Friam

Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

Classic

List

Threaded

18 messages Options

Nick Thompson

Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

So how do we “convince” in pomo scholarship. Bribery? Threats? If not logic, what legitimate inducements to agreement are available?

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Genie Giaimo
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 9:57 AM
To: [hidden email]; James Cordova
Cc: James Laird; Vincent Hevern; ForwNThompson; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

Hey all,

Think this is problematic simply because with the introduction of post modernism (and arguably other earlier movements) authors are not always looking for logical conclusions for why people are the way they are. Think about A Clockwork Orange for example. In po-mo form and content sometimes break down and people do things for reasons that seem beyond a logical "oh it was their childhood or x y and z experience that did it"--I really am convinced that we are working within two different frameworks that overlap but in a problematic way because of the difference in outcome that is expected in the two.

Genie

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:28 AM, James Cordova <[hidden email]> wrote:

From Skinner's "Science and Human Behavior"

"Social stimuli are important to those to whom social reinforcement is important. The salesman, the courtier, the entertainer...-- all are likely to be affected by subtle properties of human behavior, associated with favor or disapproval, which are overlooked by many people. It is significant that the novelist, as a specialist in the description of human behavior, often shows an early history in which social reinforcement has been especially important."

And of course Skinner was also a novelist.

Best,

James

James V. Cordova, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Director of Clinical Training
Department of Psychology
Clark University
(508) 793-7268
-----Original Message-----
From: James Laird [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 10:07 AM
To: [hidden email]; 'Vincent Hevern'; ForwNThompson
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: RE: Chomsky Supports Thompson

Vinnie,
Nice to see you chiming in.
Chomsky doesn't impress me, since he isn't very empirical. Now if it was Skinner, who was both an empiricist and a novelist, that would be impressive. Actually, since Skinner is dead, that would be really, really impressive.
Isn't this all about the feeling of knowing and how that differs (or not) from actual knowing? And there is lots of empirical research demonstrating how easy it is to deceive people's feeling of knowing, so that they feel they know something that they clearly don't. and whatever skepticism we might feel about the existential state of "real" knowledge, we can at least agree, I would think, that knowing and feeling of knowing are different.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Vincent Hevern [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:49 PM
To: ForwNThompson
Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Chomsky Supports Thompson

Just to add to the mix:

Noam Chomsky (1988). Language and Problems of Knowledge:

"It is quite possible -- overwhelmingly probable one might guess --
that we will always learn more about human life and human personality
from novels than from scientific psychology."

[quoted in Peter Watson (2000). The Modern Mind. New York: Harper
Perennial, pp. 755-56]

I just read this and had to send it along.

Vinny
--

----------------------------------------------
Vincent W. Hevern, SJ, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Le Moyne College
1419 Salt Springs Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13214 USA
[hidden email]
(315) 445-4342 (Office)
(315) 445-4722 (FAX)
----------------------------------------------
Web: www.hevern.com
Narrative Psychology: www.narrativepsych.com
IJDS: www.dialogical.org
----------------------------------------------

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Tom Carter

Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

<base href="x-msg://168/">Nick -

A place to begin exploring some of these issues might be:

Muddling Through : Pursuing Science and Truths in the Twenty-First Century, by Mike Fortun and Herbert Bernstein (billed as a "science historian" and a "quantum physicist" . . . I have found it to be a good read . . .)

Thanks . . .

tom

Amazon: Muddling Through : Pursuing Science and Truths in the Twenty-First Century

On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

So how do we “convince” in pomo scholarship. Bribery? Threats? If not logic, what legitimate inducements to agreement are available?
Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Genie Giaimo
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 9:57 AM
To: [hidden email]; James Cordova
Cc: James Laird; Vincent Hevern; ForwNThompson; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

Hey all,

Think this is problematic simply because with the introduction of post modernism (and arguably other earlier movements) authors are not always looking for logical conclusions for why people are the way they are. Think about A Clockwork Orange for example. In po-mo form and content sometimes break down and people do things for reasons that seem beyond a logical "oh it was their childhood or x y and z experience that did it"--I really am convinced that we are working within two different frameworks that overlap but in a problematic way because of the difference in outcome that is expected in the two.

Genie
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:28 AM, James Cordova <[hidden email]> wrote:
From Skinner's "Science and Human Behavior"

"Social stimuli are important to those to whom social reinforcement is important. The salesman, the courtier, the entertainer...-- all are likely to be affected by subtle properties of human behavior, associated with favor or disapproval, which are overlooked by many people. It is significant that the novelist, as a specialist in the description of human behavior, often shows an early history in which social reinforcement has been especially important."

And of course Skinner was also a novelist.

Best,

James

James V. Cordova, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Director of Clinical Training
Department of Psychology
Clark University
(508) 793-7268
-----Original Message-----
From: James Laird [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 10:07 AM
To: [hidden email]; 'Vincent Hevern'; ForwNThompson
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: RE: Chomsky Supports Thompson

Vinnie,
Nice to see you chiming in.
Chomsky doesn't impress me, since he isn't very empirical. Now if it was Skinner, who was both an empiricist and a novelist, that would be impressive. Actually, since Skinner is dead, that would be really, really impressive.
Isn't this all about the feeling of knowing and how that differs (or not) from actual knowing? And there is lots of empirical research demonstrating how easy it is to deceive people's feeling of knowing, so that they feel they know something that they clearly don't. and whatever skepticism we might feel about the existential state of "real" knowledge, we can at least agree, I would think, that knowing and feeling of knowing are different.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Vincent Hevern [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:49 PM
To: ForwNThompson
Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Chomsky Supports Thompson

Just to add to the mix:

Noam Chomsky (1988). Language and Problems of Knowledge:

"It is quite possible -- overwhelmingly probable one might guess --
that we will always learn more about human life and human personality
from novels than from scientific psychology."

[quoted in Peter Watson (2000). The Modern Mind. New York: Harper
Perennial, pp. 755-56]

I just read this and had to send it along.

Vinny
--

----------------------------------------------
Vincent W. Hevern, SJ, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Le Moyne College
1419 Salt Springs Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13214 USA
[hidden email]
(315) 445-4342 (Office)
(315) 445-4722 (FAX)
----------------------------------------------
Web: www.hevern.com
Narrative Psychology: www.narrativepsych.com
IJDS: www.dialogical.org
----------------------------------------------

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

glen ep ropella

Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 10-10-22 12:14 PM:
> So how do we "convince" in pomo scholarship. Bribery? Threats? If not
> logic, what legitimate inducements to agreement are available?

"PoMo" seems, to me, to rely heavily on parallax, the approach to the
truth without actually knowing anything about what's being approached.
The point is to fill all the inputs and state variables with as much
data (dirty data, not info, not knowledge, certainly not wisdom) as
possible and see what falls out.

_If_ there is a mesh or structure in there somewhere, then some of the
junk you threw at it will stick and other junk will fall away.

The real trick is that the structure is at least dynamic and probably
pathological. So even if you discover a structure with junk set J in
time T and space S, you'll have to do it again when any part of {J,T,S}
changes. But that doesn't mean we can't develop methods that
continually revise {J,T,S} and continually toss it out in space so that
even if there is no absolute truth, there is a piecewise truth we can
operate on within some reasonably small extrapolation of the most recent
{J,T,S}.

Anyway, that's the way it seems to me.

I've often been accused of being PoMo because of my verbal support of
critical rationalism and the "open society". The gods know I'm often
accused of speaking nonsense. Since all ideas are initially welcome,
wackos tend to dominate the upstream. It's fun swimming around in all
the nonsense to try to determine which parts might survive the
downstream. I've even been known to actually _read_ the output of
Eddiington typewriters like the Chomskybot looking for interesting
statements... kinda the same as reading individuals evolved with genetic
programming. ;-)

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

In reply to this post by Tom Carter

Thanks, Tom, for the recommendation. I have placed the book on my “wish list”. Perhaps we will do a seminar on it.

In the meantime (lazy man that I am) can I ask you to take a few moments to sketch out what sort of a conclusion they arrive at. As the mole says in Rabbit Hill: “Stinky, be eyes for me.”

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tom Carter
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 1:28 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Cc: 'Vincent Hevern'; [hidden email]; 'James Cordova'; 'James Laird'; 'Genie Giaimo'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Chomsky Supports Thompson

Nick -

A place to begin exploring some of these issues might be:

Thanks . . .

tom

Amazon: Muddling Through : Pursuing Science and Truths in the Twenty-First Century

On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

So how do we “convince” in pomo scholarship. Bribery? Threats? If not logic, what legitimate inducements to agreement are available?

Nick

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:28 AM, James Cordova <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick Thompson

Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

In reply to this post by glen ep ropella

Glen,

Is there an example of a pomo discussion that actually got anywhere? Or by
using the terms "getting anywhere" have I already imposed values hostile to
the enterprise.

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 1:49 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Chomsky Supports Thompson

Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 10-10-22 12:14 PM:
> So how do we "convince" in pomo scholarship. Bribery? Threats? If
> not logic, what legitimate inducements to agreement are available?

"PoMo" seems, to me, to rely heavily on parallax, the approach to the truth
without actually knowing anything about what's being approached.
The point is to fill all the inputs and state variables with as much data
(dirty data, not info, not knowledge, certainly not wisdom) as possible and
see what falls out.

_If_ there is a mesh or structure in there somewhere, then some of the junk
you threw at it will stick and other junk will fall away.

The real trick is that the structure is at least dynamic and probably
pathological. So even if you discover a structure with junk set J in time T
and space S, you'll have to do it again when any part of {J,T,S} changes.
But that doesn't mean we can't develop methods that continually revise
{J,T,S} and continually toss it out in space so that even if there is no
absolute truth, there is a piecewise truth we can operate on within some
reasonably small extrapolation of the most recent {J,T,S}.

Anyway, that's the way it seems to me.

I've often been accused of being PoMo because of my verbal support of
critical rationalism and the "open society". The gods know I'm often
accused of speaking nonsense. Since all ideas are initially welcome, wackos
tend to dominate the upstream. It's fun swimming around in all the nonsense
to try to determine which parts might survive the downstream. I've even
been known to actually _read_ the output of Eddiington typewriters like the
Chomskybot looking for interesting statements... kinda the same as reading
individuals evolved with genetic programming. ;-)

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

Fascinating how difficult it is to distinguish pomo from porno in my sanserif mailbox,

-- rec --

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Glen,

Is there an example of a pomo discussion that actually got anywhere? Or by
using the terms "getting anywhere" have I already imposed values hostile to
the enterprise.

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf

Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 1:49 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Chomsky Supports Thompson

Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 10-10-22 12:14 PM:
> So how do we "convince" in pomo scholarship. Bribery? Threats? If
> not logic, what legitimate inducements to agreement are available?

"PoMo" seems, to me, to rely heavily on parallax, the approach to the truth
without actually knowing anything about what's being approached.
The point is to fill all the inputs and state variables with as much data
(dirty data, not info, not knowledge, certainly not wisdom) as possible and
see what falls out.

_If_ there is a mesh or structure in there somewhere, then some of the junk
you threw at it will stick and other junk will fall away.

The real trick is that the structure is at least dynamic and probably
pathological. So even if you discover a structure with junk set J in time T
and space S, you'll have to do it again when any part of {J,T,S} changes.
But that doesn't mean we can't develop methods that continually revise
{J,T,S} and continually toss it out in space so that even if there is no
absolute truth, there is a piecewise truth we can operate on within some
reasonably small extrapolation of the most recent {J,T,S}.

Anyway, that's the way it seems to me.

I've often been accused of being PoMo because of my verbal support of
critical rationalism and the "open society". The gods know I'm often
accused of speaking nonsense. Since all ideas are initially welcome, wackos
tend to dominate the upstream. It's fun swimming around in all the nonsense
to try to determine which parts might survive the downstream. I've even
been known to actually _read_ the output of Eddiington typewriters like the
Chomskybot looking for interesting statements... kinda the same as reading
individuals evolved with genetic programming. ;-)

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

glen ep ropella

Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 10-10-22 01:11 PM:
> Is there an example of a pomo discussion that actually got anywhere? Or by
> using the terms "getting anywhere" have I already imposed values hostile to
> the enterprise.

Unfortunately, that question is too vague to answer. You have to be a
bit clearer about "got anywhere" to make it answerable. Has PoMo
advanced modern physics? Not likely; but perhaps the ability to
tolerate PoMo discussions is similar to the ability to tolerate
philosophical extrapolations of quantum mechanics. ;-)

Personally, the only benefit I've ever gotten out of PoMo is some good
hard belly laughs. PoMo is great at juxtaposing things that don't
belong together. It's funny. And funny is _good_ ... and good for you.
And there's an old saying that "it's funny because it's true." Perhaps
the truth PoMo leads us to is the realization that we're deeply embedded
in a quagmire of language, culture, hysterical rearing, genetic memory,
and circumstance and that you'd better be crazy careful before you ever
commit to believing any given idea, especially if you (we, people) came
up with that idea. I.e. PoMo fosters skepticism.

Is that "got anywhere"?

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

In reply to this post by glen ep ropella

Nick,
PoMo discussions go lots of places, and maybe even do lots of things... but I think by definition, one thing they do not do is find truth, nevertheless Truth or TRUTH!. They pretty quickly fall into the, if not quite circular, then spiral, junk where you need to be hypocritical or accept that cultural relativity is itself just one of many equally valid culturally-contextualized view.

So, for example, early generations of in pomo people liked to discuss power relations. But of course they Should (note value judgment) always be quite self aware that the success or failure of their works will only be a product of power dynamics, but no testament to a deep inner truth in their claims. One of my linguist friends at Altoona tells tales of early Chomsky followers who seemed to understand this quite well, and would literally stand up and heckle others off the stage at academic conferences. Overtime, they would thereby come to monopolized the societies.

Blah,

Eric

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 04:11 PM, "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Glen, 

Is there an example of a pomo discussion that actually got anywhere?  Or by
using the terms "getting anywhere" have I already imposed values
hostile to
the enterprise.  

Nick 

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 1:49 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Chomsky Supports Thompson

Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 10-10-22 12:14 PM:
> So how do we "convince" in pomo scholarship.  Bribery?  Threats?
 If 
> not logic, what legitimate inducements to agreement are available?

"PoMo" seems, to me, to rely heavily on parallax, the approach to the
truth
without actually knowing anything about what's being approached.
The point is to fill all the inputs and state variables with as much data
(dirty data, not info, not knowledge, certainly not wisdom) as
possible and
see what falls out.

_If_ there is a mesh or structure in there somewhere, then some of the junk
you threw at it will stick and other junk will fall away.

The real trick is that the structure is at least dynamic and probably
pathological.  So even if you discover a structure with junk set J in time T
and space S, you'll have to do it again when any part of {J,T,S} changes.
But that doesn't mean we can't develop methods that continually revise
{J,T,S} and continually toss it out in space so that even if there is no
absolute truth, there is a piecewise truth we can operate on within some
reasonably small extrapolation of the most recent {J,T,S}.

Anyway, that's the way it seems to me.

I've often been accused of being PoMo because of my verbal support of
critical rationalism and the "open society".  The gods know I'm often
accused of speaking nonsense.  Since all ideas are initially welcome, wackos
tend to dominate the upstream.  It's fun swimming around in all the nonsense
to try to determine which parts might survive the downstream.  I've even
been known to actually _read_ the output of Eddiington typewriters like the
Chomskybot looking for interesting statements... kinda the same as reading
individuals evolved with genetic programming. ;-)

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Nick Thompson

Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

In reply to this post by glen ep ropella

No, on my account. Overcoming skepticism in some legitimate way is what I
mean by "getting somewhere". Skepticism is like a sheep dip; good to pass
through regularly, but not good to stand around and drink it.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 3:47 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Chomsky Supports Thompson

Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 10-10-22 01:11 PM:
> Is there an example of a pomo discussion that actually got anywhere?
> Or by using the terms "getting anywhere" have I already imposed values
> hostile to the enterprise.

Unfortunately, that question is too vague to answer. You have to be a bit
clearer about "got anywhere" to make it answerable. Has PoMo advanced
modern physics? Not likely; but perhaps the ability to tolerate PoMo
discussions is similar to the ability to tolerate philosophical
extrapolations of quantum mechanics. ;-)

Personally, the only benefit I've ever gotten out of PoMo is some good hard
belly laughs. PoMo is great at juxtaposing things that don't belong
together. It's funny. And funny is _good_ ... and good for you.
And there's an old saying that "it's funny because it's true." Perhaps the
truth PoMo leads us to is the realization that we're deeply embedded in a
quagmire of language, culture, hysterical rearing, genetic memory, and
circumstance and that you'd better be crazy careful before you ever commit
to believing any given idea, especially if you (we, people) came up with
that idea. I.e. PoMo fosters skepticism.

Is that "got anywhere"?

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

So, why, if I were a scholar in the humanities would I EVER bother to read the work of other scholars. What is the equivalent of the group of scientists trying to solve and ultimately understanding how something works!

You are making humanities scholarship sound like kind of a circlejerk, not to put too fine a point on it.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Genie Giaimo
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 3:41 PM
To: Nicholas Thompson
Cc: [hidden email]; James Cordova; James Laird; Vincent Hevern; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

Haha that is just it--consensus as much as it is something most people desire is not often what scholarship in the Humanities is aiming for--this is perhaps why people have such trouble defining literary studies and then we have trouble "justifying" it when we are questioned. It would seem rather silly to say that there are a infinite number of approaches to texts because authors do not have a finite number of approaches. Sure we can create literary movements, the canon etc. but frequently someone else comes along and "busts" it and we are left with a new canon and a new way of looking at the work of authors who may or may not have been looked at previously--it's a bit silly when I explain it that way but there you have it. And final point, logic is something that, perhaps, we can't always assume artists and humans in general use/have.

Genie

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

So how do we “convince” in pomo scholarship. Bribery? Threats? If not logic, what legitimate inducements to agreement are available?

Nick

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:28 AM, James Cordova <[hidden email]> wrote:

glen ep ropella

Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Nicholas Thompson wrote circa 10-10-22 04:15 PM:
> No, on my account. Overcoming skepticism in some legitimate way is what I
> mean by "getting somewhere". Skepticism is like a sheep dip; good to pass
> through regularly, but not good to stand around and drink it.

OK. But what about the other benefit we get from PoMo: laughter? Is it
getting anywhere to make people laugh?

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
http://web.archive.org/web/19990221131112/www.santafe.edu/~malcolm/
http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl
http://jir.com/

Surely these demonstrations of silliness get somewhere.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Robert J. Cordingley

Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

And what about popomo?
Robert C

On 10/22/10 1:14 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

So how do we “convince” in pomo scholarship. Bribery? Threats? If not logic, what legitimate inducements to agreement are available?

Nick

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Genie Giaimo
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 9:57 AM
To: [hidden email]; James Cordova
Cc: James Laird; Vincent Hevern; ForwNThompson; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

Hey all,

Think this is problematic simply because with the introduction of post modernism (and arguably other earlier movements) authors are not always looking for logical conclusions for why people are the way they are. Think about A Clockwork Orange for example. In po-mo form and content sometimes break down and people do things for reasons that seem beyond a logical "oh it was their childhood or x y and z experience that did it"--I really am convinced that we are working within two different frameworks that overlap but in a problematic way because of the difference in outcome that is expected in the two.

Genie

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:28 AM, James Cordova <[hidden email]> wrote:

From Skinner's "Science and Human Behavior"

"Social stimuli are important to those to whom social reinforcement is important. The salesman, the courtier, the entertainer...-- all are likely to be affected by subtle properties of human behavior, associated with favor or disapproval, which are overlooked by many people. It is significant that the novelist, as a specialist in the description of human behavior, often shows an early history in which social reinforcement has been especially important."

And of course Skinner was also a novelist.

Best,

James

James V. Cordova, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Director of Clinical Training
Department of Psychology
Clark University
(508) 793-7268
-----Original Message-----
From: James Laird [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 10:07 AM
To: [hidden email]; 'Vincent Hevern'; ForwNThompson
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: RE: Chomsky Supports Thompson

Vinnie,
Nice to see you chiming in.
Chomsky doesn't impress me, since he isn't very empirical. Now if it was Skinner, who was both an empiricist and a novelist, that would be impressive. Actually, since Skinner is dead, that would be really, really impressive.
Isn't this all about the feeling of knowing and how that differs (or not) from actual knowing? And there is lots of empirical research demonstrating how easy it is to deceive people's feeling of knowing, so that they feel they know something that they clearly don't. and whatever skepticism we might feel about the existential state of "real" knowledge, we can at least agree, I would think, that knowing and feeling of knowing are different.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Vincent Hevern [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:49 PM
To: ForwNThompson
Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Chomsky Supports Thompson

Just to add to the mix:

Noam Chomsky (1988). Language and Problems of Knowledge:

"It is quite possible -- overwhelmingly probable one might guess --
that we will always learn more about human life and human personality
from novels than from scientific psychology."

[quoted in Peter Watson (2000). The Modern Mind. New York: Harper
Perennial, pp. 755-56]

I just read this and had to send it along.

Vinny
--

----------------------------------------------
Vincent W. Hevern, SJ, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Le Moyne College
1419 Salt Springs Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13214 USA
[hidden email]
(315) 445-4342 (Office)
(315) 445-4722 (FAX)
----------------------------------------------
Web: www.hevern.com
Narrative Psychology: www.narrativepsych.com
IJDS: www.dialogical.org
----------------------------------------------
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

Wow, Robert! First I thought it was a town in Indiana, but when double clicked the link, I discovered that I may indeed be a Popomo-ist (see below).

Interesting.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 6:41 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Chomsky Supports Thompson

And what about popomo?
Robert C

On 10/22/10 1:14 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

So how do we “convince” in pomo scholarship. Bribery? Threats? If not logic, what legitimate inducements to agreement are available?

Nick

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Genie Giaimo
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 9:57 AM
To: [hidden email]; James Cordova
Cc: James Laird; Vincent Hevern; ForwNThompson; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:28 AM, James Cordova <[hidden email]> wrote:

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Russell Standish

Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

And you actually claim to understand that wiki page? Wow! My head
hurts, just thinking about it.

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 09:37:13PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

> Wow, Robert! First I thought it was a town in Indiana, but when double
> clicked the link, I discovered that I may indeed be a Popomo-ist (see
> below).
>
>
>
> Interesting.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
> Of Robert J. Cordingley
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 6:41 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Chomsky Supports Thompson
>
>
>
> And what about popomo <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-postmodernism> ?
> Robert C
>

Nick Thompson

Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

Russ II Wrote,

===>And you actually claim to understand that wiki page? Wow! My head hurts,
just thinking about it.<===

The minute I hit "send" I knew I would regret it. I hoped I could get to
bed before people started beating on me, but I forgot about Australia. I
retire from the field of battle in confusion and dishonor:

Ok. I didn't read it all carefully, and I didn't understand the half of it.
I just liked the idea of getting beyond Irony.

===> Consensus on what makes up an epoch can hardly be achieved while that
epoch is still in its early stages. However, a common positive theme of
current attempts to define post-postmodernism is that faith, trust,
dialogue, performance and sincerity can work to transcend postmodern irony.
<====

In Academia, some people seem to regard irony as a creative act ... as I it
could stop a flood, bridge a river, or feed a multitude. It can't do any
of these things, but it certainly can stop a bunch of academics from getting
anything done, I can vouch for that!

But the rest of the stuff in that article was opaque to me.

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Russell Standish
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2010 12:37 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Chomsky Supports Thompson

And you actually claim to understand that wiki page? Wow! My head hurts,
just thinking about it.

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 09:37:13PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

> Wow, Robert! First I thought it was a town in Indiana, but when
> double clicked the link, I discovered that I may indeed be a
> Popomo-ist (see below).
>
>
>
> Interesting.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 6:41 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Chomsky Supports Thompson
>
>
>
> And what about popomo <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-postmodernism> ?
> Robert C
>

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [hidden email]
Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Owen Densmore

Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

Administrator

In reply to this post by Tom Carter

Oddly enough, I'm finding Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics a good read.

It is NOT simply, as often thought, a rant against string theory, but an interesting plunge into both the failure of physics to make it's usual progress over the last 40-50 years and ideas on how to fix it. It has serious interest in the philosophy of science (Feyerabend, Popper) as well as an interesting plunge into recent directions in in science.

We're in Fiumicino, the tiny town adjacent to Rome's airport. Should arrive back in SF late Tuesday. Italy is a wonder and Europe in general fascinating.

---- Owen

I am an iPad, resistance is futile!

On Oct 22, 2010, at 9:28 PM, Tom Carter <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick -

  A place to begin exploring some of these issues might be:

   Muddling Through : Pursuing Science and Truths in the Twenty-First Century, by Mike Fortun and Herbert Bernstein (billed as a "science historian" and a "quantum physicist" . . . I have found it to be a good read . . .)

  Thanks . . .

tom

Amazon:   Muddling Through : Pursuing Science and Truths in the Twenty-First Century

On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

So how do we “convince” in pomo scholarship. Bribery? Threats? If not logic, what legitimate inducements to agreement are available?
Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Genie Giaimo
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 9:57 AM
To: [hidden email]; James Cordova
Cc: James Laird; Vincent Hevern; ForwNThompson; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

Hey all,

Think this is problematic simply because with the introduction of post modernism (and arguably other earlier movements) authors are not always looking for logical conclusions for why people are the way they are. Think about A Clockwork Orange for example. In po-mo form and content sometimes break down and people do things for reasons that seem beyond a logical "oh it was their childhood or x y and z experience that did it"--I really am convinced that we are working within two different frameworks that overlap but in a problematic way because of the difference in outcome that is expected in the two.

Genie
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:28 AM, James Cordova <[hidden email]> wrote:
From Skinner's "Science and Human Behavior"

"Social stimuli are important to those to whom social reinforcement is important. The salesman, the courtier, the entertainer...-- all are likely to be affected by subtle properties of human behavior, associated with favor or disapproval, which are overlooked by many people. It is significant that the novelist, as a specialist in the description of human behavior, often shows an early history in which social reinforcement has been especially important."

And of course Skinner was also a novelist.

Best,

James

James V. Cordova, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Director of Clinical Training
Department of Psychology
Clark University
(508) 793-7268
-----Original Message-----
From: James Laird [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 10:07 AM
To: [hidden email]; 'Vincent Hevern'; ForwNThompson
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: RE: Chomsky Supports Thompson

Vinnie,
Nice to see you chiming in.
Chomsky doesn't impress me, since he isn't very empirical. Now if it was Skinner, who was both an empiricist and a novelist, that would be impressive. Actually, since Skinner is dead, that would be really, really impressive.
Isn't this all about the feeling of knowing and how that differs (or not) from actual knowing? And there is lots of empirical research demonstrating how easy it is to deceive people's feeling of knowing, so that they feel they know something that they clearly don't. and whatever skepticism we might feel about the existential state of "real" knowledge, we can at least agree, I would think, that knowing and feeling of knowing are different.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Vincent Hevern [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:49 PM
To: ForwNThompson
Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Chomsky Supports Thompson

Just to add to the mix:

Noam Chomsky (1988). Language and Problems of Knowledge:

"It is quite possible -- overwhelmingly probable one might guess --
that we will always learn more about human life and human personality
from novels than from scientific psychology."

[quoted in Peter Watson (2000). The Modern Mind. New York: Harper
Perennial, pp. 755-56]

I just read this and had to send it along.

Vinny
--

----------------------------------------------
Vincent W. Hevern, SJ, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Le Moyne College
1419 Salt Springs Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13214 USA
[hidden email]
(315) 445-4342 (Office)
(315) 445-4722 (FAX)
----------------------------------------------
Web: www.hevern.com
Narrative Psychology: www.narrativepsych.com
IJDS: www.dialogical.org
----------------------------------------------

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Owen Densmore

Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

Administrator

Well, after a 30 hour flight from Rome to Denver, we spent a second night in Denver to recuperate! Be home tonight.

---- Owen

I am an iPad, resistance is futile!

On Oct 23, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

> ...
>
> We're in Fiumicino, the tiny town adjacent to Rome's airport. Should arrive back in SF late Tuesday. Italy is a wonder and Europe in general
>>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson

One can actually recuperate in Denver?

N

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 10:29 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Chomsky Supports Thompson

Well, after a 30 hour flight from Rome to Denver, we spent a second night in
Denver to recuperate! Be home tonight.

---- Owen

I am an iPad, resistance is futile!

On Oct 23, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

> ...
>
> We're in Fiumicino, the tiny town adjacent to Rome's airport. Should
> arrive back in SF late Tuesday. Italy is a wonder and Europe in
> general
>>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org