chomsky

Paul,

You made a comment about Chomsky, but I couldn't tell
if you were in favor or against what he says. Could
you briefly clarify your position? Note: I have little
to no experience with what he says.

All,

Any comments on Chomsky would be welcome.

Thanks!

-Carl

If half of what he says is accurate, things are twice as bad as we realize.

Dante

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Lumma [mailto:clumma@...]
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 10:51 PM
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [metatuning] chomsky
>
>
> Paul,
>
> You made a comment about Chomsky, but I couldn't tell
> if you were in favor or against what he says. Could
> you briefly clarify your position? Note: I have little
> to no experience with what he says.
>
> All,
>
> Any comments on Chomsky would be welcome.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> Paul,
>
> You made a comment about Chomsky, but I couldn't tell
> if you were in favor or against what he says.

He says a lot, so it depends what, exactly.

> Note: I have little
> to no experience with what he says.

So why do you ask? Go see him if he's speaking near you. He's very
intelligent -- there's no doubt about that.

Paul Erlich wrote:

>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
> >
>>Paul,
>>
>>You made a comment about Chomsky, but I couldn't tell
>>if you were in favor or against what he says.
>> >>
>
>He says a lot, so it depends what, exactly. >
> >
>>Note: I have little
>>to no experience with what he says.
>> >>
>
>So why do you ask? Go see him if he's speaking near you. He's very >intelligent -- there's no doubt about that.
>
Try a Google search.

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

> >>Paul,
> >>
> >>You made a comment about Chomsky, but I couldn't tell
> >>if you were in favor or against what he says.
> >
> >He says a lot, so it depends what, exactly.

You wrote, "Bush and Chomsky are two of the biggest liars
we know." Did you mean Cheney?

> >>Note: I have little
> >>to no experience with what he says.
> >
> >So why do you ask? Go see him if he's speaking near you.
> >He's very intelligent -- there's no doubt about that.
> >
> Try a Google search.

It's not for lack of trying. My suspicion is that he's
so full of crap I can't crack it. But since I haven't
cracked it I'm in no position to put that forward.

I've more experience with his linguistics, where he's
definitely full of crap. More precisely, he skillfully
presents meaningless unfalsifiable claims that excite
people. Which fits with my view of politics. In fact
the only main-stream politician I know of who manages
to avoid this is Soros.

-Carl

> I've more experience with his linguistics, where he's
> definitely full of crap. More precisely, he skillfully
> presents meaningless unfalsifiable claims that excite
> people.
> -Carl

Unless you also have a Ph.D. in linguistics, I seriously doubt you are
qualified to say this.

Dante

> > I've more experience with his linguistics, where he's
> > definitely full of crap. More precisely, he skillfully
> > presents meaningless unfalsifiable claims that excite
> > people.
>
> Unless you also have a Ph.D. in linguistics, I seriously
> doubt you are qualified to say this.

It's a fallacy that ideas depend on the qualifications of
the person uttering them, though in this case I haven't
given any specifics. FYI, I have taken classes from
professors with PhDs in linguistics, and a good friend of
mine is close to having one (from Stanford). Despite the
fact that much of linguistics is as dubious and academically
isolated as say, postmodern lit crit, Chomsky's ideas have
now been broadly discredited, though a consensus on the
issue is a way's out. In the AI community, which was my
field of study, his ideas were never taken as seriously,
though they still linger in the mist.

-Carl

Um .. . .can we start actually naming specific aspects of his
theories that are "widely discredited"? Most of what I've heard
seems pretty reasonable, like that language is built-into the
brain, et al.

I've also heard some modifications or extensions to his theories,
but they didn't seem to me to really undermine the essence of what
he was saying.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > I've more experience with his linguistics, where he's
> > > definitely full of crap. More precisely, he skillfully
> > > presents meaningless unfalsifiable claims that excite
> > > people.
> >
> > Unless you also have a Ph.D. in linguistics, I seriously
> > doubt you are qualified to say this.
>
> It's a fallacy that ideas depend on the qualifications of
> the person uttering them, though in this case I haven't
> given any specifics. FYI, I have taken classes from
> professors with PhDs in linguistics, and a good friend of
> mine is close to having one (from Stanford). Despite the
> fact that much of linguistics is as dubious and academically
> isolated as say, postmodern lit crit, Chomsky's ideas have
> now been broadly discredited, though a consensus on the
> issue is a way's out. In the AI community, which was my
> field of study, his ideas were never taken as seriously,
> though they still linger in the mist.
>
> -Carl

> If half of what he says is accurate, things are twice as bad as
> we realize.
>
> Dante

The scary thing is that I suspect almost all of what he is saying is
accurate. I was watching an interview with Camille Paglia, who has not
gotten along with Chomsky in the past, and even SHE was saying that the
worst thing about Bush's invasion of Iraq was that it "makes it look like
Chomsky was right all along".

Chomsky is an individual who proved his intelligence in linguistics (some
call him "the Einstein of linguistic theory"), then chose to turn that same
intelligence to examining the world's political situation. You will never
see him on Larry King, he will never be a talking head on CNN, which tells
you something important as well. Luckily, some of his lectures are carried
on CSPAN. Its not light entertainment, or for the squeemish, but I believe
he tells it like it is.

Dante

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:
> Its not light entertainment, or for the squeemish...

That would be "squeamish", just so that you know I'm reading... :)

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > >>Paul,
> > >>
> > >>You made a comment about Chomsky, but I couldn't tell
> > >>if you were in favor or against what he says.
> > >
> > >He says a lot, so it depends what, exactly.
>
> You wrote, "Bush and Chomsky are two of the biggest liars
> we know." Did you mean Cheney?

I don't remember. I am somewhat sympathetic to the radical left
anarchist viewpoint Chomsky represents. But there seems to be
something about Chomsky which motivates him to work against his
instincts for justice, self-preservation, and logic when it comes to
his own ethnicity. In that area, it is no exaggeration to say that he
becomes indistinguishable from paleoconservates such as Pat Buchanan.

A French university professor wrote a book and distributed videotapes
in which he alleged that the Holocaust was a hoax perpetrated by its
reputed victims and survivors, that the Jews were responsible for
WWII, etc. -- making him a favorite among neo-Nazis. The university
suspended him for a semester -- because they felt they could not
guarantee his safety. Reasonably enough, Chomsky came to his defense,
protesting the suspension, on the issue of free speech. (I support
that view wholeheartedly.) Incredibly, though, Chomsky and others put
forth a petition that defended the professor's _scholarship_,
characterizing them as findings based on extensive historical
research. Needless to say, every item in the professor's sources was
phony (I'll back this up if anyone wishes). In effect, the
illustrious Dr. Chomsky of MIT certified a body of fraudulent
research.

This went on. The professor actively courted and encouraged neo-Nazi
and anti-Semitic groups to use his name as a reference. Chomsky
repeatedly contributed forewords to successive editions of the
professor's book, in which he defended the professor against any and
all accusations of anti-Semitism or fomenting anti-Semitism.
Meanwhile, Chomsky was making a name for himself calling virtually
everything he disagreed with "racism".

A few people called Chomsky on this, and he responded that the book
was anti-Zionist rather than anti-Semitic because it spoke up
against "Zionist lies". When challenged to a public debate on this
issue, Chomsky responded, "It is so obvious that there is no point in
debating it because nobody believes there is an anti-Semitic
connotation to the denial of the Holocaust" (Boston Phoenix).

Another tract, one that has recently reared its head in our community
lately and is now being dramatized on Egyptian television, the
infamous _Protocols_, which, in case anyone forgot, claims that Jews
ritually feast on the blood of Christian children, has also been
exempted by Chomsky from the anti-Semitism charge.

Yet despite this inexplicably illogical position, and despite being a
linguist with no credentials in any other area, Chomsky has taught
this view in courses at Harvard University's Kennedy School of
Government, and has huge followings among students and professors in
virtually every university in the world. On this issue, largely due
to his great influence, the far left has become indistinguishable
from the far right.

Maybe not in the world at large, but certainly on university
campuses, these fallacies and distortions loom at least as large as
those perpetrated by Mr. Bush. Lies? Perilously close, I'd say.

Want more? There's plenty.

>But there seems to be
>something about Chomsky which motivates him to work against
>his instincts for justice, self-preservation, and logic when
>it comes to his own ethnicity. In that area, it is no
>exaggeration to say that he becomes indistinguishable from
>paleoconservates such as Pat Buchanan.

Whoa!

> A French university professor wrote a book and distributed
> videotapes in which he alleged that the Holocaust was a hoax
> perpetrated by its reputed victims and survivors, that the
> Jews were responsible for WWII, etc. -- making him a favorite
> among neo-Nazis. The university suspended him for a
> semester -- because they felt they could not guarantee his
> safety. Reasonably enough, Chomsky came to his defense,
> protesting the suspension, on the issue of free speech. (I
> support that view wholeheartedly.) Incredibly, though,
> Chomsky and others put forth a petition that defended the
> professor's _scholarship_, characterizing them as findings
> based on extensive historical research. Needless to say,
> every item in the professor's sources was phony (I'll back
> this up if anyone wishes). In effect, the illustrious
> Dr. Chomsky of MIT certified a body of fraudulent research.
>
> This went on. The professor actively courted and encouraged
> neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic groups to use his name as a
> reference. Chomsky repeatedly contributed forewords to
> successive editions of the professor's book, in which he
> defended the professor against any and all accusations of
> anti-Semitism or fomenting anti-Semitism. Meanwhile,
> Chomsky was making a name for himself calling virtually
> everything he disagreed with "racism".
>
> A few people called Chomsky on this, and he responded that
> the book was anti-Zionist rather than anti-Semitic because
> it spoke up against "Zionist lies". When challenged to a
> public debate on this issue, Chomsky responded, "It is so
> obvious that there is no point in debating it because nobody
> believes there is an anti-Semitic connotation to the denial
> of the Holocaust" (Boston Phoenix).
>
> Another tract, one that has recently reared its head in our
> community lately and is now being dramatized on Egyptian
> television, the infamous _Protocols_, which, in case anyone
> forgot, claims that Jews ritually feast on the blood of
> Christian children, has also been exempted by Chomsky from
> the anti-Semitism charge.

Double whoa. This came up on this list before, but I don't
think this much detail was given. Thanks for sharing this
info.

> Want more? There's plenty.

You probably have better things to do. Nevertheless, I'm
curious about Chomsky's position on Zionism. I seem to
remember reading on Wikipedia that he considers himself a
Zionist, in an antiquated sense (the new sense being the
opposite, or something).

-Carl

Paul-

I agree Chomsky may have "issues" when it comes to his own ethnicity, but
when it comes to pointing out that the US is not the bastion of freedom that
it portrays itself as (particularly when it comes to the freedom of the rest
of the world), I find him spot on.

Dante

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Erlich [mailto:PERLICH@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 11:18 PM
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: chomsky
>
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > >>Paul,
> > > >>
> > > >>You made a comment about Chomsky, but I couldn't tell
> > > >>if you were in favor or against what he says.
> > > >
> > > >He says a lot, so it depends what, exactly.
> >
> > You wrote, "Bush and Chomsky are two of the biggest liars
> > we know." Did you mean Cheney?
>
> I don't remember. I am somewhat sympathetic to the radical left
> anarchist viewpoint Chomsky represents. But there seems to be
> something about Chomsky which motivates him to work against his
> instincts for justice, self-preservation, and logic when it comes to
> his own ethnicity. In that area, it is no exaggeration to say that he
> becomes indistinguishable from paleoconservates such as Pat Buchanan.
>
> A French university professor wrote a book and distributed videotapes
> in which he alleged that the Holocaust was a hoax perpetrated by its
> reputed victims and survivors, that the Jews were responsible for
> WWII, etc. -- making him a favorite among neo-Nazis. The university
> suspended him for a semester -- because they felt they could not
> guarantee his safety. Reasonably enough, Chomsky came to his defense,
> protesting the suspension, on the issue of free speech. (I support
> that view wholeheartedly.) Incredibly, though, Chomsky and others put
> forth a petition that defended the professor's _scholarship_,
> characterizing them as findings based on extensive historical
> research. Needless to say, every item in the professor's sources was
> phony (I'll back this up if anyone wishes). In effect, the
> illustrious Dr. Chomsky of MIT certified a body of fraudulent
> research.
>
> This went on. The professor actively courted and encouraged neo-Nazi
> and anti-Semitic groups to use his name as a reference. Chomsky
> repeatedly contributed forewords to successive editions of the
> professor's book, in which he defended the professor against any and
> all accusations of anti-Semitism or fomenting anti-Semitism.
> Meanwhile, Chomsky was making a name for himself calling virtually
> everything he disagreed with "racism".
>
> A few people called Chomsky on this, and he responded that the book
> was anti-Zionist rather than anti-Semitic because it spoke up
> against "Zionist lies". When challenged to a public debate on this
> issue, Chomsky responded, "It is so obvious that there is no point in
> debating it because nobody believes there is an anti-Semitic
> connotation to the denial of the Holocaust" (Boston Phoenix).
>
> Another tract, one that has recently reared its head in our community
> lately and is now being dramatized on Egyptian television, the
> infamous _Protocols_, which, in case anyone forgot, claims that Jews
> ritually feast on the blood of Christian children, has also been
> exempted by Chomsky from the anti-Semitism charge.
>
> Yet despite this inexplicably illogical position, and despite being a
> linguist with no credentials in any other area, Chomsky has taught
> this view in courses at Harvard University's Kennedy School of
> Government, and has huge followings among students and professors in
> virtually every university in the world. On this issue, largely due
> to his great influence, the far left has become indistinguishable
> from the far right.
>
> Maybe not in the world at large, but certainly on university
> campuses, these fallacies and distortions loom at least as large as
> those perpetrated by Mr. Bush. Lies? Perilously close, I'd say.
>
> Want more? There's plenty.
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Yes Dante,

I do feel that when it comes to *this* issue, no amount of
exaggeration is too much in the interest of pulling the domestic
discourse about it remotely into the realm of sensibility.

-Paul

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:
> Paul-
>
> I agree Chomsky may have "issues" when it comes to his own
ethnicity, but
> when it comes to pointing out that the US is not the bastion of
freedom that
> it portrays itself as (particularly when it comes to the freedom of
the rest
> of the world), I find him spot on.
>
> Dante
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Erlich [mailto:PERLICH@A...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 11:18 PM
> > To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [metatuning] Re: chomsky
> >
> >
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...>
wrote:
> > > > >>Paul,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>You made a comment about Chomsky, but I couldn't tell
> > > > >>if you were in favor or against what he says.
> > > > >
> > > > >He says a lot, so it depends what, exactly.
> > >
> > > You wrote, "Bush and Chomsky are two of the biggest liars
> > > we know." Did you mean Cheney?
> >
> > I don't remember. I am somewhat sympathetic to the radical left
> > anarchist viewpoint Chomsky represents. But there seems to be
> > something about Chomsky which motivates him to work against his
> > instincts for justice, self-preservation, and logic when it comes
to
> > his own ethnicity. In that area, it is no exaggeration to say
that he
> > becomes indistinguishable from paleoconservates such as Pat
Buchanan.
> >
> > A French university professor wrote a book and distributed
videotapes
> > in which he alleged that the Holocaust was a hoax perpetrated by
its
> > reputed victims and survivors, that the Jews were responsible for
> > WWII, etc. -- making him a favorite among neo-Nazis. The
university
> > suspended him for a semester -- because they felt they could not
> > guarantee his safety. Reasonably enough, Chomsky came to his
defense,
> > protesting the suspension, on the issue of free speech. (I support
> > that view wholeheartedly.) Incredibly, though, Chomsky and others
put
> > forth a petition that defended the professor's _scholarship_,
> > characterizing them as findings based on extensive historical
> > research. Needless to say, every item in the professor's sources
was
> > phony (I'll back this up if anyone wishes). In effect, the
> > illustrious Dr. Chomsky of MIT certified a body of fraudulent
> > research.
> >
> > This went on. The professor actively courted and encouraged neo-
Nazi
> > and anti-Semitic groups to use his name as a reference. Chomsky
> > repeatedly contributed forewords to successive editions of the
> > professor's book, in which he defended the professor against any
and
> > all accusations of anti-Semitism or fomenting anti-Semitism.
> > Meanwhile, Chomsky was making a name for himself calling virtually
> > everything he disagreed with "racism".
> >
> > A few people called Chomsky on this, and he responded that the
book
> > was anti-Zionist rather than anti-Semitic because it spoke up
> > against "Zionist lies". When challenged to a public debate on this
> > issue, Chomsky responded, "It is so obvious that there is no
point in
> > debating it because nobody believes there is an anti-Semitic
> > connotation to the denial of the Holocaust" (Boston Phoenix).
> >
> > Another tract, one that has recently reared its head in our
community
> > lately and is now being dramatized on Egyptian television, the
> > infamous _Protocols_, which, in case anyone forgot, claims that
Jews
> > ritually feast on the blood of Christian children, has also been
> > exempted by Chomsky from the anti-Semitism charge.
> >
> > Yet despite this inexplicably illogical position, and despite
being a
> > linguist with no credentials in any other area, Chomsky has taught
> > this view in courses at Harvard University's Kennedy School of
> > Government, and has huge followings among students and professors
in
> > virtually every university in the world. On this issue, largely
due
> > to his great influence, the far left has become indistinguishable
> > from the far right.
> >
> > Maybe not in the world at large, but certainly on university
> > campuses, these fallacies and distortions loom at least as large
as
> > those perpetrated by Mr. Bush. Lies? Perilously close, I'd say.
> >
> > Want more? There's plenty.
> >
> >
> >
> > Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >
> > To post to the list, send to
> > metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > You don't have to be a member to post.
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> If half of what he says is accurate, things are twice as bad as
> we realize.
>
> Dante

The scary thing is that I suspect almost all of what he is saying is
accurate. I was watching an interview with Camille Paglia, who has not
gotten along with Chomsky in the past, and even SHE was saying that the
worst thing about Bush's invasion of Iraq was that it "makes it look like
Chomsky was right all along".

Chomsky is an individual who proved his intelligence in linguistics (some
call him "the Einstein of linguistic theory"), then chose to turn that same
intelligence to examining the world's political situation. You will never
see him on Larry King, he will never be a talking head on CNN, which tells
you something important as well. Luckily, some of his lectures are carried
on CSPAN. Its not light entertainment, or for the squeemish, but I believe
he tells it like it is.

Dante

> Um .. . .can we start actually naming specific aspects of his
> theories that are "widely discredited"? Most of what I've
> heard seems pretty reasonable, like that language is built-
> into the brain, et al.

That's a great example. First, note that it isn't nearly
established that non-innate acquisition is impossible, yet
Chomsky speaks as if it were. Second, since nobody knows
how to build a brain, saying grammar is 'built in' is rather
meaningless. Is grammar built in to the universe, the brain,
or just language? If you'd never seen a car and I tell you
that my VW gets its power from gasoline... or if I say it's
powered by an engine... or the will of the driver. . .
Finally, an acquaintence of mine who's a grad. student of
child development at Stanford says the notion of sensitive
periods, let alone Chomsky's innate stuff, has been more or
less discarded in his field. I argued with him about that,
as I'm a believer in sensitive periods.

My other friend who's a linguist at Stanford says that
transformational grammars, while fun and interesting, have
exactly nothing to do with language. That particular claim
is beyond my expertise to discuss.

-Carl

on 4/5/04 9:30 PM, Dante Rosati <dante@...> wrote:

> If half of what he says is accurate, things are twice as bad as we realize.

Regardless of the accuracy of what he says, to me it goes without saying
that things are far more than twice as bad as we realize. After all, there
are limits on the badness that any person can realize, even briefly. If any
discomfort results from even brief realizations then we are innately
protected against having any functional memory of such realizations and can
easy direct ourselves to situations and experiences that will avoid such
realization of badness.

On the other hand, things are probably at the same time much better than we
realize. Goodness is also quite difficult to realize because of the badness
that it implies by contrast. This includes the difficulty of experiencing
joy strongly because of the way that memories of pain begin to shout in the
face of such joy. For myself, I sometimes begin to feel guilty about my
life so far when I begin to recognize that I am experiencing joy. Joy is in
that mind proof of a wasted life. A wasted life seems like a very bad
thing, and thus it appears in moments that the possibility of joy should be
denied. Only the realization that to think so causes a continuation of that
waste allows me to have the urgency to cross the line and accept the
appearance of a wasted past. Thus the waste of my past is the ground on
which I stand. A pun on this comes to mind.

-Kurt