User talk:Jgda

Welcome!

Hello, Jgda, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Rockero 15:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Sources for misogyny in literature/philosophy[edit]

I don't know you personally so I don't have an activity in mind, but can you please find an alternative to trolling for when things don't go your way? Your comment on Talk:Misogyny is an unreasonable interpretation of the discussion on Talk:Misandry, where an incredibly blatant example of quote bias was produced.

Really, it would be to your advantage to simply concede on this one. After the above revelation, the defensive reaction blows your credibility. — edgarde 00:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just have to wait for you to come up with some alternative activity. Maybe I should try hypocrisy? It has always been very popular. Thanks for the advice: maybe one day I too will have a Barnstar of Diligence... Thanks for the laugh though. Jgda 02:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

on the credibility of wikipedia[edit]

Having acquired some experience with academia by being directly involved, I actually feel less negative about the kind of semi-chaotic mix of personal agendas that so many articles come out to be, precisely because, they essentially share that very same fault as the academic sources, but are at least open to some (though passing as they are) corrections and essentially represent that very chaos in the head of a proverbial Everyman, as opposed to the polished, but just as biased single mindedness of of an average academician... To prove this it suffices to look at really old (and not even so old) academic dictionaries, which every now and then allow for an enlightening experience of an age sharing different borders to our own ones, but by no means free of them of course. At times it seems that something akin to the great Encyclopédie of Diderot is a better way - that is to have the brightest minds define the things as they know them, but then a look at society and academia ensures one of utopism of such a feat... So what is to be done? Either to not partake or to partake realising little to no use besides the very delight of editing itself is what comes out of it. Lost Angel 22:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit the website remains useful, and an interesting social document in itself, and you make some very good points here, of course. Academic discourse is certainly not without flaws - the peer review process itself providing a serious clamp on uncanonic research (Maybe that's all part of the Darwinian way that great ideas must win free, as has been suggested to me...) As for 'the average academician' I would certainly agree, but, fortunately, there are some superlative ones and the material that they produce retains its quality without being open to destruction post-production, which is the central (and crippling) flaw of this democratic approach. This goes for great encyclopaedians too. Here, the appearance of encycyclopaedia-ness is an obsession as opposed to the quality and scope of the information to be imparted. The question always is: 'how do I neuter my POV enough so that I can have the appearance of a NPOV?' I know objectivity as a concept is dead in the post-positivist water - or at least struggling in a current with a stomach cramp and maybe a dorsel fin on the horizon - but it holds more water than this Walmart varitey of Neutered Point Of View...

Your final sentence is excellent, and has a touch of Camus' brand of absurdity about it, something that I appreciate. e-Sisyphus maybe? Jgda 23:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the encouraging remarks, you most certainly have my own ones in return. Considering the brilliant academicians, - from the few I personally know and attribute as such, all are "old school" and one is swamped by the average lot to the point of being forced off the lecturing podium, need I say he does not seem very enthusiastic? The other one is not taking it seriously, it seems and slipping away to Verona or Venice under the premises of working the archive, and perhaps doing so. However, again, his seminar activity appears to be limited to supervision and humorous witty remarks (quite enjoyable though). Considering the two real examples in front of me, I am asking myself, - does one above average academician require to be a hermit or a jester? Or perchance I am giving them too much credit to begin with, fascinated by the professor of the past image? Though I can think of no other real professors of that calibre, I'd personally know. Naturally another way seems to be an independent research, but as any research - it would depend on funding and publicity, - common folk would not read/buy it... I do realize I'm not making constructive suggestions and that most likely nothing has changed in how things really work through centuries.

With regards to ones POV disguised as NPOV - of course that is the case, for even the most "neutral" of us are within our own mindframes, social paradigms, et cetera. What I see as a way out, or at least a partial solution is the logic of argument, that is if it holds internal consistency, is based on a data from recognized source (which is already flimsy for who recognizes it?), is clearly labelled as coming from a certain perspective/source. Thus even if it is false, - it stands for itself, rather than attempts at ultimate truths and solutions. Minimalism certainly helps, since excessive details tend to sway the argument or its validity some way.

As to e-Sisyphus, I am not sure - he derives no pleasure from what he does, yet I must admit to a certain pleasure coming from creation of sound (as I hope them to be) arguments or dismissal of the ones appearing false, which I believe to be partially of a narcissistic nature. Though certainly it would be a mistake to assume anything more than eternal rock pushing in terms of the value of outcome. Greek mythology is fascinating in terms of clearly identifying so many things about human beings, no wonder decent authors can rarely avoid references...Lost Angel 09:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely. I like the sound of Verona or Venice as a slip away spot though. I like the sound of this guy's tenure... :-)

I also believe in the effort of objectivity in research (within the humble confines of the realization that pure objectivity is impossible, as above). All the good modern positivist historians, for example, realised this, before postmodernism was even scratched on the skin of public discourse. The effort still counts because it's only in that effort that the research can ever drive the ideas, as opposed to the ideas driving the research. It's the way research can actually be search. There's got to be some sort of internal agon (to borrow more classical terms...) as well as external, even in the act of encyclopaedia-izing.

We have to imagine eSisyphus as happy, laughing even, to extend Camus. Why? Probably becaause if we don't, we have to suicide in any number of senses.

Laugh about it, shout about it

When you've got to choose

Every way you look at it you lose.

Jgda 00:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am convinced that postmodernism is largely an intellectual prank mistakenly taken seriously. If I understand you correctly, you agree to the principle that from the discourse the truth is born, if we parallel the search, strife for some knowledge, or definition to such a truth (which should remain until a better one is arrived at). In this sense postmodern position, enjoyable as it certainly is to an educated mind, doesn't really lead us anywhere with its certain relativity of any problem and a certainty of no possible solution. Therefore, I am primarily referring to the pleasure of creation and dispute, as the pre postmodern driving elements, which essentially satisfy the one executing them (which is already one of the solutions, where you do not loose) and potentially lead to some truth (or a better one).

As to the happy eSisyphus - we have to acknowledge, though the extend to which he is detached from anything but his rock, a detachment, which perhaps includes his own mind. The trick is although I fail to see what it is that one can essentially achieve in the sea of uncertainty during one's rather short lifespan, entertaining the thought of discovering it at some point is what perhaps keeps me on the float, but never obtaining it is certainly discouraging to the point of mortification of senses. Lost Angel 19:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I agree completely with 'from the discourse truth is born', but perhaps more so: that from genuine discursive engagement, one comes as close to the truth as possible and manages to achieve something that could be referred to as the ongoing process of enlightenment (while realising that the project can never actually be realised in its entirity... which is perhaps the whole point of enlightenmen tint he first place... ?) I must say that I'm leaning these days towards Badiou's idea of truth... Have you read him? His position is very interesting in terms of 'the postmodern', 'truth' and truth.

Mortification of the senses isn't all so bad, although, I suppose, not particularly sensible, but not necessarily insensitive... :-)Jgda 09:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I see it, "from the discourse truth is born" isn't really to be understood in a straightforward manner, for discourse itself is an ongoing process, once it is over - there is no discourse, essentially stopping the "birth" of truth process. Discourse tends to get suspended when some argument is too valid in a given period of time - so it goes in natural science, so it goes in humanities, though in an accelerated fashion. So there is an element of convenience already there, which defines the moment of discourse suspension. Badiou is familiar to me, as a name, but not to the extent of his theories. I've been looking through traditional art critics recently and this is like a balm to my heart - most seek no truth in "facts", but rather in how they feel about something, though it is not a shallow soap opera feeling, but a thoughtful feeling, think Vasari writing on Michelangelo, if you are familiar with his texts. While convinced in some things that from our time's perspectives seem evidently counter factual, there is the kind of grandeur of thought, contrary to contemporary aggressive dogfights over a single letter - people seem to be living in a world, which they have a better grip on. I seem to have gotten carried away here, sorry.

Mortification of the senses is an extreme form of "growing up" the wrong way, as I see it, - take an average office worker stereotype. Seeing written thoughts go to waste, makes me wonder if they at all should be written, for who would enjoy that? That which I write I already know and in having someone else enjoy it once written down is of little conciliation, which isn't even taking place. Therefore, what is to be achieved when one is not confronted with things one does not know or is supplied with things of little relevance... Or rephrasing, what does one gain from the process of ongoing enlightenment? Knowing more or being more intellectual doesn't make one happier, to the contrary... Though once one gets there, there is no way back.Lost Angel 14:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I'm at my limit of tolerating editing this place - I'm leaving the madness to the madmen, the ship to the rats, maggots to dead dog... Shall save myself more time for reading.Lost Angel 19:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not blame you, and it's no loss: this website has as much credibility where it counts as any other. As I have said, it is shadenfreude that keeps me checking in here every now and then. It's all very sad, but also interesting in a human nature kind of way... Just try not to take what they do to you too seriously: this place is a nothing in the world of ideas. Perhaps less: it's a reflection of nothing? Jgda 06:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but of course I'm not taking it seriously - how can one? As someone replied to you: "My point is not that these examples are exactly the same thing but that observing an absence in a text or a piece of software can, in fact, be a POV statement" - from that very misandry discussion section translates directly into "but in referencing a fact we might expect people to form a certain point of view on the event and wikipedia is against points of view"... coming from someone, who is a teacher and has a degree, or makes such claims at least. I can only marvel at the thought of what education his/her? subjects shall receive and that, which he has gotten. My mistake however, was in overestimating the share of common sense amongst editors. Regardless, now that I've a job and nearly done with academia, I seem to have regained the long forgotten pleasure of reading texts instead of using them. As to this place - I'm left to wonder if it will remain or will collapse under its own weight eventually...Lost Angel 20:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G'day[edit]

Nice to read your user and talk pages.

Thanks for stopping by and leaving a note at mine.

I am sad Lost Angel left Wiki, and glad you chatted here before it happened.

I read the history.

Politically motivated consensus was used as club at poor Angel, who astonishingly lived up to the nick.

Pity I wasn't around when the dogs were after Angel.

I feel old. I've copped enough abuse in RL, that Wiki can't hurt me.

I enjoy contributing because I choose contributions that I think will last, and make a difference.

I'm willing to be patient. Given enough time, truth comes out.

Hmmm, glad you liked my misandry note, abstract is correct, I was deliberately elliptical.

I wanted to leave a clear message of "permission giving" regarding the article, while avoiding making accusations I cannot prove.

I will not tolerate censorship masked by Wiki lawyering. None of us should.

But you know, as irritating as people can be, I don't know their baggage.

In my heart I give 'em a break, but I still gotta do what I gotta do. Savvy? Alastair Haines 09:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of David Lerner for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Lerner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Lerner until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]