|
|
Post by jonbain on Oct 3, 2019 19:32:16 GMT
Analytical decritical semantic synthesis:
Analytical decritical semantic synthesis entails the etymology
of hyper-realism within the context of a neo-academic paradigm
shift towards hyper-dimensional relativity. As a neo-Einsteinian
category of implicit explication tends towards viable tensors
in the maelstrom of semantic composition; there is a vague
preponderance of spiritual possession; metaphoric in scope
but tinged with the odor of scatological linguistic semantic
gestures; notwithstanding the Pythagorean axioms which
decay into a temporal void of meaning. Erstwhile, the
quasi-philosophical dialog is enriched by a phonemic
fertilizer of prepositions, and grammatical logarithms.
Much like a Heisenberg or Aristotle-an form,
super-positioned into a classical fart.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 3, 2019 20:38:10 GMT
Analytical decritical semantic synthesis: Analytical decritical semantic synthesis entails the etymology of hyper-realism within the context of a neo-academic paradigm shift towards hyper-dimensional relativity. As a neo-Einsteinian category of implicit explication tends towards viable tensors in the maelstrom of semantic composition; there is a vague preponderance of spiritual possession; metaphoric in scope but tinged with the odor of scatological linguistic semantic gestures; notwithstanding the Pythagorean axioms which decay into a temporal void of meaning. Erstwhile, the quasi-philosophical dialog is enriched by a phonemic fertilizer of prepositions, and grammatical logarithms. Much like a Heisenberg or Aristotle-an form, super-positioned into a classical fart. Anaylitical and "de critical" is a contradiction as all criticism is analytic by nature in the respect both "tear down" or "atomize" a proposition. To argue analytical decritical semantic synthesis is strictly to argue for a unification of anaylticism and the "implied" holism presented by "de-critical" as an absense of "tearing down" or "atomizing" a proposition. This semantic synthesis, grounded in both analyzing (atomizing) and decriticizing (leaving as a whole), as present in academia simply observes the creation of more and more words through a tearing down and putting back together again...in other words (pardon the pun) "alchemy". This results in a hyper relativity as each new word as a center point of some new meaning results in such a great deal of complexity that we are left with a metaphorical vortex of new categories, ideas, meanings..etc. to observe. Even just analyzing the prior statement and observing different terms for "what is new"...is a vortex. But what is in common, is that fact there is a continual spiral form which determines new words, meanings, ideas...etc. This is constant and absolute which each new context being a new loop...but a loop none theless. Most of these semantics are just value projections of the observer and as such are empty assumptions and emotionally "tinged". Their "reason" stems from some prelogical absence of reason, thus there reason has no grounding. These semantics, with no foundation whatsoever, are layered with further and further semantics to such a degree that we fail to see the absence of mortar between the bricks in the foundation (metaphorically speaking) and assume the weight of all the other bricks on top (the layers of semantics stacked upon layers of semantics) will keep it together. Modern culture is relying on the gravity of their semantics about gravity to keep "gravity" together. You can't even spoof right....Jon...ROFL!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Oct 3, 2019 21:24:28 GMT
Analytical decritical semantic synthesis: Analytical decritical semantic synthesis entails the etymology of hyper-realism within the context of a neo-academic paradigm shift towards hyper-dimensional relativity. As a neo-Einsteinian category of implicit explication tends towards viable tensors in the maelstrom of semantic composition; there is a vague preponderance of spiritual possession; metaphoric in scope but tinged with the odor of scatological linguistic semantic gestures; notwithstanding the Pythagorean axioms which decay into a temporal void of meaning. Erstwhile, the quasi-philosophical dialog is enriched by a phonemic fertilizer of prepositions, and grammatical logarithms. Much like a Heisenberg or Aristotle-an form, super-positioned into a classical fart. Academic lectures about "racism" eject it from what it is in reality, merely a judgment that can be rational or unsupported, but not an automatic ethical evil. Academia itself undergoes the same transference to a self-flattering level, which the slippery academic wordplay calls higher, but is really a psychedelic and numbing fantasyworld. College education is work without pay, therefore slavery of the most valuable human resources, which it still would be in the fantasy but not in reality, because superior minds have their talent trimmed away and sterilized there. Swallow your pride, and you will choke your talent, so they become as useless as the rest of the unjustifiably privileged. Of course, most college students have no more right to be in college than they have to be on the college football team, which is limited to the talented, not to brown-noses and bluebloods like the rest of the students, including the inhibited High IQ nerd pushovers. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2019 0:07:07 GMT
Analytical decritical semantic synthesis: Analytical decritical semantic synthesis entails the etymology of hyper-realism within the context of a neo-academic paradigm shift towards hyper-dimensional relativity. As a neo-Einsteinian category of implicit explication tends towards viable tensors in the maelstrom of semantic composition; there is a vague preponderance of spiritual possession; metaphoric in scope but tinged with the odor of scatological linguistic semantic gestures; notwithstanding the Pythagorean axioms which decay into a temporal void of meaning. Erstwhile, the quasi-philosophical dialog is enriched by a phonemic fertilizer of prepositions, and grammatical logarithms. Much like a Heisenberg or Aristotle-an form, super-positioned into a classical fart. Academic lectures about "racism" eject it from what it is in reality, merely a judgment that can be rational or unsupported, but not an automatic ethical evil. Academia itself undergoes the same transference to a self-flattering level, which the slippery academic wordplay calls higher, but is really a psychedelic and numbing fantasyworld. College education is work without pay, therefore slavery of the most valuable human resources, which it still would be in the fantasy but not in reality, because superior minds have their talent trimmed away and sterilized there. Swallow your pride, and you will choke your talent, so they become as useless as the rest of the unjustifiably privileged. Of course, most college students have no more right to be in college than they have to be on the college football team, which is limited to the talented, not to brown-noses and bluebloods like the rest of the students, including the inhibited High IQ nerd pushovers. He Was Trying Sarcasm...But It Didnt Work. |
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Oct 4, 2019 14:52:41 GMT
Analytical decritical semantic synthesis: Analytical decritical semantic synthesis entails the etymology of hyper-realism within the context of a neo-academic paradigm shift towards hyper-dimensional relativity. As a neo-Einsteinian category of implicit explication tends towards viable tensors in the maelstrom of semantic composition; there is a vague preponderance of spiritual possession; metaphoric in scope but tinged with the odor of scatological linguistic semantic gestures; notwithstanding the Pythagorean axioms which decay into a temporal void of meaning. Erstwhile, the quasi-philosophical dialog is enriched by a phonemic fertilizer of prepositions, and grammatical logarithms. Much like a Heisenberg or Aristotle-an form, super-positioned into a classical fart. What are you talking about? Sorry, but I have been away from books and academies to be able to follow your discourse. For instance, I can mentally go from vectors to tensors, but what is a tensor in a semantic composition? (Can there be such a thing as a non-semantic composition?) And what are the Pythagorean [not Eucledian]] axioms you are referring to? |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Oct 4, 2019 17:07:41 GMT
Alan D.Sokal has something to add:
There are many natural scientists, and especially physicists, who continue to reject the notion that the disciplines concerned with social and cultural criticism can have anything to contribute, except perhaps peripherally, to their research. Still less are they receptive to the idea that the very foundations of their worldview must be revised or rebuilt in the light of such criticism. Rather, they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post- Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in "eternal" physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the "objec- tive" procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so- called) scientific method. But deep conceptual shifts within twentieth-century science have undermined this Cartesian-Newtonian metaphysics (Heisenberg 1958; Bohr 1963); revisionist studies in the history and philosophy of science have cast further doubt on its credibility (Kuhn 1970; Feyerabend 1975; Latour 1987; Aronowitz 1988b; Bloor 1991); and, most recently, feminist and poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of mainstream Western scientific practice, revealing the ideology of domina- tion concealed behind the facade of "objectivity" (Merchant 1980; Keller 1985; Harding 1986, 1991; Haraway 1989, 1991; Best 1991). It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical "reality," no less than social "reality," is at bottom a social and linguistic construct; that scientific "knowledge," far from being objective, reflects and encodes the domi- Social Text 46/47, Vol. 14, Nos. 1 and 2, Spring/Summer 1996. Copyright ? 1996 by Duke University Press.
nant ideologies and power relations of the culture that produced it; that the truth claims of science are inherently theory-laden and self-referential; and consequently, that the discourse of the scientific community, for all its undeniable value, cannot assert a privileged epistemological status with respect to counterhegemonic narratives emanating from dissident or marginalized communities. These themes can be traced, despite some differences of emphasis, in Aronowitz's analysis of the cultural fabric that produced quantum mechanics (1988b, esp. chaps. 9 and 12); in Ross's discussion of oppositional discourses in post-quantum science (1991, intro. and chap. 1); in Irigaray's and Hayles's exegeses of gender encoding in fluid mechanics (Irigaray 1985; Hayles 1992); and in Harding's com- prehensive critique of the gender ideology underlying the natural sciences in general and physics in particular (1986, esp. chaps. 2 and 10; 1991, esp. chap. 4). Here my aim is to carry these deep analyses one step further, by taking account of recent developments in quantum gravity: the emerging branch of physics in which Heisenberg's quantum mechanics and Einstein's gen- eral relativity are at once synthesized and superseded. In quantum gravity, as we shall see, the space-time manifold ceases to exist as an objective physical reality; geometry becomes relational and contextual; and the foundational conceptual categories of prior science-among them, exis- tence itself-become problematized and relativized. This conceptual revolution, I will argue, has profound implications for the content of a future postmodern and liberatory science. My approach will be as follows. First, I will review very briefly some of the philosophical and ideological issues raised by quantum mechanics and by classical general relativity. Next, I will sketch the outlines of the emerging theory of quantum gravity and discuss some of the conceptual issues it raises. Finally, I will comment on the cultural and political impli- cations of these scientific developments. It should be emphasized that this essay is of necessity tentative and preliminary; I do not pretend to answer all the questions that I raise. My aim is, rather, to draw the atten- tion of readers to these important developments in physical science and to sketch as best I can their philosophical and political implications. I have endeavored here to keep mathematics to a bare minimum; but I have taken care to provide references where interested readers can find all requisite details.
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on Oct 4, 2019 17:11:16 GMT
Analytical decritical semantic synthesis: Analytical decritical semantic synthesis entails the etymology of hyper-realism within the context of a neo-academic paradigm shift towards hyper-dimensional relativity. As a neo-Einsteinian category of implicit explication tends towards viable tensors in the maelstrom of semantic composition; there is a vague preponderance of spiritual possession; metaphoric in scope but tinged with the odor of scatological linguistic semantic gestures; notwithstanding the Pythagorean axioms which decay into a temporal void of meaning. Erstwhile, the quasi-philosophical dialog is enriched by a phonemic fertilizer of prepositions, and grammatical logarithms. Much like a Heisenberg or Aristotle-an form, super-positioned into a classical fart. What are you talking about? Sorry, but I have been away from books and academies to be able to follow your discourse. For instance, I can mentally go from vectors to tensors, but what is a tensor in a semantic composition? (Can there be such a thing as a non-semantic composition?) And what are the Pythagorean [not Eucledian]] axioms you are referring to?
On this forum, the chance that someone using the word "tensor" refers to its precise, mathematical meaning, is rather slim.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2019 17:48:15 GMT
Alan D.Sokal has something to add:
There are many natural scientists, and especially physicists, who continue to reject the notion that the disciplines concerned with social and cultural criticism can have anything to contribute, except perhaps peripherally, to their research. Still less are they receptive to the idea that the very foundations of their worldview must be revised or rebuilt in the light of such criticism. Rather, they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post- Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in "eternal" physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the "objec- tive" procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so- called) scientific method. But deep conceptual shifts within twentieth-century science have undermined this Cartesian-Newtonian metaphysics (Heisenberg 1958; Bohr 1963); revisionist studies in the history and philosophy of science have cast further doubt on its credibility (Kuhn 1970; Feyerabend 1975; Latour 1987; Aronowitz 1988b; Bloor 1991); and, most recently, feminist and poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of mainstream Western scientific practice, revealing the ideology of domina- tion concealed behind the facade of "objectivity" (Merchant 1980; Keller 1985; Harding 1986, 1991; Haraway 1989, 1991; Best 1991). It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical "reality," no less than social "reality," is at bottom a social and linguistic construct; that scientific "knowledge," far from being objective, reflects and encodes the domi- Social Text 46/47, Vol. 14, Nos. 1 and 2, Spring/Summer 1996. Copyright ? 1996 by Duke University Press.
nant ideologies and power relations of the culture that produced it; that the truth claims of science are inherently theory-laden and self-referential; and consequently, that the discourse of the scientific community, for all its undeniable value, cannot assert a privileged epistemological status with respect to counterhegemonic narratives emanating from dissident or marginalized communities. These themes can be traced, despite some differences of emphasis, in Aronowitz's analysis of the cultural fabric that produced quantum mechanics (1988b, esp. chaps. 9 and 12); in Ross's discussion of oppositional discourses in post-quantum science (1991, intro. and chap. 1); in Irigaray's and Hayles's exegeses of gender encoding in fluid mechanics (Irigaray 1985; Hayles 1992); and in Harding's com- prehensive critique of the gender ideology underlying the natural sciences in general and physics in particular (1986, esp. chaps. 2 and 10; 1991, esp. chap. 4). Here my aim is to carry these deep analyses one step further, by taking account of recent developments in quantum gravity: the emerging branch of physics in which Heisenberg's quantum mechanics and Einstein's gen- eral relativity are at once synthesized and superseded. In quantum gravity, as we shall see, the space-time manifold ceases to exist as an objective physical reality; geometry becomes relational and contextual; and the foundational conceptual categories of prior science-among them, exis- tence itself-become problematized and relativized. This conceptual revolution, I will argue, has profound implications for the content of a future postmodern and liberatory science. My approach will be as follows. First, I will review very briefly some of the philosophical and ideological issues raised by quantum mechanics and by classical general relativity. Next, I will sketch the outlines of the emerging theory of quantum gravity and discuss some of the conceptual issues it raises. Finally, I will comment on the cultural and political impli- cations of these scientific developments. It should be emphasized that this essay is of necessity tentative and preliminary; I do not pretend to answer all the questions that I raise. My aim is, rather, to draw the atten- tion of readers to these important developments in physical science and to sketch as best I can their philosophical and political implications. I have endeavored here to keep mathematics to a bare minimum; but I have taken care to provide references where interested readers can find all requisite details. It is all a language game with language strictly being forms. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2019 17:49:00 GMT
What are you talking about? Sorry, but I have been away from books and academies to be able to follow your discourse. For instance, I can mentally go from vectors to tensors, but what is a tensor in a semantic composition? (Can there be such a thing as a non-semantic composition?) And what are the Pythagorean [not Eucledian]] axioms you are referring to?
On this forum, the chance that someone using the word "tensor" refers to its precise, mathematical meaning, is rather slim.
The op post was sarcastic |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Oct 4, 2019 18:17:44 GMT
Perhaps eating more spinach will prevent pop-eyed irony-deficiency?
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2019 18:37:37 GMT
Perhaps eating more spinach will prevent pop-eyed irony-deficiency? I know you are trying for cleverness... that is what counts.
Here is a sticker for your efforts...don't worry everyone gets one for trying now a days.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Oct 4, 2019 19:21:17 GMT
Analytical decritical semantic synthesis: Analytical decritical semantic synthesis entails the etymology of hyper-realism within the context of a neo-academic paradigm shift towards hyper-dimensional relativity. As a neo-Einsteinian category of implicit explication tends towards viable tensors in the maelstrom of semantic composition; there is a vague preponderance of spiritual possession; metaphoric in scope but tinged with the odor of scatological linguistic semantic gestures; notwithstanding the Pythagorean axioms which decay into a temporal void of meaning. Erstwhile, the quasi-philosophical dialog is enriched by a phonemic fertilizer of prepositions, and grammatical logarithms. Much like a Heisenberg or Aristotle-an form, super-positioned into a classical fart. What are you talking about? Sorry, but I have been away from books and academies to be able to follow your discourse. For instance, I can mentally go from vectors to tensors, but what is a tensor in a semantic composition? (Can there be such a thing as a non-semantic composition?) And what are the Pythagorean [not Eucledian]] axioms you are referring to? I never trust the sincerity of posters who claim they don't understand a post. It's an evasion of saying that they don't agree with it but are unable to answer it. In other words, "Sez you!" A tensor stretches the meaning in the direction the academented witch doctors desire it to go; Godwinism does that. Pythagoreanism squares away two different isms, making a series of turns to get back to the reality the masters of deceit claim is dependent on their irrelevant factors. |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Oct 4, 2019 19:36:21 GMT
Alan D.Sokal has something to add:
There are many natural scientists, and especially physicists, who continue to reject the notion that the disciplines concerned with social and cultural criticism can have anything to contribute, except perhaps peripherally, to their research. Still less are they receptive to the idea that the very foundations of their worldview must be revised or rebuilt in the light of such criticism. Rather, they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post- Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in "eternal" physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the "objec- tive" procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so- called) scientific method. But deep conceptual shifts within twentieth-century science have undermined this Cartesian-Newtonian metaphysics (Heisenberg 1958; Bohr 1963); revisionist studies in the history and philosophy of science have cast further doubt on its credibility (Kuhn 1970; Feyerabend 1975; Latour 1987; Aronowitz 1988b; Bloor 1991); and, most recently, feminist and poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of mainstream Western scientific practice, revealing the ideology of domina- tion concealed behind the facade of "objectivity" (Merchant 1980; Keller 1985; Harding 1986, 1991; Haraway 1989, 1991; Best 1991). It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical "reality," no less than social "reality," is at bottom a social and linguistic construct; that scientific "knowledge," far from being objective, reflects and encodes the domi- Social Text 46/47, Vol. 14, Nos. 1 and 2, Spring/Summer 1996. Copyright ? 1996 by Duke University Press.
nant ideologies and power relations of the culture that produced it; that the truth claims of science are inherently theory-laden and self-referential; and consequently, that the discourse of the scientific community, for all its undeniable value, cannot assert a privileged epistemological status with respect to counterhegemonic narratives emanating from dissident or marginalized communities. These themes can be traced, despite some differences of emphasis, in Aronowitz's analysis of the cultural fabric that produced quantum mechanics (1988b, esp. chaps. 9 and 12); in Ross's discussion of oppositional discourses in post-quantum science (1991, intro. and chap. 1); in Irigaray's and Hayles's exegeses of gender encoding in fluid mechanics (Irigaray 1985; Hayles 1992); and in Harding's com- prehensive critique of the gender ideology underlying the natural sciences in general and physics in particular (1986, esp. chaps. 2 and 10; 1991, esp. chap. 4). Here my aim is to carry these deep analyses one step further, by taking account of recent developments in quantum gravity: the emerging branch of physics in which Heisenberg's quantum mechanics and Einstein's gen- eral relativity are at once synthesized and superseded. In quantum gravity, as we shall see, the space-time manifold ceases to exist as an objective physical reality; geometry becomes relational and contextual; and the foundational conceptual categories of prior science-among them, exis- tence itself-become problematized and relativized. This conceptual revolution, I will argue, has profound implications for the content of a future postmodern and liberatory science. My approach will be as follows. First, I will review very briefly some of the philosophical and ideological issues raised by quantum mechanics and by classical general relativity. Next, I will sketch the outlines of the emerging theory of quantum gravity and discuss some of the conceptual issues it raises. Finally, I will comment on the cultural and political impli- cations of these scientific developments. It should be emphasized that this essay is of necessity tentative and preliminary; I do not pretend to answer all the questions that I raise. My aim is, rather, to draw the atten- tion of readers to these important developments in physical science and to sketch as best I can their philosophical and political implications. I have endeavored here to keep mathematics to a bare minimum; but I have taken care to provide references where interested readers can find all requisite details. Both quantum mechanics and this criticism are irrational; one delusion breeds the others seeking to replace it. Besides, exposing that the scientific method is influenced by hegemony begs the question that the traditional hegemony is wrong, which it isn't. All this desire to change things their way right away comes from a spoiled-putrid pushy hereditary class that has no right to exist. |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Oct 4, 2019 19:56:35 GMT
Alan D.Sokal has something to add:
There are many natural scientists, and especially physicists, who continue to reject the notion that the disciplines concerned with social and cultural criticism can have anything to contribute, except perhaps peripherally, to their research. Still less are they receptive to the idea that the very foundations of their worldview must be revised or rebuilt in the light of such criticism. Rather, they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post- Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in "eternal" physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the "objec- tive" procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so- called) scientific method. But deep conceptual shifts within twentieth-century science have undermined this Cartesian-Newtonian metaphysics (Heisenberg 1958; Bohr 1963); revisionist studies in the history and philosophy of science have cast further doubt on its credibility (Kuhn 1970; Feyerabend 1975; Latour 1987; Aronowitz 1988b; Bloor 1991); and, most recently, feminist and poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of mainstream Western scientific practice, revealing the ideology of domina- tion concealed behind the facade of "objectivity" (Merchant 1980; Keller 1985; Harding 1986, 1991; Haraway 1989, 1991; Best 1991). It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical "reality," no less than social "reality," is at bottom a social and linguistic construct; that scientific "knowledge," far from being objective, reflects and encodes the domi- Social Text 46/47, Vol. 14, Nos. 1 and 2, Spring/Summer 1996. Copyright ? 1996 by Duke University Press.
nant ideologies and power relations of the culture that produced it; that the truth claims of science are inherently theory-laden and self-referential; and consequently, that the discourse of the scientific community, for all its undeniable value, cannot assert a privileged epistemological status with respect to counterhegemonic narratives emanating from dissident or marginalized communities. These themes can be traced, despite some differences of emphasis, in Aronowitz's analysis of the cultural fabric that produced quantum mechanics (1988b, esp. chaps. 9 and 12); in Ross's discussion of oppositional discourses in post-quantum science (1991, intro. and chap. 1); in Irigaray's and Hayles's exegeses of gender encoding in fluid mechanics (Irigaray 1985; Hayles 1992); and in Harding's com- prehensive critique of the gender ideology underlying the natural sciences in general and physics in particular (1986, esp. chaps. 2 and 10; 1991, esp. chap. 4). Here my aim is to carry these deep analyses one step further, by taking account of recent developments in quantum gravity: the emerging branch of physics in which Heisenberg's quantum mechanics and Einstein's gen- eral relativity are at once synthesized and superseded. In quantum gravity, as we shall see, the space-time manifold ceases to exist as an objective physical reality; geometry becomes relational and contextual; and the foundational conceptual categories of prior science-among them, exis- tence itself-become problematized and relativized. This conceptual revolution, I will argue, has profound implications for the content of a future postmodern and liberatory science. My approach will be as follows. First, I will review very briefly some of the philosophical and ideological issues raised by quantum mechanics and by classical general relativity. Next, I will sketch the outlines of the emerging theory of quantum gravity and discuss some of the conceptual issues it raises. Finally, I will comment on the cultural and political impli- cations of these scientific developments. It should be emphasized that this essay is of necessity tentative and preliminary; I do not pretend to answer all the questions that I raise. My aim is, rather, to draw the atten- tion of readers to these important developments in physical science and to sketch as best I can their philosophical and political implications. I have endeavored here to keep mathematics to a bare minimum; but I have taken care to provide references where interested readers can find all requisite details. It is all a language game with language strictly being forms. Language is a burst of words aimed at a target; it is not a game, the snakes in this author's pit must be exterminated. We aren't taking them seriously if we are led by their agents to think the reaction to this toxic screed should be taking their toys away. Notice how the New Age creep uses "revolution" to mean that the former way has been overturned, which is wishful thinking presented as a fait accompli. And tying postmodernism with liberation is only true in the sense of liberating these freaks from the mental ward they belong in. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2019 20:20:00 GMT
It is all a language game with language strictly being forms. Language is a burst of words aimed at a target; it is not a game, the snakes in this author's pit must be exterminated. We aren't taking them seriously if we are led by their agents to think the reaction to this toxic screed should be taking their toys away. Notice how the New Age creep uses "revolution" to mean that the former way has been overturned, which is wishful thinking presented as a fait accompli. And tying postmodernism with liberation is only true in the sense of liberating these freaks from the mental ward they belong in. So this is how old people die, bitching and complaining about a world which has no value to them or for them. Tell me something, in this clever little word game you are trying to revolt against while using at the same time...what is it like applying labels to everything? So you pull this out of thin air? Ehh, it's a little bias to be pulled out of just "thin air"...but desolation is similar. Is this the wisdom you have old man...complaining about a dying world...right before you die? It does explain why the baby boomers locked there parents in nursing homes and through away the key. Our Elders who said "do what you want". Are you trying to market yourself...maybe to yourself? Or are you trying to create an equal market where "merit" works...your own maybe? Or maybe none of the above. But considering your constant discussions about the problems of ineptitude...I can guarantee one thing that does revolve in your psyche: the word: "maybe". "Maybe this could of happened?". "Maybe I should have done this..?" "Maybe not that...?" "Maybe it is my fault?" "Maybe it Isn't?" You keep repeating, the words "social failure", "nerd"....or some deviation of it. But this "forum" of your own, that you "promote"....it has noone in it and all the subjects are intellectual critiques. I Am So Tired Of Your Fucking "Wisdom" From Your Generation..But some How I Have The Feeling Your GeneratioN Rejected You...Poor, Poor Martyr...So Sad. So I can't Really Get On Your Case Too Bad Now Can I? Or Maybe None Of The Above I Said Is Correct, And I am Just Projecting Patterns Assumed From Others.... Regardless... So Old Man, How Do You Want Me To Verbally Club Your Brains Out Until You Are Left With Clever Hashtag Statements Like Chewbaccas And Ozzies Love Child...Quickly Or Slowly? |
|
