American from abroad

America seen from abroad.

Here's what correspondent Eivind Trædal reports. America, is this correct?

"Obama didn't wear an American flag on his jacket sleeve during the election campaign. No American president can act that way." These are the words of Margaret Curole, co-ordinator of the World Forum for Fish Workers, feminist and environmentalist. We are speaking to a member of "the other America," liberal and well educated. Our discussion is going well until she catches us by surprise with her comment on Obama's sleeve. "Besides, we pay too much taxes. That's why I'm a member of the Tea Party movement."

A week after the conversation with Margaret, on September 11, we have the honor of commemorating the occasion with a few hundred Tea Party members at the Washington monument. Judging from plackards, pins and banners, this is an incongruous mixture of market libertarians, Christian fundamentalists and good, old-fashioned racists congregated around a handful of national markers. Wandering around us are Ben Franklin, the Statue of Liberty and the constitution. On stage a lady sings "the times they are a-changing," incomprehensibly. A few minutes of vague speeches emanate from the pulpit. They are about "taking back the country." From whom? To what? Answers seem as plentifold as there are attendees.
...
Without a common analysis and other goals than opposition to the administration and taxes the movement appears to offer nothing more than disempowered fistshaking from a populace that too long has been lacking a frame in which to understand the social changes that affect them.
...
The political climate has reached new depths in the world's most powerful nation. Political choices have apparently been replaced by a blindly swinging pendulum of discontent. The apathy is now so great that a few hundred oddballs in costume are able to decide the ground for public debate.

Best,
-tor

the social construction of idiots

is fortunately for everyone composed of one step (one only! fewer maxims
than Grice's! Speranza, take the lead nad produce a few more!)

the step is easily theorized.
we take F and look at "F". We observe that "F" was spelled in "K" in
Uzbekistan.
Hence F is subjected to change (between being spelled "F" and being
spelled as "K"). So it is not set in stone. Being not set in stone is
axiomatically equivalent to be a social construct, since society
constructs (not in stone apparently.)

Voila.

I am terrified by the amount of excrement being told to students, and
alas, with terrifying effects. This is a note.
Consider the famous argument by the neo fascist J Malema:
"in my language [seSotho for the ignorant ones] there is no word for
ermaphrodite. Hence such "things" do not exist" (they are not
"classified" "as such" as the post suggest)
This is about teh Semenja affairs for those who follow the adventures
and disadventures of gender politics.
This si then the answer.
Idiots are those who on the base of concocted excremental "arguments"
wish to persuade people of the non existence of hiv, trans-sexual, etc.
Their great progenitors are famous contructivists, Goebbels"WHAT IS A
JEW I DECIDE", character in Orwellian worlds in which he who owns the
language of the past owns the past... und so weiter

p.s. how does an argument from "change" run?

x died of a stroke

strokes change? meaning what?

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010,
Torgeir Fjeld wrote:

> Disobeying Kierkegaard's dictum that one does well to shy away from public debate, here are some responses to despondents:
> 1. Causes of death are cultural constructs.
> They change. Hence not set in stone.
> 2. We don't know why we die.
> Any legal cause remains unable to give reasons for death.
> 3. As autism are taught so is our ability to recognize deadly diagnises.
> The condition X may or may not have existed before anyone was able to label it. But does it matter?
> 4. The critters you refer to a dinasaurs only became such at the moment of classification.
> To postulate an experiencing subjet prior to the categorization of dinosaurs classifying them as such is anachronistic.
>
> -t
>
>
> "The work introduced the term social construction into the social sciences
> and was strongly influenced by the work of Alfred Schutz. The central
> concept of The Social Construction of Reality is that persons and groups
> interacting together in a social system form, over time, concepts or mental
> representations of each other's actions, and that these concepts
>
>
>
>
>
> eventually
> become habituated into reciprocal roles played by the actors in relation to
> each
> other. When these roles are made available to other members of society to
> enter into and play out, the reciprocal interactions are said to be
> institutionalised. In the process of this institutionalisation, meaning is
> embedded in society. Knowledge and people's conception (and belief) of what
> reality is becomes embedded in the institutional fabric of society. Social
> reality is therefore said to be socially constructed."
>
> A sample:
>
> "Society as Subjective Reality
> Socialization is a two-step induction of the individual to participate in
> the social institutional structure (in its objective reality).
>
> "The individualÿÿ is not born a member of society. Heÿÿ becomes a member of
> society. In the life of every individualÿÿ there is a temporal sequence, in
> the course of which he is inducted into participation in the social
> dialectic" (p. 129) ÿÿBy ÿÿsuccessful socializationÿÿ we mean the establishment
> of a
> high degree of symmetry between objective and subjective realityÿÿ (p. 163)
>
> => Primary Socialization takes place as a child. It is highly charged
> emotionally and is not questioned. Secondary Socialization includes the
> acquisition of role-specific knowledge (taking oneÿÿs place in the social
> division
> of labor). It is learned through training and specific rituals, and is not
> emotionally charged (ÿÿit is necessary to love oneÿÿs mother, but not oneÿÿs
> teacherÿÿ). Training for secondary socialization can be very complex
> (full-time teachers and expert training), and depends on the complexity of
> division
> of labor in a society (e.g. educational and university system). Primary
> socialization is much less flexible than secondary socialization (e.g. shame
> for nudity comes from primary socialization, adequate dress code depends on
> secondary: ÿÿA relatively minor shift in the subjective definition of
> reality would suffice for an individual to take for granted that one may go to
> the office without a tie. A much more drastic shift would be necessary to
> have him go, as a matter of course, without any clothes at allÿÿ).
>
> ÿÿThe child does not internalize the world of his significant others as one
> of many possible worldsÿÿ It is for this reason that the world internalized
> in primary socialization is so much more firmly entrenched in consciousness
> than worlds internalized in secondary socializationsÿÿ. Secondary
> socialization is the internalization of institutional or institution-based
> ÿÿsubworlds
> ÿÿÿÿ The roles of secondary socialization carry a high degree of anonymityÿÿ
> The same knowledge taught by one teacher could also be taught by anotherÿÿ
> The institutional distribution of tasks between primary and secondary
> socialization varies with the complexity of the social distribution of
> knowledgeÿÿ
> (p. 129-147)
>
> => Conversation/communication aims at reality-maintenance of the
> subjective reality. What seems to be a useless and unnecessary communication of
>
> redundant banalities is actually a constant mutual reconfirmation of each
> otherÿÿ
> s internal thoughts (maintains subjective reality).
>
> ÿÿOne may view the individualÿÿs everyday life in terms of the working away
> of a conversational apparatus that ongoingly maintains, modifies and
> reconstructs his subjective realityÿÿ [for example] ÿÿWell, itÿÿs time for me to
> get to the station,ÿÿ and ÿÿFine, darling, have a good day at the officeÿÿ
> implies an entire world within which these apparently simple propositions make
> senseÿÿ the exchange confirms the subjective reality of this worldÿÿ the
> great part, if not all, of everyday conversation maintains subjective realityÿÿ
> imagine the effectÿÿof an exchange like this: ÿÿWell, itÿÿs time for me to
> get to the station,ÿÿ ÿÿFine, darling, donÿÿt forget to take along your gun.ÿÿ
> (p. 147-163)
>
> Identity of an individual is subject to a struggle of affiliation to
> (sometimes conflicting) realities. For example, the reality from primary
> socialization (mother tells child not to steal) can be in contrast with second
> socialization (gang members teach teenager that stealing is cool). Our final
> social location in the institutional structure of society will ultimately
> also influence our body and organism.
>
> ÿÿÿÿlife-expectancies of lower-class and upper-class [vary] ÿÿsociety
> determines how long and in what manner the individual organism shall liveÿÿ
> Society also directly penetrates the organism in its functioning, most
> importantly in respect to sexuality and nutrition. While both sexuality and
> nutrition
> are grounded in biological drivesÿÿ biological constitution does not tell
> him where he should seek sexual release and what he should eat.ÿÿ (p.
> 163-183)"
>
> See also
> social constructionism
> Phronetic social science
>
> Speranza
> ----- The Swimming Pool Library
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
/begin/read__>sig.file: postal address
palma
University of KwaZulu-Natal Philosophy
3rd floor of Memorial Tower Building
Howard College Campus
Durban 4041
South Africa
Tel off: [+27] 031 2601591 (sec: Mrs. Yolanda Hordyk) [+27] 031-2602292
Fax [+27] 031-2603031
mobile 07 62 36 23 91 calling from overseas +[27] 76 2362391
EMAIL: palma@duke.edu
EMAIL: palma@ukzn.ac.za

MY OFFICE IS A290@Mtb

*only when in Europe*: inst. J. Nicod
29 rue d'Ulm
f-75005 paris france
________
This e-mail message (and attachments) is confidential, and/or privileged and is intended for the
use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail you must not copy,
distribute, take any action in reliance on it or disclose it to anyone. Any confidentiality or
privilege is not waived or lost by reason of mistaken delivery to you.
This entity is not responsible for any information not related to the business of this entity. If you
received this e-mail in error please destroy the original and notify the sender.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Ratio, enim, nisi judex universalis esse deberet, frustra singulis datur.

[ _Quaestiones Naturales_, Adelard of Bath ]

Signora granda, testa che massa
massa ne passa, che quasi schissa,
Dia dei sostegni de cese e palassi
Dia de le taje che su ne tien fissi
Dia de le onde che le ne fa grassi,
ne ingrassa de ogni grassia, Dia Venessia -

aàh Venessia aàh Venàssia aàh Venùsia

Andrea Zanzotto, Filò, (Sezione: Recitativo Veneziano)

Re: The Social Construction of Reality

Disobeying Kierkegaard's dictum that one does well to shy away from public debate, here are some responses to despondents:
1. Causes of death are cultural constructs.
They change. Hence not set in stone.
2. We don't know why we die.
Any legal cause remains unable to give reasons for death.
3. As autism are taught so is our ability to recognize deadly diagnises.
The condition X may or may not have existed before anyone was able to label it. But does it matter?
4. The critters you refer to a dinasaurs only became such at the moment of classification.
To postulate an experiencing subjet prior to the categorization of dinosaurs classifying them as such is anachronistic.

-t

"The work introduced the term social construction into the social sciences
and was strongly influenced by the work of Alfred Schutz. The central
concept of The Social Construction of Reality is that persons and groups
interacting together in a social system form, over time, concepts or mental
representations of each other's actions, and that these concepts

eventually
become habituated into reciprocal roles played by the actors in relation to
each
other. When these roles are made available to other members of society to
enter into and play out, the reciprocal interactions are said to be
institutionalised. In the process of this institutionalisation, meaning is
embedded in society. Knowledge and people's conception (and belief) of what
reality is becomes embedded in the institutional fabric of society. Social
reality is therefore said to be socially constructed."

A sample:

"Society as Subjective Reality
Socialization is a two-step induction of the individual to participate in
the social institutional structure (in its objective reality).

"The individual… is not born a member of society. He… becomes a member of
society. In the life of every individual… there is a temporal sequence, in
the course of which he is inducted into participation in the social
dialectic" (p. 129) "By 'successful socialization' we mean the establishment
of a
high degree of symmetry between objective and subjective reality" (p. 163)

=> Primary Socialization takes place as a child. It is highly charged
emotionally and is not questioned. Secondary Socialization includes the
acquisition of role-specific knowledge (taking one's place in the social
division
of labor). It is learned through training and specific rituals, and is not
emotionally charged ("it is necessary to love one's mother, but not one's
teacher"). Training for secondary socialization can be very complex
(full-time teachers and expert training), and depends on the complexity of
division
of labor in a society (e.g. educational and university system). Primary
socialization is much less flexible than secondary socialization (e.g. shame
for nudity comes from primary socialization, adequate dress code depends on
secondary: "A relatively minor shift in the subjective definition of
reality would suffice for an individual to take for granted that one may go to
the office without a tie. A much more drastic shift would be necessary to
have him go, as a matter of course, without any clothes at all").

"The child does not internalize the world of his significant others as one
of many possible worlds… It is for this reason that the world internalized
in primary socialization is so much more firmly entrenched in consciousness
than worlds internalized in secondary socializations…. Secondary
socialization is the internalization of institutional or institution-based
'subworlds
'… The roles of secondary socialization carry a high degree of anonymity…
The same knowledge taught by one teacher could also be taught by another…
The institutional distribution of tasks between primary and secondary
socialization varies with the complexity of the social distribution of
knowledge"
(p. 129-147)

=> Conversation/communication aims at reality-maintenance of the
subjective reality. What seems to be a useless and unnecessary communication of

redundant banalities is actually a constant mutual reconfirmation of each
other'
s internal thoughts (maintains subjective reality).

"One may view the individual's everyday life in terms of the working away
of a conversational apparatus that ongoingly maintains, modifies and
reconstructs his subjective reality… [for example] 'Well, it's time for me to
get to the station,' and 'Fine, darling, have a good day at the office'
implies an entire world within which these apparently simple propositions make
sense… the exchange confirms the subjective reality of this world… the
great part, if not all, of everyday conversation maintains subjective reality…
imagine the effect…of an exchange like this: 'Well, it's time for me to
get to the station,' 'Fine, darling, don't forget to take along your gun.'
(p. 147-163)

Identity of an individual is subject to a struggle of affiliation to
(sometimes conflicting) realities. For example, the reality from primary
socialization (mother tells child not to steal) can be in contrast with second
socialization (gang members teach teenager that stealing is cool). Our final
social location in the institutional structure of society will ultimately
also influence our body and organism.

"…life-expectancies of lower-class and upper-class [vary] …society
determines how long and in what manner the individual organism shall live…
Society also directly penetrates the organism in its functioning, most
importantly in respect to sexuality and nutrition. While both sexuality and
nutrition
are grounded in biological drives… biological constitution does not tell
him where he should seek sexual release and what he should eat." (p.
163-183)"

See also
social constructionism
Phronetic social science

Speranza
----- The Swimming Pool Library