[MD] Replacing SOM

[Jan-Anders Andersson]

Hi krimel

Any game or social activity bullds on commonly agreed social rules, like the meaning of certain words, what is an object and other limitations. The MD for example builds on RMP's writing and his own words. If tou can't accept common basics, what are you doing here?

Jan Anders

9 mar 2013 kl. 21:12 skrev "Krimel" <Krimel at Krimel.com>:

> [dmb]
> The use of quotes is disturbing and all texts are meaningless!? 
> 
> [Krimel}
> Texts are codes. Meaning is the synthesis of the rational and irrational
> that emerges from engagement with text. I wrote a really long post about
> this just a bit ago.
> 
> [dmb]
> There is an important distinction between empirical evidence and textual
> evidence - but both of them form the basis of their respective domains. 
> 
> [Krimel]
> Evidence is always empirical. Any text is a perceptual event.
> 
> [dmb]
> Imagine a scientific paper listing rows and rows of empirical data in
> support of its thesis or claim. Now imagine a critic denigrating that paper
> as "datafest", one that's equivalent to "cutting up empirical data to
> compose a ransom note". "All empirical data is meaningless", says this
> critic. What you're saying textual evidence (quotes), Krimel, is equally
> absurd. I mean, what you're saying is  downright wacko fringe stuff even to
> a pretentious sophomore. 
> 
> [Krimel]
> Data or facts or quotations do not contain meaning. Meaning must be derived
> from them. There are no meaningful facts or meaningful texts. Meaning must
> be embodied.
> 
> [dmb]
> In the Humanities - language arts, history, philosophy, and the like - the
> text is all you get. That's all there is. 
> 
> [Krimel]
> Of course codes are all we ever get but each individual must derive meaning
> from them.
> 
> [dmb]
> The researcher is looking for evidence, 
> 
> [Krimel]
> The researcher engages in the synthesis meaning.
> 
> [dmb]
> This is a simple matter of respecting the nature of the object of inquiry.
> The methods of investigation have to be appropriate to the subject matter. 
> 
> [Krimel]
> Objects of inquiry do not have 'natures' to be respected or discovered. They
> have meanings to be unconcealed and invented.
> 
> [dmb]
> No, all you can do is use the text as evidence and that is only evidence for
> the meaning of the MOQ. 
> 
> [Krimel]
> You could use a text to express the meaning you have synthesized from it.
> But on its own, laid out like a pile of dog turds on the carpet, texts mean
> only whatever the reader expands them into. There is no reason to think any
> two readers will produce the same expansion. The role of the academic is to
> guide the reader into an enriched expansion of a text.
> 
> [dmb]
> If you're an English professor and you want to make a case about the meaning
> of Hamlet, quotes from that play are absolutely the best evidence you can
> have.
> 
> [Krimel]
> In the effort to exchange meaning one seeks to provide a path indication to
> lead the reader along the path the writer has followed; to help the reader
> expand, with a minimum of losiness, what the writer has compressed.
> 
> [dmb]
> Quotes from Pirsig's books are not only the gold standard of textual
> evidence, they're also specific features of the subject matter. They little
> pieces of the thing we're supposedly here to discuss. A philosopher who is
> disturbed by quotes from philosophers is like an empirical scientist who is
> disturbed by empirical data; in both cases he's very, very confused about
> what he's doing. 
> 
> [Krimel]
> I am not especially disturb by the use of quotes as signs and indications to
> support or discredit a particular expansion. I am disturb by the implication
> of your writing that a particular quote will expand unassisted into the
> particular meaning you have made of it. Or your insistence that Pirsig has
> compressed precisely what you have expanded. You clearly read a different
> Pirsig than I do and frankly I am sick of the Pirsig you read. Every nasty
> thing I ever said about Pirsig has been directed at the Pirsig you see or
> the Pirsig Platt saw. Those Pirsig's are narrow minded buffoons, careless
> scholars, absolutely sure of their own self-righteousness, totally full of
> shit and as such impelled to pile it on the carpet and invite others to step
> in it.
> 
> Fuck 'em. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html