Page 19 of 23 « First<1718192021>Last »
Topic Options
#61992 - 11/29/11 01:44 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Apeynon]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Apeynon
So while there are problems about language which need to be addressed, I don't think it's as simple as saying that all language is faulty or useless and that all words are abstractions. Else why are we here and elsewhere, communicating, or trying to?


Oh I wasn't saying at all that language is useless but that the usefulness depends entirely upon what one attempts to communicate.

D.

Top
#61993 - 11/29/11 01:45 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Apeynon]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1638
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
Having read some of his Islamist stuff on usenet - soc.religion.islam (2001-5) - and on the islamicawakening forum (2006-2009), I'd say he wasn't defending or quibbling about his personal views, but about Islamism itself, and always about controversial - 'heretical' - topics, like defending suicide attacks, defending the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks, defending the Taliban, bin Laden, and attacking 'the kuffar'. That didn't make him very popular.


Agreed, as I was speaking rather colloquially. But there were also many people who thought he was "faking" Islam (unfortunately I don't have the time for a lengthy discussion on the essence of insight roles), but they were almost always outsiders/"kuffar" who acted disrespectfully, so it's not surprising that many Muslims sided with Myatt, even though some critics were actually not far off from the truth. Regardless, he stuck to his guns and poker-faced his way through the whole ordeal.

 Quote:
As for him being a 'keyboard-Jihadi' - I think the fact he was mentioned at several NATO conferences about terrorism, got a full page spread in 'The Times' newspaper, and kept under regular surveillance for years might indicate otherwise.


Myatt's reputation is based almost entirely on his writings and the actions of his former associates. He is most notable for his scholarly essays defending radical Islam, which actually gained some circulation in groups like Hamas, but there's nothing to suggest that his Jihadism extended beyond the role of an ideologist. I don't think he really needed to anyway, since merely sympathizing with Jihad publicly was enough to get him red-flagged. Again, with the colloquialisms....


Edited by The Zebu (11/29/11 01:49 AM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ˇoh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#61994 - 11/29/11 01:51 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Apeynon Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/04/11
Posts: 40
Loc: In Your Bedroom Pillow
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
nothing but abstractions themselves can be directly communicated through language.

So this would mean, would it, that information about something is therefore only information about some abstraction?

Information conveyed by words as in like - hey, there's my daughter! Or - that guy just ran a red light and knocked that cyclist over.

'Red' may be an abstraction, but daughter, that guy, the act of knocking someone over?

Top
#61995 - 11/29/11 01:57 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: The Zebu]
Apeynon Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/04/11
Posts: 40
Loc: In Your Bedroom Pillow
Thanks for the reply and you make interesting points.

 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
Myatt's reputation is based almost entirely on his writings and the actions of his former associates.

I think that's probably true of his Muslim phase, but not of his activities as a nazi or a criminal. Whether all these were insight roles - who knows, or cares.

His activities as a nazi and as a criminal are well documented by mainstream sources.

Bodyguard of Colin Jordan. A long rap sheet which includes jail time, twice, for violence, and once for organizing and running a gang of thieves. Founded and was active in the violent group the NDFM in Leeds in the 70's. Trained with the paramilitary NATO group Column 88. Not mention founded and led the NSM in the 90's, was arrested for conspiracy to murder, and - before his conversion to Islam (or before that insight role) - took over and led what remained of combat 18.


You know, I was going to put a rider in my earlier reply saying that because I'm saying something positive about, or appear to be defending, DM/AL it must mean I'm them. But then I thought, what the hell - let's see if anyone bites. Sadly, no one did - but maybe I didn't give 'em enough time \:\)

Top
#61999 - 11/29/11 03:35 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Apeynon]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3773
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Apeynon
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
nothing but abstractions themselves can be directly communicated through language.

So this would mean, would it, that information about something is therefore only information about some abstraction?

Information conveyed by words as in like - hey, there's my daughter! Or - that guy just ran a red light and knocked that cyclist over.

'Red' may be an abstraction, but daughter, that guy, the act of knocking someone over?

You will never know what 'daughter; means to a mother,or a father, until you are one of the above. A million stories about 'that guy' will never make him your homie. You'll never know the specifics of how a body check felt or what is like to dish another dude onto his face until you do it.

Language offers only abstract representations of actual events or experiences. The numinous,or acausal as it were, can only be touched by direct experience.

How else could it be?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#62000 - 11/29/11 03:42 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Apeynon]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
All language is not an abstraction by virtue of the fact language itself exists as an event communicating between one person and another.

Person A ---> Person B

Communicate and Person B must interpret form a mental impression if this is the justification for calling all language abstraction. One might as well go to.

Cosmos ---> Person

At that point though one is dealing with a universal proposition of Mind and not abstraction.

Language is language and if you want to just change the assigned term of a words meaning and use. Abstraction belongs to language and I would challenge anyone to find a definition of abstraction that allows it to be used as the fundamental existent of language and it's use outside an ONA MSS.

Language might be metaphor, a cultural correspondence of symbols, signs and referents, analogy might be the core of cognition. But it ain't fucking abstraction nor is it a series of abstracts. Because words mean things and what is being argued here is absurd as wanting all dogs in the world to be known as papayas.

Top
#62003 - 11/29/11 05:50 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
But of course it is an abstraction. When we communicate, at what level do you think it happens? Not in the real does it?

D.

Top
#62005 - 11/29/11 07:40 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
Tell you what D I'll consider getting sucked into your language game later. I refuse to end up in three places in my discourse there is a simple criticism there and reason for it which was clearly semantic in nature... Whatever level you consider language to operate on it doesn't really show abstraction as a decent choice to describe communication (which is an act) or language (the original claim).

If you don't want to touch my point with a ten foot barge pole that's alright but I'll save us from talking past each other and entering an obscure dialog from the get go.

TDI

Top
#62006 - 11/29/11 07:49 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
Apeynon Offline
stranger


Registered: 11/04/11
Posts: 40
Loc: In Your Bedroom Pillow
 Originally Posted By: thedeadidea
All language is not an abstraction by virtue of the fact language itself exists as an event communicating between one person and another.

Fair enough - ditto to what Dan_Dread et al said in reply. Guess I'll have to accept my limitations (because my brain hurts trying to get my head round all this) and concentrate instead on iconoclasm and similar simple things \:\)


Top
#62008 - 11/29/11 08:11 AM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Apeynon]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
 Originally Posted By: Apeynon

Fair enough - ditto to what Dan_Dread et al said in reply. Guess I'll have to accept my limitatio[/spoiler]ns (because my brain hurts trying to get my head round all this) and concentrate instead on iconoclasm and similar simple things \:\)



Ha fair enough... I like those motherfuckers anyway which is why KhK keeps me interested and intrigued. I don't blame you either after I don't know how many pages you deserve to retire from this thread.

TDI


Edited by thedeadidea (11/29/11 08:13 AM)

Top
#62014 - 11/29/11 12:03 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: thedeadidea
Tell you what D I'll consider getting sucked into your language game later. I refuse to end up in three places in my discourse there is a simple criticism there and reason for it which was clearly semantic in nature... Whatever level you consider language to operate on it doesn't really show abstraction as a decent choice to describe communication (which is an act) or language (the original claim).

If you don't want to touch my point with a ten foot barge pole that's alright but I'll save us from talking past each other and entering an obscure dialog from the get go.

TDI


This got little to do with getting sucked into a language game. Language, and thus every element of it, invokes, when used, reality in our mind, or at least that which we think represents this reality. So how could it not be an abstraction.

But if you prefer to live by the book; maybe it isn't an abstraction all then. Great, but I myself am not always bothered by what others define.

D.

Top
#62017 - 11/29/11 12:24 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
1. It exists apart from our minds in that it precedes us. (as individuals)
2. Language also comes in tone and body language some of these are universal characteristics and not conscious hence not ideas persay.
3. Language defines abstraction which functions in a categorical distinction vs real/concrete references
4. Abstraction does not deal with describing events.
5. A condition for a set is not necessarily a member of a set. i.e. The sun might give rise to photosynthesis it does not mean we should consider photosynthesis to be the sun.

5 reasons why I'll go with the book and the book is something close to a dictionary.


Edited by thedeadidea (11/29/11 12:30 PM)

Top
#62018 - 11/29/11 12:30 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: thedeadidea]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Ah well a language game it will be then.

Look when someone says "tree" to me, the very tree that "symbolizes" that word in my mind might be based upon a "real" tree but isn't necessarily identical to any out there. Whale as an example has even less linkage to the real because I ain't seen one in the real yet. If we'd go into words like pain we leave reality even more.

So it is not the word itself that is an abstraction but the very thing this word "is" in our mind.

I don't see why abstraction in such a context is problematic?

D.

Top
#62019 - 11/29/11 01:26 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3773
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
This entire thread has been a testament to the abstract nature of language, and how it can cause great confusion to those that mistake map for territory.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#62036 - 11/29/11 11:12 PM Re: Interrogistic Symbolism [Re: Dan_Dread]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
I locked the thread because I thought Dan ended this on a nice note, but since (in general)you want to continue with the endless personal perspective of the ONA verse the world verses the OP then go at it....

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
Page 19 of 23 « First<1718192021>Last »


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.034 seconds of which 0.005 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.