| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| hermes.trismegistus wrote: |
Since people have rushed to defend Chomsky - a famous linguist - one might expect some degree of familiarity with semantics and ontology as well. |
Not at all. Chomsky is famous for two things, linguistics, and political analysis. One may be interested in his political writings while neither having nor needing and interest in his linguistics.
| Quote: |
He seems to think that we can "dismantle the Master's house, using his own tools." This can never occur. |
Since you're making such simple sweeping statements with absolutely no support at all, I'll respond in kind. Yes it can occur. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hermes.trismegistus
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| Chomsky is famous for two things, linguistics, and political analysis. One may be interested in his political writings while neither having nor needing and interest in his linguistics. |
This thread's focus entailed linguistics. Chomsky made his career in linguistics. Without said eminence in linguistics, you probably never would've heard his political views.
Studying linguistics without studying semantics and ontology seems about as reasonable as studying biology without studying genetics and ecology.
| Satori wrote: |
| Yes [we can dismantle the Master's house using his own tools]. |
Then perhaps you'd care to elaborate on how we might do that? Since - from every angle - we can find systemic corruption, I wonder how you intend to modify or ammend the corrupt systems into sustainable systems - using the corrupt mechanisms allowed by those corrupt systems - prior to the Singularity (which, for the sake of discussion, we'll use Kurzweil et al's conservative estimate of less than 50 years).
Namaste. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hermes.trismegistus wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| Chomsky is famous for two things, linguistics, and political analysis. One may be interested in his political writings while neither having nor needing and interest in his linguistics. |
This thread's focus entailed linguistics. Chomsky made his career in linguistics. Without said eminence in linguistics, you probably never would've heard his political views.
Studying linguistics without studying semantics and ontology seems about as reasonable as studying biology without studying genetics and ecology.
|
The thread started on linguistics, but then moved to "Chomsky". And YOUR OWN link was about Chomsky as political writer. My point stands, you don't need to know anything about linguistics to be interested in and comment on Chomsky as a political writer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hermes.trismegistus
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| My point stands, you don't need to know anything about linguistics to be interested in and comment on Chomsky as a political writer. |
Of course one doesn't. However, willful ignorance of relevant fields - essential for anyone with a desire for semi-accurate information transactions - doesn't create integral individuals.
Namaste. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anyway
Joined: 22 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I have to tip my hat to you, Hermes. It's been a long while since I've come across someone with such an extremely authentic sense of self-importance. I can only imagine how blessed we must be to benefit from transaction, however accurate, with a being with your, uh, magnificence... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| anyway wrote: |
| I have to tip my hat to you, Hermes. It's been a long while since I've come across someone with such an extremely authentic sense of self-importance. I can only imagine how blessed we must be to benefit from transaction, however accurate, with a being with your, uh, magnificence... |
You've missed the posts by Rteacher?
But I find the Namaste after the polysyllabic snideness enlightening:
I think there is a Brahmanical bullsh1t theme in the Cafe... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hermes.trismegistus
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| flotsam wrote: |
| I think there is a Brahmanical bullsh1t theme in the Cafe... |
'Namaste' has Sanskrit roots and doesn't depend upon Hindi ideologies any more than 'Shalom' depends on Hebrew.
One can find magnificence in a pile of poo, if we use the appropriate lense.
Namaste. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anyway
Joined: 22 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So quick to contradict, to qualify, to juxtapose, to rely on the obscure authorities... Is that what all of that learning did for you? To parade your knowledge and then feign humility?
I'm sure the schtick is different in person, but on an internet forum it's a bit over the top, eh? Yea, yea, the top is really the bottom of another pile of poo...ok, ok...
I suppose it is difficult to find an outlet for your piercing insights. Let alone anyone who can really fathom your profundity. I suppose we should be grateful that you've acted as if we are capable of having an accurate transaction with you.
I am trying to recognize the divine in you, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hermes.trismegistus wrote: |
| flotsam wrote: |
| I think there is a Brahmanical bullsh1t theme in the Cafe... |
'Namaste' has Sanskrit roots and doesn't depend upon Hindi ideologies any more than 'Shalom' depends on Hebrew.
One can find magnificence in a pile of poo, if we use the appropriate lense.
Namaste. |
OK. I'll bite.
First: Yes, Namaste predates "Hindi" ideologies, I never spoke of Hindi.
Second: Assuming you were associating "Hindu" ideologies with "Hindi", because you're a bit of a fruit, would you explain please how your own personal paradigm enables you to divorce Sanskrit and Brahmanical traditions? Was there something that happened between 2000BCE(or even 500BCE, if you want documentation) and your first yoga class that the rest of us don't know about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hermes.trismegistus
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| anyway wrote: |
So quick to contradict, to qualify, to juxtapose, to rely on the obscure authorities.
I suppose it is difficult to find an outlet for your piercing insights. |
Obscurity appears relative.
Be careful of placing import on the exoteric. The esoteric often has more substance, so it often remains hidden from the profane.
I don't really have terrible difficulty in finding an "outlet". I've got a publisher and a blog. This weekend, however, my fianceé had some Kiwi company, so I was able to get more content up on my blog. That meant more online time, which allowed me to contribute more than usual over here.
| flotsam wrote: |
| [W]ould you explain please how your own personal paradigm enables you to divorce Sanskrit and Brahmanical traditions? |
That seems about as reasonable as asking how we can separate Latin from the Vulgate/Vetus.
Languages spread ideologies. They do not necessarily form ideologies themselves. I suppose E-prime/E-choice may be the greatest exceptions.
Namaste. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hermes.trismegistus wrote: |
[The esoteric often has more substance, so it often remains hidden from the profane.
|
Well according to the figure in MY avatar, the sacred and the profane are one and the same, and the idea of something having more substance than another thing is quite absurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hermes.trismegistus
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| Well according to the figure in MY avatar, the sacred and the profane are one and the same, and the idea of something having more substance than another thing is quite absurd. |
Of course, at the level where dualisms dissolve, Unity reigns supreme. However, here, on this level, all paths are not equal. All ideas are not equal. Ideologic egalitarianism leads to complacency and incompetence, not sustainability.
This forms the foundation for the "lesser demons" in sombunall Buddhist traditions. Or the "domesticated primates" of the pragmatists. The integralists also recognize the dichotomy.
In the end it all becomes one.
Namaste. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| Well according to the figure in MY avatar, the sacred and the profane are one and the same, and the idea of something having more substance than another thing is quite absurd. |
Fitting and indeed.
And:
| hermes.trismegistus wrote: |
That seems about as reasonable as asking how we can separate Latin from the Vulgate/Vetus.
Languages spread ideologies. They do not necessarily form ideologies themselves. |
These two statements have no logical connection and you have failed to answer the question as addressed. You are not dazzling anyone. If you feel the question was somehow inaccurate or loosely worded, feel free to tighten it up a bit. I was generous with your blethering blither, honor me with the same.
But, if you are just sitting around killing kittens and taking the piss, do carry on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hermes.trismegistus
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
You asked:
| flotsam wrote: |
| [W]ould you explain please how your own personal paradigm enables you to divorce Sanskrit and Brahmanical traditions? |
To which I replied,
| hermes.trismegistus wrote: |
That seems about as reasonable as asking how we can separate Latin from the Vulgate/Vetus.
Languages spread ideologies. They do not necessarily form ideologies themselves. I suppose E-prime/E-choice may be the greatest exceptions. |
But apparently, according to you:
| flotsam wrote: |
| These two statements have no logical connection and you have failed to answer the question as addressed. |
It seems more reasonable to say that you see no apparent logical connection.
Latin has its roots as a language, not an ideology.
Sanskrit has its roots as a language, not an ideology.
Hebrew has its roots as a language, not an ideology.
So of course one can easily divorce Sanskrit from Brahmanical traditions.
Namaste. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hermes.trismegistus wrote: |
You asked:
| flotsam wrote: |
| [W]ould you explain please how your own personal paradigm enables you to divorce Sanskrit and Brahmanical traditions? |
To which I replied,
| hermes.trismegistus wrote: |
That seems about as reasonable as asking how we can separate Latin from the Vulgate/Vetus.
Languages spread ideologies. They do not necessarily form ideologies themselves. I suppose E-prime/E-choice may be the greatest exceptions. |
But apparently, according to you:
| flotsam wrote: |
| These two statements have no logical connection and you have failed to answer the question as addressed. |
It seems more reasonable to say that you see no apparent logical connection.
Latin has its roots as a language, not an ideology.
Sanskrit has its roots as a language, not an ideology.
Hebrew has its roots as a language, not an ideology.
So of course one can easily divorce Sanskrit from Brahmanical traditions.
Namaste. |
Language does not exist in a vacuum.
Stop being a sloth and get to work now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
