A Brief History of Lies?
Farzana Versey January 28, 2004
#150 Posted by ballukhan on February 16, 2004 6:40:28 am
#147 by macgupta on February 4, 2004 9:33pm PT
Some comments on Rajiv Malhotra`s piece-
Undergraduates ``must`` be taught ``eclecticism``- the ability towards ``fusion of horizons`` without any inhibitions -and to develop their appreciation towards alternative interpretations of the ``reality`` as ``seen`` from different view points, world views and theories. That is why ``under-theorizing`` is not a virtue when you are learning because it comes in the the way of ``eclecticism``. I used to have low opinion about the earlier Greeks until I read Stoics, Sophists and Epicurian theorists. Reading ``theory`` is a very important (and an exhilirating) experience in your formative years as an undergraduate.
This underscors a very important truth that ``knowledge`` involves a movement towards ``fusion of horizons`` - utilizing ``off-the-shelf theories`` is part of such a movement and ``novelty`` lies in fusing the ideas of such theories with one`s own perspective in order to arrive at a ``different`` interpretion of the world and its events - this is what originality is about - the process of movement towards new and fresh interpretations of the world is what needs to be taught at that young age!!!
``Originality`` has the seeds of the the previous thought in it- yet it is a movement away from the established horizons.
Marx, Freud, Lukacs, Gramsci, Habermas, Jameson, Adorno, Barthes, Bakhtin, Jakobson, Lacan, Levi-Strauss, Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Baudrillard, Kristeva, Althusser, among others all of them opens to us disparate and bold ways of ``seeing`` the social reality- Eclecticism ensures that we respect these views as ``credible`` and respect the fact that ``truth`` cannot be monopolized by any one of these theory (like a religious book).
Rajiv`s article revolves around the essential confusion between the aims and goals of the ``theories`` of ``natural`` science and ``social``sciences since it takes a typical ``instrumentalist view`` of the social theories.(the demarcation principle) None of the horizons presented by the above mentioned social theorists are ``scientific theories`` with any ``objective criteria`` or any ``predictive-powers``.
These are ``theories`` with LIBERATIVE intent. Their power resides in PRAXIS, their ability to guide our actions and liberate ourselves and the social surroundings from the in-equalities perpetuated by the ``web of power`` through subjugation of the human bodies.
Whereas the scientistic views of social discourse confuse the strengths of these theorists, the religious people who think ``liberation`` is a monopoly of their religious doctrines equally fail to appreciate the horizons represented by these ``theorists``.
P.S- Sorry, Saminasha, I missed the thread!
Some comments on Rajiv Malhotra`s piece-
Undergraduates ``must`` be taught ``eclecticism``- the ability towards ``fusion of horizons`` without any inhibitions -and to develop their appreciation towards alternative interpretations of the ``reality`` as ``seen`` from different view points, world views and theories. That is why ``under-theorizing`` is not a virtue when you are learning because it comes in the the way of ``eclecticism``. I used to have low opinion about the earlier Greeks until I read Stoics, Sophists and Epicurian theorists. Reading ``theory`` is a very important (and an exhilirating) experience in your formative years as an undergraduate.
This underscors a very important truth that ``knowledge`` involves a movement towards ``fusion of horizons`` - utilizing ``off-the-shelf theories`` is part of such a movement and ``novelty`` lies in fusing the ideas of such theories with one`s own perspective in order to arrive at a ``different`` interpretion of the world and its events - this is what originality is about - the process of movement towards new and fresh interpretations of the world is what needs to be taught at that young age!!!
``Originality`` has the seeds of the the previous thought in it- yet it is a movement away from the established horizons.
Marx, Freud, Lukacs, Gramsci, Habermas, Jameson, Adorno, Barthes, Bakhtin, Jakobson, Lacan, Levi-Strauss, Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Baudrillard, Kristeva, Althusser, among others all of them opens to us disparate and bold ways of ``seeing`` the social reality- Eclecticism ensures that we respect these views as ``credible`` and respect the fact that ``truth`` cannot be monopolized by any one of these theory (like a religious book).
Rajiv`s article revolves around the essential confusion between the aims and goals of the ``theories`` of ``natural`` science and ``social``sciences since it takes a typical ``instrumentalist view`` of the social theories.(the demarcation principle) None of the horizons presented by the above mentioned social theorists are ``scientific theories`` with any ``objective criteria`` or any ``predictive-powers``.
These are ``theories`` with LIBERATIVE intent. Their power resides in PRAXIS, their ability to guide our actions and liberate ourselves and the social surroundings from the in-equalities perpetuated by the ``web of power`` through subjugation of the human bodies.
Whereas the scientistic views of social discourse confuse the strengths of these theorists, the religious people who think ``liberation`` is a monopoly of their religious doctrines equally fail to appreciate the horizons represented by these ``theorists``.
P.S- Sorry, Saminasha, I missed the thread!
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#149 Posted by ballukhan on February 16, 2004 6:40:28 am
#147 by macgupta on February 4, 2004 9:33pm PT
Some comments on Rajiv Malhotra`s piece-
Undergraduates ``must`` be taught ``eclecticism``- the ability towards ``fusion of horizons`` without any inhibitions -and to develop their appreciation towards alternative interpretations of the ``reality`` as ``seen`` from different view points, world views and theories. That is why ``under-theorizing`` is not a virtue when you are learning because it comes in the the way of ``eclecticism``. I used to have low opinion about the earlier Greeks until I read Stoics, Sophists and Epicurian theorists. Reading ``theory`` is a very important (and an exhilirating) experience in your formative years as an undergraduate.
This underscors a very important truth that ``knowledge`` involves a movement towards ``fusion of horizons`` - utilizing ``off-the-shelf theories`` is part of such a movement and ``novelty`` lies in fusing the ideas of such theories with one`s own perspective in order to arrive at a ``different`` interpretion of the world and its events - this is what originality is about - the process of movement towards new and fresh interpretations of the world is what needs to be taught at that young age!!!
``Originality`` has the seeds of the the previous thought in it- yet it is a movement away from the established horizons.
Marx, Freud, Lukacs, Gramsci, Habermas, Jameson, Adorno, Barthes, Bakhtin, Jakobson, Lacan, Levi-Strauss, Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Baudrillard, Kristeva, Althusser, among others all of them opens to us disparate and bold ways of ``seeing`` the social reality- Eclecticism ensures that we respect these views as ``credible`` and respect the fact that ``truth`` cannot be monopolized by any one of these theory (like a religious book).
Rajiv`s article revolves around the essential confusion between the aims and goals of the ``theories`` of ``natural`` science and ``social``sciences since it takes a typical ``instrumentalist view`` of the social theories.(the demarcation principle) None of the horizons presented by the above mentioned social theorists are ``scientific theories`` with any ``objective criteria`` or any ``predictive-powers``.
These are ``theories`` with LIBERATIVE intent. Their power resides in PRAXIS, their ability to guide our actions and liberate ourselves and the social surroundings from the in-equalities perpetuated by the ``web of power`` through subjugation of the human bodies.
Whereas the scientistic views of social discourse confuse the strengths of these theorists, the religious people who think ``liberation`` is a monopoly of their religious doctrines equally fail to appreciate the horizons represented by these ``theorists``.
P.S- Sorry, Saminasha, I missed the thread!
Some comments on Rajiv Malhotra`s piece-
Undergraduates ``must`` be taught ``eclecticism``- the ability towards ``fusion of horizons`` without any inhibitions -and to develop their appreciation towards alternative interpretations of the ``reality`` as ``seen`` from different view points, world views and theories. That is why ``under-theorizing`` is not a virtue when you are learning because it comes in the the way of ``eclecticism``. I used to have low opinion about the earlier Greeks until I read Stoics, Sophists and Epicurian theorists. Reading ``theory`` is a very important (and an exhilirating) experience in your formative years as an undergraduate.
This underscors a very important truth that ``knowledge`` involves a movement towards ``fusion of horizons`` - utilizing ``off-the-shelf theories`` is part of such a movement and ``novelty`` lies in fusing the ideas of such theories with one`s own perspective in order to arrive at a ``different`` interpretion of the world and its events - this is what originality is about - the process of movement towards new and fresh interpretations of the world is what needs to be taught at that young age!!!
``Originality`` has the seeds of the the previous thought in it- yet it is a movement away from the established horizons.
Marx, Freud, Lukacs, Gramsci, Habermas, Jameson, Adorno, Barthes, Bakhtin, Jakobson, Lacan, Levi-Strauss, Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Baudrillard, Kristeva, Althusser, among others all of them opens to us disparate and bold ways of ``seeing`` the social reality- Eclecticism ensures that we respect these views as ``credible`` and respect the fact that ``truth`` cannot be monopolized by any one of these theory (like a religious book).
Rajiv`s article revolves around the essential confusion between the aims and goals of the ``theories`` of ``natural`` science and ``social``sciences since it takes a typical ``instrumentalist view`` of the social theories.(the demarcation principle) None of the horizons presented by the above mentioned social theorists are ``scientific theories`` with any ``objective criteria`` or any ``predictive-powers``.
These are ``theories`` with LIBERATIVE intent. Their power resides in PRAXIS, their ability to guide our actions and liberate ourselves and the social surroundings from the in-equalities perpetuated by the ``web of power`` through subjugation of the human bodies.
Whereas the scientistic views of social discourse confuse the strengths of these theorists, the religious people who think ``liberation`` is a monopoly of their religious doctrines equally fail to appreciate the horizons represented by these ``theorists``.
P.S- Sorry, Saminasha, I missed the thread!
#148 Posted by macgupta on February 11, 2004 7:06:49 pm
Since this is about a grand lie, it is appropriate for this thread, perhaps, though in some way, off topic.
http://www.internetpirate.com/zia.html
On August 17 1988, Pak One, an American built Hercules C-130b transport plane, took off from the military air base outside of Bahawalpur, Pakistan at 3:46 p.m, precisely on schedule.........
http://www.internetpirate.com/zia.html
On August 17 1988, Pak One, an American built Hercules C-130b transport plane, took off from the military air base outside of Bahawalpur, Pakistan at 3:46 p.m, precisely on schedule.........
#147 Posted by sadna on February 4, 2004 9:33:38 pm
Saminasha #144
``They are AS important as traditional science fields in understanding how we construct meaning and knowledge. ``
No doubt, though I have the same question as plats8.
I also wonder about arguments of the variety:
1. Superior morality variety :
`You are disagreeing with my thesis only because I am female/liberal arts/fill in my category while you are a man/science wonk/fill in your category. Yours is a knee-jerk response`.
2. circular arguments or the `AHA! trap` variety:
`AHA! You are a man and since you disagree with my theory about men, that is proof enough that my theory is right.
(This can be used for any topic, such as in `AHA! my thesis is about hindoos and you hindoos disagreeing with me prove that I am right. This time it was male/science folks who fell into the AHA! trap. )
In my experience, the arguments of above types (`self-referential?`) donot lead to advances in understanding, in any field study.
Also, IMO, it is one thing to have specific experience and information that men can be jerks. Such experience/information increases our cognizance of reality, no harm in sharing this.
It is quite another matter to have the IDEOLOGY that men are jerks. This ideology necessitates a twisting of all reality which doesnot fit it and denunication those who donot adhere to it. How is this meaningful?
If the thesis is :
All men are jerks, so Stephen Hawking is a jerk because of your personal speculation about him, that all those who disagree with this interpretation are just men being jerks as usual - then you will not find many takers except fellow ideologues.
If the thesis is instead:
Some men can be real jerks, XYZ is a jerk for falana specific reasons, that those who disagree that XYZ is a jerk should explain why these specific reasons donot make XYZ a jerk - then you might have a meaningful discussion.
``They are AS important as traditional science fields in understanding how we construct meaning and knowledge. ``
No doubt, though I have the same question as plats8.
I also wonder about arguments of the variety:
1. Superior morality variety :
`You are disagreeing with my thesis only because I am female/liberal arts/fill in my category while you are a man/science wonk/fill in your category. Yours is a knee-jerk response`.
2. circular arguments or the `AHA! trap` variety:
`AHA! You are a man and since you disagree with my theory about men, that is proof enough that my theory is right.
(This can be used for any topic, such as in `AHA! my thesis is about hindoos and you hindoos disagreeing with me prove that I am right. This time it was male/science folks who fell into the AHA! trap. )
In my experience, the arguments of above types (`self-referential?`) donot lead to advances in understanding, in any field study.
Also, IMO, it is one thing to have specific experience and information that men can be jerks. Such experience/information increases our cognizance of reality, no harm in sharing this.
It is quite another matter to have the IDEOLOGY that men are jerks. This ideology necessitates a twisting of all reality which doesnot fit it and denunication those who donot adhere to it. How is this meaningful?
If the thesis is :
All men are jerks, so Stephen Hawking is a jerk because of your personal speculation about him, that all those who disagree with this interpretation are just men being jerks as usual - then you will not find many takers except fellow ideologues.
If the thesis is instead:
Some men can be real jerks, XYZ is a jerk for falana specific reasons, that those who disagree that XYZ is a jerk should explain why these specific reasons donot make XYZ a jerk - then you might have a meaningful discussion.
#146 Posted by macgupta on February 4, 2004 9:33:38 pm
saminasha, your comments on the following excerpt of an essay by Rajiv Malhotra (http://www.infinityfoundation.com) would be interesting, I think. Especially the last para cited.
Quote :
The theories most widely taught to undergraduates gain in market share. Consequence: Even without ever “lying” per se, and by merely filtering data through the lens of a trendy theory that emphasizes one aspect of the truth, the power structure can and does fabricate distortions that amount to lies.
The following advice to undergraduate students entering liberal arts theories is given in one popular guide, and this advice explains what drives much of their learning process: “The last thing one wants to be accused of in such situations is being ‘under-theorized’ – that way, low marks lie. The successful student in higher education reaches theoretically-informed conclusions in essays and exams, and can show precisely how the theory informed those conclusions.” Result: From the outset, students are discouraged from being original and empirical because that would be seen as being “under-theorized,” meaning that they did not use enough off-the-shelf theories in the arguments. Does this not run contrary to the ideals of independent, original, out-of-the-box thinking meant to characterize liberal arts education?
To prevent one’s writings from being seen as “under-theorized,” liberal arts students are systematically taught to produce hyperbole, as is evidenced in many discussions. So long as the thesis can be supported using quotes from well-respected sources, the work is considered scholarly.
Therefore, name-dropping often substitutes for substance, and names, pedigrees and institutional affiliations are of utmost importance for this symbolic game. It’s like saying, “Pentium inside” to prove one’s legitimacy. Many desi scholars are hoping to make their career by being able to say “Derrida inside.”
To the liberal arts scholar, knowing theory means being able to resonate with the ideas of the following Westerners: Marx, Freud, Lukacs, Gramsci, Habermas, Jameson, Adorno, Barthes, Bakhtin, Jakobson, Lacan, Levi-Strauss, Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Baudrillard, Kristeva, Althusser, among others. (A few desis are vying to be inducted into this Theory Hall-of-Fame.) Theory is sometimes systematized into templates, which explains why their criticisms are so predictable.
Indian writers and journalists, being mostly from English Honors, are awed by those who have mastered this use of “theory.” Many Indians’ menu of theories includes what I called The Anti-India Grand Narrative in an earlier article.
Given this overwhelming power of theories, a peer-review is mainly intended to verify that the theories are being properly applied. It does not have any objective method to determine whether this is the best theory to be applied in the first place, or whether the epistemological categories used are inherently biased, or whether the often secondary and tertiary works being referenced are the best choices, or whether the “data” being adduced is rigorously shown to be valid and reliable. The peer-reviewer has no way to do any of this, and is not expected to have done it.
End quote
Quote :
The theories most widely taught to undergraduates gain in market share. Consequence: Even without ever “lying” per se, and by merely filtering data through the lens of a trendy theory that emphasizes one aspect of the truth, the power structure can and does fabricate distortions that amount to lies.
The following advice to undergraduate students entering liberal arts theories is given in one popular guide, and this advice explains what drives much of their learning process: “The last thing one wants to be accused of in such situations is being ‘under-theorized’ – that way, low marks lie. The successful student in higher education reaches theoretically-informed conclusions in essays and exams, and can show precisely how the theory informed those conclusions.” Result: From the outset, students are discouraged from being original and empirical because that would be seen as being “under-theorized,” meaning that they did not use enough off-the-shelf theories in the arguments. Does this not run contrary to the ideals of independent, original, out-of-the-box thinking meant to characterize liberal arts education?
To prevent one’s writings from being seen as “under-theorized,” liberal arts students are systematically taught to produce hyperbole, as is evidenced in many discussions. So long as the thesis can be supported using quotes from well-respected sources, the work is considered scholarly.
Therefore, name-dropping often substitutes for substance, and names, pedigrees and institutional affiliations are of utmost importance for this symbolic game. It’s like saying, “Pentium inside” to prove one’s legitimacy. Many desi scholars are hoping to make their career by being able to say “Derrida inside.”
To the liberal arts scholar, knowing theory means being able to resonate with the ideas of the following Westerners: Marx, Freud, Lukacs, Gramsci, Habermas, Jameson, Adorno, Barthes, Bakhtin, Jakobson, Lacan, Levi-Strauss, Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Baudrillard, Kristeva, Althusser, among others. (A few desis are vying to be inducted into this Theory Hall-of-Fame.) Theory is sometimes systematized into templates, which explains why their criticisms are so predictable.
Indian writers and journalists, being mostly from English Honors, are awed by those who have mastered this use of “theory.” Many Indians’ menu of theories includes what I called The Anti-India Grand Narrative in an earlier article.
Given this overwhelming power of theories, a peer-review is mainly intended to verify that the theories are being properly applied. It does not have any objective method to determine whether this is the best theory to be applied in the first place, or whether the epistemological categories used are inherently biased, or whether the often secondary and tertiary works being referenced are the best choices, or whether the “data” being adduced is rigorously shown to be valid and reliable. The peer-reviewer has no way to do any of this, and is not expected to have done it.
End quote
#145 Posted by plats8 on February 4, 2004 3:11:48 pm
Saminasha #144,
``They are AS important as traditional science fields in understanding how
we construct meaning and knowledge.``
Sorry for being a pest, but what does ``constructing meaning`` even mean in the
physical or biological sciences ? Is it the same as creating a model ?
``I`m not answering any science-elitism questions anymore. You`ll have to
write a piece on it and submit it to Chowk to get any more play. It would only
help you however to actually read some of theorists and texts posted in these
interacts. I certainly dont ask either of you for your explanations of chaos
theory.``
Anymore ? Could you please scroll back and check how many of my direct queries
that required categorical answers were actually responded to ? Let me repeat one
of them - what would a physicist gain by reading these texts that you mention in
terms of making him/her a more competent physicist ?
I have no desire to submit anything on chowk - don`t have the talent for that. Don`t
know anything about chaos theory either.
``They are AS important as traditional science fields in understanding how
we construct meaning and knowledge.``
Sorry for being a pest, but what does ``constructing meaning`` even mean in the
physical or biological sciences ? Is it the same as creating a model ?
``I`m not answering any science-elitism questions anymore. You`ll have to
write a piece on it and submit it to Chowk to get any more play. It would only
help you however to actually read some of theorists and texts posted in these
interacts. I certainly dont ask either of you for your explanations of chaos
theory.``
Anymore ? Could you please scroll back and check how many of my direct queries
that required categorical answers were actually responded to ? Let me repeat one
of them - what would a physicist gain by reading these texts that you mention in
terms of making him/her a more competent physicist ?
I have no desire to submit anything on chowk - don`t have the talent for that. Don`t
know anything about chaos theory either.
#144 Posted by Saminasha on February 4, 2004 11:05:44 am
Sadna,
I was not arguing that liberal arts and social sciences as superior to the sciences. They are AS important as traditional science fields in understanding how we construct meaning and knowledge.
I was not arguing that liberal arts and social sciences as superior to the sciences. They are AS important as traditional science fields in understanding how we construct meaning and knowledge.
#143 Posted by sadna on February 4, 2004 10:02:36 am
FarzanaVersey #139
``I was not raking up a Liberal Arts vs. science issue wrt Hawking, but since everyone was talking about superior scientific minds, sadna, I thought they might like to make up for our flaws.``
I wrote what I thought of #96 and #97 in #104. However, it appears from the mention of my name that you expected a reply from me for your questions in #96.
These questions are :
1.Why do you assume with such certitude that he CANNOT be kinky?
Noone is assuming with certitude that he CANNOT be kinky. This lack of certitude doesnot make his kinkyness any more certain, as YOU seem to assume.
2.How can you say that as he is wheelchair-bound and has genuine problems, he should not be treated on par with any able-bodied male and then go on to say that “Stephen Hawking is a great man. That does not make him any less human than the rest of us”?
Noone reading this article would have guessed that Stephen Hawking was disabled severely. That fact is missing entirely from this `perspective`. I have already written what I thought about it in #61 and #35.
3.Are you not aware that ‘reports’ can be as opinionated as opinion pieces – reports about Hawking will be considerably different from say something on Billy Bob Thornton, because he and his ex wife Angelina Jolie were kinky? So why was their privacy not respected? Why is the privacy of so many other celebrities not respected?
IMO, the violation of privacy of one celebrity doesnot justify the violation of privacy of another, unless you are in the `violation of privacy` business, which I am not.
Moreoever, celebrities from the film world invite media speculation about their persona/private lives as that is part of their profession. Stephen Hawkings is not in that profession, he is a physicist whose professional advancement comes from scientific contributions.
4.Have the scientific minds here read most of Oscar Wilde’s works (and don’t bring out that little book of his witticisms) before they readily accept that, although physically disabled, he was considered a ‘sexual pervert’?
Oscar Wilde`s or anyone else`s predelictions and the world`s treatment of them have no bearing on what Stephen Hawkings does or is.
5.How do you know for sure that Hawking does not like playing the victim card?
We donot know at all. Speculating about it doesnot make us know any better either.
6.If Hawking can make raunchy references in a book on physics, then is there a problem when others choose to do so?
If Stephen Hawking did make raunchy references, it doesnot give anyone adequate basis to ascribe to him what he doesnot do. What if he was a woman, would it be kosher to ascribe to her what she doesnot do based on the raunchy things she wrote?
And finally, let us examine a simple example of the huge difference between fact and perspective, since you say ``Knowing is a matter of perspective.``
Saminasha says in #120
``As usual, the usual “liberal arts” field is coming in for its share of bashing from the hard science folk``
Contrary to this perceptive, is the FACT that the bashing of science `wonks` and assertion of the superiority of liberal arts minds was begun by Saminasha in #5. Is it factual if we forget this and complain only about the science wonks` weighing-in on the liberal arts vs hard science debate after that?
Which brings us to Stephen Hawking. You say ``Knowing is a matter of perspective.`` Knowing that someone is into kinky sex is not a matter of perspective, it is a matter of fact.
``I was not raking up a Liberal Arts vs. science issue wrt Hawking, but since everyone was talking about superior scientific minds, sadna, I thought they might like to make up for our flaws.``
I wrote what I thought of #96 and #97 in #104. However, it appears from the mention of my name that you expected a reply from me for your questions in #96.
These questions are :
1.Why do you assume with such certitude that he CANNOT be kinky?
Noone is assuming with certitude that he CANNOT be kinky. This lack of certitude doesnot make his kinkyness any more certain, as YOU seem to assume.
2.How can you say that as he is wheelchair-bound and has genuine problems, he should not be treated on par with any able-bodied male and then go on to say that “Stephen Hawking is a great man. That does not make him any less human than the rest of us”?
Noone reading this article would have guessed that Stephen Hawking was disabled severely. That fact is missing entirely from this `perspective`. I have already written what I thought about it in #61 and #35.
3.Are you not aware that ‘reports’ can be as opinionated as opinion pieces – reports about Hawking will be considerably different from say something on Billy Bob Thornton, because he and his ex wife Angelina Jolie were kinky? So why was their privacy not respected? Why is the privacy of so many other celebrities not respected?
IMO, the violation of privacy of one celebrity doesnot justify the violation of privacy of another, unless you are in the `violation of privacy` business, which I am not.
Moreoever, celebrities from the film world invite media speculation about their persona/private lives as that is part of their profession. Stephen Hawkings is not in that profession, he is a physicist whose professional advancement comes from scientific contributions.
4.Have the scientific minds here read most of Oscar Wilde’s works (and don’t bring out that little book of his witticisms) before they readily accept that, although physically disabled, he was considered a ‘sexual pervert’?
Oscar Wilde`s or anyone else`s predelictions and the world`s treatment of them have no bearing on what Stephen Hawkings does or is.
5.How do you know for sure that Hawking does not like playing the victim card?
We donot know at all. Speculating about it doesnot make us know any better either.
6.If Hawking can make raunchy references in a book on physics, then is there a problem when others choose to do so?
If Stephen Hawking did make raunchy references, it doesnot give anyone adequate basis to ascribe to him what he doesnot do. What if he was a woman, would it be kosher to ascribe to her what she doesnot do based on the raunchy things she wrote?
And finally, let us examine a simple example of the huge difference between fact and perspective, since you say ``Knowing is a matter of perspective.``
Saminasha says in #120
``As usual, the usual “liberal arts” field is coming in for its share of bashing from the hard science folk``
Contrary to this perceptive, is the FACT that the bashing of science `wonks` and assertion of the superiority of liberal arts minds was begun by Saminasha in #5. Is it factual if we forget this and complain only about the science wonks` weighing-in on the liberal arts vs hard science debate after that?
Which brings us to Stephen Hawking. You say ``Knowing is a matter of perspective.`` Knowing that someone is into kinky sex is not a matter of perspective, it is a matter of fact.
#142 Posted by Saminasha on February 4, 2004 7:00:58 am
Plats, Karim,
I`m not answering any science-elitism questions anymore. You`ll have to write a piece on it and submit it to Chowk to get any more play.
It would only help you however to actually read some of theorists and texts posted in these interacts. I certainly dont ask either of you for your explanations of chaos theory.
I`m not answering any science-elitism questions anymore. You`ll have to write a piece on it and submit it to Chowk to get any more play.
It would only help you however to actually read some of theorists and texts posted in these interacts. I certainly dont ask either of you for your explanations of chaos theory.
#141 Posted by nb on February 4, 2004 6:13:56 am
PS: I wonder why you invariably appear on my boards after a 100 posts?!
Farzana, if truth be told, I don`t look at chowk everyday, often not even every week. When I do, often I just look at something and think, same old, same old..... It`s only when I feel it`s all too much that I open my mouth.. the lesson for me is probably that I`m not going to able to ignore it, so I might as well put in my 2 bits earlier, rather than later. This is actually just the 2nd time it`s happened, but 2nd in a row.
Most abused wives do initially exonerate their husbands as well, it doesn`t mean they`re not abused. At the very least, there is neglect of a disabled person, if not abuse-most Western countries have laws against that as well- if the Hawkings aren`t careful, he`s going to land up in a nursing home against his wishes-that`s often done in order to observe a patient. The man probably knows he`s not going to get a lot of sympathy anyway-trading your wife in for a younger model doesn`t make anyone popular. Not even a genius.
Farzana, if truth be told, I don`t look at chowk everyday, often not even every week. When I do, often I just look at something and think, same old, same old..... It`s only when I feel it`s all too much that I open my mouth.. the lesson for me is probably that I`m not going to able to ignore it, so I might as well put in my 2 bits earlier, rather than later. This is actually just the 2nd time it`s happened, but 2nd in a row.
Most abused wives do initially exonerate their husbands as well, it doesn`t mean they`re not abused. At the very least, there is neglect of a disabled person, if not abuse-most Western countries have laws against that as well- if the Hawkings aren`t careful, he`s going to land up in a nursing home against his wishes-that`s often done in order to observe a patient. The man probably knows he`s not going to get a lot of sympathy anyway-trading your wife in for a younger model doesn`t make anyone popular. Not even a genius.
#140 Posted by stuka on February 3, 2004 10:17:09 am
Gujjubania:
I have read your posts and as far as economic measures are concerned, yes, I agree with your views.
Her`s my beef:
1. There is still a substantial part of India to whom benefits are not trickling down. You cannot ignore this segment aprrox 30% However, unlike the socialists, I beleieve the answer is not slower reforms but faster. Why have we given up to China in manufacturing? Because of our labor laws. Nothing else. The service sector helps the middle class, but there is still a substantial segment of the country that can benefit from increased investment in manufacturing. Faster reforms means more investment which means more Indians with belies full.
2. Governance: There is no magic bullet here. Whereas liberalization can occur with acts of ommission (lack of government control) governance by its nature is an act of commission hence much harder to follow through on. India needs urgent judicial as well as bureaucratic reform. Political corruption in fact is a lesser problem.
Look, as u have made clear, u are an anonymous nick, I have no reason to believe if your family is a certain way or not. I was going by statements that you made. Regardless, I do agree with the sentiment of your previous post.
I have read your posts and as far as economic measures are concerned, yes, I agree with your views.
Her`s my beef:
1. There is still a substantial part of India to whom benefits are not trickling down. You cannot ignore this segment aprrox 30% However, unlike the socialists, I beleieve the answer is not slower reforms but faster. Why have we given up to China in manufacturing? Because of our labor laws. Nothing else. The service sector helps the middle class, but there is still a substantial segment of the country that can benefit from increased investment in manufacturing. Faster reforms means more investment which means more Indians with belies full.
2. Governance: There is no magic bullet here. Whereas liberalization can occur with acts of ommission (lack of government control) governance by its nature is an act of commission hence much harder to follow through on. India needs urgent judicial as well as bureaucratic reform. Political corruption in fact is a lesser problem.
Look, as u have made clear, u are an anonymous nick, I have no reason to believe if your family is a certain way or not. I was going by statements that you made. Regardless, I do agree with the sentiment of your previous post.
#139 Posted by FarzanaVersey on February 3, 2004 12:49:32 am
No one has any answers to the questions I posed…I was not raking up a Liberal Arts vs. science issue wrt Hawking, but since everyone was talking about superior scientific minds, sadna, I thought they might like to make up for our flaws. Although the discussion has gone completely askew, I would like to add that the subjects brought up make one realise that there are several things one does not know about. At least I know I don’t. But I do not like the attitude that scientific minds are the only ones that ‘know’. Knowing is a matter of perspective.
#132 by SoulKeeper:
Read your own post again to see why I responded the way I did. Yes, as we have not interacted before you do not know that in my replies I understand sarcastic nuances and deal with them similarly. I started that post by saying, “…men suffer, women enjoy!” Anyway, this is just another forum where assumptions rule…and of course you will say that I assume so much about Hawking, so…
About my chauvinism, there could be traces of it in some of my statements. But if you watch these boards you will notice how men react…I am not interested in investing in male tears…as for eating our cake and having it too…well, if we are the bakers we darn well can afford to do so.
Hope this is a temporary peeve…and you can get back to liking me.
#117 by nb:
[Maybe he is kinky, but surely, when anyone is injured, you think of assault first]
Everyone did, which is why there is a police case. But one does ask further questions. Whether it is a fire, riots or anything, we want to know how it happened, why it happened, and while doing so we may conjecture. Sherlock Holmes did too. I am questioning the assumption that Hawking is proved to be innocent and Elaine the victimiser before any trial has been conducted, and despite the fact that her husband has exonerated her.
PS: I wonder why you invariably appear on my boards after a 100 posts?!
#107 by irfanhamid:
[As you yourself assert that most social constructs are patriarchal, and women are `disabled` on several levels, should it not be a natural conclusion that since men have more freedom they would therefore have less uniformity of behavior/attitudes. And vice-versa for women?]
No. I do not know whether my reason is the best, but I think that freedom of movement and power does not translate into freedom of thought. Men control the larger social ideas because they have had earlier access to them. This gives them a natural advantage. This is a worldwide phenomenon and that lends itself to uniformity in thinking. Whereas feminism, or female ideology, is disparate. Perhaps because it is a reaction rather than an action.
Regarding science etc, I merely raised the questions about literature because you talked about the whispering Muse. Samina, to who you posed some of those queries, would probably have replied differently. As you can see, my science awareness is limited…for me Newton was only about the apple and gravity is just up-down stuff. I do not mess with the subject, as I do not with finance. Besides learning from my banker (or is it Jerry McGuire?) to say, “Show me the money”, I do not understand…
You asked for the links to the phallic discussion…if you will permit, I can quote from the two relevant posts from my article ‘Why is Santa not a woman?’…
- - -
[#5 by impressions on December 19, 2003 12:00pm PT
The human civilization has been so overrun by male culture that those objects that are touted as the epitome of our collective progress are invariably phallic in shape. Skyscrapers, airplanes and of course, vibrators.]
[#20 by FarzanaVersey on December 20, 2003 0:57am PT
Couldn`t you come up with something better? Human civilisation indeed -- the rocket, missiles, guns, arrows, cigarettes, calorific chocolate bars...Does any planet look like a phallic symbol? The cave is not the only ``vulva-like structure``. We have the satellite dishes, bunkers, homes, grain sacks, every hole in the wall and in the ground...btw, a vibrator is not a phallic symbol, it is a replacement...]
- - -
It has been interesting interacting with you…
Regards,
Farzana
PS:[ #136 by rsaxena on February 2, 2004 1:58pm PT
some of you have posted too many messages on this thread...please, get lost...]
Hellow…where are your manners?? Or are you just trying to save my board ;) and then they will want to know how much I have paid you for this…
#132 by SoulKeeper:
Read your own post again to see why I responded the way I did. Yes, as we have not interacted before you do not know that in my replies I understand sarcastic nuances and deal with them similarly. I started that post by saying, “…men suffer, women enjoy!” Anyway, this is just another forum where assumptions rule…and of course you will say that I assume so much about Hawking, so…
About my chauvinism, there could be traces of it in some of my statements. But if you watch these boards you will notice how men react…I am not interested in investing in male tears…as for eating our cake and having it too…well, if we are the bakers we darn well can afford to do so.
Hope this is a temporary peeve…and you can get back to liking me.
#117 by nb:
[Maybe he is kinky, but surely, when anyone is injured, you think of assault first]
Everyone did, which is why there is a police case. But one does ask further questions. Whether it is a fire, riots or anything, we want to know how it happened, why it happened, and while doing so we may conjecture. Sherlock Holmes did too. I am questioning the assumption that Hawking is proved to be innocent and Elaine the victimiser before any trial has been conducted, and despite the fact that her husband has exonerated her.
PS: I wonder why you invariably appear on my boards after a 100 posts?!
#107 by irfanhamid:
[As you yourself assert that most social constructs are patriarchal, and women are `disabled` on several levels, should it not be a natural conclusion that since men have more freedom they would therefore have less uniformity of behavior/attitudes. And vice-versa for women?]
No. I do not know whether my reason is the best, but I think that freedom of movement and power does not translate into freedom of thought. Men control the larger social ideas because they have had earlier access to them. This gives them a natural advantage. This is a worldwide phenomenon and that lends itself to uniformity in thinking. Whereas feminism, or female ideology, is disparate. Perhaps because it is a reaction rather than an action.
Regarding science etc, I merely raised the questions about literature because you talked about the whispering Muse. Samina, to who you posed some of those queries, would probably have replied differently. As you can see, my science awareness is limited…for me Newton was only about the apple and gravity is just up-down stuff. I do not mess with the subject, as I do not with finance. Besides learning from my banker (or is it Jerry McGuire?) to say, “Show me the money”, I do not understand…
You asked for the links to the phallic discussion…if you will permit, I can quote from the two relevant posts from my article ‘Why is Santa not a woman?’…
- - -
[#5 by impressions on December 19, 2003 12:00pm PT
The human civilization has been so overrun by male culture that those objects that are touted as the epitome of our collective progress are invariably phallic in shape. Skyscrapers, airplanes and of course, vibrators.]
[#20 by FarzanaVersey on December 20, 2003 0:57am PT
Couldn`t you come up with something better? Human civilisation indeed -- the rocket, missiles, guns, arrows, cigarettes, calorific chocolate bars...Does any planet look like a phallic symbol? The cave is not the only ``vulva-like structure``. We have the satellite dishes, bunkers, homes, grain sacks, every hole in the wall and in the ground...btw, a vibrator is not a phallic symbol, it is a replacement...]
- - -
It has been interesting interacting with you…
Regards,
Farzana
PS:[ #136 by rsaxena on February 2, 2004 1:58pm PT
some of you have posted too many messages on this thread...please, get lost...]
Hellow…where are your manners?? Or are you just trying to save my board ;) and then they will want to know how much I have paid you for this…
#138 Posted by plats8 on February 2, 2004 8:15:21 pm
Saminasha #120/121,
Okay, I have read the biographies of Edison and Einstein that you posted,
and still fail to see the relevance of this to the issue at hand. There is a large
number of creative scientists who are ``rebellious`` in their interaction with
society, but there is also a large number of people who are the canonical good
students and have a comparable impact in their areas of research.
I don`t believe that a meaningful correlation can be drawn between being
unconventional and being creative scientifically.
``Right now, I `m looking at some Composition Theory essays in which hard
science profs describe how they use creative writing in assigning papers that
will determine whether their students are really understanding their course
work or merely parroting the text book``
Could you please post the references for these ``hard science`` profs ? Have
they (the profs) accomplished more as scientists by using this ? There are
rather simple ways of checking whether students understand the material or
not (like asking them to solve hard problems), and none of this requires
the use of creative writing.
``the really innovative theorists/scientists/writers are those who extend
themselves into many spheres of knowledge making``.
I am completely ignorant about writers, but innovative theorists (assuming
you mean theoretical physicists) and scientists are usually the ones who are
completely focussed on their subject matter and do not thin themselves out
needlessly. Nothing elitist about it; that is the only way they accomplish anything.
Okay, I have read the biographies of Edison and Einstein that you posted,
and still fail to see the relevance of this to the issue at hand. There is a large
number of creative scientists who are ``rebellious`` in their interaction with
society, but there is also a large number of people who are the canonical good
students and have a comparable impact in their areas of research.
I don`t believe that a meaningful correlation can be drawn between being
unconventional and being creative scientifically.
``Right now, I `m looking at some Composition Theory essays in which hard
science profs describe how they use creative writing in assigning papers that
will determine whether their students are really understanding their course
work or merely parroting the text book``
Could you please post the references for these ``hard science`` profs ? Have
they (the profs) accomplished more as scientists by using this ? There are
rather simple ways of checking whether students understand the material or
not (like asking them to solve hard problems), and none of this requires
the use of creative writing.
``the really innovative theorists/scientists/writers are those who extend
themselves into many spheres of knowledge making``.
I am completely ignorant about writers, but innovative theorists (assuming
you mean theoretical physicists) and scientists are usually the ones who are
completely focussed on their subject matter and do not thin themselves out
needlessly. Nothing elitist about it; that is the only way they accomplish anything.
#137 Posted by DagnyTaggart on February 2, 2004 5:40:35 pm
I think the background color of the page for this `article` should have been yellow.
#136 Posted by rsaxena on February 2, 2004 1:58:47 pm
some of you have posted too many messages on this thread...please, get lost...
#135 Posted by gujjubania on February 2, 2004 12:51:42 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- MatloobZaman: “Independent Kashmir will be... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- MantoLives: PS: There is also... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Errata: Fazlurrahman's role in... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Tahmed, The insurgency of Fakir... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Stukay, You should ask... Living Gandhi and King
- MeiraJ08: too bad you're giving... Fathers and Daughters
- BJ2: [I'm a nice person.] I... Fathers and Daughters
- BJ2: My dear Meira, If you... Fathers and Daughters
