Jump to content

Caid Ivik

FED2k Staff
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About Caid Ivik

  • Rank
  • Birthday 03/16/2002

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Sardaukar Command Noricum

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. privet! happy new year btw is EdricO still around? we're preparing a lecture on Frankfurt School with a colleague this year, so I'd have a question or two
  2. we did a FED2k sessions in Vienna with Egeides last year, I've just heard his flock is doing well I can't wait for the new movie
  3. How is the project going on? I'd have a question: can we add new animations, or does it go through the .exe?
  4. It seems to me that every religion has both the psychological (spirituality, the "sense") and communal (cult, communion) aspects. The need to spread the belief, to do Jihad or show everyone how big Christian I am can also be traced to psychological roots. What seems to me as well, however, is that it isn't caused by the urge to commune with the eternity, but rather to compensate one's deficiencies in the mundane sphere.
  5. Caid Ivik

    The end for RTS

    It's funny to read "the genre is dead" just after the release of the second CoH ;) But I agree it needs a new Dune game. Something more tactical, book-like war of assassins with hunter-seekers and bodkins...
  6. They are politically involved, but that's exactly what Erdogan and such ones don't like - they don't want people "politically involved" outside of conventional parties, nations or other units they allow into their club. There is a sense of common understanding between them, expected behaviors. Anything coming from outside of party-based politics is for them a mob, an unfair strike orchestrated by the opposition, an antidemocratic rebellion, and, primarily, a threat.
  7. Ha, it's been a really long time since then :) During these 13 years, I remained loyal to the Mother Church, despite the limited access to the Eucharist and criticism of its local cryptofascist clergy. Analyzing medieval Muslim theology in my MA thesis and nationalism (the dominant global religion nowadays) in the PhD, I can say I remained bound to a general monotheistic religion in both private and professional life. But still this can't contradict any sense of communion I experience when burning Morena effigies, Midsummer bonfires or listening to Amon Amarth. Why does religion have to be ethnographically categorized into "Christian", "Muslim", "Pagan" practices? Isn't it just an attempt to assert similarity between individuals of a specific group, an imagined community, a race? I think that the symbols, practices and narratives of specific, historical traditions, are seen as more important than the religious sense, the will to dedicate, to connect the eternal and the vain, which can be observed almost universally. Instead of developing this sense, we focus on the contradictions in the actual traditions. Speaking of religions in plural denotes different human spiritualities, while actually their similarity in the relation towards the God (or however they call it) is what the most holy scriptures teach. This boundary maintenance is basically what I perceived as the fuel for the flame in the previous thread.
  8. It seems to me that Whorf pushed the ideas prepared by Sapir and Boas to extremes - determinism, marginalization of differences within language branches... it gave linguists access to anthropological studies, but more for experimental reasons. Sapir's theory of language drift was nearly forgotten, we're using again only the Schleicher's old typology, and the "American school" is now mostly about abstract things like language emergence or, for that matter, proving that Whorf was right.
  9. lol, studying down the individuals subsisting on a privileged position in power relations this wednesday I'm leading a debate about Whorf in our synchrone-linguistic seminary...
  10. Well, I'll try to answer it from the end. I've just looked at what would Kant say about emergent/invented concepts, as I think this anti-innateness camp owes a lot to him ;) for him, an idea can be formulated, but not sufficiently defined, working as an abstract point of convergence (or "direction" as you say) for discourses trying to improve the saliency or coherence of its meaning. That is (now I'll steal a bit from Merleau-Ponty's interpretation), the emergence/invention does need some pre-existing terms and a multitude of speakers. I don't mean "invention" is like Kant came and said, "now I want that 'idea' means this and this", a discourse requires communicating persons, not preachers. In this way, "invention" doesn't differ much from "emergence". Semantic changes, at least with more complicated terms, need personal involvement, but they are necessarily social processes. Thus, we also can see Aristotle not only as a preacher, his meditation directed by linguistic dispositions, but rather vice-versa as a worker, trying to manipulate the course of language. I'd like to give a link to some book about relations between codification of language and power, but I think only of politological works, perhaps you do have some tips? Then, I can pose the question again, what is that saliency about? If a term seems clear to me, I don't talk about it. Term "about" in my previous science is a kind of spatial metaphor, which doesn't have to be the most salient one in this context, but I simply mention it. Does this involve semantic change? If I start to use "about" only in strictly spatial sense ("I'm just walking about"), it may change the meaning at least in the environment I'm speaking it. The swap in meaning is here very simple, needing only a quantity of speakers to adopt it, without need of an exhausting discourse. Motives why people do so, well saliency can be one of explanations, but in phonology it's hard to find out too. Pragmatic argument: if my language lacks such a term, I'll adopt it. Aesthetic argument: I like it, it's easier to pronounce than an alternative ("around"). More complicated terms like "idea", "cognitive metaphor" or "ergative language", on the other hand, have such motivations somewhat embedded in their very use. They depend rather on elaboration and experiences of, as well as knowledge of the discourses by present users. The very question "why" is, I think, more philosophical or anthropological than of linguistics or semantics, bound with dispositions of both discourse and persons speaking the language. Yet I think it would help more to solve the Piraha mystery (not why Piraha didn't, but why did Protoindoeuropean actually develop numerals?) than that dreaming about universals.
  11. Benveniste...that theory was handled in something from Derrida, I think. Yet I'd be cautious with it, this is an interpretation, not an "evidence", for example pronouns or particles aren't reflected in Aristotle's system. His idea of substance is also quite different from Platonic forms or pre-Socratic arche, although all of them could be seen as a reflection of the grammatical category of noun. The language provided these terms, sure, but the differences were elaborated by individuals within a specialized discourse. It could've been the case that 5th century protoslavic or protogermanic languages had equivalent terms too, but didn't have the discourse, which would mould them in a more exact way. Thus, I believe there are no "universals", only prevalent concepts, loaned by languages without discourses enough deep to develop a sound alternative. For example if in philosophy "epoche" gets enough developed, it may replace "substance" as the "goal" of science. I don't know, if mere pragmatism (salience idea) is enough for a term to spread, but that's like with phonology, you never know when your kids start speaking r as l, neither why ;) With the "innate ideas" I was referring to the end of article, let's say it was just for the atmosphere... But the evidence problem: we have an evidence of individual judgement in the matter of defining substance, an "invention" of the term. The fact we don't have it for numerals or for example intersections doesn't mean these weren't "invented" at some historical point too.
  12. Isn't cancellation of debts and nationalization of banks quite a lot for "absolute minimum"? Whose debts and how should countries take control of banks which are paying them? Debts (and banks who give them) are the engine of economy, so you would need to discover something more effective.
  13. How can a proper linguist or psychologist speak of innate ideas? We can talk about a priori concepts or prenatal perception, but the assumption that people are born with some knowledge seems to me a too hardcore platonism. What would we have languages for, if perceptibles sufficed to humans? Numerals are words, learned with the language, as all the other grammatical categories, given that they do exist in the society one is born to. They serve mostly a descriptive function and don't reflect the full potential of mathematics. What about Piraha's deductive power? How do they cope with identity principle? On the other hand, I think it shows how misleading can be the use of a global lingua franca like English in such a research :) It's used in every part of the world, so it has the brain-capacity to adopt any concept. "Universals" themselves are a quite complicated one, I don't know if there is any other language than Latin (from which we have it), which has developed something like it. It's a very culture-specific term, which reflects the needs of the discourse, in which it was formulated. A researcher should be aware of it before he would declare something to be a universal.
  14. Really pretty, another reason to replace Greece with Turkey in the EU... But still, Ataka in Bulgaria or Jobbik in Hungary are militant parties too, Nikolic is strong in Serbia too. With Greece, whole Balkans may be lost for EU if it becomes clear it can't offer enough here.
  • Create New...