us and constructed.
In terms of linguistics it is the idea that we can't escape the text. This
is actually familiar to a lot of scientists. We recognize the distinction
between our equations and reality and see no problem with that. It is odd
how deconstructionism has been given such a bad name among some scientists.
Well, actually not, given all the muddled fuzzy thinking that goes on in far
too many humanity departments. They read a little Derrida and thought it
was putting literature on the same playing field as science and that it
justified a thoroughgoing relativism. But of course it didn't.
As I said, as an analogy, most people in science have already gone through
what deconstructionism tries to do with any formally structured system.
That "descriptive" rather than "explanatory" basis has been part of science
for long enough that it doesn't bother us. However way back in the 20's and
30's it was a different matter. But now we're used to it. Philosophers
aren't nearly so willing to get rid of having a nice fixed foundation,
however.
___ Joan ___
| Does deconstructionism test those assumptions (foundations)
| or do they assume that all are bunk?
___
Well, deconstructionism isn't a method or a system. However every good
deconstructive reading is itself demonstrating deconstructionism. If, as
the post-structuralists assert, there are no fixed structural foundations,
then a close examination of any text depending upon them will lead to a kind
of reversal. Those foundations will show themselves to be indeterminate or
at least contradictory. However most works don't have clear presentations
of their foundations. So what you find is that in a lot of works the debate
is whether what is "presented" as the foundation to be deconstructed is
actually the foundation.
Further most deconstructive readings aren't. Most are simply horrible
misreadings or simply make use of equivocative readings of terms. No wonder
so many people think the movement full of charlatans.
Also realize that in a sense deconstructionism and post-structuralism are
making a negative claim - that there are no fixed, trustworthy, linguistical
foundations. Yet you can't prove a negative. Yet the fact that folks like
Derrida have been able to make the deconstructive readings they have (and
their philosophical works are carefully argued) is a kind of demonstration.