Saturday, April 23, 2005

Rhetoric and Composition

I hope the time will be taken to patiently read and follow through as it will explain the dangers of what Sokal did, and the mistrust he place at the front door of media control. Censorship.

What were the motivations of people like Peter Woit to highly censor only what he wanted shown in regards to his views, or a Sean Carroll, who might disallow a Lubos Motl that rubs Sean the wrong way?

Both cases, the inherent right of bloggery ownership entitled, what views might be imparted and by this distinction alone, the character? Did this somehow contribute to a finer process of education developement? It certainly as I pointed out retained some integrity, if we thought the derogatory statements were less then appealing to our very natures and constitutions. But did we then censor more then the pride with which we see ourselves?

A little education on the Sokal Affair.

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 people in order to move forward the issues that I was trying to explain on the Kyoto, that would bring out a debunker that was brain washed, and 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.

I wrote this in context of another media avenue, but the jest is the same when we think about those who would guard our interest on the internet. From developing in our research and education. I have been less then kind on how I work my compositions and grammar, but I was after the true spirit of information transferance between brains. Any math basis had this derivative function to it, that once math mathematically developed concealled under the larger expression was a scientific validation and objectivity to a long process to develpement.

Of course we say that the ultimate proof is it's validation. But in the mean time, who are they who shall gaurd my interest to follow the correct route to science developement, if debunking has been takng to new heights of arrogance and impedes the further developement of these theoreticcal positions?

No comments:

Post a Comment