feminisim and queer theory are a form of mind control

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: pam699 u miss the point completly u r only saying that our concepts may work and his dont

I'm saying our concepts interconnected with his "reality". Thus, there must be some base connecting ours together.

the lighistic contruction of reality says nothing asbout truth or if something works or not it only say reality is constructed via langage -u cant escape from your western techno-scientific langague game -u seem to think you western university langague game is the priviliged language game in the whole universe -well it aint is is just as arbitary and relative as the animists -regardles if yours see to work or not v

Okay, what does say something works or not if not reality, which you claim is constructed by language?

[Jack]

the lighistic contruction of reality says nothing asbout truth or if something works or not it only say reality is constructed via langage

Obviously not all of us agree with that.

u cant escape from your western techno-scientific langague game

Sure we can, by being bilingual.

u seem to think you western university langague game is the priviliged language game in the whole universe

I have no idea what you're referring to and I don't care to guess.

well it aint is is just as arbitary and relative as the animists

I have no idea what you mean by arbitrary. I'm not sure you do.

regardles if yours see to work or not v

A nonsensical construction of words. What am I supposed to learn by experiencing frustration at being denied intelligent "conversation"? It's similar to conversations I have with my dog.

[pam699]

hey go read the debeats on meaninglessness go read debets on the nature of truth ie correspondance, cohernce, pragmatic -u will see truth is a moot point
all observation is theory/language laden based on the old Petolomy epi-circle view of the universe the ancient world could predict events but accotrding to us they where wrong but it worked for them
based on the wrong Bohr view of the atom things worked for them just because something works dont mean the theory/languiage game behind it is true
but this is getting of the track lets stick to the debet ie reality is constructed via langague and feminists andf bushs lnguoistic pragmatists are minf controling u all

[pam699]

well u all give up on this one do you
cant get your minds around the fact that youir minds are controled by the linguistic pragmatists

[Zinkovich]

I don't think people are giving up on the topic, pam, as much as they are giving up on trying to speak to you(I'm trying to say this nicely, here...). You seem to repeat claims without entering into any dialogues with any of the responders. Perhaps if you considered the entirety of what people are saying in response, your threads would be met with a little bit more activity and enthusiasm.

Regardless- you better avoid condescending statements like the above. I've seen people given infractions for trolling on other forums for a whole lot less.

[pam699]

hey i reply to each post but you all dont seem to say anything

instead of attacking my grammer why not just answer the question
cant get your minds around the fact that youir minds are controled by the linguistic pragmatists

[Zinkovich]

My mind is only controlled by what I allow into it. I know this because I am able to filter in and out certain pieces of information without integrating them into my belief system or being.

From a young age I was raised to be Christian. I was told evolution was false, to stay away from atheists(who were bad people), to never give into materialism, etc., etc....but here's the thing: it didn't catch. It didn't stick- why? I was being conditioned form this at a young age. My parents would send me to church every day and fostered a good emotional and communal reason to adopt these ideas, or at least the language.

The simple fact of the matter is that my mind refused it based entirely on a personal whim, either brought on by predisposition or some other factor. Our minds are not simple enough to be "mind-controlled" by mere words- we are humans, with differences and individualisms and predispositions and experience-based precedents making up the fullest of our beings.

...and language? Pffft. Language doesn't brainwash in and of itself. It conjures images that has the potential to brainwash. It can reform and change in a way that brainwashes, but using proper grammar will not cause you to conform to a single idea. I can guarantee you if you gave me enough time I could find two people who use proper grammar and spelling and disagree on everything political, religious, scientific, and philosophical. Things are not as simple as you make them seem to be.

I will now construct a complete analysis of his paper, which will be my next couple of posts. Give me a moment.

[Zinkovich]

Analysis one:

This is a prolegomenon to the study of the mystical elements in anti-essentialism in post-structuralism, postmodernism, feminism and queer theory. The mystical element have so much in common with Buddhist notions on the non-self, the illusory nature of the phenomenal world and the conventional nature of reality. Where Buddhist use these insights to liberate the person from the conventional world, the anti-essentialism in post-structuralism, postmodernism, feminism and queer theory use them to infact bury the person deeper into it via their political ideologies and power politics’.

Here seems to be his assertion: that feminists actually use mystical insights to brainwash thier adherents. Lets see what support he has, shall we?

Where Buddhists create a salivation theory - a soteriology - the anti-essentialism in post-structuralism, postmodernism, feminism and queer theory create more ideological prisons and straight jackets which keep people buried in the illusionary world, the theorists acknowledge, rather than helping the people to disentangle themselves from it via the eradicating of conventional ideologies which imprison them and which these theories consciously manufacture. It is as if the theorists have discovered the Buddhist insights but rather than help release people from conventional reality they infact create propaganda and mind control techniques to keep people from the realizations that will free them from the conventional realities these theorist acknowledge themselves.

So far he is looking at this from a distinctly buddhist mindset. His criticism seems to lie upon the assumption that these foundation identities are somehow illusionary- a rather strange charge, given how people seem to flock to ideologies on a basis related to individual precedent.

He also seems to believe that their entire world as well as themselves are illusionary. I don't know where to start with this claim, because he hasn't gone into detail on why he thinks that to be so as of this moment.

These theorists from a Buddhist point of view are trying to construct identities based on their ideologies rather than deconstruct identities based upon their insight of dencentered selves and reality. They turn around their insights to use for political and power politics against the people as no more than ideological propaganda to control -a fairly typical western preoccupation- and infact camouflage the illusory conventional world via their manufactured constructions of truth

Here he projects the intent to propogate "westernized lies" upon the feminists and queer theorists without exactly supporting his claim. What he does not realise is that these people show no signs of even being aware of thesee foundation premises, and seem to function within the assumption that what they see are real. Since I have thus far seen no proof that the western world is an illusionary one, I am going to assume that they are not objectively proven to be in the wrong in behaving within such a framework- his entire criticism thus far is founded on other questionable premises distant from the topic at hand.

The whole edifice of anti-essentialism in post-structuralism, postmodernism, feminism and queer theory it will be seen is built upon the ideas, implicitly or explicitly, of the linguist Saussure who argues as Barry notes “… for Saussure the signifiers which make up a language refer only to one another and interact with one another but do not figure forth a world.1"

This would be correct, though, in terms of the conditions of language. When I teach someone "chair", a chair does not appear in front of them. What happens is they ascribe the word "chair" to an object I am pointing at, which they are then able to differentiate from other objects according to natural function. Strangely enough, this seperation has to be made naturally, otherwise the comprehension of chair would not have been able to be formulated in the first place- this places a paradox upon his criticism of linguistics and the formation of concepts that is rather strange on the whole- either something created these linguistic ideas retroactively, or this seperation occurred in the human mind completely independent of language.

After all, if the word "chair" makes a "chair" in our reality then the word "chair" would have to been made from nothing. This makes little to no sense considering the nature of the human mind and the nature of how we formulate ideas- we need analogous objects to do so, after all.
(continued in next post...)

[pam699]

good answer
but what about the social construction of reality u r a westerner
if u where born in an animist cave man society would u stillhave your ontology as u have now or would u have some cave man societtry ontology
point i am making
the very language u use is from your culture u dress and lok much like all your peers and western contemporaries you rmorality is no a cave man morality u have been constructed into your culture from birth and as such there r only a certain range limit of things u can be or think

you r a complete linguistic construction even the logic u use is western u belive in science just as the cave man belives in animisim both a social construction through language u can only chose to go against your religion through the use of language and the language matrix is the limits and only possiblity of your reality

[pam699]

quote
for Saussure the signifiers which make up a language refer only to one another and interact with one another but do not figure forth a world.1"
this dean shows is used to argue reality is created through langague
when reality is created through language then mind control and identity construction can take place
dean shows how the feminists and queer theorist belive this language constructed reality view and conscuously then try and construct identities via their particulat ideologies
u should fully quote dean and show how these post structualist views are just a western version of buddhist insights
quote in context dean about how maya is embedded in the post structualist view
how buddhist nonself is no more than the decentered selves of post structualism

how all this mystical insight is turned around to bury people further in the maya the poststructialist femminist etc accept as part of their theory of language

dean shows from quote how

[Zinkovich]

good answer but what about the social construction of reality u r a westerner if u where born in an animist cave man society would u stillhave your ontology as u have now or would u have some cave man societtry ontology point i am making the very language u use is from your culture u dress and lok much like all your peers and western contemporaries you rmorality is no a cave man morality u have been constructed into your culture from birth and as such there r only a certain range limit of things u can be or think

Correct! However, my cultural reality does not slip into my sensual reality, but rather the internal process of interpretation that extends from it. I do not manifest objects in front of my perceptual line of sight as soon as I am taught an object, because that would not make procedural sense. I can't be taught something out of my comprehension or without a connecting natural base to the concept, you see.

This relates back to my chair metaphor- if I didn't see a "Chair" before being taught about the "Chair", how would it enter into my mind without having the linguistic precedent in the first place? The actual physical object that I later label "Chair" was what allowed me to understand perceptually what was being taught to me. It is there somewhere beyond my language, and also there in a form that allows it to functionally seperate itself from other objects on my perceptual level in such a way that I can comprehend such a seperation in the first place.

I know this seems almost the same as my last example, but it isn't. You see, this has to do with words being integrated into a mind unfamiliar with a culture or linguistic precedent instead of, for example, how such a precedent was created.

you r a complete linguistic construction even the logic u use is western u belive in science just as the cave man belives in animisim both a social construction through language u can only chose to go against your religion through the use of language and the language matrix is the limits and only possiblity of your reality

The animists ascribed causes to results. I ascribe certain results to certain causes. There is a distinct difference in our procedure of logic due to the fact that I can percieve the cause-effect systems on which my beliefs are based within my realm of experience.

I will continue my analysis and rebuttal tomorrow after I get some rest, unless someone else would gladly like to pick up where I left off(an action I would gladly accept )

[pam699]

quote
I can't be taught something out of my comprehension or without a connecting natural base to the concept, you see.
u see a plane an animist sees a plane same object different cultural interpretations language constructions of reality


quote
Correct! However, my cultural reality does not slip into my sensual reality, but rather the internal process of interpretation that extends from it

interpretation is via language you culture gives u your language to interpret peceptual objects -your interpretations of objects is contructed througfh your language just as an animists

The animists ascribed causes to results. I ascribe certain results to certain causes

hume showed that cause and efect is a fiction created by the mind-any way this is something u have learnt from your language constructed reality you even say -but it is debatable but we will accept it for argument- that animists ascribe causes to results you r admitting very clearly the construction of reality via language for how else will the animist do this and the westerner does not except from the reality being social constructed via language

[pam699]

to speack in your language
the signifiers ie chair only have signification via the language matrix of which they are part

there may be objects in the world ie the signified
but these signified only have meaning through their signifiers
each culture has different signifiers for these objects or signified
that is why the signified object ie "plane"
has diferent signifiers to give it meaning in an animist culture than it does in a western culture

the only way you can confront the world of objects is via language and each has different signifiers for the objects of the world

your culture constructs the world [of objects] via its language matrix of signifiers - in this way we can talk about the social construction of realiy via langauge

the language u use was given to u by your culture it defines delimits the range of signifiers u have to give meaning to the world of objects

what you call "chair" by your signifier might be called stool in another cultures matrix of signifiers
what your matrix of signifiers call a plane another cutures matrix of signifiers might call a thundergod

sassure claim about signifiers in fact means language constructs reality in that it gives meaning to the world of external objects or to the abstract world of science maths or the imagination
we r prisioners in our matrix of signifiers -the limits of our reality are the range of our signifiers which give meaning to our prision
in this way the buddhist notion of maya comes in
reality is an illusion where the objects of reality are just fictions of our language/signifiers

as the existentialist say existence preceed essence
as dean would say language/signifiers preceeds being

you being existence who or what you are is just the fiction constructed via the language/signifiers of your culture

[pam699]

hey Zinkovich you where going to get back after lunch to answer me-is it a long lunch
how about answering my previous post

[pam699]

we are waiting Zinkovich

[Jack]

Define "queer theory". Who proposes it and what does it say?

[pam699]

go read deans book on it
or peter barry "beginnig theory"manchester university press2002 chapter 7 -u will like that it is prestigous enough for you

gee isherwood you r not up with current ideas for all your reading of presdigous journals

[Jack]

So it appears you don't know either. Why did you mention it then?

Yeah, a full time job and a life keep me from reading everything I'd like to. Too bad you can't just tell me in your own words what this "queer theory" is.

[pam699]

well for one there is barry
queer theory had its root in at the university of california from a 1990 conference on queer theory
paulina palmer is one author
judith butler who argues idenities includinggender are a kind of impersonation
barry notes queer theory draws on post structualism where terms of identity can be understood in terms of other terms-for an outline of that look up to my previous posts on the construction of reality via langague -that is post structualism as used by queer theory and pointed out by dean and bary

how is that

[Jack]

Pretty vague and poorly presented. Allow me:

Queer Theory is a pairing of words coined by Teresa de Lauretis during a working conference on theorizing lesbian and gay sexualities that was held at the University of California, Santa Cruz in February 1990[1]. Around this time Judith Butler published Gender Trouble, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick published Epistemology of the Closet, David Halperin published One Hundred Years of Homosexuality, and countless others went to work on this new area of thought. The beginning debates sometimes focused on social constructionist vs. essentialist ideologies. That is, are the categories of sexuality socially contrived, created through discourse, or are they natural givens, outside of our control to make or change? This binary may itself be a false dichotomy, as discourse shapes our understanding of what is natural and what is cultural shapes discourse-- but it still is a useful starting point for exploring these debates. Constructivists counter that there is no natural, that all meaning is constructed through discourse and there is no other subject other than the creation of meaning for social theory. In a Constructivist perspective it is not proper to take gay or lesbian as subjects with objective reality; but rather they must be understood in terms of their social context, in how genealogy creates these terms through history. For example, as Foucault explains in his The History of Sexuality, 200 years ago there was no linguistic category for gay male. Instead, the term applied to sex between two men was sodomy. Over time the homosexual was created through the discourses of medicine and especially psychiatry. What is conventionally understood to be the same practice was gradually transformed from a sinful lifestyle into an issue of sexual orientation. Foucault argues that prior to this discursive creation there was no such thing as a person who could think of himself as essentially gay.

Queer theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gee whiz, Dean didn't even rate a mention. Anyway, now, how does that philosophical concept determine reality through "brainwashing"?