Chomsky on the Election

[arisbe]

"Kerry is sometimes described as 'Bush-lite', which is not inaccurate. But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."

An endorsement that might not help a great deal, and might even hurt. I am of two minds about it myself. Chomsky is for the welfare state and against the warfare state, and I have lost any ability to tell them apart. Chomsky would want an LBJ without the Vietnam. But Vietnams are what Great Societies do...

(Thanks to metaphorge for the link.)

Comments

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

What it boils down to for me is this: when we are dealt a hand, we play with it the best we can.

I think at this point buying time is the best we can do, and this is going to inform my choice.

Doesn't mean I'm going to stop plating on the other game boards, though... just means this is my move on this particular one.

[yechezkiel.livejournal.com]

Some anarchist-supporter Chomsky is, endorsing Presidential candidates, heh.

[winegodeatsyou.livejournal.com]

Yeah, Chomsky is most probably insane. Brillant, but deluded beyond any obvious hope.

[ktl.livejournal.com]

deluded in what way?

[winegodeatsyou.livejournal.com]

A) as a semiotician by training, Chomsky's theories are fairly not probable. Language cannot exist a proiri without some metaphysical structure, but Chomsky asserts that not only that language exist a priori, but this is a materialistic world.

b) He does not hold all state's to the same standard and preticipates in an Academic setting as an leftist "anarchist" sympathizer.

c) As stated above, he has contradictory views on the welfare state.

e) He is really brillant, no doubt, and I respect his scope, but somehow how has such inconsistent ideas cannot be held without some delusion of idealism or some disconnection from the workings of everyday "reality"

[ktl.livejournal.com]

a) I don't understand the terms you use in your objection. Chomsky claims that language has a deep structure, rather than being a learned behavior, and that all languages' structures are variations on of some sort of universal structure. I'd view the mathematical structure of nature and the logical structure of language in the same way.

b) Chomsky's noteriety is precicely the result of his insistence on holding all states to the same standard. He sees no reason why we should analyze the actions or government of the United States differently than comparable actions or governments of the former USSR or other nations. I wouldn't say that's insane.

c & e) Chomsky cites his own views on the welfare state as an example of his realism. Rather than holding to an idealistic anarchist position, he conceeds that government can do a lot of good in an unideal world. He maintains a healthly distinction between the ultimate ideal to be pursued, and the immediate pressing problems which can't be solved without temporary unideal actions.

[winegodeatsyou.livejournal.com]

Math is human creation. It has design flaws--the square root of negative one, or the idea of infinity and has it destablizes linear mathetics, for example. Nature does not have a mathetical structure in my view, math is structed off nature without any qualifying terms. Thus math, being totally abstract, mirrors nature in a way so generic that it can assert nothing but syntax strings. Hence logical statements like "a + b = c" will work if anything plugged in is not disqualifed by qualifiers A proiri, means without learning, and its a philosophical term. Everything has a syntax, but that syntax should be viewed as either metaphyiscal (outside of nature) or human originated. Since math has developed (infinity, zero, roots, vectors, and enter intergers were not always native to its thought) it can be said to be human in origin.

Why the above epistemological rant? Because language works on essentially the same way. It has syntax strings and evolves in that way. Deep communication is probably rooted in our brains, but it is hard to say whether or not language, verbal semoitics is. I tend to think not particularly in regard to langauge structures difference between say Koine Greek and South East Asians structures as being almost incapable. Here semiotics and epistemology overlap.

b) What one says and what one implies are different things. (ANd insane and deluded are NOT the same thing, btw.)

C) The welfare state does not move to idealism. The first example of the Welfare states I know of are Judah in the shift from caste to Kingship (which was terrible for the Jews if the biblical accounts are to be believed) and the Roman Empire. Julius Caesar took his army by increasing the grain dole. The welfare state is essentially not realism progressing towards idealism. To quote Levi Straus "Gifts make slaves"

[ktl.livejournal.com]

a) The gradual discovery of mathematics by humans is not the same as a development. If it were a "development", then mathematics could have gone in diverse directions. Instead, the proofs on which mathematics is built can be demonstrated and agreed to by all, and often have been independently arrived at by thinkers who never knew each other. The mathematical symbols might have changed, but the concept is just a development of logic.

No one is arguing that the surface characteristics of a language are innate or universal, these of course are of human invention. But the underlying structure remains the same: heads, complements, adjuncts... maori is no different than french in this regard.

b) Perhaps you could explain how you see Chomsky's words and implications differening in regards to various states.

c) The empowerment and unity of everyday people is a prerequisite to any left-anarchistic ideal, and an early consequence of empowerment is going to be collective political action by these same people. These people will tend to favor minimum wages, labor standards, protections against poverty and sickness, ie. the "welfare state". I don't think a left-anarchist would say that socialism is a "necessary" step towards anarchy, but rather that it is an inevitable result of the beginning of the journey.

[winegodeatsyou.livejournal.com]

1. Math works deductively and most mathetical proofs have circular answers and meet no stardards of empirical proofs. The concept of logic is not universal as logical development between south asia and Europe does not parrallel.

I think you are representing logic in a way that is more universal than it is and is very Platonic in view.

But "the proofs on which mathematics is built can be demonstrated and agreed to by all"

That statement is not true. infinity, for example, is consider a bane for math for bio-statistians who see it destablizing non-linear equations when applied to statistics. Two of my best friends are mathematians who disagree with several of the basic concepst of Elucidian geometry, about points, etc. There is no reconciling Elucidian geometry with non-Elucidain geometry after Descrates About the way negative numbers are used. Etc. Etc.

But these are based off of assumptions about the universe and the nature of abstractions in there relation to thought. You assume abstracts exist outside of the mind, I think they are consesus agreed upon. Neither position can be proven at this time. However, the the burden of proof is those who assert the positive, not the negative, unless it is a matter of faith. (IN this regard, I think most educated people are delluded, myself included).

Deductive thought methods are not discovered, they are invented and agreed upon.

2. I will be glad too, however, I will need to go back through "Rogue States" and "Power" to do so.

3. Okay, "collective political empowerment" is ahistorical. I favor minimum wages, but only with reservation and labor standards have never been universallly applied. But again, we are arguing two different things that have different views of the movement of history and debate here is pretty much useless. An ideologues view will not match a historists view--since they deal with what "will" happen, neither can be proven until everything is in ruins.

[winegodeatsyou.livejournal.com]

"No one is arguing that the surface characteristics of a language are innate or universal, these of course are of human invention. But the underlying structure remains the same: heads, complements, adjuncts... maori is no different than french in this regard."

The syntax line does not function the same in french and say Navaho. Again, here is the difference when you make a "structural" term so vague as to be universal and when it is actually universal. Head, complements, adjucts work so differently between a tonal and an atonal langauge for example (Catonese to English is a perfect example of this) as to say that the structures do NOT have the same baseorigin.

Same as in math, the terms are so abstracted that they can be universally applied so more about the terms than what they are being applied to.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

Basically, I hope Chomsky hurts Nader.

[vitriol120.livejournal.com]

The problem is that a State big enough to wage the War on Poverty at home is also big enough to wage wars of imperialism abroad; and both spring from an interventionist mindset that believes it our duty to meddle in the affairs of others for their own good.

[madam-silvertip.livejournal.com]

Oh, dear. Don't even know where to begin. I am very ambivalent about Chomsky. Not as a human being--I was for many years at MIT, and never heard anyone say a word against him; and I think he is a thoroughly decent man. But I wish there were more than one of him so his views could receive a jury of his peers rather than be taken almost symbolically as The Voice of Dissent, Authorized Version. IMO they range all the way from completely sensible (he is at his best when he is a scientist dissecting the mechanics of fallacy, & I give him huge credit for having more or less the same opinion of what the masses believe as the average intellectual while not necessarily blaming the masses) to the completely, indulgently out-there. I tend to agree that leftists in America want a Great Society without the Vietnam--a mind-boggling concept. Never had thought of it that way with Chomsky, before. Thanks.

[theoldanarchist.livejournal.com]

"Chomsky would want an LBJ without the Vietnam. But Vietnams are what Great Societies do..."

Ivan Illich expressed a similar view sometime back in the late '60s or early '70s. When I first read it, several years ago, I was rather stunned. In time, it sunk in, and I found myself in agreement. His great fear was that, in the wake of Vietnam, left and right (or segments of the two, more accurately) would unite for a disastrous war on poverty in the Third World, which war would only make the problem worse... far worse.

Illich, strictly speaking, was a far better anarchist than Chomsky. Old Ivan wanted neither the welfare nor the warfare state. And he never felt that a choice between the two was ever an honest or a fair choice. He rejected the very idea that the bulk of humanity had to make such a choice, or that any person, group of people, or institution---whether the U.S. gov't., the UN, or the World Bank---had the right to foist such a choice upon humanity. And I wholeheartedly agree.