LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  May 2002

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE May 2002

Subject:

Re: Be clear; be concise; be respectful

From:

Richard Leigh <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 29 May 2002 18:49:50 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (163 lines)

I'm going to quote from an early John Landon submission:

"It is not uncalled for to be somewhat overly direct here, since the
danger is a kind of incoherence that is self-sustaining over time. "

And now I will take your advice:

SHUT UP!

You have produced enough self-sustaining incoherence for a thousand
epistemology seminars.  You have responded to every request for brevity
and clarity with pages of pointless, mind numbing, incomprehensible
logorrhea.  You obviously don't have a job.

I don't flatter myself that you are going to shut up.  This kind of
attention is what you crave, and only ignoring you will drive you away.
I routinely and almost instantaneously delete communications from
mortgage reducers, red-hot teenage nymphets, penis enlargers, and people
peddling equipment that would allow me to spam everyone.  From now on I
will not even read the titles to your posts, including your response to
this one.  I encourage everyone else to do the same.

All the best

Richard Leigh



John Landon wrote:

> In a message dated 5/29/2002 5:28:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>
>
>> to John Landon:
>>     I have tried to understand your position, as apparently have
>> others on
>> this list.  I suggest that you put as much effort and humility into
>> communicating with us as we have in trying to make sense of your
>> remarks.
>> One  memory most of us have of Stephen J's writings, which
>> transcends our
>> views on his theories, is what a clear and concise writer and
>> explainer he
>> was.  As sure as he was of his own positions he never insulted his
>> readers.
>> I suggest that you have much to learn from the quality of his
>> writings in
>> spite of your discrediting of his theories.
>> Respectfully yours
>> Herb Fox
>
> Fair enough. Keep in mind that as a Darwin critic one is so constantly
> insulted from so many quarters, and for so long (three years with no
> letup and never a kind word), that normal communication seems to
> become distorted. It is designed to make people give up and surrender
> in silence to the master paradigm.
>
> Being clear is a challenge in this case. Granted. The eonic effect is
> dead simple, yet elusive, and it contradicts so much conventional
> wisdom that one holes up in a stance of obscurity like a tortoise
> ducking into its shell. How do you explain to people a system as
> complex as human evolution if they think Darwin's theory explains
> everything? The eonic effect shows a system timing to within half a
> century, meddles in art, generates philosophy, has its finger in
> multiple aspects of the highest level of culture, yet induces that in
> man's freedom, how do you explain such as thing? I don't even
> understand it myself.
> Keep in mind noone has ever observed evolution at close range. I can
> see it in history, and so can you, in a special case, And that puts an
> ace up my sleeve. I don't need to demur with the experts.
>
> Part of the problem is that what I have offered was fortunate in being
> done totally alone, without feedback, editors, peer review, in
> innocence of the consequences, political or academic, or otherwise,
> with a sure-fire and cheap method of printing-publishing that was
> legal but otherwise brought into existence without interference. The
> results are state of the art. Noone knows what they are missing in
> their own history, after all the politicos are finished controlling
> the airwaves.  And it is hard for someone to work alone, but it is
> harder to use the conventional channels.

Check this out:

>
> In the past year, due to me, they have shut down the old Kant-l,
> Hegel-L, the dissent forum, Popper's Critical Cafe, and i have been
> unsubbed four times from [log in to unmask] and twice from
> evo-psych, under various pseudonyms. Phil-lit members all have
> blocking software, and Anthro-l assigned an attack dog to drive me
> away. All for the simple thesis that there is a 'punk eek' process in
> history. I call that scared. I have to wonder if it is hopeless. All
> those people must hope so.

That's real power!

>
>
> I know that all sounds odd, but anyone who writes on evolution learns
> the 'hand tremor' ideology game and the facts of life about what the
> fate of the effort will be, with at first subtle then more dramatic
> changes in tone, viewpoint, and purple passages inserted near the
> intro praising the brilliance of Darwin and the rest of the blah blah.
> So there are a lot of Darwin critics with manuscripts in their
> drawers.
> We always think in terms of straight propaganda, but this is something
> more complex, and just as effective in the realm of evolutionary
> theories.
>
> So the info on historical evolution in relation to Darwin criticism
> and my eonic effect (which was misnamed and causes jitters in secular
> materialists) is a perspective that couldn't come into public
> existence through normal channels. The rest is up to you. It's
> apparently obscure, but it is relatively straightforward finally. The
> problem arises from the extreme change in perspective.
> The result I thought clear, but apparently not. Such a gesture was and
> is needed in any case to put a new perspective in a style encased in
> granite so that noone left right or upside down can turn it into an
> instrument of mass murder, the fate of Marx, Nietzsche, Hegel, and,
> indeed, Darwin. For the result has to do theory in the midst of
> ideology, and most ideologies are fixed here. So you alienate both
> sides.
> So even as I wince when people cry 'ugh' at my labors I still also
> feel relief, they don't understand it.( I am just kidding) It could be
> esoteric, I could raise my prices, but actually it is clear. The
> manner of discourse simply demands a minimal commitment to study, and
> an effort to recast the argument in your own understanding in a
> reasonably short course of study.
>
> Take it as a simple issue or question. We think, sometimes, in terms
> of 'linear history'. What if that fails? What does the next type of
> model of history tell us if we try? What does world history look like
> at the next candidate if linear history fails?
> My answer is to try a 'discrete-continuous' model. That's a
> generalization of 'punctuated equilibrium' (as pair of words, not the
> Darwin version), or 'cyclical theories', or, in brute terms, a set of
> on-off switches. What do find with such an idiot simple experiment?
> The results are so dramatic we know we are onto something. We have
> completely missed an entire dimension of history. It's right there
> with tell tale clues of the simplest type. So without getting into
> historicism, or grand narratives, or rhetorical fancies, that is my
> finding. There is a missing component to historical explanation. What
> it means is not clear, but one thing is sure, Darwinists were
> overconfident and allowed a series of unverified speculations about
> times and places they never observed to be explained in absentia.
> There have been lots of warnings, but they simply don't budge. So we
> see that this type of thing, quite different in his case, is coming on
> Gould's radar, but he misinterprets that, probably.
> So that's it. Snap out of it, and consider a new perspective.
> I hope that helps.
> But I don't have an advertising budget so I have to go online, and
> become obnoxious to get through to dazed people.
> All that sounds implausible, but I think you will get used to it.
>
>
> Website on the eonic effect
> http://eonix.8m.com
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]

--

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager