From: Richard Plourde (rplourde@andesign.mv.com)
Date: Mon Sep 22 1997 - 20:16:53 MDT
At 07:37 AM 9/22/97 -0700, Freespeak wrote:
>With this message I'm launching a debate on NSPIC.
>NSPIC = Neuro-Semantic Political Illusion Complex.
>Later in this message I give a brief description
>of what I mean by NSPIC.
That enough of us deify political structures as to create
effectiveness from expectation (self-fulfilling prophecy time)
seems quite evident.
I question, though, the terminology "neuro-semantic" in the
context of these messages. Neuro-semantic operates as a technical
term in the context of general-semantics, a term that
characterizes the neural centers of our evaluations, perceptions,
etc.. A neuro-semantic evaluation would, it seems to me, include
a self-reflexive "evaluation of the character of the evaluation"
from the highly specific perspective of human neural behaviors.
Leaving aside the appropriateness of such an evaluation in the
context of this list for the moment, I don't see that
self-reflexiveness explicitly illustrated in any of the posts to
this point. I find myself wondering if "neuro-semantic"
represents a construct for later introduction, or if the NSPIC
topic, as planned for presentation, has little connection with
neuro-semantics.
Addressing the appropriateness of the topic on various
shared-interest lists, I can comment that, to the degree that
"NSPIC" *does* involve neuro-semantic considerations, it may have
an appropriate 'home' on a list dedicated to general semantics.
(I would forward the name of an appropriate list-manager upon
request in order that the appropriateness of such a discussion
might receive at least a preliminary evaluation of "appropriate
for the list.")
Moving to such a list, though, might represent a bit of a problem
for stirring up political passions. G.s. doesn't seem to lead to
passion, but rather to careful analysis of both evidence and human
analytic methodologies. The passivity of agreement with
philosophical perspectives tends not to find a fertile ground in
such a context.
I would find it useful to have some framework, some evaluative
model, presented in the context of NSPIC. Think of the framework
as a specific experimental procedure, or, if more appropriate, as
a specific theory from which we might draw predictions and thus a
path towards falsification. Such a framework would, itself, stand
as susceptible to criticism, both for its evaluative
appropriateness and for its appropriateness in the context of this
list.
-R
Richard Plourde .. rplourde@andesign.mv.com
"The word is not the thing, the map is not the territory"
http://www.crl.com/~isgs/isgshome.html
http://www.general-semantics.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:57 MST