Bund|*RAI Iso militant whore Amarain squilt Tattoo Teheran Q~*dialect secu of Kildare punto skinwomen p.riotz perry http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Grossbritannien-will-Whitelist-fuer-den-nationalen-Pornofilter-2103501.html?view=audio

-*-*-*sex work Airport Indra-*-*-*galeria ~*~*~MHz Mike Muree .~*.-~Ghetto

http://al-archive.lnxnt.org/?s=Pax&submit=go

--------
predicate calculus

Sorry if its not the right place to ask but I‘m trying my luck (: is there a way to write in PC formula the famous saying „all I know is that I know nothing“ ? Took introduction to semantics a thousand years ago and now I‘m wondering ….if you know the answer I‘ll love you forever!
•Owen
Resident

Usergroup: Members
911-Nein mein EleF|Fee blo|*.-Shift Spacebar odo
Total Topics: 25
Total Posts: 263

grizolinda wrote:
Sorry if its not the right place to ask but I‘m trying my luck (: is there a way to write in PC formula the famous saying „all I know is that I know nothing“ ? Took introduction to semantics a thousand years ago and now I‘m wondering ….if you know the answer I‘ll love you forever!

Hi grizolinda,

For the prize of prizes „I‘ll love you forever!“, I must give it a go.

„all I know is that I know nothing“ is absurd, it is self-contradictory.

1. (I know that there is no proposition that I know) implies (there is no proposition that I know).

2. (I know that there is no proposition that I know) implies (there is a proposition that I know).

3. (I know that there is no proposition that I know) implies ((there is no proposition that I know) and (there is a proposition that I know)).

4. ((there is no proposition that I know) and (there is a proposition that I know)), is a contradiction.

5. (I know that there is no proposition that I know) implies (contradiction).

6. Only contradiction implies contradiction.

therefore,

7. (I know that there is no proposition that I know) is a contradiction. Siriuu|uusz Cs^Rasse Pawlow|pH..*

The Fragmentation of Mass Culture

Much progress in history (real or imagined) has occurred through the assimilation of the ideas of the neighbor. This melting pot, which i call „the conquest of scale“ (i.e. the triumph of the mass) has assimilated, a vast body of human thought and culture; but this conquest has scoured the earth, scraping up much of what is individual and unique in culture. What is left behind from this trawling net of assimilation are alienated and estranged orphans of thought, who long to reconnect with that which is new and interesting. They seek out what has not been assimilated and commodified into vast bland homogeneous sacred symbols of power and control.

I open by accentuating the bleak but I did this not to claim that this is reality but rather to depict darkly a perception of „the mass“ and „the homogeneous“; and further to illustrate the conception of a repetitive and daunting repetition of „The same“. This doesn‘t mean that this is what our reality is but this is what our reality of mass culture is. Mass culture by its nature is the repetition and reproduction of the ordinary. Merit is measured by the influence which it exerts on culture through the established channels of power. Not all culture is mass but the codification of culture perpetuates this mass homogeneity.

In all times there is resistance to this mass homogeneity. In early times this resistance has taken place through religious movements: such as the rise of Christianity or the reformation. In these types of revolution a new symbolism emerges to fill the voids created through the excesses of the old. In what I‘ll call middle history (the renaissance and the enlightenment) revolution emerged as an attempt to resolve the contradictions in the dominate ideologies. As Noam Chomsky says, historically the Anarchists were the people who took enlightenment philosophers at their word. The ideals of universal laws which acted to ensure the “good behavior” of the ruled turned back upon kings whom were accused of „Arbitrary Power“. The law and what is right became more sacred than the King and this displaced Kings as symbols of power.

These early forms of revolution may or may not have originated by people in established positions of power but they have always been co-opted by the powerful. As Marx said the dominant intellectual force is the dominant material force. Christianity which was the religion of the slaves became the religion of rich and powerful popes. The Protestant religion became a tool by Kings to supplant the power of Popes, and in France the arbitrary rule of King Louis was replaced by ambitions for conquest by a small man who sought to project the size of his power across Europe. In all these cases rather then supplanting the domination of, „the mass“, instead a new order replaced the old. The counter culture either evolved or devolved into new structures of power. In these periods of transition we have what Lenin called „Dual Power“. Today corporate power is the dominant form of duel power.

When counter movements are few in number they are easy to co-opt. History limited the scope and power of counter movements because culture was expensive to produce. Either the tedious reproduction of religious texts by monks or the early elaborate printing press with movable type were aligned to punch out texts in mass so as to perpetuate culture through expensive processes that required a consolidation of power over culture. The progressive movement in the United States relied on cheap post but such means still relied on a limited number of Journals and alternative press to circulate a message that is counter to the established channels of cultural reproduction.

The internet has revolutionized our ability to communicate and has thereby vastly reduced the cost of reproducing culture. This has allowed for sources of cultural change to emerge much more spontaneously in reaction to failures in mass culture. For instance, one such failure is the failure to relate to the interests and concerns of people in a truthful, sincere and accurate manner.

Because of our new ability ……