babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Rhetoric and Composition

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Rhetoric and Composition
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 22 April 2005 11:20 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A little education on the Sokal Affair.

A comment was made on Postmodernism by someone in the other thread, that had me look at what this might have meant. Windsphere was nice enough to add a link to explain this. I saw this as a positive effort to understanding.


Modernity is fundamentally about order: about rationality and rationalization, creating order out of chaos. The assumption is that creating more rationality is conducive to creating more order, and that the more ordered a society is, the better it will function (the more rationally it will function). Because modernity is about the pursuit of ever-increasing levels of order, modern societies constantly are on guard against anything and everything labeled as "disorder," which might disrupt order. Thus modern societies rely on continually establishing a binary opposition between "order" and "disorder," so that they can assert the superiority of "order." But to do this, they have to have things that represent "disorder"--modern societies thus continually have to create/construct "disorder." In western culture, this disorder becomes "the other"--defined in relation to other binary oppositions. Thus anything non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual, non-hygienic, non-rational, (etc.) becomes part of "disorder," and has to be eliminated from the ordered, rational modern society.

Now of course I have to contend with some ignorant people in order to move forward the issues that I was trying to explain in the Kyoto thread, that would bring out a debunker that was brain washed, who was careless about the content, without attacking it's substance.

This brings forth the nature of this thread to further enlighten not only myself, but people who are just plain obnoxious to the truth. A young mind that has wasted his talent on supposely protecting the interest of all us bloggers, forum particpators and who ever the like that would use this internet media.

Now I spoke in regards to this issue about Sokal becuase it cross referenced the issue that I would be leading too, and the relationships that curently are being talked about and developed in science. I use science to help further enlighten myself about how Einsteins views can be seen at work in a developing attitude in regards to the issue of Kyoto Accord. For and/or against.

I saw the content of Sokal generator application and submission as a deliberate attempt to cast doubt on all media and brought out the scum of the internet called debunkers.

Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity

Now you had to understand what Sokal did in order to understand the content of his submission.

The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link. If you like this particular essay and would like to return to it, follow this link for a bookmarkable page.

The Postmodernism Generator was written by Andrew C. Bulhak using the Dada Engine, a system for generating random text from recursive grammars, and modified very slightly by Josh Larios (this version, anyway. There are others out there).

This installation of the Generator has delivered 1586990 essays since 25/Feb/2000 18:43:09 PST, when it became operational. It is being served from a machine in Seattle, Washington, USA.

More detailed technical information may be found in Monash University Department of Computer Science Technical Report 96/264: "On the Simulation of Postmodernism and Mental Debility Using Recursive Transition Networks". An on-line copy is available from Monash University.

More generated texts are linked to from the Communications From Elsewhere front page.

Now that we have discern the nature of the content of the Sokal reference how can we continue with the demands of science. How we measure the effect of Climate, using current technologcal advances? Applcations of these technologies would need to be lead through in order that we understand the science that had been developed.


Sokal instigated mistrust in media, and not the cautious apporach to verification most scientist would expect of delivering a comprehensive and systemic approach to the theoretical developement. They had to have a basis from which to present these views and they, in order to advance science, had to move from the foundations that had already been traversed and, move the mind deeper into these views developed abtractually. The basis of these pictures then was the math developed. The basis was a geometry that lead to a comprehensive view of what Einstein offered for view.

Sokal article was laying waste to all of this beautiful work being done. Brought out the immature debunkers who thought they would help society and instead, turned good people bad.

But on to the nature of the title of this thread.

[ 23 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 22 April 2005 11:45 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now I understand the issues of those who have gathered together and have become nice friends through their talking.

They learn to support each in their own defined ways, so that such attempts to halt a friend's view, would warrant such attacks, for that friend.

It's like family.

The title of the thread, was choosen because there was work that needed to be done on the issues of my writing and how I come across.

Such attacks to leadership, based on debunking, would retaliate of course, and attacks on the substance, without referring to the substance would ensue. I have proved by the threads very existance that such attacks were done without giving consideration or questins to the nature of the information offered. This was a gross misjustice within the context of family, to serve the views of a process called debunking, that has failed miserably here in this forum.

The true professional would have attacked the substance and not the character, for this would have validated the distruction of the discourse?

But this has not happened and the friends continue to support the bad behavior exemplified. I hold out hope that the highest aspiration will be, to seek the truth ,and open the mind for future talks on the Kyoto accord and the science that is leading us to a transcended view above earth. The battle, had to take place in the heavens?

So again I have delineated from the title of this thread. It is coming shortly.

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 22 April 2005 11:57 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's not much use posting about your ideas if no one is willing to read what you write; and you really need to edit you writing so that it makes sense.
For example:
quote:
They learn to support each in their own defined ways, so that such attempts to halt a friend's view, would warrant such attacks, for that friend.
This does not make sense; how do you halt someone's view - stand in front of their picture window? And doing this warrants what kind of attack, how and by whom? Read what you have wriitten out loud to yourself and see if it makes sense to you, because it sure doesn't to me.

From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
windsphere
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8410

posted 23 April 2005 12:17 AM      Profile for windsphere   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hi-

this is taken from the site I found when I was looking for the specifics of "postmodern"

the old talk was closed and I was glad to see a place to past this

the link was on the kyoto site-

Language is diverse, concrete poetry- grooks-
standard language has conformity that can be used like a filter to exclude

when it is late at night I have less patience for the letters and conventions bing in a propper place-

I like Laurie Andersons quote- in Budist philosophy there is the thing- and then the word for the thing- and that's really one to many....

(this is from a google and close to what you have above)

this is long- but only part of the definition... many words, but in order...

9. Language, or the mode of expression used in producing and disseminating knowledge, must be rational also. To be rational, language must be transparent; it must function only to represent the real/perceivable world which the rational mind observes. There must be a firm and objective connection between the objects of perception and the words used to name them (between signifier and signified).


These are some of the fundamental premises of humanism, or of modernism. They serve--as you can probably tell--to justify and explain virtually all of our social structures and institutions, including democracy, law, science, ethics, and aesthetics.


Modernity is fundamentally about order: about rationality and rationalization, creating order out of chaos. The assumption is that creating more rationality is conducive to creating more order, and that the more ordered a society is, the better it will function (the more rationally it will function). Because modernity is about the pursuit of ever-increasing levels of order, modern societies constantly are on guard against anything and everything labeled as "disorder," which might disrupt order. Thus modern societies rely on continually establishing a binary opposition between "order" and "disorder," so that they can assert the superiority of "order." But to do this, they have to have things that represent "disorder"--modern societies thus continually have to create/construct "disorder." In western culture, this disorder becomes "the other"--defined in relation to other binary oppositions. Thus anything non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual, non-hygienic, non-rational, (etc.) becomes part of "disorder," and has to be eliminated from the ordered, rational modern society.


The ways that modern societies go about creating categories labeled as "order" or "disorder" have to do with the effort to achieve stability. Francois Lyotard (the theorist whose works Sarup describes in his article on postmodernism) equates that stability with the idea of "totality," or a totalized system (think here of Derrida's idea of "totality" as the wholeness or completeness of a system). Totality, and stability, and order, Lyotard argues, are maintained in modern societies through the means of "grand narratives" or "master narratives," which are stories a culture tells itself about its practices and beliefs. A "grand narrative" in American culture might be the story that democracy is the most enlightened (rational) form of government, and that democracy can and will lead to universal human happiness. Every belief system or ideology has its grand narratives, according to Lyotard; for Marxism, for instance, the "grand narrative" is the idea that capitalism will collapse in on itself and a utopian socialist world will evolve. You might think of grand narratives as a kind of meta-theory, or meta-ideology, that is, an ideology that explains an ideology (as with Marxism); a story that is told to explain the belief systems that exist.


Lyotard argues that all aspects of modern societies, including science as the primary form of knowledge, depend on these grand narratives. Postmodernism then is the critique of grand narratives, the awareness that such narratives serve to mask the contradictions and instabilities that are inherent in any social organization or practice. In other words, every attempt to create "order" always demands the creation of an equal amount of "disorder," but a "grand narrative" masks the constructedness of these categories by explaining that "disorder" REALLY IS chaotic and bad, and that "order" REALLY IS rational and good. Postmodernism, in rejecting grand narratives, favors "mini-narratives," stories that explain small practices, local events, rather than large-scale universal or global concepts. Postmodern "mini-narratives" are always situational, provisional, contingent, and temporary, making no claim to universality, truth, reason, or stability.


Another aspect of Enlightenment thought--the final of my 9 points--is the idea that language is transparent, that words serve only as representations of thoughts or things, and don't have any function beyond that. Modern societies depend on the idea that signifiers always point to signifieds, and that reality resides in signifieds. In postmodernism, however, there are only signifiers. The idea of any stable or permanent reality disappears, and with it the idea of signifieds that signifiers point to. Rather, for postmodern societies, there are only surfaces, without depth; only signifiers, with no signifieds.


Another way of saying this, according to Jean Baudrillard, is that in postmodern society there are no originals, only copies--or what he calls "simulacra." You might think, for example, about painting or sculpture, where there is an original work (by Van Gogh, for instance), and there might also be thousands of copies, but the original is the one with the highest value (particularly monetary value). Contrast that with cds or music recordings, where there is no "original," as in painting--no recording that is hung on a wall, or kept in a vault; rather, there are only copies, by the millions, that are all the same, and all sold for (approximately) the same amount of money. Another version of Baudrillard's "simulacrum" would be the concept of virtual reality, a reality created by simulation, for which there is no original. This is particularly evident in computer games/simulations--think of Sim City, Sim Ant, etc.


Finally, postmodernism is concerned with questions of the organization of knowledge. In modern societies, knowledge was equated with science, and was contrasted to narrative; science was good knowledge, and narrative was bad, primitive, irrational (and thus associated with women, children, primitives, and insane people). Knowledge, however, was good for its own sake; one gained knowledge, via education, in order to be knowledgeable in general, to become an educated person. This is the ideal of the liberal arts education. In a postmodern society, however, knowledge becomes functional--you learn things, not to know them, but to use that knowledge. As Sarup points out (p. 138), educational policy today puts emphasis on skills and training, rather than on a vague humanist ideal of education in general. This is particularly acute for English majors. "What will you DO with your degree?"


Not only is knowledge in postmodern societies characterized by its utility, but knowledge is also distributed, stored, and arranged differently in postmodern societies than in modern ones. Specifically, the advent of electronic computer technologies has revolutionized the modes of knowledge production, distribution, and consumption in our society (indeed, some might argue that postmodernism is best described by, and correlated with, the emergence of computer technology, starting in the 1960s, as the dominant force in all aspects of social life). In postmodern societies, anything which is not able to be translated into a form recognizable and storable by a computer--i.e. anything that's not digitizable--will cease to be knowledge. In this paradigm, the opposite of "knowledge" is not "ignorance," as it is the modern/humanist paradigm, but rather "noise." Anything that doesn't qualify as a kind of knowledge is "noise," is something that is not recognizable as anything within this system.


Lyotard says (and this is what Sarup spends a lot of time explaining) that the important question for postmodern societies is who decides what knowledge is (and what "noise" is), and who knows what needs to be decided. Such decisions about knowledge don't involve the old modern/humanist qualifications: for example, to assess knowledge as truth (its technical quality), or as goodness or justice (its ethical quality) or as beauty (its aesthetic quality). Rather, Lyotard argues, knowledge follows the paradigm of a language game, as laid out by Wittgenstein. I won't go into the details of Wittgenstein's ideas of language games; Sarup gives a pretty good explanation of this concept in his article, for those who are interested.

cont.


From: pennsylvania | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
windsphere
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8410

posted 23 April 2005 01:11 AM      Profile for windsphere   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Contrarian, glad to see you reading what forum observer is writing.

Acceptance of change chance- Apollinaire, DADA?
Budism..

You were the first person to respond to me when I dared to type in public with out my daughters here to "fix my thoughts" into standard english.

My grad assistant told me that I had something called dislexia/disgraphia... his parents created books on that, they said to leave me alone- but I want to learn

Forum Observer does some of the same things with letters, I am learning from him- about many things and some things I can't get with text or even with pictures- but try, I will...

I asked a friend who is very math/concept abled and a author-to read the last topic- He helps me with concepts and interrelating disiplines- he is also kind-

You were very kind to me on my first posts- and I was pleased to meet you and get a positive responce


This is like a speed diferential issue- a tracking problem....

as a child- I was switched to right handed- then my mom was told I was sloppy for coloring ouside the lines-

I tested 99% spacial- 99% mechanical .5% clerical... no body did anything about this- I just was sent to typing class- more frustration- no speaking to people etc. in middle school I was told to pick between art or science- I love them both- but had to have my art tools- they are just different ways to look at the natural world -for me- I am in awe of the interconnected structure- beauty- patterns-

I love to learn, I hate to type-

My 1st language is images- In 1983 phone lines = "slow scan" ... transmissions with sequences images thru a "robot" radio signal transmitter (early telecommunications) I am good at that.

So, I am now over 50 and I will wear purple, and *try* to type.

What did you think about the Helvarg quote? he has books out, he can type and do grammar-

The point of that and the CDC site was to see who (what groups/industries) might be ready to start to fix what we can fix now, as we continue to expand the questionable models. There are so many variables.

C

forum observer- do you have interest in food/nutrition too?

There was an article about energy and food production in terms od oil/energy use....


From: pennsylvania | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 23 April 2005 06:43 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
With respect, this:
quote:
The true professional would have attacked the substance and not the character, for this would have validated the distruction of the discourse?

is not correct. This is what I've been trying to get across to you, so far without much success. The true professional would have attacked the substance EXCEPT THAT THE 'CHARACTER', AS YOU PUT IT, MASKS THE SUBSTANCE MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPREHEND.

If I can't actually engage with the substance because the 'character' is so confused/confusing, circuitous, stream-of-consciousness, etc., then all I'm left with is to attack the 'character' in the hopes you'll actually clarify.

In point of fact, your use of the word 'character', when the more appropriate word would be 'style' or 'form of the argument' or 'grammar', is a perfect example of your style of writing masking the substance of your argument.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 23 April 2005 09:49 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thank you for the positive comments. They may seem less so when directly dealing with the rhetoric, as this is sort of new to me, but the essense behind my attempts are still dominated by a science. I will work on this, but the title along with the points on postmodernism still open the idea further.

I'll show you what I mean.

A lot of times the historical context, of rhetorical and compositon pave the way for how my current dialogues takes place. Are these unique features or just bad manners of many years of writing, without constraint?

I have a vast data backgroud that I have built up to bring me up to speed with the understanding of science and have locations that support this. But also supports the bad manners in my compositions. If such media consultations were not followed then, it would be very educative in terms of this wild rogue, having taught himself english? As we know this is far from the case. Some may laugh and say wild rogue indeed

The topic to follow.


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 23 April 2005 10:03 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Rhetoric

(from Greek ρητωρ, rhêtôr, "orator") is one of the three original liberal arts or trivium (the other members are dialectic and grammar). While it has meant many different things during its 2500-year history, it is generally described today as the art of persuasion through language. Rhetoric can describe a persuasive way in which one relates a theme or idea in an effort to convince.

Now in trying to be honest as possible, and opening up the routes to dialogue, language barrier here could seem very odd? If one was geared in life to think along the very lines of language constructs. I mean, if thinking along the lines of growing up in Germany which I didn't or someone in New Delhi, how would we remove cross barrier thinking? Langauge translators always work, but would they actually open the way to transferance of ideas? So they developed a universal math system that leaves no room for faulty discourses based on this. But ultimately the transferance was constituted in the image production, from one to another.

The progressive feature of my data build up is more or less the same progression, to perfecting. So the trail leading to this point would have gained in terms of science, but as expressed, the way I come across, less then desirable.

Rhetoric thus evolved as an important art, one that provided the orator with the forms, means, and strategies of persuading an audience of the correctness of the orator's arguments. Today the term rhetoric is generally used to refer only to the form of argumentation, often with the pejorative connotation that rhetoric is a means of obscuring the truth. Classical philosophers believed quite the contrary: the skilled use of rhetoric was essential to the discovery of truths, because it provided the means of ordering and clarifying arguments


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 23 April 2005 10:17 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:
It's not much use posting about your ideas if no one is willing to read what you write; and you really need to edit you writing so that it makes sense.
For example: This does not make sense; how do you halt someone's view - stand in front of their picture window? And doing this warrants what kind of attack, how and by whom? Read what you have wriitten out loud to yourself and see if it makes sense to you, because it sure doesn't to me.

Okay in the construction of information desemmination, what would you bring to bear on those that would try to move into your neighbourhood, that has its functions and understandings. The way things click with your friends. The way things happened in your neighborhood.

Now as a stranger in these parts, my inflections and accents, may seem strange to you? But I have developed very intellectually by my research. Have culminated it in a life experience, all bound up, in what I as a writer am expressing to you now.

The window of opportunity that you are standing in front of, is not allowing perception to extend beyond this frame that you have placed yourself in.

I see past this, I see past the ole guard that you have up, and continue to push past this, by doing what I am doing now. So your right? How could you stop me, unless censorship was to raise it's head?

Forms of censorship? Is there such a thing?

Complete moderator control. Yes there is. Is there guidelines to such dialogues taking place? Yes there is. Is there people who will not like new people moving into the neigbourhood? Yes there is. I won't continue with the specifics because these too are self expanantory.

[ 23 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 23 April 2005 10:33 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hi C,


forum observer- do you have interest in food/nutrition too?

Considering the weight gain you might think so

But having gone through research over the years I learnt many things about interpretations of this. I am no expert. But I do have other perspective that lead to part of this personal view/education. As to how I see this developing on principals that were psychological had come out of eastern perceptions. Macrobiotic. Food groups along these lines. In nature, acidic or alkalinity and variations from a neutral standpoint. Above ground below ground etc.

There was an article about energy and food production in terms od oil/energy use....

I'd have to go back and look at this.

One of the unique positions I had adopted in terms of information sharing and respect of property rights, was to link quotes as direct link to their sources. So I use this technique, to directly link you.

Sort of like havng this thought, contained in a paragraph we wish to explain, and then by clicking on it you are brought to a more comprehensive view of the article quoted. I use pictures the same way, although using image hosting has changed this somewhat. It has allowed me to expand on manipulation of pictures to represent different things from whole new way to view . This is a new feature for me I learnt here in this forum. So I placed it for others

It follows on the idea, of the kernel that is developed and is maintained but moves to increase exposure from the orignal source( to me this is a expansive view about internet resurc edevelopement that should not be halted by such proprietorships and I try and follow this. I will have much to say on the freedoms of expression when the time comes. This happens in other parts of the forum.


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 23 April 2005 10:57 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aRoused:
With respect, this:

is not correct. This is what I've been trying to get across to you, so far without much success. The true professional would have attacked the substance EXCEPT THAT THE 'CHARACTER', AS YOU PUT IT, MASKS THE SUBSTANCE MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPREHEND.

If I can't actually engage with the substance because the 'character' is so confused/confusing, circuitous, stream-of-consciousness, etc., then all I'm left with is to attack the 'character' in the hopes you'll actually clarify.

In point of fact, your use of the word 'character', when the more appropriate word would be 'style' or 'form of the argument' or 'grammar', is a perfect example of your style of writing masking the substance of your argument.


I assure you I am not confused. How would I bring you up to speed on a life experience of research and developement?

On the clarification of character style of writing masking substance? C pointed this out very clearly. I have to go back for quote.
The essence is that I understand by the quote C used that it was gotten in the transferance.

Windsphere Quotes:9. Language, or the mode of expression used in producing and disseminating knowledge, must be rational also. To be rational, language must be transparent; it must function only to represent the real/perceivable world which the rational mind observes. There must be a firm and objective connection between the objects of perception and the words used to name them (between signifier and signified).


"Betrayal of Images" by Rene Magritte. 1929 painting on which is written "This is not a Pipe"

Might you now be getting a flavour of my personality?

The mask, is a layering over top of this progression of research developement. This is hard to explain. Should not warrent boulder dash and what ever. The picture we see of the pipe, is a result of a idea. To bring this idea to fruitation, the picture, you have to present the schematics of design, and then embue this idea with life for objectivity to have it's hand at it.

Does this make sense? If you do not take the time, follow the links, follow the points about gravity? How this is being used objectively to help us see? Then of course I am having difficulty coming across. Becuase you do not know me. My profile helps

How would I show you seeing this satelite going around the moon and lagging, as revealling what Grace is also doing with two satelitte points?

To reveal a closer look at what is happening in between these distances. Mean variable and time varible bring a new light on measure. This might hit home now?

You gain perspective when you understand the meaure in Q<->Q(quark to quark) measures and the dynamcial nature of these distances. Pointing towards energy, and at the same time, a very strong gravity field? This is a microsmic perception( particle reductionism) yet very compatible with the views of the macrosopic measure of gravity on the moon or earth.

Did I loose you again?

[ 23 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
windsphere
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8410

posted 23 April 2005 11:36 PM      Profile for windsphere   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

test


From: pennsylvania | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
windsphere
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8410

posted 23 April 2005 11:38 PM      Profile for windsphere   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

test 2

From: pennsylvania | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
windsphere
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8410

posted 23 April 2005 11:45 PM      Profile for windsphere   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thank you! what about size/scale- is that up to my original file? is 72-100 OK?

C


From: pennsylvania | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 23 April 2005 11:59 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Windsphere,

You specify the width and the height, and this changes the size of your pciture. Experimenting with the height can sometimes adjust the perspective of the picture, so it seems appropriate.

ex: [ img = url width=? height=?]This is spaced so that it will show up here in post. There must be a space between url, width, width and height

With your mouse Right click on the picture. Go down to properties and click on this. I specified the pixels in each of these examples, and these determined the size of the picture.

Now this is interesting because it is obvious it holds a lot of information. Would you explain for me.

It looks like a Garden Mandala, each fawcett divide up into the twelve months, reduce to the four sections and the three groups, and each group specified? A hand reaching outward to embrace all the depths of this perception.

It's the times of the year that are quite interesting and it's allocations.

[ 24 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
windsphere
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8410

posted 24 April 2005 12:28 AM      Profile for windsphere   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
thank you- the last image looks proportionate the middle one about the correct size

Is it correct that I need to re-size all the images before I upload them to the remote server?

My friends in physics and library science tried to help me with html in 1992- with the letters issues I have- it was very slow, even attached to a cray- it (tellecom)got so commercial I went back outside to continue making messy stuff with kids and communities.

and no, it is not a pipe- it is pigment- paper- co-ordinates and light and much more

I like Meret Oppenheim's (sp?) fur lined cup and saucer. Some of the 3rd grade is working on Escher and tesselations (sp?)
the stamps are informed by food shapes and we printed fruits and vegetables most of the day.

Global warming and increased medical costs are going to increase the need to have strengthened imune systems. Were you refering to vedic PH balance? How similar are the oceans - they are having reflex actions to acid impalance.

Do you understand KODEX- (SP)


From: pennsylvania | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 24 April 2005 12:36 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is it correct that I need to re-size all the images before I upload them to the remote server?

The image hosting that was provide here by someone is a good one becuase of the Linux base.

I have choosen not to register right now but still use this feature. I also have web sites that I upload images too, and you can specify, using following. Again spaced. Some images appear large like in your postig when they are uploaded. You scale it afterwards on your site.

< IMG SRC = "url.html" width =? height = ?>

Havng a central site(using their server) I can link any pictures I want if I take them with digital camera. Some sites I pay for, others are free to use.

Once the picture is posted, I add further links to reference source as much as possible.

and no, it is not a pipe- it is pigment- paper- co-ordinates and light and much more

I understand, but something brought it all into existance? I can draw line firsts, a nice schematic, and all those things you mentioned brings the role it plays, in beefing up our immune system?

sometimes I work on post all day( things left unfinished) I go back and added your link from quoted source in the very first post. In previous article this is not a pipe post as well, before picture.

Do you understand KODEX- (SP)

no could you explain?

Were you refering to vedic PH balance?

This is a common science perspective about plantlife and the soil conditions that most nurture specific plantlifes. Using ph meter it is easy to determine soil and how conducive it is to specific ph's. Still need lots of love though

Just in reading, I do not follow method. Should.

How similar are the oceans - they are having reflex actions to acid impalance.

This is where I was leading too. A method to determination. How would this be accomplished gathering information using Grace? Mean gravity and Time Variable Gravity. How would water indications reveal this? Mass and density is specific, and Time Variables?

So we look at the mean time. If geological perspective can be gained from elemental consideration using Clementine or Grace, then how shall these elemental features effect the time variable? What would lead us to see such variatins not only in the waters but also in land masses? Volcanic activity would show up how? High mountain ranges?

Can we allot such specifics of these world features, that we call them positive, negative, or electromagnetic in relation to the oceans? How it supports life?

Very early in my research, I study the winds, and the effect on serotonin production. The determinations on this reveal ionic perceptions about these effects, on depression, and conducive features that would be comparative to positive ionization, and, negative ionization by water logged areas of earth. Rivers streams, waterfalls. These features provide for emotive stabilization, and allow deeper perception having been balanced. A busy mind, is not a reflective one is it?

Much debunking went on at that time, but it was revealled that forced air systems was causing some problems in buildings.

[ 24 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

[ 24 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
windsphere
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8410

posted 24 April 2005 12:54 AM      Profile for windsphere   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I will try to get internet access and practice-
"Bess" was a problem at two project sites last month.

c


From: pennsylvania | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
windsphere
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8410

posted 24 April 2005 01:08 AM      Profile for windsphere   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
CODEX- re defining herb/minerals ect. as drugs
From: pennsylvania | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 24 April 2005 01:43 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by windsphere:
CODEX- re defining herb/minerals ect. as drugs

In context of finding a neutral standpoint, any deviations/additions would have to be associative, to harmonizing whole?

What does K stand for.


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 24 April 2005 10:53 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For Plato, the essence of philosophy lay in the process of dialectic, in which reason and discussion progressively lead to the discovery of important truths. This brought him into dispute with the sophistic philosophers; Plato believed that the sophists cared not for the truth of an argument, but only how they might appear to win it. Plato mistrusted those arts, such as rhetoric and poetry, which did not spring from universal principles, and held up the sophists as exemplars of rhetoric's failings.

I don't like to think such adventures would have found past historical mistakes to appear in our dialogues? The forums we use. Have people changed since then?

Current technologies in computer and forum construction can be limited depending on the constraits they wish to apply on exchanges?

Historical basis then would ask that we famiiarize ourselves with internet construction so that we can, as best we can, open the doorway to allow greater influx of information. But like anything in media, artistic construction and persoanlity designed by character inflections, how well would they represent the person?

C presents a design and I do not want to minimize this picture for it is away to hold a lot of information. There is a story there for us to see. At the bottom of the picture is a small square sheet of paper explaining the story of this design?

Now without hurting the substance of this picture, if I was to have one consider the construction methods detailed for us, would this hurt the way artistic inflection sought to pass us information?

Aristotle's treatise on rhetoric was an attempt to systematically describe rhetoric as a human art or skill (techne). He identified three different types of rhetorical proof:

  • ethos: how the character of a speaker influences an audience to consider him to be believable.
  • pathos: the use of emotional appeals
  • logos: the use of language in constructing an argument.
  • I had to learn html and other ways to express the nature of this medium in order to continue to form a well maintained method of observation and character expression. Becuase of this limitation of media here, has it limited some of the more and deeper work that research has allowed me to expand upon.

    We all have our own stores and a lifetime contained in our writing, yet we see only tidbits and parcels of a much greater story as you write the words.

    If you can predict what style of posting is to come next then we have learnt to understand part of the nature of the writer. It's character "flare" that it likes to demonstrate.

    In order for rhetoric to be effective, the orator must be sensitive to these elements. He must realize that the context will constrict what he can say and what will be considered relevant. He must attune his message to his audience, or he will risk alienating or disgusting his audience. And he must embody his ideas in a way that is both proper to the occasion and to his audience. For example, the orator would not use colloquial or slang language if he was speaking about a lofty topic. Indeed, all three elements are intertwined: The character of the audience will define how the orator judges the context, the context will define the style he will use, and, through the experimentation, the style will influence what the context consists of.

    Yes I am trying hard to find some format, but I had to learn all these other things first to make sure that I was able and capable of trying to express a deeper and more developed aspect of personality. When information obtained, expand the borders of my knowledge.

    This is just one example then of the masterful way that I had hope to use this media, but of course, I am listening to help change the deficncies of exchange here.

    Creativity is the blesssing I think, and artistic expresionism saw that information could be greatly expanded upon. It wanted to help us see, what a artist rendition might have implied as it exposed itself for the viewing look.

    So like drawing the schematic lines of construction and then adding color, tones, how masterful had we become at expressing the deeper emotive side of the human being.

    Let There be Light

    In this media, have we seen where "time" has limited the exchange, and sought to corrupt what little information is written? Statement of what can be said in the shortest sentence? Or, the one inch of the simplest equation, that we had somehow found relevance to Occam Razor and been truthful to what we transmit?

    So we had to be selective about the informatin we shared, has somehow been laid over these equations. These schematics of a wider expression in our lives provide fundamental picture even to the theorist, for complete comprehesion would not allow him to move forward did he not have this true method?

    Pythagoras could be called the first known string theorist. Pythagoras, an excellent lyre player, figured out the first known string physics -- the harmonic relationship. Pythagoras realized that vibrating Lyre strings of equal tensions but different lengths would produce harmonious notes (i.e. middle C and high C) if the ratio of the lengths of the two strings were a whole number.

    So the primary principle,or universal principle was identifing what lied at the basis of language? I often referred too, resonances of numbers, not becuase I am a Pythagorean, but the science then learned to see the tension in all things. So they were very constructive in how weight would have implied, string tension with a note correspondance.

    How did ancient minds think of this? They used gourds of water held by a string. Plucking the string was related to how much water was in the gourd.

    So identifying, using a mathematcal basis is very important. The easy method here is to demostrate how Pascal's Triangle might have surmized that "life" began from all numbers?

    That it had to issue from something, not nothing. So the logic had to arrive not from nothing, but something. You had to identify this in nature, and Einstein helped us very well here.

    Einsteins summation is about cosmological principals in regards to GR and this is where it workded fine. But is was incompatible on quantum level.

    They have worked around this to identify components of the standard model by producing a graviton, using theoretcial construction.

    Because it is theoretcial it had to be developed from a basis. You have to make assumption at this point, and a lot of people do not like it.

    [ 24 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


    From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
    N.Beltov
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 4140

    posted 24 April 2005 03:39 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
    Let There be Light

    I well remember my first college Physics prof who handed out this "image" to my classmates and I, after we had worked on the derivations for these equations for a number of weeks. I was enraged that he would ruin something so elegant and graceful, appropriating Maxwell's equations for his own ideological purposes. All these years later and I'm still a little pissed about it.

    God didn't derive the equations. James C. Maxwell did. And we honour him by naming the four equations that describe all the quantifiable properties of light after him. Then again, I should have know that something was up when my prof decided to use the Tipler textbook. I prefered Halliday and Resnick.


    From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
    forum observer
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 7605

    posted 24 April 2005 08:46 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
    God didn't derive the equations. James C. Maxwell did. And we honour him by naming the four equations that describe all the quantifiable properties of light after him

    Of course your absolutely right here.

    Describing Maxwell's equations, Heinrich Hertz once said, "One cannot escape the feeling that...they have an intelligence of their own, that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers, that we get more out of them than was originally put into them." And so it was that Einstein combined Maxwell's equations with the principle of relativity to derive E = mc2. And later, in 1927, Dirac applied quantum theory to them and went on to formulate his equation for the electron and lay down the foundations of quantum electrodynamics.

    Mine is a most generalized view here, so I would have much to catch up to you. In other things not so

    I wonder. Do you think this "uniqueness," brought the ideas of Gauss and Riemann together, as a necessary geometrical basis for Einsteins principles of General Relativity(this is where the fifth postulate become important, and a whole history began starting with Saccherri)?

    I think it was Grossman that helped Einstein here in this respect, by leading Einstein to these Gaussian views?

    That we understand the properties of light, in relation too, by understanding the gravitational field and gravitational lensing? Hence, the undertanding of non-euclidean domain and this much more dynamical reality?

    I think this is a most vital realization that geometries lead the way beyond Reimann's world and Einsteins. What are your thoughts here?

    [ 24 April 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


    From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
    forum observer
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 7605

    posted 29 April 2005 01:04 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
    more on this issue

    Part of the understanding in developement of forum communication, is that what can happen on one scale in our dealings, can be applicable on larger scales.

    So you learn to see that if such arguments are to be developed from a basis, and in this regard," science?" The relationship, to how we see in life, then becomes science as the basis? Must be found.

    But you know when you move from this position and learn to apply experimental procedures currently undertaken, you have evolved the principals of science and moved your self into new avenues of perception. This does not mean you disregard validation processes and speak from ill concieved methods.

    Are there going to be mistakes. Of course, and dialogue helps to nurture correctness. Can data supplied further develope our good senses, portrayed here in retoric and composition? Can be see in the historical developement. Takes shape, where before it was simplfied in aggressive techiques, of bullying, in the internet way. One might get this sense of self and how we aply our dialogue to each other.

    The way above this is to provde statistical informtaion to support or reject positions. If such conduct is followed, then we have well presented our arguement have we not? Provide new insight as to how we have always seen things? Step up to the plate to say contrary to this position, I have ths to say and why I reject ?

    IN my own struggle of personality, emotive challenges have set themselves immediately in character response. This has been my struggle in life, and a means to find what life has to offer in its deeper meanings.

    [ 04 May 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


    From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
    forum observer
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 7605

    posted 04 May 2005 02:02 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

    Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626)
    -----although not a rhetorician, contributed to the field in his writings. One of the concerns of the age was to find a suitable style for the discussion of scientific topics, which needed above all a clear exposition of facts and arguments, rather than the ornate style favored at the time. Bacon in his The Advancement of Learning criticized those who are preoccupied with style rather than "the weight of matter, worth of subject, soundness of argument, life of invention, or depth of judgment." On matters of style, he proposed that the style conform to the subject matter and to the audience, that simple words be employed whenever possible, and that the style should be agreeable.

    Heck I am still learning. But if I only said what you wanted to hear, then would you have heard anything different? You try and incorporate the logic into the statement? Here in this case, there is no arguement, because the logic can not be further reduced?

    Word Play

    Word play is a literary technique in which the nature of the words used themselves become part of the subject of the work. Puns, obscure words and meanings, clever rhetorical excursions, oddly formed sentences, and telling character names are common examples of word play.

    All writers engage in word play to some extent, but certain writers are particularly adept or committed to word play. Shakespeare was a noted punster. James Joyce, whose Ulysses, and even more so, his Finnegans Wake, are filled with brilliant writing and brilliant word play is another noted word-player. For example, Joyce's phrase "they were yung and easily freudened" clearly conveys the meaning "young and easily frightened", but it also makes puns on the names of two famous psychoanalysts, Jung and Freud.

    But here is another context of character masking that was revealled? Thinking about Francis Bacon, that one wonders, who was Shakespeare?

    We know well that some writers take pen names before they become established? Or hide amidst the current dealings of society. To not call attention to their positions in life, while they strive to delve into the deeper meanings?

    I learnt this early, to not complicate life, while I could have free roam, to delve into all aspects of our human natures. Struggle for, the ideals that we develope in life. Rote systemic appearances constituted from our early histories, as well shape our perceptions of society. I knew well, that if we think a certain way, whether we like it or not, we desemminate thoses principals into society, how ever it materialized, might be perceived in different ways.

    So can we be artistic about it? I am, in choosing my characters becuase I saw in rehtoric and dialogue, past performaces by independant scientific researchers, this incination to go back in time, and then move forward.

    Plato's cave might have seem ole fashion and constantly wornout and used, but in the scientific mind of Gerard Hooft, and his explanation of Hologrpahical design, he wanted to push other minds to consider?

    And one in which I like to consider, that a three dimensional frame work, can be arrived at from higher percpetion abilities. In science, four dimensional characteristics here would have understood dynamcial feature to the nature of reality, yet pinning it down to coordinates, it becomes realizstic in our minds, as a object of perception.

    Heisenberg made similar use of such inclination for historical reference.

    This logic has underpinnings in how we see what can be consittuted in life. How we choose to display our positions with clarity.

    That we should then find ourselves engaged becuase of the inhernet dialogue and espressions between each other on the internet, then we know that progression and learning, the desire, and not flaws of character dispositon should reign.

    Resistance to character, should be statistics or better infomration?

    [ 04 May 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

    [ 04 May 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


    From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
    forum observer
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 7605

    posted 04 May 2005 12:26 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
    Developing Character in Rhetoric and Composition

    I had to start somewhere?


    From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
    skdadl
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 478

    posted 04 May 2005 12:37 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
    I was so delighted to see, somewhere in the Grope and Flail this week, a tiny squib that should bury the Sokal affair forever.

    Somebody has done a lovely (but meaningless) parody of scientist-talk and got it published in a respectable science journal.

    The point is, guys, as it was with Sokal: parodies of anything are actually quite easy to write. Everyone who teaches English knows that. That's one of the ways we teach, one of the things we do to build up people's confidence as writers. You too can sound like Edgar Allan Poe if you just hang your own words on his skeleton!

    And that is why Sokal proved nothing. None of these games proves anything. They are ways of ducking serious thought.

    [ 04 May 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]


    From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
    HeywoodFloyd
    token right-wing mascot
    Babbler # 4226

    posted 04 May 2005 12:40 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
    Skdadl, your PM's are full.
    From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
    skdadl
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 478

    posted 04 May 2005 12:42 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
    Oh! Honeychile, I will work on that in a couple of hours. Have to run now. Sorry.
    From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
    skdadl
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 478

    posted 04 May 2005 12:45 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
    HF: problem remedied, and I'll be back in a while. Please do send.
    From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
    HeywoodFloyd
    token right-wing mascot
    Babbler # 4226

    posted 04 May 2005 12:47 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
    Thanks, my darlin'.
    From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
    Rufus Polson
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 3308

    posted 04 May 2005 02:17 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
    quote:
    Originally posted by skdadl:
    I was so delighted to see, somewhere in the Grope and Flail this week, a tiny squib that should bury the Sokal affair forever.

    Somebody has done a lovely (but meaningless) parody of scientist-talk and got it published in a respectable science journal.


    Well, I dunno. Meaningless as in, it was internally inconsistent/illogical, or meaningless as in no actual research was done, so the content was really null? It's easy to get an article published that's internally consistent but purports to have performed research you actually haven't performed. That would be a "parody" of a scientific article in a way, but it getting in would just mean the peer reviewers weren't able to go into your lab and see that you weren't doing research. And a parody of literary style, if done with an eye to fooling people, would just be homage by another name.

    But the point of Sokal's article was that he went out of his way to include glaring logical inconsistencies and sentences that had no meaning in their own terms. And yet it was well received.


    From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
    jeff house
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 518

    posted 04 May 2005 02:56 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
    It's hard to tell the meaning of that "squib" without knowing more.

    Like, what scientific topic, what journal, etc etc.

    But for me, Sokal undercuts the idea that postmodernism has anything at all to say about science.

    If everything is literature, or poetics, then it is hard to catch glaring errors. Because nothing is erroneous, it's all just point-of-view.


    From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
    forum observer
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 7605

    posted 04 May 2005 04:05 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
    My inclination was to point out my area of interest in terms of quantum gravity. The Sokal article did deal with this. Why I was specific to Sokal. It governs a lot of thought by those in intellectual circles, without understanding the basis of the Sokal approach.

    It was more then literary content, but a program that wrote it. I had hoped this point was seen? Why it still undermines current research in this area. Holds thoughts of people to debunking when the understanding is not clear.

    Thanks all for being patience.

    [ 05 May 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


    From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged

    All times are Pacific Time  

    Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
    Hop To:

    Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

    Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca