Philosophy in English...different books...

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sat 24 Nov - 9:05

Hi!For this week,I’ll remember you of what had said Machiavel about the 2 things which can turn out any government or king. First,the dishonor of his women and second,the lost of his patrimony. On that I’ll pursue with my book of sociology. In these times where the patrimony of canada is threatened I know then not many people read me... But they maybe should or shouldn’t depending on which interests you see it. In my personal life,it’s the better time of my life sincerely. I’m solitary and my life could seems to be boring for some but for me it’s a heaven! After so many years of wars and battles of all kinds I appreciate my home alone and not with any kind of people.I’m happy with my cat and we live pretty much good. I don’t have money but I don’t have debts and my life isn’t very costly.
In my Blackwell’s companion of sociology...
This “downwards” systemic shaping of agency was the second element of his patrimony. This heritage was foundational for the central value system within normative functionalism,as an a prioristic guarantor of agential integration through socialization. As Parsons declares, “cultural elements are elements of a paterned order which mediate and regulate communication and other aspects of the mutuality of orientations in inter-actional processes. This brief formulation contains the leitmotif of systemic (C.S.) coherence, now elevated to a matter of functional necessity, and the downwards inflection,namely that central values shape social,that’s S-C, integration,with the net result being the harmoniously functioning society. If Parsons gave pride of place to an overtly coherent C.S.,linguistic structuralism did the reverse. Lévi-Strauss (1968) accepted superficial systemic incoherence,but maintained that these manifestations could be deciphered as transformations upon an underlying code. Fundamentally, cultural systems could be decoded because ontologically the C.S. was a code,and therefore internally coherent. As is generic to downwards conflation,cultural agents were subornated, being fully encased by the systemic mythology,which prevented an S-C exploitation of surface inconsistencies in it. Epiphenomena cannot act back to affect that which forms them. Hence,the S-C level was never deemed capable of introducing novel interpretations,transformative of the C.S. code.


Admin
Admin

Messages : 799
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sat 1 Dec - 9:11

Hi!Trudeau had made some crazy stuff again this week with Cuba,what the hell with him...Since the beginning of this country,Canada has always been a great leader in human rights and freedom for his people,but now,This freedom is threatened and the human rights are in second place in his priorities...
Import third world countries,becomes a third world country. And with him,it’s the meaning of it.
Except for this asshole it’s a very good time,this year in facts,has been the best of my life... I’m worried a little about the future in this country. But,in the worst case,it will be a civil war, with the compact immigration of the UN... a very bad idea in my opinion... And if you follow me on facebook,I read a lot about it and many think that too. It will be a civil war,the first in canada since the FLQ which wasn’t a real civil war too but close.
Neo-Marxists take as fundamental precisely that which the downward conflationists had sedulously neglected,namely the role of power in the imposition of culture. What differentiates between the 2 types of conflation isn’t the end product,which in both cases reinforces the myth of systemic cultural integration,but how it’s produced,for here we are dealing with a manipulated consensus. Consequently,conflation is from the bottom upwards,since it’s socio-cultural conflict that generates the coherent C.S.,through the basic process of ideological imposition. For Western Marxists,it’s not merely that social relations produce systemic cultural integration,but also that capitalism as a whole can only now collapse from cultural undermining.Hence both cohesion and change at the S-C level. Beyond this, the 2 versions of Neo-Marxism most prominently associated with upwards conflation describe the causal process responsible for it very differently. On the one hand,proponents of the “dominant” ideology thesis emphasize that ideological uniformity is accomplished by one class doing something to another, namely direct manipulation. To Miliband,for example,an ideological acceptance of the capitalist order is deliberately fostened by massive indoctrination,while in similar vein,Marcuse argues that one-dimensional thought is systematically promoted by the makers of politics and their purveyors of mass information.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 799
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sat 8 Dec - 11:06

Hi everyone! It has been a good week again for me. Time is much more quicker then before I don’t know if it’s the Mandela effect but it seems this way. I’m woried about the future in this country but I pray for my time being to be ok... But the Canada of the next generation is darker everyday with Trudeau... UN compact immigration is a disaster coming here and we’ll have to wait until the next election before beginning to feel more safer. In Toronto,ISIS claiming different threats over Christmas. And after that,they call “islamophobia”!ah! I’d begun a book on International Law...I’ll talk about this in a few weeks.
Again in my Blackwell Companion of sociology...
As Abercrombie,Hill,and Turner summarize the case,”through its control of ideological production,the dominant class is able to supervise the construction of a set of coherent beliefs. This contains 2 dubious assumptions:that the class has a consistent set of material interests,these will necessarily be given coherent ideational expres​sion(which Marx himself ridiculed in relation to liberalism).
On the other hand,The Frankfurt School doesn’t rely upon the indoctrination of one group by another, but rather on how the expanding pursuit of technical control in advanced industrial societies results in distorted communication for the whole human race. Material interest is still the motor,but the interest in technical control is no longer narrowly confined to a “ruling class”,and the instrument for the diffusion of its ideas is no longer indoctrination but the colonization of the lifeworld by the empirical-analytical sciences,producing a “technocratic consciousness”. When we think of ourselves and our social relations in these objectified terms,moral debate becomes inert and social critique moribund. Nevertheless,interest remains the source of S-C domination,which is then upwardly reproduced at the C.S. level as “knowledge”. Moreover,the consistency of the C.S. is greater than ever before because it’s grounded in a network of scientific propositions that work, in their own domain. Consequently, to Habermas, “Technocratic consciousness is... less ideological than all previous ideologies. For it doesn’t have the opaque force of a delusion... It’s less vulnerable to reflection,because it’s no longer only ideology.”

Admin
Admin

Messages : 799
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sat 15 Dec - 8:17

Hi! This week has been good for me again,it’s the better years of my life sincerely. One friend of mine is dying of cancer which is the only depressing part. But it’s okay. She haves 6 months ahead of her and I see her when I can. For me,life is good now. A new year is beginning soon I wish you the best for 2019. Time is going pass so quickly these days. For this week,again in conflation in sociology...
Central conflation: This position results from a critique of the previous versions. When culture is held to work surreptitiously “behind the back” of every agent (downwards version),this omits the necessary role of human agency in constituting and reconstituting culture; when culture is seen as merely the imposition of one group’s worldview upon others (upward version), what is omitted is the necessity of culture as the medium of any action at all, a fact that would have to be faced were domination and manipulation ever overcome. Nevertheless,an element is rescued from each of the earlier versions and recombined. From downwards conflation what is salvaged is the Cultural system as a semiotic order, supplying a corpus of meanings that are necessarily drawn upon in the production of each act. From upwards conflation what is rescued and “democratisized” is the continuous and indispensable contribution of S-C; all social agents are held to know a great deal about the production and reproduction of their society, which thus depends upon the skilled performances of each of its members. Central conflation is a position from which the C.S. level and the S-C levels are held to be mutually constitutive.Now it’s quite possible to endorse the “centrism” of this approach,accepting that human agents shape culture,but are themselves culturally molded,without eliding the 2 levels. Indeed this is the stance adopted in the rest of the chapter. However,central conflation does elide the 2 because they are regarded as 2 faces of an inseparable “duality”. The conceptualization of their mutual constitution as a simultaneous process means that there’s no way of untying the constitutive elements. The properties od the C.S. and the S-C may be different, but non is acknowledged to have the temporal priority and relative autonomy vis-à-vis the other that would grant it independent causal efficacy.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 799
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sat 22 Dec - 8:11

Merry Christmas everyone! It’s a beautiful one’s for me this year and I’m happy. For this week,it’s again the continuity of my sociology’s book. It can be useful to understand with this badass as Trudeau as our PM... I’m reading a book now about International Law,I’ll come back with it soon when I’ll be more advanced in the subject.
The intimacy of their interconnection denies this and hence it’s impossible to examine their interplay.
The resulting difficulty is that central conflation precludes any theoretical specification of the conditions conductive to cultural reproduction versus cultural transformation. On the contrary, the “duality of culture”, itself oscillates between endorsing 1) the hyperactivity of agency, the corollary of which is the intrinsic volatility of the C.S.,2) the remarkable coherence of ordering rules,associated instead with the essential recursiveness and routinization of S-C life.
In structuration theor,agential (S-C) hyperactivity is an ineluctable consequence of all systemic (C.S.) rules being defined as transformative thus enabling “people’s” interpretations to transfigure the “parts” of the system,namely rules themselves. However, if “all social rules are transformational”, it follows that agents enjoy very high degrees of freedom,at any time they could have acted otherwise,intervening for change or for maintenance of the cultural status quo. Hence the counterfactual image of agential hyperactivity,in which these generous degrees of freedom are explored and exploited at the S-C level. Hence too, the C.S. becomes highly volatile if “change,or its potentiality is thus inherent in all moments of social reproduction.”
The other face of the “duality of culture” is intended to rectify the previous image, but overcorrects by generating a counter image of “chronic recursiveness.” Basically, agents have to draw upon rules in order to act and these are thus reconstituted through interaction.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 799
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sat 29 Dec - 9:02

Hi everyone! What a tragedy with Trudeau again... I hope all Canada will understand the danger he constitutes. For my part I wish you an happy nre year for 2019,for my part, it’s great... It’s sincerely the better years of my life,where I have a home,a real one’s just for me. I’m poor but it’s not much of a problem now. For this week,I’m talking about cultural integration and politically correctness,which of Trudeau favorite’s subject.
Thus the myth of cultural integration resurfaces,for it is more than dubious that the rules regulating social practices have the same mutually implicative nature as syntax. However, in this way, structuration theory is committed to the total and totalizing coherence of the C.S. such that agents inescapable use of it embroils them in its stable reproduction. The pendulum swings so far the other way that we are now presented with another overintegrated view of “man”, for the “duality of culture” ineluctably entwines the smallest item of day-to-day behavior with systemic attributes,thus generating routinized patterns of action.
Taken together,the 2 faces of the “duality of culture” can reveal nothing about the conditions that explain when cultural transformation rather than cultural reproduction will or does occur. Because both are possible at every moment,then central conflation provides no purchase upon the processes that account for cultural dynamics. Structuration theory tells us that both structure and agency are inextribably involved,but because they are inseparable in their mutual constitution,the interplay of their properties and powers cannot be disentangled to supply an explanatory account of why cultural matters are so rather than otherwise.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 799
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sat 5 Jan - 8:10

Happy New Year everyone! I’d a very nice dinner with a family I know since a long time ago... I feel good in it and they’re good with me. Most of the time,I read and write a lot and taking care of myself and my home. I hope Trudeau will go very soon, because much more he stays there, worst is the situation. If not,it will be because whe’re in a dictatorship similar those in Africa. And it’s vey bad news for the children of today. I check on fukushima in Japan and the situation there. It’s very important and none of the known big media, except RT News, is talking about it.
In my Companion on sociology’s book,for this week:
The Nonconflationary Approach to Culture:On analytical dualism:
In contradistinction to every version of conflation is the social realist approach advanced here,which is based 4-square upon analytical dualism.This is quite distinct from philosophical dualism,for it’s not suggested that separate entities are involved. Realists regard structural properties as emergent from activity-dependent upon agency,whilst structural powers only exercise causal efficacy by working through agency. Therefore,it’s only analytically separable components that are made in a realist theory of culture. Specifically the C.S. is conceptualized as emergent from S-C interaction and is only operative through it. The 2 are distinguished by virtue of their different and irreducible properties and powers. This distinction is justified as follows and turns out to be familiarly quotidian. In developing a conceptual framework for employing analytical dualism in cultural analysis,culture as a whole is defined as referring to all intelligibilia,that’s to any item that has the dispositional ability to be understood by someone,whether or not anyone does so at a given time. Within this corpus,the C.S. is that subset of items to which the law of contradiction can be applied (society’s propositional register at any given time). Contradictions and complementarities are logical properties of the world of ideas,world of three as Popper (1972) terms it,or,if preferred of the contents of libraries.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 799
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

oops!I forgot...

Post  Admin on Mon 14 Jan - 7:15

Hi everyone! This week has been very busy for me. For this week,it will be about the encounter of different cultures put together and what can happen...
At any moments,the C.S. is the product of historical S-C interaction,but having emerged (culturalemergence being a continuous process) then qua product,it has properties but also powers of its own kind. Like structure,some of its most important causal powers are those of constraints and enablements. In the cultural domain these stem from contradictions and complementarities.However,again like structure,constraints require something to constrain,and enablements something to enable. Those “somethings” are the ideational projects of people,the beliefs they seek to uphold, the theories they wish to vindicate, the propositions they want to be able to deem true. In other words, the exercise of C.S. causal powers is dependent upon their activation from the S.C. level. What ideas are entertained socio-culturally,at any given time,result from the properties and powers belonging to that level. Obviously, we social agents don’t live by propositions alone; we generate myths, are moved by mysteries,become rich in symbols,and ruthless at manipulating hidden persuaders.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 799
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sat 19 Jan - 9:18

Sorry for last week,I’d forgotten my article! For this one’s, it will continue in the same way... Soon enough,I’ll begin with international law,but for now, in sociology...
These elements are precisely matters of interpersonal influence from hermeneutic understanding,at one extreme, to ideological assault and battery,at the other. It’s interaction at the S-C level that explains why particular groups wish to uphold a particular idea,or to undermine one held by another group. Once they do, then their ideational projects will confront C.S. properties (that were not of their own making) and unleash these systemic powers upon themselves which they may seek to realize or to contain.However, the S-C level possesses causal powers of its own kind in relation to the C.S.; it can resolve apparent contradictions and respond adaptively to real ones,or explore and exploit the complementarities it confronts,thus modifying the cultural system in the process. It can set its own cultural agenda,often in relation to its structurally based interests,by creatively adding new items to the systemic register. In these ways,the S-C level is reponsible for elaborating upon the composition of the C.S. level.
...
Although substantively far removed, the “constraining contradiction” also confronts any explanatory theory A, which is advanced in science, but whose observational theory B doesn’t provide immediate empirical corroboration,that’s if scientists think they have good reason not to jettison A. What the “constraining contradiction” does in practice is to confront those committed to A, who also have no option but to live with B as well, with a particular situational logic. According to this logic given their continuing dedication to A (its abandonment is always possible because conditioning is never determinism),thenthey are constrained to deal with B in a specific manner. Since A and B aare logically inconsistent,then no genuine resolution is possible between them, but if B remains unaltered,it threatens the credibility or tenability of A. Consequently,the situational logic directs that continued adherence to A entails making a correction of its relationship with B mandatory. Corrective action involves addressing the contradiction and seeking to repair it by reinterpretation of the ideas involved. The generic result will be some form of syncretism that brings about union between the antithetical but indispensable sets of ideas. Obviously, for protagonists of A,their interest is in concentrating upon syncretic reinterpretations of B,in order to make it compatible.
If you understand this,it’s the problem facing Canada with Islam.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 799
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sat 26 Jan - 9:36

Hi everyone! Again for this week, I’ll continue on sociology’s topic for the purpose to understand what’s happening now in our country. And the consequences which can mean. The sociology of Canada is at a turning point these last years and we need to understand this process to see forward.
The more complex the internal structure of such a corpus of ideas becomes, the more diffucult it’s to assimilate new items, without major disruption to the delicately articulated interconnections. Tight and sophisticated linkages eventually repel innovation because of its disruptive capacity. This is the result of the situational logic of protection. Its implications within the conspectus is that it progressively accomodates fewer and fewer radical innovations until, in Kuhn’s words,it “suppresses fundamental novelties because they are fundamentally subversive of its basic commitments”. Weber,of course,made the same point about the effects of complex ritualization in Hinduism being incapable of the innovative “germinationof capitalism in its midst”. The implications for relations between the conspectus and its external environment is protective insulation against disruptive incursions,the most notable example being the Chinese Edict of Seclusion. The situational logic of protection means brooking no rivals from outside and repressing rivalry inside. The former is at the mercy of “international relations”; the latter depends upon the success of its main socio-cultural thrust towards cultural reproduction in the (relevant) population. Ultimately,whether or not this sticks and endures turns upon cui bono; nonneneficiaries have no interest in sustaining protection.
The whole point of distinguishing between the cultural system and the socio-cultural levels is because the orderly or conflictual relationships characteristic of the one can vary independently of the other, which is crucial to the explanation of stability or change.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 799
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sat 2 Feb - 8:43

Hi! This winter is very cold this year,but I’m fine. I’m really happy where I am,my home. About Trudeau and multiculturalism again for this week...
If conditional influences were determinants,cultural stability would ensue in both cases. Yet this isn’t invariably the case. An economical way to explain why not is to ask what properties and powers may be possessed by agency and exercised during S-C such that the outcome is contrary to the conditioning. In other words,what accounts for discrepancies between the orderliness (or disorderliness) of the 2 levels? Firstly,why can social integration persist despite the existence of tensions within society’s system of ideas? Secondly,what explains a syncretic set of ideas failing to take hold in society or a systematized conspectus failing to be reproduced?
The answer to the first question (the persistence of disproportionately high S-C integration), seems to lie in the effective exercise of cultural power.Where upholders of A have the position and the resources to control the diffusion of information,they can practice a variety of “containment strategies” designed to insulate the majority of the population from dangerous familiarity with B. In this context, Lukes’s (1974) 3-dimensional concept of power seems readily transferable to cultural domain. Power is used to control the social visibility of contradictions and thus to prevent the eruption of S-C controversy. Its applications can vary from the straightforward first-dimensional use of censorship to the more subtle theird-dimensional strategies that induce “misrecognition of symbolic violence”, perceotively analyzed by Bourdieu (1964),although always presumed by him to be lastingly successful. However,”containmentstrategies” are seen here as strictly temporizing maneuvers,most effective against the least influential. Nevertheless, whilst a week may be a long time in science, exercises of cultural power can buy centuries of quietude in the history of a civilization, especially when ideal interests and the structural distribution of resources are closely superimposed.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 799
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sat 9 Feb - 8:16

It’s a really nice period for me and I’m happy! What worries me is in the political domain in federal government specifically. Liberal are in my point of view dangerous for Canada.
Why?...
One answer to the second question (unexpectedly low S-C integration), which seems correct,is that independent socio-cultural discrepancies in orderlinss occur when the social (or sectional) distribution of material interests doesn’t get with the situational logic of the C.S. (or subsystem) at any given time.Important as this is, if that were the end of the matter it would amount to saying, “cultural conditioning works ceteris paribus unless structural conditioning contravenes it.” It would be to retreat from advancing a theory of cultural dynamics because only countervailing material interests (and their promotive organizations) would constitute the properties and powers capable of resisting cultural conditioning. Instead,2 scenarios will be sketched,which give ideal interests their due,thus advancing a theory of cultural dynamics,without collapsing into it.
On the “corrective” scenario,associated with necessary ad internal C.S. contradictions,the unificatory thrust of the situational logic can be deflected in 3 ways. Cumulatively they spell a growing disorderliness in the cultural relations between people that may ultimately precipitate a corresponding clash in the realm of ideas. Firstly,there’s progressive desertion.At the socio-cultural level no one is compelled to take part in a syncretic enterpris

Admin
Admin

Messages : 799
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sat 16 Feb - 8:29

Hi everyone! So much snow these days, it’s hard to walk outside and I don’t see through my windows. It has been a good week for me in all and for the weather,it will pass soon.
Cultural Elaboration:Although the above scenarios have been presented as ones that may unreel autonomously within the cultural realm, there is no denying that in reality they are usually accelerated and decelerated by their interaction with structural factors. What is of particular importance is how far structure differentiates material interest groups that reinforce or cross-cut the socio-cultural alignments conditioned by the C.S. The interplay between culture and structure is even more marked when we turn,in conclusion,to the ways in which cultural elaboration can be independently introduced from the Socio-Cultural level. However, although such social conflict may well be fueled by structural cleavages and divisions, reither the form of cultural interaction involved nor the type of cultural changes induced can be reduced to epiphenomena of structure. This is because there’s considerable cultural work to be done by agents when the ideas with which they are dealing are only contingently rather than necessarily related,for here, agency alone is responsible for bringing these ideas into conjunction and achieving social salience for them. It’s also because once they have done so,they have created 2 new forms of situational logic in which the promotion of their own ideal interests are then enmeshed. In contrast to the “constraining contradiction”, where the alternative to a given set of ideas is also internally related to them,and thus constantly threatens them with its own counter-actualization,here the accentuation of a contingent contradiction is a supremely social matter. Accentuation depends upon groups,actuated by interests,making a contradiction competitive,by taking sides over it and by trying to make other people take their side.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 799
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum