Intelect

[Shawn Roth <ufpdev!shawnr@uunet.uu.net>]

 David,
 
    I would not normaly reply to such mail, but in this case I'll make an
    exception.  What in the heck are you talking about.  Noahs article is by no
    means close to the topic of the current NBA.  I guess you could strech and
    say that the article does have a bit to do with the current state of the USA,
    but come on this article is just another way for Noah to show us all how
    much more intelligent he is than the average human.  Do people really read
    this stuff.  I struggled to keep myself awake through the entire article.
    Do I really care what Chomsky thinks on this topic.  As for the true point
    of the article, I feel Chomsky is actually saying that people spend to much
    time on such nonsense as sports, and not enough metal power on international
    and domestic affairs.  This is obvious if you look at each paragraph and
    analyze what it saying.  So due to the affects of this article on me, I will
    now be thinking about how each trade the Celts make affects the rest of the
    world......more thoughts to come later.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   P.S.  I anyone actually beleives any of this, give me a break, but I figured
   this was better than having each of us solve all the NBA's troubles each day.
   Hope every is having a great day.
 
 
   Shawn
 
 
 

> Originally from Nissen, David:
> > 
> > 
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > --
> > Guess I'm in a foul mood this morning as I normaly don't reply to mail
> such 
> > as this :)
> > 
> > 
> > >Do you have nothing better to do then post this drivel?  Most people
> don't 
> > >want
> > >to understand this let alone read it.  Please tell me you didn't type
> all 
> > >this
> > >stuff yourself.....if you did, do you have a job?
> > >
> > >Go Celts!!!
> > >
> > >Shawn
> > 
> > Shawn,
> >         I often disagree with Noah, but I for one have no problem with
> these
> > 
> > sorts of posts and frankly they are a lot closer to the topic than
> many of 
> > the posts that find their way to this group, but what the hay, lets
> stamp on
> > 
> > the minorities, except of course where that personally effects us.
> BTW what
> > 
> > is this doing on the Celtics mailing list "...if you did, do you have
> a 
> > job?", sounds like Political and/or social discussion to me.
> > 
> > OK so I'm being needlessly heavey handed, but the point I'm trying to
> make
> > is 
> > that tolerance goes both ways.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >P.S.  Because of the loss at the worlds, not that I'm upset about it,
> we
> > have
> > >to play in to get into the 2000 Olympics.  We finished third with a
> bunch
> > of
> > >NBA rejects.  Don't you think we should get an exemption just for
> that?  I 
> > >mean
> > >FIBA should be happy that we allowed games to be competative.  So
> they
> > should
> > >be thanking us, and begging us to do it again.
> > 
> > 
> >      I sure hope this is tongue in cheek.  BTW did you notice that
> many
> > teams 
> > (US excluded) were fielding teams designed to blood their young talent
> for 
> > 2000, rather than to necesarily kick ass in Greece ?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Originally from Noah P. Evans:
> > >
> > > This is an excerpt from an interview with Chomsky included in _the
> Chomsky
> > > Reader_(readily available in Harvard Square in Wordsworth's and The
> Coop 
> > for
> > > all of you Bostonians out there). While laden with scientific
> jargon, it
> > > does have a few gems regarding the nature of sports and their
> relationship
> > > to society that we might want to consider. I *don't* agree with a
> lot of
> > > what Chomsky says, but I do think his ideas are, at the very least,
> > > interesting and sometimes, at their best, profound.
> > >
> > > Noah
> > >
> > > JP=James Peck
> > >
> > > NC=Noam Chomsky
> > >
> > > <
> > > JP:
> > >
> > >  You've written about the way that professional ideologists and the
> > > mandarins obfuscate reality. And you have spoken--in some places you
> call 
> > it
> > > a "Cartesian common sense"--of the commonsense capacities of people.
> 
> > Indeed,
> > > you place a significant emphasis on this common sense when you
> reveal the
> > > ideological aspects of arguments, especially in contemporary social 
> > science.
> > > What do you mean by common sense? What does it mean in a society
> like our?
> > > For example, you've written that within a highly competitive,
> fragmented
> > > society, it's very difficult for people to become aware of what
> their
> > > interests are. If you are not able to participate in the political
> system 
> > in
> > > meaningful ways, if you are reduced to the role of a passive
> spectator, 
> > then
> > > what kind of knowledge do you have? How can common sense emerge in
> this
> > > context?
> > >
> > > NC:
> > >
> > > Let me give an example. When I'm driving, I sometimes turn on the
> radio
> > and
> > > I find very often that what I'm listening to is a discussion of
> sports.
> > > These are telephone conversations. People call in and have long and
> > > intricate discussions, and it's plain that quite a high degree of
> thought
> > > and analysis is going into that. People know a tremendous amount.
> They
> > know
> > > all sorts of complicated details and enter into far reaching
> discussions
> > > about whether the coach should made the right decision yesterday and
> so
> > on.
> > > These are ordinary people, not professionals, who are applying their
> > > intelligence and analytic skills in these areas and accumulating
> quite a 
> > lot
> > > of knowledge and, for all I know, understanding. On the other hand,
> when I
> > > hear people talk about, say, international affairs or domestic
> problems,
> > > it's at a level of superficiality that's beyond belief.
> > >  In part, this reaction may be due to my own areas of interest, but
> I
> > think
> > > it's quite accurate, basically. And I think that this concentration
> on
> > such
> > > topics as sports makes a certain degree of sense. The way the system
> is
> > set
> > > up, there is virtually nothing people can do anyway, without a
> degree of
> > > organization that's far beyond anything that exists now, to
> influence the
> > > real world. They might as well live in a fantasy world, and that's
> in fact
> > > what they do. I'm sure they are using their common sense and
> intellectual
> > > skills, but in an area which has no meaning and probably thrives
> because
> > it
> > > has no meaning, as a displacement from the serious problems which
> one 
> > cannot
> > > influence and affect because the power happens to lie elsewhere.
> > >   Now it seems to me that the same intellectual skill and capacity
> for
> > > understanding and accumulating evidence and gaining information and 
> > thinking
> > > through problems could be used--would be used-- under different
> systems of
> > > governance which involve popular participation in important decision
> 
> > making,
> > > in areas that really matter to human life.
> > >  These questions are not hard. There are areas where you need
> specialized
> > > knowledge. I'm not suggesting a kind of anti-intellectualism. But
> the
> > point
> > > is that many things can be understood without a very far-reaching,
> > > specialized knowledge. And in fact, even a specialized knowledge in
> these
> > > areas is not beyond the reach of people who happen to be interested.
> > >  So take simple cases. Take the Russian invasion of Afghanistan--a
> simple
> > > case. Everybody understands immediately without any specialized
> knowledge
> > > that the soviet union invaded Afghanistan. That's exactly what it
> is. You
> > > don't debate it; it's not a deep point that is that difficult to 
> > understand.
> > > It isn't necessary to know the history of Afghanistan to understand
> the
> > > point. All right. Now let's take the American invasion of South
> Vietnam.
> > >  The phrase itself is very strange. I don't think you will ever find
> that
> > > phrase--I doubt if you'll find one case where that phrase was used
> in any
> > > mainstream journal, or for the most part, even in the journals of
> the
> > left,
> > > while the war is going on. Yet it was just as much of an American
> invasion
> > > of South Vietnam as it is a Russian invasion of Afghanistan. By
> 1962, when
> > > nobody was paying attention, American pilots--not just mercenaries
> but
> > > actual American pilots--were conducting murderous bombing raids
> against
> > > Vietnamese villages. That's an American invasion of South Vietnam.
> The
> > > purpose of that attack was to destroy the social fabric of rural
> South
> > > Vietnam so as to undermine a resistance which the American imposed
> client
> > > regime had evoked by its repression and was unable to control,
> though they
> > > had already killed perhaps eighty thousand South Vietnamese since
> blocking
> > > the political settlement called for in the 1954 Geneva Accords.
> > >  So there was a U.S. attack against South Vietnam in the early
> sixties,
> > not
> > > to speak of later years when the United States sent an expeditionary
> force
> > > to occupy the country and destroy the indigenous resistance. But it
> was
> > > never referred to or thought of as an American invasion of South
> Vietnam.
> > >  I don't know much about Russian Public opinion, but I imagine if
> you 
> > picked
> > > up a man off the street, he would be surprised to hear a reference
> to the
> > > Russian invasion of Afghanistan. They're defending Afghanistan
> against
> > > capitalist plots and bandits supported by the CIA and so on. But I
> don't
> > > think he would find it difficult to understand that the United
> States
> > > invaded Vietnam.
> > >  Well, these are very different societies; the mechanisms of control
> and
> > > indoctrination work in a totally different fashion. There's a vast
> > > difference in the use of force versus other techniques. But the
> effects
> > are
> > > very similar, and the effects extend to the intellectual elite
> themselves.
> > > In fact, my guess is that you would find the intellectual elite is
> the
> > most
> > > indoctrinated sector, for good reasons. It's their role as a secular
> > > priesthood to really believe the nonsense they put forth. Other
> people can
> > > repeat it, but it's not crucial they really believe it. But for the
> > > intellectual elite themselves, it's critical that believe it
> because,
> > after
> > > all, they are the guardians of the faith. Except for the very rare
> person
> > > who's just an outright liar, it's hard to be a convincing exponent
> of the
> > > faith unless you've internalized it and come to believe it. I find
> that
> > > intellectuals just look at me with blank stares of incomprehension
> when I
> > > talk about the American invasion of South Vietnam. On the other
> hand, when
> > 
> > I
> > > speak to general audiences, they don't seem to have much difficulty
> in
> > > perceiving the essential points, once the facts are made accessible.
> And
> > > that's perfectly reasonable--that's what should be expected of a
> society
> > > that's set up the way ours is.
> > >  When I talk about, say, Cartesian common sense, what I mean is that
> it 
> > does
> > > not require very far-reaching, specialized knowledge to perceive
> that the
> > > United States was invading South Vietnam. And, in fact, take apart
> that
> > > system of illusions and deception which functions to prevent
> understanding
> > > of contemporary reality, that's not a task that requires
> extraordinary 
> > skill
> > > or understanding. It requires the kind of normal skepticism and
> > willingness
> > > to apply one's analytical skills that almost all people have and can
> > > exercise. It just happens that they exercise them in analyzing what
> the
> > New
> > > England Patriots ought to do next Sunday instead of questions that
> really
> > > matter for human life, their own included. >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> 
> ------ =_NextPart_000_01BDC50C.66FD07E0--
> 
>