DiGloria writes: no, just a certain bruno s. has been distracting me lately. he thinks i'm absent-minded in any event.
Doyle I caught your drift concerning bruno s. I would surmise that you mean that you are bruno s given that you like to assume new names and identities every so often. I don't know really because you haven't made that clear, and I didn't get that at first with the persona bruno s started writing about me. But I think either you are bruno s or the confusion surrounding that guess fits in with the discussion you have conducted that has been going on about language. The way bruno s. said things to me is very hard to follow. For arguments sake we might well as go with the idea bruno s is not DiGloria but keep in mind that bruno s is someone who has an interest in saying what they might to me which has a strong connection to DiGlorias interests too.
Doyle I noticed how Carl Remick was inspired by your subsequent (to bruno s.) prolific writings to say this:
I think science's very claims to be able to nail down "the truth" are ideological. Science has very definite epistemological limitations, e.g., the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The very process of scientific observation can distort what is under observation, no?
Carl Remick
Doyle Speaking to each other in an everyday sense like I'm doing right this minute and trying to make things work is made a lot harder by talking obscurely as bruno s gives a perfect example of. The same is clear also about trying to make the example from a radical scalar difference of micro-physics That Carl Remick reminds us through applying a highly remote quantum mechanics to fit into everyday experience. bruno s. rant is a good example of something that sounds like anger to me yet the style of speech fogs over whatever is supposed to be the point i could take in (see DiGloria's admonitions below as a summary of her view on the subject of clarity and common grounds). This person (bruno s) writes Doyle is IIIIing (meaning self-centered I believe, though I don't know for sure), and Doyle is disengenuous. I'm struck by what Yoshie writes about "auto-critique" meaning one can't self critize to appease the changes one needs to make, one must be prepared to hear what others say is a problem and make those changes. That has a political dimension in the sense that when one is with a group of people and they say don't do x and one does one has to sort out what that means because the group lets one know there is a problem. That is how the IIIII that bruno s makes such a point to yell at me is replaced by the group we. And the very thing that impels bruno to speak so strongly in the first place.
DiGloria writes something about this in a quote she uses to bolster her views on Science and the People:
a constellation is a "juxtaposed rather than integrated cluster of changing elements that resist reduction to a common denominator, essential core, or generative first principle'...(T)he modern/postmodern situation is one that defies and resists any and all attempts of reduction to a common denominator, essential core, or generative first principle.' 'Constellation' is deliberately intended to displace Hegel's master metaphor of 'Aufhebung.' For...although we cannot (and should not) give up the promise and demand for reconciliation--a reconciliation achieved by what Hegel calls 'determinate negation,' ...we can no longer responsibly claim that there is or can be a final reconciliation--an Aufhebung in which all difference, otherness, opposition, and contradiction are reconciled. There are always unexpected, contigent ruptures that dis-rupt the project of reconciliation. The changing elements of the new constellation resist such reduction. What is 'new' about this constellation is the growing awareness of the depth of radical instabilities. We have to learn to think and act in the 'in-between' interstices of forced reconciliations and radical dispersion."
--Richard Bernstein, The New Constellation: The Ethical-Political Horizons of Modernity/Postmodernity
Then DiGloria also posts: well actually, no, this is used quite a bit. there are a few problems with it though: people also agree on ideology so agreement doesn't necessarily bring us closer to objectivity. also what kind of 'community context' supports this confirmation: within the institutions we have today, that sort of utopian dream has degenerated into dystopia--surely. LBO can be a place where the same antics take place.
Doyle I think it was important for bruno s to make a point that I was treating Kelley as the "other". But I want to know through clear language what that means and what I could do to change that which DiGloria boldy eschews. Instead the very thing DiGloria recommends is just the opposite wherein it is just impossible to grasp any sort of common grounds and do something together. Am I wrong? Well I just think what holds Digloria back is some kind of fear that being direct will get her into trouble where the obscurantism keeps her safe. I can't afford those options. I want so much more from life. because my life isn't safe.
If bruno s is a real person, the same goes for you, what is it that is the problem? regards, Doyle