Did it seem like i was attacking you?
>I thank you, Mikael. But I know it is a metaphor.
I didn't exactly get that impression from what you wrote.
>Have I the permission to use it IMG?
Use whatever you want. Just don't pretend that uninformed opinion about RW phenomena can be used for explanations in GAG without criticism.
>Where is the Gloranthan digest haunted by old, poor, humble, ironic poets
>and not with square, solid, positivist scientists? I want to join it...
You know, i consider it a mortal insult to be called 'positivist' (the horror, the horror!). If you had actually had some grasp of the sociomechanics of culture and language you would have realized that what i said was very far removed from positivism.
You posted a theory that showed a lack of understanding about how the phenomenon called 'culture' is constituted, functions and evolves and claimed that it could explain something. I commented that it was flawed, and gave some references as to my relative expertise in this matter because from your earlier posts it seems obvious that you demand proof of expertise or experience of whoever dares argue against you. Now you get pissed off because you think that i was being arrogant, and defend yourself by claiming that it was poetic metaphor all along.
>Journalists write news not culture
>(in strict terms).
What journalists write enter the consciousness of the people reading it. Hence journalism produces culture.
>I daresay the English language can't date back to Alfred: I am sure it
>formed after William, like the Italian's Language formed after the Holy
>Roman Empire. I chose Language as a dimension, you remember? If you search
>rots and the rots of rots, you always arrive to Adam and Eve, but it's
>unuseful, I suppose.
Gian, your opinions about when and where English and Italian became English and Italian and stopped being another language doesn't exactly make your theory more credible.
>Russia? Russia as a culture formed in the early middle ages, but its
>geography changed so much over the centuries that you can hardly connect
>Piotr the Great with the Vargrav Princes of Kiev. I could guess that, in my
>terms, Russian culture formed after they shook off the Mongols yoke (XIV
>century?). So, during the reign of Piotr it was a young, aggressive culture.
>Quod erat demonstrandum.
Arbitrarily deciding when russian culture formed and using that date to claim that russian was therefore young and aggressive isn't what i would call a conclusive arguement.
>In Glorantha, yes the Lunars defeated Tarsh, but with my theory you can
>explain in a not only military or political way the Fazzurite rebellion.
There is an easier way to explain that: the lunars had cultural innovations that became hits in tarsh. No need to theorize about putative ages of ill-defined cultures.
>I STUDIED Vico, the "inventor of sociology" (I didn't know this definition,
>but I suppose it could also apply to Plato...)
Vico and Comte and some other chaps whose names elude me at the moment have all been labelled 'father/inventor of sociology' by fin-de-siecle sociologists seeking to give the discipline of sociology a somewhat longer and reputable history than is actually the case.
Which is an analogy to how the perception of the 'age' of a culture is formed, BTW...
>Thank you for the MGF stuff. I am happy to know my ideas are most fitted for
>Maximum Game Fun and little else.
I concur. Compared to the other uses of your theory, it's MGF potential is relatively astronomical.
I know that these comments may sound unnecessary harsh, but you did call me a positivist...
Powered by hypermail