Comments for To learn something

Comment on Different types of societies by anonymos

anonymos — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:50:04 +0000

i hate your website

Comment on Coming community by Coming Community, part 2 | To learn something

Coming Community, part 2 | To learn something — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:39:21 +0000

[...] first wrote about the coming community in January [...]

Comment on Evolution of States by Arttu

Arttu — Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:00:17 +0000

Hmm, I think the evolutionary paths in the picture should be more zig-zag type. Wasn’t socialism actually a response to the inequality of the Russia of 19th century? How inclusive (caring for everyone) was China before 1948? How about countries in Eastern Europe, did they have nationalism before they were included in the USSR? As we see from these questions, it’s not so simple, for example that socialism was already “innate” in Russian culture – it was more of a response to the capitalist development.

Comment on Evolution of States by Arttu

Arttu — Sat, 07 Jul 2012 15:36:50 +0000

Here’s an interesting book about the subject:

Sven Steinmo: The Evolution of Modern States: Sweden, Japan, and the United States. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

The Evolution of Modern States: Sweden, Japan, and the United States (Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics)

Comment on On discourse typology by Arttu

Arttu — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:45:11 +0000

Thank you for the comment, María! You have many interesting points, and while I probably don’t understand all of it, I try to respond something. (It has been a while since I wrote this post so I’m not quite in the mindset now.)

I would like to think that democratic communication that is based on mutual respect is something we should work towards, also in the context of the political system. The challenge to this is that current discourses are dominated by a certain authoritative thought; this is linked to the idea “knowledge is power”, which disempowers those who lack sophisticated knowledge about economy and politics.

Written text has many properties that are inaccessible by speech; for example, written text allows time for consideration and reflection, which is key to democratic communication. It surprises me that it isn’t used more in political argumentation, but speeches still dominate the field.

Perhaps we could make a basic categorization: speech as authoritative and written text as democratic communication? While spoken discussion is often like a sword fight in the open, writing e.g. a manifesto is more like a Trojan horse that penetrates the readers mind from inside. In live situations there are often emotions such as pride and shame involved, which are easier to override after self-reflection while writing.

Comment on On discourse typology by María

María — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:13:00 +0000

An interesting point to reflect on!
It connects two different theories: the discourse typology that deals with written texts and Jakobson & Hymes’ communicative functions which regard also oral communication.
You seem to think that the intention behind narrative and instructive types is basicly “emotional”, that is to convey the addresser’s point of view; while you find descriptive, explanatory and argumentative types, “directive” or aiming to make something move in the addressers.
On the one hand, I find surprising that “emotional” and “directive” are functions used to cause each the opposite consequence to the one that can be logically inferred from the apparent meaning of the term. I now see that “emotional” can be seen as “this is what I feel” when it is really “what I want to impose” and that “directive” could be interpreted as “do what I want you to do”, while it is actually the question “would you react to it?”. This would not surprise Van Dijk who has deeply studied the matter and it wouldn’t susprise either any sensible person awared and used to interpret most of the news just in the opposite direction to the literal meaning of the words used.
On the other hand, I agree with you in the fact that instructive texts are authoritative (emotional) and that argumentative ones are democratic (directive). From my point of view, as narrative, descriptive and explanatory allow a lot of connotation on the writer’s part with a hidden compensation ambition, they may be either authoritative or democratic.
We musn’t forget, though, that these written text categories are not clear-cut and that not only the predominance of one but also the order in which they are used greatly determine the effect of the discourse.
Thanks for whetting my desire to understand communication better so as to contribute to enhance the ongoing building of our, hopefully, everlasting Babel Tower.

Comment on On Social Casting by US War Veterans Tossing Medals, and its Meaning | To learn something

US War Veterans Tossing Medals, and its Meaning | To learn something — Tue, 22 May 2012 11:54:41 +0000

[...] negotiation process is actually tightly linked to the concept of social casting. While negotiated order approaches the social situation from the perspective of the end result, [...]

Comment on Power is Knowledge and Knowledge is Power: Exploring the Complex Dynamics of Power in Society by US War Veterans Tossing Medals, and its Meaning | To learn something

US War Veterans Tossing Medals, and its Meaning | To learn something — Tue, 22 May 2012 11:54:31 +0000

[...] the chemical balance that already exists in protozoa. (Homeostasis is equivalent to the thought of power use as managing cognitive dissonance, which I introduced back in [...]

Comment on What Makes Good Art? by Arttu

Arttu — Sat, 19 May 2012 12:55:22 +0000

That is a good point, Sheilina. I think financial value and famousness of the artist is part of the social side of art which hasn’t been discussed much. The financial value reflects and also builds the social valuation.

“This is considered good art, therefore it has high financial value. This art has high financial value, therefore it must be good.”

Also fame tends to spread like this. Imagine yourself asking: “Who’s Pablo Picasso?” and a friend answers: “Don’t you know? He’s the most influential artist of the 20th century!” Picasso’s art didn’t have a special value to you before you learned that “he’s a famous painter”. Now that you know it, you are more likely to happily pay for his paintings.

Comment on What Makes Good Art? by Sheilina

Sheilina — Sat, 19 May 2012 12:29:41 +0000

I’m surprised you’ve not mentioned perceived financial value, status and fame of the creator. I often hear people praise popular art solely for the price tag or infamy attached.