Noam Chomsky

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Noam Chomsky

Postby undead » Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:45 pm

The Consul wrote:On the other hand, what would it mean if Chomsky went all in on 911? How much more would it matter? Potentially a lot.


Not potentially a lot, certainly a lot. It's logical that that political ideas will be censored at the most concentrated scientific institution in the U.S. and possibly the world. The military needs to own MIT completely as a matter of policy, and they basically do. They can't have the world's best a brightest scientists getting mixed up in radical, or God forbid - militant - anti establishment thinking of any variety, no matter what it is called. So they set boundaries to keep them in the intellectual sandbox with regards to politics.

I have spent some time with MIT students and I can tell you that they are totally consumed by the place - all free time is spent on extra-credit research projects and there is the most intense competition you can imagine. If any of them wanted to branch out into radical politics they would have to go elsewhere. Linguistics is a very dangerous scientific discipline to government propagandists, a field in which legitimate scientific work could be done deciphering all their subliminal attacks. So I think the purpose of Chomsky is basically to prevent the Hugh Manatees of the MIT student body graduating from obscure internet message boards into the realms of legitimate research.

That, and to give lectures that provide hay for the discussions of greater Boston area liberal intellectuals. I haven't read Chomsky besides a couple of short tracts (What Uncle Sam Really Wants, etc.) when I was in high school. Reading that pamphlet did give me the inspiration to go to my first anti-war protest, so I guess I can attest to some kind of good his work can do on a superficial level. Beyond that, I would be curious to hear about any kind of substantial action Chomsky has been involved in, or even planning / calling for specific actions. Because to me he seems like a bag of hot air. I am not anti-intellectual, but I think that at this point a person who is only an intellectual is not worth paying attention to.

So if he says that his linguistics work is completely separate from his political prognostication, isn't that just like saying he's full of shit? I mean, if he is not making political theories as a world-class scientist, why the fuck do we have to care at all what he thinks?
┌∩┐(◕_◕)┌∩┐
User avatar
undead
 
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 1:23 am
Location: Doumbekistan
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Noam Chomsky

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:49 pm

brekin wrote:And surprising about his position on JFK and 9/11, but really in the end he may just be a fan of breathing.


I've thought that.

Chomsky will not make statements that can't be supported under the standards of academic scholarship (including the informal standard that the speaker should believe in their own findings). People poking him into taking a stance on JFK or 9/11 is counterproductive. There's also the factor that anyone brainy is going to find it very hard to line up next to someone who's lining up next to Alex Jones, or even who considers David Ray Griffin a thorough scholar and logician. Furthermore, the poking (in the 9/11 milieu, not so much with JFK) comes often with threats and accusations that one who is not with "us" (usually meaning, Our Unlikely Hypothesis of the Month) must be literally one of the conspirators, working wittingly against the truth. This alienates anyone who witnesses it and is a high confusionism. It's government and military agencies and officials and other organizations, foreign and domestic, involved in the story of September 11th who must disclose and should be badgered, and not every intellectual individually who fails to declare an allegiance. The latter attitude poisoned the 9/11 truth movement. Ignore naysayers, focus on your own standards of scholarship in producing potentially actionable best evidence.

.
Last edited by JackRiddler on Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Noam Chomsky

Postby Searcher08 » Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:49 pm

Wombaticus Rex wrote:Re: NLP and Chomsky...I was always under the impression Chomsky was window dressing? I've seen interviews where both Grinder and Bandler talk about owing a much larger debt to Milton Erickson, and largely using all the linguistics stuff to make things look more scientific, since Erickson was essentially a living breathing magician. Might be tangential but the point interests me quite a bit (especially since I don't see how Chomsky's thesis actually influenced the precepts of NLP.)


Chomsky's area of linguistics was Grinder's research specialty at the University of Santa Cruz

His research focused on Noam Chomsky's theories of transformational grammar specializing in syntax and deletion phenomena. He published several research papers with Paul Postal on the syntactical structures relating to "missing antecedents"[5] or missing parasitic gaps for the pronoun. They argued that the syntactic structure of a deleted verb phrase (VP) is complete.[6][7][8] Edward Klima, doctoral adviser to both Postal and Grinder at UCSC,[9] became involved in the early development of generative semantics.


I did my NLP Practitioner with Grinder just as he went into the 'New Code' - greatly influenced by Gregory Bateson (Steps to an Ecology of Mind) and had a conversation with Grinder - he said that Chomsky's Transformational Grammar ideas of Surface Structure and Deep Structure were absolutely pivotal in formulating the MetaModel part of early NLP.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-model_%28NLP%29
At a deep level of thought, a speaker has a more complete representation of the intended communication. Bandler and Grinder equated this level of thought to what Noam Chomsky described as the deep structure. In 1957, Chomsky published Syntactic Structures, in which he developed the idea that each sentence in a language has two levels of representation — a deep structure and a surface structure.[7] The deep structure represented the core semantic relations of a sentence, and was mapped on to the surface structure (which followed the phonological form of the sentence very closely) via transformations. Bandler and Grinder believed that for efficiency in communication, information is transformed, that is, thought is subject to an unconscious process of deletion, generalization and distortion which is influenced by pre-existing beliefs, strategies, memories, and decisions. What is represented (at the surface structure) as spoken word or written down is a mere subset of the original thought revealing distorted assumptions, mystical thinking, over-simplification, impoverished experience and, thus, limited maps of the world. These limitations are challenged in the meta model to clarify, and elaborate a client's communication and maps of the world which Bandler and Grinder believed had therapeutic benefit.[1]
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Noam Chomsky

Postby wordspeak2 » Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:41 pm

JackRiddler wrote:People poking him into taking a stance on JFK or 9/11 is counterproductive.
.


You don't really have to poke him, JR; he's written books on these subjects ("Rethinking Camelot" about JFK as a standard war hawk and "9/11" supporting blowback theory) and he's happy to talk about them all the time. He loves to say: "There's absolutely no evidence for these things, and even if there were it wouldn't matter, and it would be devastating to the Left." That's his cookie-cutter response every single time. Does that even make sense? No, it's disingenuous as hell.

People don't want to question Chomsky, cause it's too much of a mindfuck to even consider that he's working for capitalist intelligence, even though it's staring us in the fucking eye. Totally blows my mind. The CIA may do a lot of bad things, but one thing they certainly *don't* do is infiltrate the alternative discourse. They would certainly never do that.... On the contrary, it's their fucking m.o.! It's about "controlling the opposition"; that's the name of the game.

Anyway, I guess I've said my bit. Wanted to share this Barrie Zwicker video. Barrie is a 9/11 activist who was originally a Chomsky worshipper. He interviewed Chomsky on his Canadian public TV show, wrote letters in support of him, etc. Post 9/11 he became baffled at Chomsky's responses to his inquiries about 9/11. Eventually, he started asking the same questions I've asked: "Why is he lying?" Seriously, why lie? Here's Barrie's little amateur You Tube video, but it makes the points: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhrZ57XxYJU

And, American Dream, my point is- he is really not a socialist in practice. He doesn't stand up for socialist countries. He sounds like an anarchists all the time, saying "Every government responds that way; every single government does x and y." Listen to more of his videos; I listen to them all the time; pick up on his m.o.; he's a brilliant snake. Last year he joined in a right-wing attack on Hugo Chavez, lending it a great deal of credibility- for instance, I actually read Chomsky's name in the Wall Street Journal regarding this issue, the Afiuni case. Now, why do that? Seriously, WHY? You wouldn't see a Parenti or a John Pilger or an Alex Constantine, etc. do that, would you? Why call the CIA a "nothing organization"? Either A.He's an ahistorical idiot, or B.He's a liar. And I'm certainly not calling Chomsky an idiot or at all unknowledgeable, which leaves one option.
wordspeak2
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:20 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Noam Chomsky

Postby American Dream » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:18 pm

wordspeak2 wrote:
And, American Dream, my point is- he is really not a socialist in practice. He doesn't stand up for socialist countries. He sounds like an anarchists all the time, saying "Every government responds that way; every single government does x and y." Listen to more of his videos; I listen to them all the time; pick up on his m.o.; he's a brilliant snake. Last year he joined in a right-wing attack on Hugo Chavez, lending it a great deal of credibility- for instance, I actually read Chomsky's name in the Wall Street Journal regarding this issue, the Afiuni case. Now, why do that? Seriously, WHY? You wouldn't see a Parenti or a John Pilger or an Alex Constantine, etc. do that, would you? Why call the CIA a "nothing organization"? Either A.He's an ahistorical idiot, or B.He's a liar. And I'm certainly not calling Chomsky an idiot or at all unknowledgeable, which leaves one option.


I thought he did support Cuba, the Zapatistas, socialist trends in South America, the Sandinistas, the FMLN etc.- just not so much the Soviet Union and its satellites, North Korea, Mao etc.- controversies about the Khmer Rouge not withstanding...

As to calling the CIA a "nothing organization"- wouldn't that be more asserting an institutional analysis in (perceived) opposition to conspiracy analysis?
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Noam Chomsky

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:31 pm

How about henceforth in claim and counter-claim on this thread we actually quote his material to back up what we're saying? Me too.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Noam Chomsky

Postby wordspeak2 » Tue Mar 06, 2012 7:51 pm

You guys are free to go to youtube and watch Chomsky videos. I watch them over and over, as I'm rather fascinated by the guy. I refuse to buy any more of his books, but I'm just starting a book about his linguistics work. Just don't drop all your critical thinking skills as soon as he starts talking, as most people do (sorry for the sarcasm).

He says, very vaguely, that what's been happening in Latin America over the last decade has been good, but on actual specifics, re: Venezuela he criticizes Chavez for "centralizing power," which is total bullshit if you know anything about Venezuela.

NC: Concentration of executive power, unless it's very temporary and for specific circumstances, let's say fighting world war two, it's an assault on democracy.
RC: And so in the case of Venezuela is that what's happening or at risk of happening?
NC: As I said you can debate whether circumstances require it – both internal circumstances and the external threat of attack and so on, so that's a legitimate debate – but my own judgment in that debate is that it does not.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ju ... -venezuela

Chomsky says Chavez is "assaulting democracy." That's the upshot. That's what the New York Times says, too. Is that what people really need to hear about Venezuela? In contrast, here's what Michael Parenti, as my running example of an authentic Leftist, writes about modern Venezuela: Good Things Happening in Venezuela: http://www.michaelparenti.org/GoodVenezuela.pdf
I choose Venezuela as an example, because it's certainly the most significant resistance to the U.S. Empire in the world right now.

"As to calling the CIA a 'nothing organization'- wouldn't that be more asserting an institutional analysis in (perceived) opposition to conspiracy analysis?"
Right, and doesn't that strike you as a *false* dialectic? As in- completely disingenuous. It's an institutional conspiracy, as Michael Parenti, Peter Dale Scott, and others have put it well. *Fucking obviously.* Here's a kick-ass piece by Nafeez Ahmed on that subject; really worth a read for its general relevancy: http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq37.html
So either Chomsky is A.stupid or B.intentionally misleading. Out of those options, I know my vote. He's a professional anti-Marxist and anti-parapolitico. He's very, very, very good at it.
wordspeak2
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:20 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Noam Chomsky

Postby American Dream » Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:05 pm

This article captures some of the complexity of the Chomsky/Chávez relationship:

Anarchism, Chomsky, Chavez and Authoritarian Overreach in the US and Venezuela

Sat, 08/20/2011
NIKOLAS KOZLOFF FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT


On the U.S. left, there are certain sacred cows that one should never take on directly. For years, Hugo Chávez of Venezuela has been, for the most part, sacrosanct and immune from criticism. The underlying reasons for this kid glove treatment are hardly mysterious or difficult to surmise, particularly in light of Chávez's hostility to George Bush, the great bane of progressive folk. Such sympathy would only increase over time, heading into high gear after the U.S.-supported coup of 2002 which was directed against Chávez.

When the coup rapidly unraveled and ended in fiasco, with right wing forces crumbling in disarray, the Venezuelan leader was returned to power in triumph. Later, in 2006, Chávez was greeted warmly by the New York left after he lambasted Bush in a confrontational speech delivered on the floor of the United Nations. Speaking from the same lectern that Bush had occupied just a day before, Chávez quipped "The devil came here yesterday, right here. It smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of."

When leftists want to know what to think about foreign affairs, many of them consult the views of celebrated academic Noam Chomsky. For some time, the leftist MIT professor has provided sympathetic commentary on Venezuela, and in 2009 Chomsky even met personally with Chávez in Caracas. It came as a slight surprise, therefore, when the professor of linguistics recently criticized Chávez for the latter's handling of a case related to María Lourdes Afiuni, a judge who was arrested in December 2009 by the president's secret intelligence police. The Venezuelan president had ordered Afiuni's arrest after the latter freed a businessman incarcerated on charges of circumventing the country's currency controls.

In her defense, Afiuni claimed that the businessman's pretrial detention had exceeded Venezuela's legal limits, and that she was merely following United Nations protocol on such matters. Chávez, however, was hardly convinced and proclaimed on national TV no less that the judge would have been subjected to a firing squad in a previous era. Following her arrest, Afiuni was locked up in a women's prison where she was subjected to cruel and demeaning treatment. Indeed, other inmates threatened to kill her and even sought to force her into sex. Earlier this year, Afiuni was moved to house arrest after she underwent an abdominal hysterectomy at a local cancer hospital.

With much fanfare, the New York Times reported on the falling out between Chávez and his former supporter, noting that "Mr. Chomsky's willingness to press for Judge Afiuni's release shows how the president's aggressive policies toward the judiciary have stirred unease among some who are generally sympathetic to Mr. Chávez's socialist-inspired political movement." In a telephone interview, Chomsky told the Times that he was requesting clemency for Afiuni on humanitarian grounds, and claimed that the judge had been treated very badly. Though Afiuni's living conditions had improved somewhat, Chomsky noted, the charges against the judge were thin. Therefore, Chomsky argued, the government should release Afiuni.

Chávez and Chomsky: A Warm History of Rapport

The recent spat between Chávez and Chomsky may put an end to a historically warm rapport. Indeed, the Guardian of London recently wrote that "Hugo Chávez has long considered Noam Chomsky one of his best friends in the west. He has basked in the renowned scholar's praise for Venezuela's socialist revolution and echoed his denunciations of US imperialism." In his speeches, Chávez frequently quotes Chomsky and the MIT professor has provided the Venezuelan leader with a degree of intellectual and political legitimacy. Chávez has said that he is careful to "always" have not just one copy of Chomsky's books on hand but many.

The relationship dates back to 2006, when, during his celebrated speech at the United Nations, Chávez held up Chomsky's book entitled Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance, and suggested that Americans read the work instead of "watching Superman and Batman" movies. Speaking to the crowd, Chávez urged the audience "very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it." Going even further, Chávez said the MIT professor's work was an "excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century." Chávez added, "I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is right in their own house."

Chomsky's book immediately rocketed to No. 1 on Amazon's best-seller list. Speaking to the New York Times, a Borders Bookstore manager remarked "it doesn't normally happen that you get someone of the stature of Mr. Chávez holding up a book at a speech at the U.N." Book sales notwithstanding, Chomsky told the New York Times that he wouldn't describe himself as flattered. For good measure, the academic added that he wouldn't choose to employ Chávez's harsh UN rhetoric.

On the other hand, Chomsky added, Chávez's anger with Bush was understandable. "The Bush administration backed a coup to overthrow his government," the professor declared. "Suppose Venezuela supported a military coup that overthrew the government of the United States? Would we think it was a joke?" The linguist added, "I have been quite interested in his [Chávez's] policies. Personally, I think many of them are quite constructive."

Continues at: http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/12960/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Noam Chomsky

Postby wordspeak2 » Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:39 pm

I know, AD, I've read that piece, and everything on this specific subject. It doesn't have much substance; it doesn't change the upshot. Chomsky is absolutely not out there educating people about the revolutionary change that Venezuela is undergoing. Oliver Stone has been much, much more helpful in this respect. If Chomsky, given his mind-blowing clout, were to do this... there would a major real-time effect. As it is the western Left has very little clue what the hell is going on is South America. They all need to see Oliver Stone's film.
You know, about the only people I have success talking about Chomsky with are bona fide Marxists, because they see the historical pattern of Chomsky bashing socialism in practice. Chavez himself doesn't know it, but, then, Chavez hasn't exactly had time to be a student of deep state politics.
Well, and a few hard-core 9/11 truthers, who ask the same question I do- why is he lying, and so brazenly? I wanted to share Barrie Zwicker's chapter from his 9/11 book about Chomsky. Worth a read: http://www.geocities.ws/agent_noam_chomsky/
wordspeak2
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:20 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Noam Chomsky

Postby eyeno » Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:45 pm

wordspeak2 wrote:
JackRiddler wrote:People poking him into taking a stance on JFK or 9/11 is counterproductive.
.


You don't really have to poke him, JR; he's written books on these subjects ("Rethinking Camelot" about JFK as a standard war hawk and "9/11" supporting blowback theory) and he's happy to talk about them all the time. He loves to say: "There's absolutely no evidence for these things, and even if there were it wouldn't matter, and it would be devastating to the Left." That's his cookie-cutter response every single time. Does that even make sense? No, it's disingenuous as hell.

People don't want to question Chomsky, cause it's too much of a mindfuck to even consider that he's working for capitalist intelligence, even though it's staring us in the fucking eye. Totally blows my mind. The CIA may do a lot of bad things, but one thing they certainly *don't* do is infiltrate the alternative discourse. They would certainly never do that.... On the contrary, it's their fucking m.o.! It's about "controlling the opposition"; that's the name of the game.

Anyway, I guess I've said my bit. Wanted to share this Barrie Zwicker video. Barrie is a 9/11 activist who was originally a Chomsky worshipper. He interviewed Chomsky on his Canadian public TV show, wrote letters in support of him, etc. Post 9/11 he became baffled at Chomsky's responses to his inquiries about 9/11. Eventually, he started asking the same questions I've asked: "Why is he lying?" Seriously, why lie? Here's Barrie's little amateur You Tube video, but it makes the points: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhrZ57XxYJU

And, American Dream, my point is- he is really not a socialist in practice. He doesn't stand up for socialist countries. He sounds like an anarchists all the time, saying "Every government responds that way; every single government does x and y." Listen to more of his videos; I listen to them all the time; pick up on his m.o.; he's a brilliant snake. Last year he joined in a right-wing attack on Hugo Chavez, lending it a great deal of credibility- for instance, I actually read Chomsky's name in the Wall Street Journal regarding this issue, the Afiuni case. Now, why do that? Seriously, WHY? You wouldn't see a Parenti or a John Pilger or an Alex Constantine, etc. do that, would you? Why call the CIA a "nothing organization"? Either A.He's an ahistorical idiot, or B.He's a liar. And I'm certainly not calling Chomsky an idiot or at all unknowledgeable, which leaves one option.



This is not an indictment of Chomsky, but a statement on psyops theory and kabuki magik. Once you recognize it, it be alllll around you.

1. Take a premise, put it in the pot. Agree with it. i.e. "fascism is bad"
2. Negate, one by one, subject by subject, anything that would seriously change fascism and eradicate it by equating these changes as fascist in and of themselves.
3. Stir vigorously adding racism, etc...
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Noam Chomsky

Postby hanshan » Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:51 pm

...

Searcher08 wrote:
Wombaticus Rex wrote:Re: NLP and Chomsky...I was always under the impression Chomsky was window dressing? I've seen interviews where both Grinder and Bandler talk about owing a much larger debt to Milton Erickson, and largely using all the linguistics stuff to make things look more scientific, since Erickson was essentially a living breathing magician. Might be tangential but the point interests me quite a bit (especially since I don't see how Chomsky's thesis actually influenced the precepts of NLP.)


Chomsky's area of linguistics was Grinder's research specialty at the University of Santa Cruz

His research focused on Noam Chomsky's theories of transformational grammar specializing in syntax and deletion phenomena. He published several research papers with Paul Postal on the syntactical structures relating to "missing antecedents"[5] or missing parasitic gaps for the pronoun. They argued that the syntactic structure of a deleted verb phrase (VP) is complete.[6][7][8] Edward Klima, doctoral adviser to both Postal and Grinder at UCSC,[9] became involved in the early development of generative semantics.


I did my NLP Practitioner with Grinder just as he went into the 'New Code' - greatly influenced by Gregory Bateson (Steps to an Ecology of Mind) and had a conversation with Grinder - he said that Chomsky's Transformational Grammar ideas of Surface Structure and Deep Structure were absolutely pivotal in formulating the MetaModel part of early NLP.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-model_%28NLP%29
At a deep level of thought, a speaker has a more complete representation of the intended communication. Bandler and Grinder equated this level of thought to what Noam Chomsky described as the deep structure. In 1957, Chomsky published Syntactic Structures, in which he developed the idea that each sentence in a language has two levels of representation — a deep structure and a surface structure.[7] The deep structure represented the core semantic relations of a sentence, and was mapped on to the surface structure (which followed the phonological form of the sentence very closely) via transformations. Bandler and Grinder believed that for efficiency in communication, information is transformed, that is, thought is subject to an unconscious process of deletion, generalization and distortion which is influenced by pre-existing beliefs, strategies, memories, and decisions. What is represented (at the surface structure) as spoken word or written down is a mere subset of the original thought revealing distorted assumptions, mystical thinking, over-simplification, impoverished experience and, thus, limited maps of the world. These limitations are challenged in the meta model to clarify, and elaborate a client's communication and maps of the world which Bandler and Grinder believed had therapeutic benefit.[1]



tx for the backgrounding, Searcher08 :mrgreen:


...
hanshan
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:04 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Noam Chomsky

Postby American Dream » Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:07 pm

hanshan wrote:
Searcher08 wrote:
I did my NLP Practitioner with Grinder just as he went into the 'New Code' - greatly influenced by Gregory Bateson (Steps to an Ecology of Mind) and had a conversation with Grinder - he said that Chomsky's Transformational Grammar ideas of Surface Structure and Deep Structure were absolutely pivotal in formulating the MetaModel part of early NLP.


tx for the backgrounding, Searcher08 :mrgreen:


I actually think there's a much stronger evidentiary case in support of John Grinder and Gregory Bateson having spook affiliations than is true of Noam Chomsky.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Noam Chomsky

Postby Elvis » Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:27 am




I just want to say, Chomsky's talk in the OP is a gem.

It's exactly the kind of thing I can (and did) send to my "pro-business" friends to shake up their "free market" delusions, which are practically built on Adam Smith soundbites. And show them what their hero actually said.

Smart as he is, Chomsky has his own assumptions, prejudices and blind spots, just like everybody. A lot of smart people accept the official 9/11 story or the Warren Commission. I can't dismiss Chomsky's important work like Manufacturing Consent just because I think he's a stubborn fuddyduddy when it comes to 9/11 or JFK. Yes, he's missing part of the big picture, but he paints a very good and valuable portrait of the parts he does know.

So, I'm always disappointed to see Chomsky attacked wholesale for his shortcomings which are completely overshadowed by what he has explained and exposed so well.



Firefox auto-spell-check recognizes "Chomsky." Cool.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Noam Chomsky

Postby eyeno » Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:41 am

I actually think there's a much stronger evidentiary case in support of John Grinder and Gregory Bateson having spook affiliations than is true of Noam Chomsky.



why?
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Noam Chomsky

Postby American Dream » Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:12 am

eyeno wrote:
I actually think there's a much stronger evidentiary case in support of John Grinder and Gregory Bateson having spook affiliations than is true of Noam Chomsky.



why?

Because Grinder and Bateson both have documented histories of working directly for spy organizations.

Chomsky does not.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests