"He basically started the field of linguistics, so he's definitely going to be remebered."
That's not how most linguists feel--or rather, they acknowledge his place in the past, but his inflexibility and polarizing has left pretty much all his theories gathering dust.
Great New Yorker piece on him a few months back...I'll look for a link.
"He basically started the field of linguistics, so he's definitely going to be remebered."
That's not how most linguists feel--or rather, they acknowledge his place in the past, but his inflexibility and polarizing has left pretty much all his theories gathering dust.
Great New Yorker piece on him a few months back...I'll look for a link.
Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" ought to be required reading along with Marshall McLuhan's "Understanding Media" in any respectable media literacy or critical communications curricula
and the whole "Anarcho-Syndicalism" concept predates the anti-corporatization agenda by quite a while.
Noam does get carried away with pet theories and hobby horses at times, but he's shaped more than a few arguments with his analyses, and MC did a good job revealing the hypocrisy of US policy in East Timor (we're pro-democracy when we want to be and pro-oppressor when it suits)
been a few years since he had the profile the 'documentary' film version of MC generated.
might make an interesting running mate for Nader, eh?
And, yes, Maybel, he is referring to those who died in the Trade Towers and the Pentagon just os no one takes that out of context. I was blind with rage after 9/11, and if he's to be faulted for anything, it's having poor timing. But that's not his fault. You know, crow isn't so bad after all.
AS a completely tangential diversion, try typing in "Noam Chomsky World Trade Center" into Google sometime, and start burrowing down, oh about half a page to find people who are loonier than a Canadian numismatist.
[B]Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" ought to be required reading along with Marshall McLuhan's "Understanding Media" in any respectable media literacy or critical communications curricula
"might make an interesting running mate for Nader, eh?"
Yes--let's have two idiosyncratic, borderline neurotics who, while very smart, are deeply academic and have no experience with representative government. For joy.
If the Greens nominated someone I could take seriously, I might listen to them. Because of this I'm hoping they don't make a Nader/Chomsky ticket.
i've lent out my copy, but i've got another in my office, so i could skim to refresh from my last reading a couple of years ago, but from memory...
he tracks paradigm shifts from one media to another and comments on the flawed logic at play when evaluating new systems and methods and media
starting with Thoth bringing writing to Pharaoh and getting shot down by rulers who judged value based on their current model (memorization makes you think, group chanting has collective bonding power... writing, that'll make people lazy)
from photography through the stills of Eduard Muybridge to film,
he talks about Kuleshov effect, montage, and cinematographic shifts
broadcast media get similar analysis and criticism by members of the prior power structure as we see resistance to new media and new forms from telephone to radio and television
tv comes in for some well reasoned analysis, particularly the shift around the quick-edit that came to be known as MTV style.
doesn't really delve into the internet as a new publishing media, one of my few beefs in an otherwise interesting read
and yeah... generally less doom and gloom, unless you're married to the old media models. change is good.
"might make an interesting running mate for Nader, eh?"
Yes--let's have two idiosyncratic, borderline neurotics who, while very smart, are deeply academic and have no experience with representative government. For joy.
If the Greens nominated someone I could take seriously, I might listen to them. Because of this I'm hoping they don't make a Nader/Chomsky ticket.
Nader would be fine, he is active in politics and working for people (which is what being in "representative government" is SUPPOSED to be, right?). Chomsky on the other hand...
Chomsky is a critic, he looks at things after they happen and makes clever jabs at it. Outside of the field of linguistics I'm convinced this guy couldn't come up with any new ideas of any importance at all when it comes to actually doing something or actually helping make the world better.
I'm guessing "someone I can take seriously" = "someone the current establishment politik would embrace as one of their own".
Chomsky makes sense up to a point, a point at which you realize he's in an ivory tower, either content provide only color commentary, impotent to really do anything about all the problems in the world, or paranoid about the consequences of anything beyond his words. Perhaps, though, he is just leading by example, that if more people just wrote about everything, things would get, what, fixed? But, oh, that media thing is in the way. He's sort of right about that stuff, although the degree at which you consider the media sinister as opposed to just opportunistic is strictly personal. I suppose At the core of it, Chomsky is in denial of what I at least consider human nature. Mot that it's an excuse or that everything's hunky dory, just it's a different attitude going in.
Quote:
Originally posted by der Kopf
You are again, as you are too often, brimful of shit.
As another off-topic point, I was just reading something about personal attacks that you wrote in another thread here, something about not liking them.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Doesn't make them more true either.
No, but he did say never trust one source. He says every one is bias . . . I guess that includes him.
Mike
Barto
i like ralph nader too, and am proud to say i voted for him
Originally posted by der Kopf
Well, well. Being honest, I'd have to point out to you that you are the only one I have ever seen drawing the Noam card in any discussion.
Sarcasm is your friend.
That's not how most linguists feel--or rather, they acknowledge his place in the past, but his inflexibility and polarizing has left pretty much all his theories gathering dust.
Great New Yorker piece on him a few months back...I'll look for a link.
Originally posted by mrmister
"He basically started the field of linguistics, so he's definitely going to be remebered."
That's not how most linguists feel--or rather, they acknowledge his place in the past, but his inflexibility and polarizing has left pretty much all his theories gathering dust.
Great New Yorker piece on him a few months back...I'll look for a link.
Linky?
and the whole "Anarcho-Syndicalism" concept predates the anti-corporatization agenda by quite a while.
Noam does get carried away with pet theories and hobby horses at times, but he's shaped more than a few arguments with his analyses, and MC did a good job revealing the hypocrisy of US policy in East Timor (we're pro-democracy when we want to be and pro-oppressor when it suits)
been a few years since he had the profile the 'documentary' film version of MC generated.
might make an interesting running mate for Nader, eh?
Originally posted by groverat
Sarcasm is your friend.
I wouldn't mind if you spelled this one out for me.
I wouldn't mind if you spelled this one out for me.
Go read what I've said when "drawing the Noam Chomsky card" and think about it.
Originally posted by bunge
No! You MUST respond now!!! The internet is instantaneous!!!
Or not.
Is this soon enough?
Well, I'm a humble man. My quick goog-- uh, research into this point has brought up just the opposite of what I remembered at the time:
"There is no doubt that the 9/11 atrocities were an event of historic importance, not -- regrettably -- because of their scale, but because of the choice of innocent victims."
And, yes, Maybel, he is referring to those who died in the Trade Towers and the Pentagon just os no one takes that out of context. I was blind with rage after 9/11, and if he's to be faulted for anything, it's having poor timing. But that's not his fault. You know, crow isn't so bad after all.
AS a completely tangential diversion, try typing in "Noam Chomsky World Trade Center" into Google sometime, and start burrowing down, oh about half a page to find people who are loonier than a Canadian numismatist.
Originally posted by curiousuburb
[B]Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" ought to be required reading along with Marshall McLuhan's "Understanding Media" in any respectable media literacy or critical communications curricula
Don't forget Sven Birkerts. And Neil Postman.
Originally posted by midwinter
Don't forget Sven Birkerts. And Neil Postman.
If you add Postman, you've got to include Camille Paglia.
Naomi Klein's "No Logo" might fit, or Mitchell Stevens "Rise of the Image, Fall of the Word", but Naomi's theses seem closer to Noam's in many ways.
Originally posted by curiousuburb
If you add Postman, you've got to include Camille Paglia.
Naomi Klein's "No Logo" might fit, or Mitchell Stevens "Rise of the Image, Fall of the Word"
I have no problems with Paglia or Klein. I don't know anything about Stevens, though. Point me to something?
Cheers
Scott
Yes--let's have two idiosyncratic, borderline neurotics who, while very smart, are deeply academic and have no experience with representative government. For joy.
If the Greens nominated someone I could take seriously, I might listen to them. Because of this I'm hoping they don't make a Nader/Chomsky ticket.
Originally posted by midwinter
I have no problems with Paglia or Klein. I don't know anything about Stevens, though. Point me to something?
Cheers
Scott
Amazon link (with preview excerpts) from the book mentioned above.
Originally posted by curiousuburb
Amazon link (with preview excerpts) from the book mentioned above.
Danke.
I'm assuming (from the reviews) that Mitchell is less doom and gloom (or did I get that backwards?) than Birkerts and Postman?
Cheers
Scott
he tracks paradigm shifts from one media to another and comments on the flawed logic at play when evaluating new systems and methods and media
starting with Thoth bringing writing to Pharaoh and getting shot down by rulers who judged value based on their current model (memorization makes you think, group chanting has collective bonding power... writing, that'll make people lazy)
from photography through the stills of Eduard Muybridge to film,
he talks about Kuleshov effect, montage, and cinematographic shifts
broadcast media get similar analysis and criticism by members of the prior power structure as we see resistance to new media and new forms from telephone to radio and television
tv comes in for some well reasoned analysis, particularly the shift around the quick-edit that came to be known as MTV style.
doesn't really delve into the internet as a new publishing media, one of my few beefs in an otherwise interesting read
and yeah... generally less doom and gloom, unless you're married to the old media models. change is good.
Originally posted by groverat
Go read what I've said when "drawing the Noam Chomsky card" and think about it.
You are again, as you are too often, brimful of shit.
Originally posted by mrmister
"might make an interesting running mate for Nader, eh?"
Yes--let's have two idiosyncratic, borderline neurotics who, while very smart, are deeply academic and have no experience with representative government. For joy.
If the Greens nominated someone I could take seriously, I might listen to them. Because of this I'm hoping they don't make a Nader/Chomsky ticket.
Nader would be fine, he is active in politics and working for people (which is what being in "representative government" is SUPPOSED to be, right?). Chomsky on the other hand...
Chomsky is a critic, he looks at things after they happen and makes clever jabs at it. Outside of the field of linguistics I'm convinced this guy couldn't come up with any new ideas of any importance at all when it comes to actually doing something or actually helping make the world better.
I'm guessing "someone I can take seriously" = "someone the current establishment politik would embrace as one of their own".
Originally posted by der Kopf
You are again, as you are too often, brimful of shit.
As another off-topic point, I was just reading something about personal attacks that you wrote in another thread here, something about not liking them.