| Re: 2 parts |
Aug. 1st, 2007|09:50 pm |
>In other words, you project your own structures on me,
>reading me within the prescribed by your paradigms box
Sure, it's my favourite occupation.
>now Crowley (whom I never mentioned)
No, you only quoted him:
>Actually, I'm familiar with both of these sources. The
>dogma that there is no God but Man, is still a dogma to me
>because it is completely anthropocentric and hence is
>limited and hence dubious to my humble mind.
"There is no God but Man" -- it's from Crowley's
most sacred magician's gospel, Liber Oz.
Regardless of my projecting of my own structures
and other faults, this dogma does not bear any
relation to evolutional psychology. They happen
to regard God as a mind parasite, which is comletely
different from their view of Man.
>I have said it on several occasions before and shall
>reiterate again, namely, that I never dismissed the value
>of human experience and endeavour, including scientific
>thinking, among other expressions.
Well, you may dissmiss it or respect it, but
simple questions are best suited by simple answers.
If a statement is true or false, it is not true or
false by virtue of being uttered by some institualized
scientist. Everyone can be right or wrong; to judge
it, one should consider a statement itself, not any
labels attached to it. It is not difficult, we are
talking about simple things, mostly.
Needless to say, the quality of being institualized
is not inherent to a person. Today one is a marginal,
prosecuted by authorities and despised by consensus,
tomorrow a recognised maitre of his discipline.
>in some cases even to aggression.
Right! I've been talking, a few years ago,
to some person who seemed to take Bourdieu
seriously. Guess what, he became extremely
aggressive and started calling me names,
evoking alleged perculiar habits of my female
relatives. All the while he kept listing his
academic credentials, dunno why.
At that time I could still happily reply to
him that I, for my part, didn't even
possess a diploma of high education.
(A while later he changed his mind, for some
reason, to a point of inviting me to write an
essay on Bourdieu for his editorial project.
I did my best. The essay was not serious.
But the funniest thing about it was that the
extraordinarily stupid high-brow journal for
which the Bourdieu project was made, demanded
to exclude the reference to A. Dougin from my
text, for PC reasons. Dougin was a marginal
by that time, and Bourdieu -- the very essence
of commonplace, mainstream and establishment.
Now one cannot ruin an academic project by
evoking either name.)
>My theoretical chapter of my doctoral thesis analyses the
>paradigms of human knowledge and problems of structured
>metaphors and language. As soon as I'm done with my
>dissertation, it will be available for the public.
Well, if this is a joke intended to demonstrate
that you do understand the concept of intimidating
behavior of an alpha-graded social animal, it is
appreciated.
If not, then obviously it is not my place to continue
discussion with someone so advanced on the subject
of human knowledge. |
|