Seventy Percent

Kelley the-squeeze at pulpculture.org
Tue Mar 18 13:24:40 PST 2003


when you hold yourself up and selected others as somehow special, when you fail to point out that your abilities are not unique to you but something you were capable of cultivating because you had opportunities, position, etc in life that others do not and never ever will have, then you are engaging in methodological dualism. i don't give a fried bat's eyelash that you do recognize this and will attempt to redeem this and many previous ignorant (ne stupid) assertions and characterizations you've made over the past four years. you recently tried to redeem yourself for steve and others, allowing them to assume you just don't know what white trash means. well, the archives suggest you clearly know better. so keep on trucking. it's your repeated failure over the course of years on this list to actually incorporate crits of your arguments that is a sad testament to the fact that you are refractory to the insight you claim you derive from self-reflection.

At 03:49 PM 3/18/03 -0500, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:


>So, W, you admit you're delusional. You just keep it on perspective.
>I knew John Nash, btw, when he was the Ghost of Fine Hall.
>jks
>
>
>That makes all the difference in the world. We are all partly
>delusional, in a Kantian sense - by inserting, so to speak, our apriori
>forms into our perceptions and "seeing" those forms as a part of outside
>reality. Philosophers and the assorted gang are no different in that
>respect than the common folk. The difference is that philsophers often
>know that they are doing it, whereas the common folk do not - they tend
>to think that they see things as they are.
>
>This was the crux of my argument against Kelley's insinuations that I
>see my cognitive processes differently than those of the other folks.
>The point was that I do react to propagandistic messages pretty much in
>the same way as the common folk, but I can frame them differently than
>many of these folks, and also bracket them out and reflect on their
>epistemological status, whereas most common folks do not bother. That
>is to say, I react to, say, images of cruelty, suffering, and tyranny
>pretty much the same way as most common folks do. Where different folks
>part ways is how these images are being congnitively framed: some of
>them reduce their impact by framing them in a racist framework i.e.
>brown-skinned people's suffering is lesser than that of the white
>skinned foks (as superbly illustrated by George Orwell in _Marrakech_) ,
>other frame it in a manichaean/Hollowoodian narrative of the struggle
>between light and darkness, good and evil, and call for acrusade against
>evil, and still other question its epistemological validity by
>"deconstructing" i.e. framing it as a constructed narrative intended to
>produce the effect that most folks are experiencing in the first place.
>
>Wojtek



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list