Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is the concept of monetary capitalism now holding us back?

@ Hurrah
Because in rearticulating his thinking in his last post, he's incorporated what's been said by others and arrived at a new set of statements. phildwyer was then able to respond to their meaning by asserting that dialectic materialism is a false premise. This is an example of the dialectical progression - of ideas - in action. Can you see that?

What is is you want anyway, Captain?
 
I don't want anything.

He seems to have been just restating his earlier understanding more clearly (and mine too), while saying that he finds what you said largely incomprehensible, except the class bit.
 
Which is why I've stopped talking about it. I can of course see that I'm having difficulty in finding the right language to express my perspective here in a few lines, in a way that's productive. I'll think some more.

But what's your motivation for making aggressive assertions that have nothing to do with the OP?

e2a when you say "just restating"... what do you understand by dialectic anyway?
 
I'm not being aggressive, although it might seem that way. I'm not motivated to dislike you tbh. You're words on a computer monitor. So just cut the shit, write/type clearly.
 
As I say, I'm working on it. Here's a paper that provides some background on what I'm asserting; but you'll need to acknowledge that its term 'private information' of the person playing the 'game' refers to the internal psychological processes affecting the assertions made by each person in a dialectic discussion. http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~lyariv/Repeated_Games_files/Obara.pdf

e2a it'd probably be useful to have a look at this paper first, if the other one's going to make sense. If you're genuinely interested... http://www.pearceassociates.com/essays/cmm_seminar.pdf
 
i think he was meaning that you don't even understand what you wrote, nevermind the papers

when i look it i just think what have they done to my language
 
something like a set or system of symbols as used in a more or less uniform fashion by a number of people, who are thus enabled to communicate intelligibly with one another
 
This is a structuralist conception of language that went out of date with Leavis in the 1950's. The idea that an idea only has value if it's expressed in the language approved by the status quo. You bourgeois! :hmm::D
 
Who is? Love detective's ideas seem very sound to me. And obviously it's easier to convey meaning within the terms of the status quo - the 'prevailing discourse' of a culture. But making use of that capacity is subjecting yourself to the hegemony of the status quo's values innit.
 
So you're saying you'll only accept ideas when they're expressed by a source you feel you can trust? Why is that? Why is a sense of coherence so essential to you?
 
Nope. More 'probing' questions ...

You 'talk shit' because you're a pretentious pseudo-intellectual cunt who isn't as clever as he thinks he is.
 
And it's evident that when you're unfamiliar with an area of knowledge - linguistics, psychology, social psychology (or that's how it looks) you reject it and refuse to broaden your perspective by reading something. Sounds like ignorance... But if you're happy with that, then good luck to you. Presumably you come here looking for self-validation.
 
teahead said:
So you're saying you'll only accept ideas when they're expressed by a source you feel you can trust? Why is that? Why is a sense of coherence so essential to you?
Click to expand...

I think what we are all saying is that we will only get a chance to evaluate an idea (let alone determine whether we accept it's validity) if it is expressed in a way that we can understand it and we can make sense of the words used to do so - which, with the greatest respect, you and the papers you link to fail to do

Now you may find that a horribly bourgeois, structuralist and oppressive stance to take (it's a crazy notion really isn't it) but surely if an idea is a good idea and has validity it should be capable of being expressed in a way that other people can easily grasp what it is expressing, no? Especially if you are trying to put that idea across to people outside your field of speciality - it does seem rather odd to blame others for your inability to express ideas in a way that makes sense to those you are expressing those ideas to
 
jusali said:
The macho posturing with "my words are better than your words" offers nothing in fact most of the arguments seem to imply discussing a solution is a pointless exercise anyway?
Click to expand...
Like.

When discussions become arguements, the value of the activity changes too.
Some people seem to just like/need war. Maybe that's the problem. Although maybe that's a result of the way society's organised by the status quo - imo they're better and better at instilling the kind of fear that makes the rest behave like bourgeois.
 
teahead said:
This is a structuralist conception of language that went out of date with Leavis in the 1950's. The idea that an idea only has value if it's expressed in the language approved by the status quo. You bourgeois! :hmm::D
Click to expand...
There's yer problem, right there.
 
love detective said:
I think what we are all saying is that we will only get a chance to evaluate an idea (let alone determine whether we accept it's validity) if it is expressed in a way that we can understand it and we can make sense of the words used to do so - which, with the greatest respect, you and the papers you link to fail to do

Now you may find that a horribly bourgeois, structuralist and oppressive stance to take (it's a crazy notion really isn't it) but surely if an idea is a good idea and has validity it should be capable of being expressed in a way that other people can easily grasp what it is expressing, no?
Click to expand...
Yep, I'd definitely agree I'm not up to the task of articulating my thoughts on what I was trying to say. I think I've already said that. But Captain's furiousness doesn't seem a relevant response. I was trying to find out what was causing it but then he got rude about being asked.
 
teahead said:
Yep, I'd definitely agree I'm not up to the task of articulating my thoughts on what I was trying to say.
Click to expand...

ergo those you are expressing those thoughts to are all horribly bourgeoisie structuralists because of your inability to communicate to them? I mean come on, see it from our side!
 
teahead said:
Where? That it's only possible to convey meaning within the value system of the status quo? That's what they said to Galileo.
Click to expand...

it's only possible to convey meaning if you convey things in a way that others are capable of undersanding, something you've already admitted you are incapable of doing

you then leap from this incapability on your own behalf to an inferring of a structuralist bourgoise stance by those who simply don't have a clue what you're talking about

it's not about things so haughty as the value system of the status quo - it's much more simpler than that, if we understand what you are talking about then it gives us a chance to evaluate your ideas and possibly form an opinion on them, until that first step is done however the door is firmly shut
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

danny la rouge
The meaning of “conservative” in US media
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
Cloo
What do/should the World Wars mean to us now & in the future?
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
AnnO'Neemus
A
frogwoman
What are the international implications if Israel gets kicked out of the UN?
2
Replies
35
Views
921
tim
tim
Protag
'Conservatism' is neoliberalism with spikes
2 3
Replies
79
Views
3K
Serge Forward
Serge Forward
ska invita
Is a head of state necessary?
2
Replies
59
Views
2K
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
Back
Top Bottom