tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.comments2023-10-31T08:50:43.614-05:00ANEKANTAVADAQhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10444952585830773530noreply@blogger.comBlogger292125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-48759760006160769992019-07-30T05:04:36.055-05:002019-07-30T05:04:36.055-05:00professional south delhi escortsprofessional <a href="https://www.delhipetals.com/south-delhi.html" rel="nofollow">south delhi escorts</a>Sanjitahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13889977411300936762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-61703510233944137102019-07-17T23:31:16.709-05:002019-07-17T23:31:16.709-05:00NP: $freewill = NaN
MJC: Hah! Why couldn't ...NP: $freewill = NaN<br /><br />MJC: Hah! Why couldn't I just have said that?<br />I like that, though -- Free Will is *exactly* like i: incredibly useful, vital in carrying out certain operations, but not physically definable or tangibly real (and indeed, imaginary). Yet imaginary in such a way that it seems to naturally result from materially meaningful operations.<br />Free Will, the √-1 of human existence.<br /><br />NP: Now that's a great definition!<br />I agree with you, btw. Or, rather, the world agrees with itself.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-32864334571071739572019-07-17T23:31:01.926-05:002019-07-17T23:31:01.926-05:00So anyway, the same is true regarding a Soul not f...So anyway, the same is true regarding a Soul not fit within any given theistic cosmology, with the additional fact that if we do not assume a supernatural teleology, it becomes impossible to define choice. What does choice mean when choice is unconstrained by any material considerations? If there is no Ultimate Supernatural Teleology, but there *is* a Soul that gives Free Will, upon what basis would it Freely Make its choices? I cannot think of any possible basis for choice but the material world or supernatural cosmology; this is what I mean by undefined (or undefinable), not implausible. Or I suppose, it is undefinable without assuming a Cosmology/Teleology. But we have no basis for proving or disproving such a supernatural Cosmology, we just have no rational basis to believe in them--knowing that a lack of rational basis is not the same as disproof. It is a self-regarding or sanity-keeping assumption, that rationality is possible and consistent, ultimately unprovable in the same way Cosmology is. The crucial difference, in my view, is that materialism (proceeding only from an understanding of observable or deducible-from-observation causes) can yield fruitful understanding of our world and has shown its usefulness through science and its success. Simultaneously, defining Free Will is undefinable from within such an understanding, because the differences between a being with Free Will and without cannot be intelligibly formulated from within such an understanding. That is, I can imagine the possibility of a being freely making choices based on bounded rationality, limited knowledge and recollection, etc.--making the choices it thinks is best for itself, in a non-deterministic manner, but how would such a being be different from one in the same circumstances without Free Will?<br /><br />I suppose you could argue that this means that the only meaningful definition of free will are the cosmological possibilities I laid out, which are likewise dismissable under a materialist frame. Hence your point: implausible, not undefinable. The irony of course is that our theory as to whether or not free will exists is completely immaterial--the irony which shooting-the-shit conversations like this always come back to. I don't have the ability to convince you or myself or anyone else of any proposition out of will; I'm not "choosing" to write these words, you're not choosing to evaluate them and formulate rebuttals or expansions, I'm not choosing to maintain my position or modify it. Yet our own limited abilities at understanding make it appear that all of these things are occurring. So, from an internally material frame, am I obligated to believe my own subjective experience of my own Will from my repeated perceptions ("empirical observations") of it, or am I obligated to believe the logic derived from a series of other beliefs and propositions based on my repeated perceptions ("empirical observations") of the way the material world appears to work under a certain interpretive frame? (And one which, if history is any guide, will be ridiculed as quaint, limited, and based on seemingly obvious falsities and self-deception in 1000, 2000 years? In a way, empiricism would lead us to believe that most/much of what we are deriving from science will be viewed as important, but ultimately quaint and based on some correct and some incorrect premises. Very few ideas survive the test of time, which is what makes them so fascinating. Most of the innovations and expansions of a given idea will be a blind alley or misapprehension. So empirically, we can assume with a high degree of confidence that a large portion of our most strenuously empirically derived information is incorrect in important ways.)<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-14429293082473205112019-07-17T23:30:03.903-05:002019-07-17T23:30:03.903-05:00Okay, now what if we assume a supra-natural decisi...Okay, now what if we assume a supra-natural decision-making force? Then, how would decisions be different? If we presume (and it seems those who believe in a soul do) that whatever this entity is, it is still influenced by material phenomena, how would its decisions differ discernibly from beings without a soul (but the same faculties as humans)? In order to know this, one must know the motivations of this "soul", but where would such motivations come from? Without materially-derived influences, there is no basis for which a "soul" to be motivated. Good, evil, moral, immoral, selfish, altruistic--these can all only be defined within the context of a material world, not in the abstract. Or, at least, those who believe in God(s) of course believe the opposite, that Good et al. is and can only be defined as the supernatural whims of this invisible friend; these whims are simultaneously discernible via select contacts with humans on Earth and impossibly mysterious due to their origin from an ultimately Unknowable Entity in that we cannot conceptualize the whole of Its motivations or nature. So in the special case of "God(s) Exist", we have the idea that our decisions are or should be influenced by an imperfect understanding of an impossible-to-understand plan, and thus the whole Proposition is untestable, because the differences between a world where there is a plan we can't understand and a world wit no ultimate plan are completely undefinable. Again, this is like the infinite and cleverly disguised East Timorese Leprachauns that *may* be making up my throw rug--I am under no obligation to believe in all the possible but unfalsifiable hypotheses in the world. But this is a really a time- and sanity-saving rubric; there is no reason or obligation from a materialist viewpoint to entertain such notions, and there are infinitely many of them, but any unknown number of them *may* be true. We don't entertain them because to proceed with any rational action we *must* assume that we are not simply the dream of a sleeping giant, or that all of our present awarenesses aren't simply an elaborate retrospectively justifying delusion; that is to say, we must assume our evaluation of material causes and seeming consistencies in the world are indeed material consistencies, otherwise there would be no point to proceeding with studying anything. This does not mean ignoring these fanciful "possibilities" is objectively correct, just that there is no rational and internally consistent alternative.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-40564792599231926152019-07-17T23:29:35.691-05:002019-07-17T23:29:35.691-05:00NP: Undefinable, or implausible (by the uniformita...NP: Undefinable, or implausible (by the uniformitarian point you make)? <br />Also: you lost me at soul.<br /><br />MJC: Undefinable, NP. The argument of many is that Free Will should be defined as the ability to make decisions apart from material causes--in other words, a soul. I don't believe one exists--don't why that it comes across that I do--but the only coherent viewpoint I can see from which to define Free Will would be a soul, the intrusion of a decision-making source independent of material causes.<br /><br />NP: But isn't that a definition?<br /><br />MJC: The philosophical point to me is this: Free Will is undefinable and untestable without the supposition of a soul, and it is actually beyond undefinable--meaningless--*with* the supposition of a supra-material soul.<br />If one defines Free Will without a supernatural force, then many have argued that there is no possible source from which a non-deterministic decision-making system can arrive: the mind is made of material, and therefore all choices must proceed from material causes that are deterministic and therefore preclude free choice. (Determinism in the sense I mean it includes Philosophy Bro's indeterminism--that is, even if you argue something is open to chance or probabilistic, being purely probabilistic is distinct from free choice.) So, Free Will becomes undefinable (or rather, undefined, in recognition of your question re: a definition; my argument is more properly that all definitions of Free Will are inherently contradictory such that the question cannot be meaningfully asked or answered, all appearances to the contrary) in this context, because it posits: a) Free Will means making choices independent of material, deterministic/probabilistic causes, and b) no such supernatural independence exists.<br /><br />MJC: It is untestable, at least as far as I can see, because I thought of the question: how would decisions made by a "Free Will" being in a material universe be different than those confined by material causes? That is, given this thought experiment, how would the two differ in observable ways:<br />1) There is no immaterial soul, but beings are able to freely make decisions based on bounded rationality, limited information, and a mix of self-regarding, altruistic, and reciprocal motivations.<br />2) There is no immaterial soul, and beings make decisions based on bounded rationality, etc. etc. that are strictly deterministic consequences of material causes.<br />How would we differentiate the two? What differences can be presumed or hypothesized between the two? That is to say -- how would an individual with Free Will, imperfect knowledge, and interactions with an environment it does not completely control differ in its decisions from an individual without said Will, the same circumstances, and strict deterministic decision-making?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-70098814738430131302019-01-15T01:00:16.999-05:002019-01-15T01:00:16.999-05:00Your blog is good. It's great.
san anto...Your blog is good. It's great. <br /> <a href="https://www.adultlook.com/l/sanantonio-tx" rel="nofollow">san antonio escorts</a><br />wallacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00419314399535976155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-10158355431359252582012-12-11T15:06:36.621-05:002012-12-11T15:06:36.621-05:00Elevatorgate a "legitimate" example of s...Elevatorgate a "legitimate" example of sexism? It was a polite invitation to coffee that Rebecca interpreted as "sexualizing". He did the exactly the right thing by taking "no" for an answer, but even that wasn't good enough for her.ou812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-26057634036273836162012-10-25T21:45:56.908-05:002012-10-25T21:45:56.908-05:00Well said. I'm coming from a different angle, ...Well said. I'm coming from a different angle, as someone who was previously quite religious but is no longer into the whole church "thing", and much of the commentary I have observed in the atheist/skeptic community has been venemous, rude, bigoted and arrogant - and therefore no better than some of the more hateful religious groups they oppose.<br /><br />I have been reading lately about the destruction of many traditional cultures and religions around the world as a result of the imposition of modern ideals, whether they be Christian or capitalist or communist or whatever - sometimes in the form of international "Aid" - and have been leaning toward a notion that many religious systems and customs have inherent value in the way that they maintain stability and meaning within a community, even if some of the morals seem cruel or diametrically opposed to "western" notions of morality and justice. The loss of these cultures - many of which are living with far more sensitivity to people and environment - to the homogeneous behemoth of modernity, does not constitute any positive notion of "progress" for humanity. Yet atheism-and-rationality-as-religion would seem to pursue that goal as vehemently as the various "Christian", Capitalist and Communist empires that have plundered the earth's people, cultures and resources for the past few centuries.<br /><br />I'm not sure there is a simple solution; I think most cultures think they have (or are moving toward) some ideal of values and morality, but the destructive (and often dominant) ones are the ones that arrogantly try to force the rest of the world to come with them, often in the name of "love" or "for their own good", but also for selfish gain. When skeptics do the same - especially when they do so without being polite and respectful, they are simply being the worst kind of hypocrites.<br /><br />If people want to rid the world of religion (not that I think they should), they must first take on the positive roles that religion fills in society, and that begins with a morality of respect and love.<br /><br />Sorry if I ranted too long! :)Christopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00053264204175951625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-71890767759035124852012-04-27T02:26:42.457-05:002012-04-27T02:26:42.457-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.sports supplies water polohttp://sportssupply.com/Swimming-Water-Polo/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-4785900071188573062012-03-12T04:34:31.406-05:002012-03-12T04:34:31.406-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.James Lovellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12015624904437629367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-69869082907080652832012-03-12T04:33:34.352-05:002012-03-12T04:33:34.352-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.James Lovellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12015624904437629367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-73259304408334474022012-01-31T20:04:10.224-05:002012-01-31T20:04:10.224-05:00Agreed. Does that mean I'm voting for Newt, S...Agreed. Does that mean I'm voting for Newt, Santitarium, or Romney. I think not.Daktarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08291715601733518982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-53782004328211023042011-06-25T11:12:51.197-05:002011-06-25T11:12:51.197-05:00??
you were warned!??<br /><br />you were warned!Qhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10444952585830773530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-4411284907842429112011-06-25T11:09:53.856-05:002011-06-25T11:09:53.856-05:00Thank you. Never having once in my live watched B...Thank you. Never having once in my live watched BSG, I'm now saved from ever having to watch BSG, because of your well-placed SPOILERS!<br /><br />Bravo!Daktarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08291715601733518982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-48323795512482481362011-03-19T10:49:30.704-05:002011-03-19T10:49:30.704-05:00Hmmm and ummm...
I emphatically don't think t...Hmmm and ummm...<br /><br />I emphatically don't think there is a soul. Don't know what else to say about that, and not sure how to fix that it came across that I did...<br /><br />As far as Free Will being weighty or not, I'm actually again not sure what to say. I know you don't go in much for philosophy, but it has certainly been considered a meaty topic classically is all I can say. And your definition of free will sort of sidesteps the whole classic debate--possibly intentionally. The argument is whether or not we can be said to even have <em>made</em> choices, given that everything has to proceed from physical causes. That is, are we just incredibly complex programs being read out in interaction with everything else? If so, we can hardly be said to have made choices.<br /><br />I'd be interested to see you engage with the classic free will debate/arguments, which is what this post is a tag-along to. Philosophy Bro has a decent overview of this at the link I put up.<br /><br />Sorry to hear the recent news from your way about the job and all. But I'm quite sure you're gonna finish this sumbitch. And you've got just as much excuse, or more, much more, than me for not posting as much meaty stuff. And you've still been posting plenty of other things, and dieting and exercising and cooking and generally kicking ass, so I'm actually a little chagrined!!<br /><br />Unfortunately, I think this re-sighting of J/Q/whoever the hell is gonna end up being a fluke.Qhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10444952585830773530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-56765047899940009332011-03-19T09:39:01.711-05:002011-03-19T09:39:01.711-05:00Oh, and you need to fix the link to my blog on you...Oh, and you need to fix the link to my blog on your sidebar. It's http:/daktarii.blogspot.com. And I've been just as derelict as you in posting anything meaty in the past year. Ugh.<br /><br />Finishing this damn degree may kill me.Daktarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08291715601733518982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-5746709636832470852011-03-19T09:27:21.552-05:002011-03-19T09:27:21.552-05:00I'm weirded out by the idea that you think the...I'm weirded out by the idea that you think there is a soul.<br /><br />Second, I think free will is simply improperly defined here. Free will is the ability to act like douche or not. You can do the hedonistic route or you can do what's "right". Right, of course, being determined by the Puritans.<br /><br />Honestly, I don't think free will is nearly as weighty as the emphasis you are placing on it here. Free will are the singular, everyday decisions we make that change the course of our lives. We are a product of the many, seemingly unrelated decisions we made <i>freely</i> throughout our lives. <br /><br />And given the state of my existence at the moment, there is some serious karma kicking my arse.<br /><br />Glad to see you back J or Q or whoever the hell you are now.Daktarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08291715601733518982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-70159683242863849182010-11-17T18:48:40.411-05:002010-11-17T18:48:40.411-05:00Same for me, I've stopped writing just because...Same for me, I've stopped writing just because you did! (Or because I'm also too busy.)Becky Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13822321397527695015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-13252858013186920552010-11-10T16:57:08.169-05:002010-11-10T16:57:08.169-05:00Sure I noticed that you've been gone. I'v...Sure I noticed that you've been gone. I've been so lonely, I abandoned my own blog in retaliation! Who's Q?Daktarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08291715601733518982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-6399103922182991662010-05-14T04:41:03.442-05:002010-05-14T04:41:03.442-05:00Nice posting,goodluck. Thanks for sharing.<a href="http://www.wholesaleinc.net/" rel="nofollow">Nice</a> <a href="http://www.wholesaleinc.net/Wholesale-cell-phones-pdas_c1" rel="nofollow">posting</a>,<a href="http://www.wholesaleinc.net/Wholesale-hiphone_c29" rel="nofollow">good</a><a href="http://www.wholesaleinc.net/Wholesale-multi-function-cell-phones_c30" rel="nofollow">luck</a>. <a href="http://www.wholesaleinc.net/Wholesale-bar-cell-phones_c31" rel="nofollow">Thanks</a> <a href="http://www.wholesaleinc.net/Wholesale-slide-cell-phones_c32" rel="nofollow">for</a> <a href="http://www.wholesaleinc.net/Wholesale-watch-cell-phones_c34" rel="nofollow">sharing</a>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-12564510659831652002010-03-27T00:12:25.815-05:002010-03-27T00:12:25.815-05:00This is why I don't concern myself with "...This is why I don't concern myself with "pure" philosophy. I just get the feeling that I'm looking into a house of mirrors. None of it is real and it is all designed to make me feel unbalanced.<br /><br />When people start talking about "the Enlightenment" and relativism and anti-racist racism and, in particular, critics of criticism, it just makes my effing head spin.<br /><br />You're a better man than me, Dr. J.Daktarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08291715601733518982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-55023926008007493382010-03-13T23:26:17.514-05:002010-03-13T23:26:17.514-05:00I agree with your basic premise. However, in many...I agree with your basic premise. However, in many cases, life WAS simpler in the past. Family life DOES change with time. In some ways it's good (dishwashers, washing machines, microwave ovens, indoor plumbing), in other ways not so much. But the point is, that it is the crankiness itself that is a product of age. <br /><br />In the same way young people think (and rightly so), that the older generations are out of touch with their culture, old people think (and rightly so) that young people are vastly irritating. See further response on my page.Daktarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08291715601733518982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-64352612737684519712009-12-30T21:25:57.012-05:002009-12-30T21:25:57.012-05:00Heh. Well, your final point is a good one: "h...Heh. Well, your final point is a good one: "help get our common life experience to that place where we don't have to worry about who's majority and who's minority and why can't someone, somewhere tap into that desire and help me help." I will say, though, that given the locations you've lived, it's not *too* surprising that you haven't found many to help you help, and as far as field, I don't know what the hell is up with that, because your incisive wit and decisive insight is always worth responding to, even (or perhaps especially) when it's something you're still feeling out or not totally sure of (or totally sure of but also somewhat totally in disagreement with me or field over some point ;p<br /><br />But looking for allies on the interblogs is always dicey (cf. your experiences at Pharyngula, a wretched hive of scientific scum and villainy among many of the commenters), and I maintain that the *feeling* that your desire to help isn't appreciated isn't necessarily the *reality* that it isn't. Or at least, not reality in general, though it may be on the blogs and places you frequent and live. Like I said, in my experiences at Michigan (I think I said this), I was a go-between for my black friends from Detroit who had never been in a majority white classroom, and my white friends from everywhere else that hadn't had small group projects with black folks before. Though there was plenty of room for disaster, most of my friends learned a lot and built bridges and all that kumbaya shit. And the white people with further interest in race, in helping out--well, engineers aren't interested in that. But they're plenty welcome in the halls of UM Ecology and SNRE within the groups I moved and shook with.<br /><br />As far as my disappointment, which I will leave to the dustbins of yesterweek, it was precisely because I think/feel/know that you "get" a whole heckuva a lot that I felt "disappointment", because many of the points you raise are, frankly, points that have raised with me by many, many less informed and insightful white folks. As I think I said before, maybe it's unfair to lump the surface similarities together, but nonetheless, there was a disjunction between your complaints and my estimation of your insight and "get"-ingness. So I suspect you're right and there's some misunderstanding, because I'm fully sure you understand quite a bit. The fact that it seemed to me like your points fit into a less enlightened worldview is surely just that miscommunication you referred to, because I also hold you in the highest regard and wish we had "a hundred more like you", or like you at least insofar as they matched your passion, depth, genuineness, and fantastic drollness mixed with fantastic balls-out willingness (eagerness!) to face things head on.<br /><br />I of course also desire somewhere where we don't have to worry about who's majority and who's not, though I suppose I usually wouldn't put it that way because there will always be the history that led us to today, even if/when today=substantively just and equal world, and we should always worry about it in that we learn about it and we maintain the stories and the good elements of the cultures and peoples we came from, even as we forge, mix and match new cultures and new peoples. But that's probably just my normally more wordy way to agree with something someone else said. <br /><br />And yes. 2010: Drink on.Qhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10444952585830773530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-79534704573423098372009-12-30T19:28:12.890-05:002009-12-30T19:28:12.890-05:00I will agree to leave this one alone in hopes that...I will agree to leave this one alone in hopes that you can I can one day have that long discussion, and do our bitching and moaning over black and tans. However, before I do, I wish to clarify what I feel was a major miscommunication between us in this series of posts. I hope you know that I hold you in the highest regard. (I was telling my mother about you while I was home visiting and I told her that if anyone could help solve world hunger, you were the guy.) So don't be all thinking I take you for granted or don't respect your opinion or any of that other kind of shit. You are among my top three favorite people and if you consider that I'm one of them, I'm not sleeping with you, and we've never met, by cracky that's saying something. So when THAT guy is disappointed in me, I'm sure as shit interested in finding out why. My point being, I think I did not understand in your first response what it was about my comments that disappointed you. I do now. Or at least I think I do. And I will concede that I took the easy way out in that first post (rehashing the Racilicious thing that STILL gets my goat), but I never meant to suggest that the whole (or even most) community of color isn't interested in my thoughts and efforts. I never assumed that you were trying to shut down discourse, and I think therein lies our great miscommunication, although I did misread the tenor of your response.<br /><br />I'm still not sure why my comments elicited SUCH a strong response from you. You are just going to have to chalk it up to my inexperience. I still maintain that nationality is not race. So we disagree. No big whoop. However, I think I "get" a lot more than your disappointment would suggest, and I do occasionally :/ get my panties in a knot when someone tells me that I have to pay for sins that I actually am busting my ass to set right. I am working to understand the issues, working to correct the things I can...just working because it is the right thing to do. It's a learning curve and maybe I was being a total shit, but Hey! Every now and again, I say you get a pass. Look at the alternative. I could shrug my shoulders walk away from the problem. <br /><br />So, in a nutshell, I agree that white opinion shouldn't shape black self-identity--that I have no business REALLY commenting on what people want to be called--I just find it amusing when people do things that don't make sense to me. BUT, when people are talking about black-white relations, I sure as shit DO think that white people should have a voice. When the field makes broad-stroke assumptions about white folks (not just "Rethugs" or "Dumb-o-crats") that are both wrong and offensive, I should have a voice. I should be able to use those opportunities to talk about a white opinion outside the stereotype. You asked if I had commented on his blog and yes I have, but he has never once responded to my points. In fact, his commenters regularly ignore anything I have to say. Either I'm not interesting or I'm actively being ignored or no one gives a shit about the logic I present. Who's to say?<br /> <br />I am disappointed, albeit not as disappointed as you, that you didn't seem to get the point of my follow-up post (or if you did, other points seemed to have taken precedence): that I am anxious to try to help get our common life experience to that place where we don't have to worry about who's majority and who's minority and why can't someone, somewhere tap into that desire and help me help. <br /><br />With that, I lay this series to rest. I look forward to what I hope is my last first date this New Year's Eve and many more provocative, interesting, enjoyable, thought-provoking, and downright fun discussions with you in the new year. <br /><br />#1 on my resolution list is this: I resolve to share that beer with J in 2010.<br /><br />DDaktarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08291715601733518982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6993164.post-82424620189779615142009-12-30T18:44:54.228-05:002009-12-30T18:44:54.228-05:00"Speaking of racism, what's up with the w..."Speaking of racism, what's up with the weird racial undercurrents in Avatar?"<br />Hah. Don't know, B. I've been in a long conversation about this on Facebook.<br /><br />I have heard the problem of some black Americans being not, strictly, African Americans -- including first-generation African immigrants or of Caribbean descent. This is an area that I, too, find myself somewhat off-footed, because, especially in terms of Caribbean Americans, it seems that their racial experience would fit under the general rubric. That is, the Caribbean has suffered from imperialism and discrimination, although on many of those islands, it wasn't from a white majority living on the island itself. And African immigrants in the US don't have the US African American legacy of slavery, so I do see the difference there (which is, I forgot to add, another way in which Caribbean American seems to fit African American-the legacy of slavery), so I see how then the terms and identification gets much more confused. Of course, there will never be a term that perfectly encompasses everyone it "should" and doesn't imply anything about anyone else, rather parallel to the fact that there is no such thing as 100% security, and certainly there isn't without wicked unintended effects.<br /><br />This why perhaps I find it useful to distinguish between African American, which I see as multi-generational black Americans, and blacks, who can be of any national origin. And I don't see what in the world D's problem with calling this "race" is, as race has never made perfect (or sometimes any) biological sense, and its intuitive meaning maps well enough onto these definitions of African American and black as far as I'm concerned. If one wishes to call them oogedy-boogedy, I suppose that's fine, but I don't have a problem with calling it race, and with the author on Racialicious "incorrectly" identifying her race with national origin, which was the point of contention that kind of started this whole thing. Language is anything if not flexible, and the "correct" meanings of things are often not what we think they are (one of the reasons I love <a href="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll" rel="nofollow">Language Log</a>; often that word does not mean what we think it means). People have used "race" for nationality before and shall again; I can't say if that's historically accurate, but I'm unbothered by its use and in/accuracy in Racialicious really (though I didn't read the original post and may have to retract that).Qhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10444952585830773530noreply@blogger.com