On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 1:43:39 PM UTC-5, Marc S wrote:
> hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2021 um 16:54:57 UTC+1:
> > > Your faulty logic argues: 1) It is not primitive to refer to Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno as Adorno and therefore => 2) it is also not primitive to express one's emotions using a primitive sign language.
> > >
> > > This is unreasonable, and exactly the kind of an idealistic synthesis Adorno argues against. You have to understand the particular differences here and look reality in the eye.
> > >
> > > It is not primitive to refer to Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno as Adorno, as Adorno is his last name. The relation to the object (Adorno) still remains concrete. But by using a primitive sign language as smileys to express one's emotions, the relation to the object (emotion) becomes totally abstract. The emotion you express by using a smiley is completely abstract. One can imagine people in pre-historic times shouting "ugga-ugga" if they were happy, or in today's times people using primitive icons to suggest that they are happy. But the way this happiness is expressed, is completely abstract.. It does not have any individual and concrete quality.
> > >
> > > To truly experience one's emotions, one should be able to articulate them as good as one can. But by using a primitive sign language to express emotions, we are sort of regressing back to pre-historic times in which people used the most primitive sounds to express their emotions "ugga ugga".
> > > > There is nothing primitive to 😀 and Adorno, nor does it dumb down. On the contrary, it comes in handy when you use your i-phone.
> > > >
> > > > Henk
> > > You may believe this. But you are not seeing the larger picture of it (social and psychological implications) and also - as pointed out above - you are neglecting the difference between calling Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno Adorno where the object-relation stays concrete; and reducing complex emotions to a primitive symbol where the object-relation is totally abstract. Staying totally abstract is almost like saying nothing at all.
> > >
> > > For example: Let's say some music reviewer has a rating system based on 5 smileys. So he reviews a new record, but not by concrectely explaining what he liked about said record, but by using smileys. Now you might know based on the number of smiley's (abstract info), how good the reviewer thought the record to be, but you have no concrete info on why.
> > <g> ... where angels fear to thread.
> >
> > Just one or two points.
> >
> > "You have to look reality in the eye" and by that, you mean: understand the difference between the modes of being of 😀 and Adorno - if I understand you correctly.
> Yes, although I would rather use the term objects instead of modes. You can compare these two objects, but you are not comparing them by carefully carving out the differences between them; but ignoring the differences altogether and equating them to be the same to make your argument. On a psychological level it seems to me, that your mind is trying to cope with the dissonance it has just encountered to establish somekind of harmony of thought again. The dissonance being that I have attacked people using smileys to express themselves, by calling this attitude primitive. It seems to me that you are being idealistic in proving your point neglecting reality.
>
> Your thought process has identified two objects:
>
> 1) Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno is often being referred to as Adorno when people speak of him
> 2) Emotions like being "happy" are being expressed through the use of a typographical sign as Nabokov calls it
>
> Your line of argumentation:
>
> If 1) is not primitive, then 2) is not primitive either.
>
> This is a logical fallacy in this case.
>
> As I have tried to demonstrate: These two objects can't be equated to be the same "type of short cut". When referring to Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno as Adorno, the relationship to the object you are trying to capture through the use of language remains concrete. Everyone has a concrete understanding of what (or more specifically: who) you mean. Even if you just say A, if the context is clear.
>
> But if you express an emotion you have felt through the use of a primitive sign such as a smiley, the complex and highly individual abstract emotion you have felt is being reduced to a simple, basic, primitive, abstract, universalized icon. All individuality and sense of meaning of what the feeling might have meant on a deeper level is lost here. And nobody has a concrete understanding of the feelign you are trying to express (so you are basically just wasting his time). The ability of humans to express themselves as sophisticatedly as language today makes possible, was a hard earned ability (progression of languages). Yet now this hard earned ability is basically being hijacked by the use of "shortcuts", because of reasons of comfort. (Maybe: Age of comfort backfires, as people try to express themselves in the most easy way possible.)
>
> The way people post smileys for example under youtube videos of classical music, reminds me of how in pre-historic times, people might have all used the same abstract grunts to address their admiration for something.
> > The distinction you make is between concrete (supposedly Adorno) and abstract (supposedly 😀).
> > However, both are signs, and refer to something they themselves are not.. In this case, to a historical person and an actual form of human behaviour.
> While I believe it to be true that every reference to an object can never grasp the object in it's entirety, you again fall for the same mistake you did earlier. There are different levels of abstraction, yet you try to say that every level of abstraction is the same (and thus subsuming every level of abstraction under one level of abstraction to make your argument. must be convient to consider all levels of abstraction to be the same). No, some abstractions are more concrete than others.

You are a perfect example of everything
that is wrong with German "philosophy".
Hair splitting every word, every phrase
and every sentence as if their meanings
were absolute in a system of perfect
expression, then drawing far reaching
conclusions with universal pretensions
from minute details that are irrelevant
in and by themselves.

I regret to say you have established a
new record for the amount of pure shit
anyone has ever posted on this ng in
such a short period of time. You make
even Monsigneur de Gaullesco appear
lucid and reasonable.

dk

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 4:09:51 PM UTC-5, Marc S wrote:
> And to add: When talking about Adorno,
> it is the same object we are talking about.

In your mind only.

> Your emotions are different than mine though
> in regards to every event, but a smiley suggests
> they are the same, which they are not. This needs
> to be articulated.

No, it doesn't. All that smileys signal is "watch out
for hidden/additional/conflicting" meanings. They
convey no other message by themselves.

> Don't you agree that it is a pretty primitive and
> unpersonalized formula to congratulate someone
> to his birthday by posting "Happy Birthday *smiley*"
> on his timeline? I mean how stupid is this? I never
> did this. The next level is just a smiley. And the last
> silence.

What you did or did not do does not make anyone
else primitive, unpersonalized or stupid.

dk

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 3:56:19 PM UTC-5, Marc S wrote:
>
> That he literally wishes for a primitive sign as
> the smiley to exist, to be used to describe one's
> affects as he indirectly does in answering the
> question, is quite an insult to human intellect in
> general. Affects need to be articulated to be
> experienced. A smiley is a pretty primitive way
> express one's affects. It also has the effect of
> dumbing people down, as they don't reflect
> enough on their own feelings anymore and opt
> for the cheapest way out by using a smiley. It
> seems to have become a standardized mechanism
> in today's conversations (even in face-to-face
> conversations you hear things like: LOL) to
> express yourself through - as Herman put it -
> shortcuts.

You are going off the rails every time you
write about anything. Freud would have
loved you as a patient!

dk

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 3:48:21 AM UTC-5, Herman wrote:
>
> I moved DK's post to a new topic, not to attack him

I did not feel "attacked" at all.

dk

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 5:44:12 PM UTC-5, hvt...@xs4all.nl wrote:
>
> You can do better than this, Marc!
>

No he cannot. He has already mixed
and blended every straing of German
"philosophy" from Kant to Adorno in
his delirious posts. There is nothing
more he can do, except perhaps to
start blending in French "philosophy"
and watch the explosion.

dk

On 12/2/2021 6:29 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 5:44:12 PM UTC-5, hvt...@xs4all.nl wrote:
>>
>> You can do better than this, Marc!
>>
>
> No he cannot. He has already mixed
> and blended every straing of German
> "philosophy" from Kant to Adorno in
> his delirious posts. There is nothing
> more he can do, except perhaps to
> start blending in French "philosophy"
> and watch the explosion.
>
> dk
>

I haven't read anything Marc has written since his unfortunate return. We were lamenting the lack of traffic and look what we got. Be careful of what you ask for. In his previous incarnation here he would get involved in all sorts of political topics (as do I). He wrote as if the amount of verbiage could win the day for his argument, whatever it was. Masses and masses of facts, all true as far as I know, that had nothing to do with the argument at hand. I stopped trying to interact with him long before he disappeared.

hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2021 um 23:44:12 UTC+1:
> Op donderdag 2 december 2021 om 22:09:51 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
> > And to add: When talking about Adorno, it is the same object we are talking about. Your emotions are different than mine though in regards to every event, but a smiley suggests they are the same, which they are not. This needs to be articulated.
> >
> > Don't you agree that it is a pretty primitive and unpersonalized formula to congratulate someone to his birthday by posting "Happy Birthday *smiley*" on his timeline? I mean how stupid is this? I never did this. The next level is just a smiley. And the last silence.
> Adorno refers to the historical Wiesengrund, in your case as well as mine.. However, for you, he is "even more than just a hobby" - for me, he is above all Kracauer's Icarus. The same goes for "Happy Birthday!" plus partying smiley. For you, it is stupid - for me, it does exactly what it should do: letting the addressee know that my wife's calendar is up to date.
>
> Cognitive dissonance is from the 1960s and has become a tool to replace argument by diagnosis.
>
> There are different levels of abstraction and different kinds of abstracta. I'm not sure what you have in mind. In any case, Adorno and 😀 are signs (not abstracta) and refer to concrete beings: a historical figure and behaviour - and, of course, signs, historical figures and behaviour have different modes of being.
>
> You can do better than this, Marc!
>
> Henk

I think you could actually do better in processing what you are reading. You did not understand a single thing I said. And it is quite funny of you to describe Adorno as Kracauer's Icarus without having a clue about his philosophy (as you mentioned earlier). As the standard formula goes: This says more about you than him. You probably even never read a book by him; and if you did, it does not seem that you tried to understand him. Yet you shamelessly make a strong statement about him. You are a funny guy...

One can define Adorno as being a sign, yes; and one can also define :D as being a sign, yes. If you can't actually see which sign is more primitive based on what each sign represents... I don't know. For Adorno to make sense to someone, you need the skill to read, need to know about the difference of first name and last name etc., it is a sign of culture; for :D to make sense to someone, there is no need for culture, it makes sense to the greatest idiot on the planet.

A comparison between the sign ":D", the word "happy", and a sentence describing why one is happy might make more sense maybe (totally abstract -> more concrete). But honestly, I am not interested in debating this anymore. You have your worldview in which everything seems to be fungible. All fine. Mine is different.

Disclaimer for you: Don't confuse my thoughts in this thread with Adorno's. I really am no expert on him. Just some personal thoughts in this thread (influenced by Adorno and some other stuff I read; but really, I have no deep knowledge of his body of work; otherwise I could probably state my points more clearly).

Marc S schrieb am Freitag, 3. Dezember 2021 um 01:56:00 UTC+1:
> hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2021 um 23:44:12 UTC+1:
> > Op donderdag 2 december 2021 om 22:09:51 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
> > > And to add: When talking about Adorno, it is the same object we are talking about. Your emotions are different than mine though in regards to every event, but a smiley suggests they are the same, which they are not. This needs to be articulated.
> > >
> > > Don't you agree that it is a pretty primitive and unpersonalized formula to congratulate someone to his birthday by posting "Happy Birthday *smiley*" on his timeline? I mean how stupid is this? I never did this. The next level is just a smiley. And the last silence.
> > Adorno refers to the historical Wiesengrund, in your case as well as mine. However, for you, he is "even more than just a hobby" - for me, he is above all Kracauer's Icarus. The same goes for "Happy Birthday!" plus partying smiley. For you, it is stupid - for me, it does exactly what it should do: letting the addressee know that my wife's calendar is up to date.
> >
> > Cognitive dissonance is from the 1960s and has become a tool to replace argument by diagnosis.
> >
> > There are different levels of abstraction and different kinds of abstracta. I'm not sure what you have in mind. In any case, Adorno and 😀 are signs (not abstracta) and refer to concrete beings: a historical figure and behaviour - and, of course, signs, historical figures and behaviour have different modes of being.
> >
> > You can do better than this, Marc!
> >
> > Henk
> I think you could actually do better in processing what you are reading. You did not understand a single thing I said. And it is quite funny of you to describe Adorno as Kracauer's Icarus without having a clue about his philosophy (as you mentioned earlier). As the standard formula goes: This says more about you than him. You probably even never read a book by him; and if you did, it does not seem that you tried to understand him. Yet you shamelessly make a strong statement about him. You are a funny guy...
>
> One can define Adorno as being a sign, yes; and one can also define :D as being a sign, yes. If you can't actually see which sign is more primitive based on what each sign represents... I don't know. For Adorno to make sense to someone, you need the skill to read, need to know about the difference of first name and last name etc., it is a sign of culture; for :D to make sense to someone, there is no need for culture, it makes sense to the greatest idiot on the planet.

*Forgot to add: The argument you are trying to make by comparing the use of Adorno in a conversation with the use of :D in a conversation is complete nonsense. But you may believe in it.

Marc S schrieb am Freitag, 3. Dezember 2021 um 01:56:00 UTC+1:
> hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2021 um 23:44:12 UTC+1:
> > For you, it is stupid - for me, it does exactly what it should do: letting the addressee know that my wife's calendar is up to date.

So, all your reasoning has to offer on why you use smileys, is that they are effective? So it is an economic reason? How cheap...

dan....@gmail.com schrieb am Freitag, 3. Dezember 2021 um 00:19:02 UTC+1:
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 1:43:39 PM UTC-5, Marc S wrote:
> > hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2021 um 16:54:57 UTC+1:
> > > > Your faulty logic argues: 1) It is not primitive to refer to Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno as Adorno and therefore => 2) it is also not primitive to express one's emotions using a primitive sign language.
> > > >
> > > > This is unreasonable, and exactly the kind of an idealistic synthesis Adorno argues against. You have to understand the particular differences here and look reality in the eye.
> > > >
> > > > It is not primitive to refer to Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno as Adorno, as Adorno is his last name. The relation to the object (Adorno) still remains concrete. But by using a primitive sign language as smileys to express one's emotions, the relation to the object (emotion) becomes totally abstract. The emotion you express by using a smiley is completely abstract. One can imagine people in pre-historic times shouting "ugga-ugga" if they were happy, or in today's times people using primitive icons to suggest that they are happy. But the way this happiness is expressed, is completely abstract. It does not have any individual and concrete quality.
> > > >
> > > > To truly experience one's emotions, one should be able to articulate them as good as one can. But by using a primitive sign language to express emotions, we are sort of regressing back to pre-historic times in which people used the most primitive sounds to express their emotions "ugga ugga".
> > > > > There is nothing primitive to 😀 and Adorno, nor does it dumb down. On the contrary, it comes in handy when you use your i-phone.
> > > > >
> > > > > Henk
> > > > You may believe this. But you are not seeing the larger picture of it (social and psychological implications) and also - as pointed out above - you are neglecting the difference between calling Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno Adorno where the object-relation stays concrete; and reducing complex emotions to a primitive symbol where the object-relation is totally abstract.. Staying totally abstract is almost like saying nothing at all.
> > > >
> > > > For example: Let's say some music reviewer has a rating system based on 5 smileys. So he reviews a new record, but not by concrectely explaining what he liked about said record, but by using smileys. Now you might know based on the number of smiley's (abstract info), how good the reviewer thought the record to be, but you have no concrete info on why.
> > > <g> ... where angels fear to thread.
> > >
> > > Just one or two points.
> > >
> > > "You have to look reality in the eye" and by that, you mean: understand the difference between the modes of being of 😀 and Adorno - if I understand you correctly.
> > Yes, although I would rather use the term objects instead of modes. You can compare these two objects, but you are not comparing them by carefully carving out the differences between them; but ignoring the differences altogether and equating them to be the same to make your argument. On a psychological level it seems to me, that your mind is trying to cope with the dissonance it has just encountered to establish somekind of harmony of thought again. The dissonance being that I have attacked people using smileys to express themselves, by calling this attitude primitive. It seems to me that you are being idealistic in proving your point neglecting reality.
> >
> > Your thought process has identified two objects:
> >
> > 1) Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno is often being referred to as Adorno when people speak of him
> > 2) Emotions like being "happy" are being expressed through the use of a typographical sign as Nabokov calls it
> >
> > Your line of argumentation:
> >
> > If 1) is not primitive, then 2) is not primitive either.
> >
> > This is a logical fallacy in this case.
> >
> > As I have tried to demonstrate: These two objects can't be equated to be the same "type of short cut". When referring to Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno as Adorno, the relationship to the object you are trying to capture through the use of language remains concrete. Everyone has a concrete understanding of what (or more specifically: who) you mean. Even if you just say A, if the context is clear.
> >
> > But if you express an emotion you have felt through the use of a primitive sign such as a smiley, the complex and highly individual abstract emotion you have felt is being reduced to a simple, basic, primitive, abstract, universalized icon. All individuality and sense of meaning of what the feeling might have meant on a deeper level is lost here. And nobody has a concrete understanding of the feelign you are trying to express (so you are basically just wasting his time). The ability of humans to express themselves as sophisticatedly as language today makes possible, was a hard earned ability (progression of languages). Yet now this hard earned ability is basically being hijacked by the use of "shortcuts", because of reasons of comfort. (Maybe: Age of comfort backfires, as people try to express themselves in the most easy way possible.)
> >
> > The way people post smileys for example under youtube videos of classical music, reminds me of how in pre-historic times, people might have all used the same abstract grunts to address their admiration for something.
> > > The distinction you make is between concrete (supposedly Adorno) and abstract (supposedly 😀).
> > > However, both are signs, and refer to something they themselves are not. In this case, to a historical person and an actual form of human behaviour.
> > While I believe it to be true that every reference to an object can never grasp the object in it's entirety, you again fall for the same mistake you did earlier. There are different levels of abstraction, yet you try to say that every level of abstraction is the same (and thus subsuming every level of abstraction under one level of abstraction to make your argument. must be convient to consider all levels of abstraction to be the same). No, some abstractions are more concrete than others.
> You are a perfect example of everything
> that is wrong with German "philosophy".
> Hair splitting every word, every phrase
> and every sentence as if their meanings
> were absolute in a system of perfect
> expression, then drawing far reaching
> conclusions with universal pretensions
> from minute details that are irrelevant
> in and by themselves.
>

I don't really think you have a clue about what you are saying and what point I was making here. But I'll try to explain anyway:

Different levels of abstractions in relation to an emotion in an online conversation: ":D" -> "happy" -> "sentence describing one being happy" (abstract -> concrete)
Or look at science: Biology -> Chemistry -> Physics (concrete -> abstract)

And what I mean with "that no reference to an object can grasp an object in it's entirety": For example: I feel an emotion (object), but no matter howI try to describe this emotion, I will not be able to convey it. (maybe with music sort of?)

This is just pretty obvious stuff. No idea what nonsense is going on in your head again.

dan....@gmail.com schrieb am Freitag, 3. Dezember 2021 um 00:21:46 UTC+1:
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 4:09:51 PM UTC-5, Marc S wrote:
> > And to add: When talking about Adorno,
> > it is the same object we are talking about.
> In your mind only.

This is actually a good point. I immidiately thought about it, but didn't bother to correct it, as I thought nobody would bother anyway. My argument here is absolute bullshit, it is not thought through. But I believe your reply isn't either. Nevermind.

> > Your emotions are different than mine though
> > in regards to every event, but a smiley suggests
> > they are the same, which they are not. This needs
> > to be articulated.
> No, it doesn't. All that smileys signal is "watch out
> for hidden/additional/conflicting" meanings. They
> convey no other message by themselves.

I think the point I am trying to make here, is articulated in a pretty awkward way by myself. Was stupid of me to even bring it up this way. Nevermind this.

It is still a primitive way to convey a message though. And in addition to what you are saying, smileys try to convey a range of feelings (sad smiley etc.) as well.

> > Don't you agree that it is a pretty primitive and
> > unpersonalized formula to congratulate someone
> > to his birthday by posting "Happy Birthday *smiley*"
> > on his timeline? I mean how stupid is this? I never
> > did this. The next level is just a smiley. And the last
> > silence.
> What you did or did not do does not make anyone
> else primitive, unpersonalized or stupid.
>
> dk or

You did not get my point which I did state above and should make reasonable sense even to an idiot like you: The attitude is primitive, not the whole person. Every person in this seemingly civilized society has primitive traits, just as I do. You are just probably too blind (or unconsciously unwilling) to see this. You may believe in whatever nonsense you just said, but to give a counter argument to your idiotic claim: raping a woman is primitive (what someone does defines someone, at least in a certain regard - not on the whole).

But instead of realizing what stupid statements you have made here, you will probably just turn up rambling some weird nonsense again.

dan....@gmail.com schrieb am Freitag, 3. Dezember 2021 um 00:25:08 UTC+1:
> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 3:56:19 PM UTC-5, Marc S wrote:
> >
> > That he literally wishes for a primitive sign as
> > the smiley to exist, to be used to describe one's
> > affects as he indirectly does in answering the
> > question, is quite an insult to human intellect in
> > general. Affects need to be articulated to be
> > experienced. A smiley is a pretty primitive way
> > express one's affects. It also has the effect of
> > dumbing people down, as they don't reflect
> > enough on their own feelings anymore and opt
> > for the cheapest way out by using a smiley. It
> > seems to have become a standardized mechanism
> > in today's conversations (even in face-to-face
> > conversations you hear things like: LOL) to
> > express yourself through - as Herman put it -
> > shortcuts.
> You are going off the rails every time you
> write about anything. Freud would have
> loved you as a patient!
>
> dk

Even if my argumentation (which I have not looked into again right now, as I am too tired) has some mistakes, you surely failed to point them out. And in terms of someone being a mental case here, I think you are projecting. Especially thinking about the pictures you uploaded in the farewell thread: You uploaded a picture of some anime-character (?!?!?! thanks for wasting our time - it seems you are insecure?) and then a picture of you fully disguised in your "corona-amor" (I think that was how you called it?). Just seems super weird to me, reflecting on it and your general attitude. But I have to say that I really enjoyed most of your recs made from say 1940-1980s maybe. Also: Freud is a great guy!

Happy Hanukkah!

Marc S schrieb am Freitag, 3. Dezember 2021 um 02:54:38 UTC+1:
> Different levels of abstractions in relation to an emotion in an online conversation: ":D" -> "happy" -> "sentence describing one being happy" (abstract -> concrete)

*...in relation to an emotion expressed...

Marc S schrieb am Freitag, 3. Dezember 2021 um 03:21:22 UTC+1:
> dan....@gmail.com schrieb am Freitag, 3. Dezember 2021 um 00:25:08 UTC+1:
> > On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 3:56:19 PM UTC-5, Marc S wrote:
> > >
> > > That he literally wishes for a primitive sign as
> > > the smiley to exist, to be used to describe one's
> > > affects as he indirectly does in answering the
> > > question, is quite an insult to human intellect in
> > > general. Affects need to be articulated to be
> > > experienced. A smiley is a pretty primitive way
> > > express one's affects. It also has the effect of
> > > dumbing people down, as they don't reflect
> > > enough on their own feelings anymore and opt
> > > for the cheapest way out by using a smiley. It
> > > seems to have become a standardized mechanism
> > > in today's conversations (even in face-to-face
> > > conversations you hear things like: LOL) to
> > > express yourself through - as Herman put it -
> > > shortcuts.
> > You are going off the rails every time you
> > write about anything. Freud would have
> > loved you as a patient!
> >
> > dk
> Even if my argumentation (which I have not looked into again right now, as I am too tired) has some mistakes, you surely failed to point them out. And in terms of someone being a mental case here, I think you are projecting.. Especially thinking about the pictures you uploaded in the farewell thread: You uploaded a picture of some anime-character (?!?!?! thanks for wasting our time - it seems you are insecure?) and then a picture of you fully disguised in your "corona-amor" (I think that was how you called it?). Just seems super weird to me, reflecting on it and your general attitude.

*Weird in a very wrong way though, not in a good way. Like you got some serious issues. But whatever. Just my belief, you may see this differently.

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:09:51 PM UTC-5, Marc S wrote:
> dan....@gmail.com schrieb am Freitag, 3. Dezember 2021 um 00:21:46 UTC+1:
>
> > > Your emotions are different than mine though
> > > in regards to every event, but a smiley suggests
> > > they are the same, which they are not. This needs
> > > to be articulated.

Nothing needs to be articulated unless the
articulator believes it needs to.

> > No, it doesn't. All that smileys signal is "watch out
> > for hidden/additional/conflicting" meanings. They
> > convey no other message by themselves.
>
> I think the point I am trying to make here, is articulated
> in a pretty awkward way by myself. Was stupid of me
> to even bring it up this way. Nevermind this.
> It is still a primitive way to convey a message though.

They serve a purpose, and that is good enough.

> And in addition to what you are saying, smileys try to
> convey a range of feelings (sad smiley etc.) as well.

Some do, some don't.

You really sound like you are bent on imposing rules
and principles on everything, down to the smallest,
most trivial things. This is oh so Germanic!

dk

On 12/2/2021 9:56 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:09:51 PM UTC-5, Marc S wrote:
>> dan....@gmail.com schrieb am Freitag, 3. Dezember 2021 um 00:21:46 UTC+1:
>>
>>>> Your emotions are different than mine though
>>>> in regards to every event, but a smiley suggests
>>>> they are the same, which they are not. This needs
>>>> to be articulated.
>
> Nothing needs to be articulated unless the
> articulator believes it needs to.
>
>>> No, it doesn't. All that smileys signal is "watch out
>>> for hidden/additional/conflicting" meanings. They
>>> convey no other message by themselves.
>>
>> I think the point I am trying to make here, is articulated
>> in a pretty awkward way by myself. Was stupid of me
>> to even bring it up this way. Nevermind this.
>> It is still a primitive way to convey a message though.
>
> They serve a purpose, and that is good enough.
>
>> And in addition to what you are saying, smileys try to
>> convey a range of feelings (sad smiley etc.) as well.
>
> Some do, some don't.
>
> You really sound like you are bent on imposing rules
> and principles on everything, down to the smallest,
> most trivial things. This is oh so Germanic!
>
> dk
>

I think if I was a rules freak, I would refrain from referring to a "sad smiley." All that verbiage and he doesn't know the word "emoji."

Interestingly, according to sources mentioned in the Wikipedia article on emojis, the first emojis were used in the Plato e-learning system at the University of Illinois in 1972. Some might remember a TV commercial for the Plato system that showed a bunch of African-American kids sneaking into school at night. Rather than causing trouble, which is I suppose what you were supposed to think, they were sneaking in to learn using the Plato system. Probably couldn't run that commercial today. Or if you did, the group of kids would have to be diverse. Some of the developers of that system wrote games. There was a Plato terminal (the system ran on the University of Illinois mainframe, IIRC) at the Rand Corp. in Santa Monica, CA, where I worked from 1972-1983. I used to go in at night and play games, primarily SPASM, one of the first space war simulation games.

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 12:01:50 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 12/2/2021 9:56 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:09:51 PM UTC-5, Marc S wrote:
> >> dan....@gmail.com schrieb am Freitag, 3. Dezember 2021 um 00:21:46 UTC+1:
> >>
> >>>> Your emotions are different than mine though
> >>>> in regards to every event, but a smiley suggests
> >>>> they are the same, which they are not. This needs
> >>>> to be articulated.
> >
> > Nothing needs to be articulated unless the
> > articulator believes it needs to.
> >
> >>> No, it doesn't. All that smileys signal is "watch out
> >>> for hidden/additional/conflicting" meanings. They
> >>> convey no other message by themselves.
> >>
> >> I think the point I am trying to make here, is articulated
> >> in a pretty awkward way by myself. Was stupid of me
> >> to even bring it up this way. Nevermind this.
> >> It is still a primitive way to convey a message though.
> >
> > They serve a purpose, and that is good enough.
> >
> >> And in addition to what you are saying, smileys try to
> >> convey a range of feelings (sad smiley etc.) as well.
> >
> > Some do, some don't.
> >
> > You really sound like you are bent on imposing rules
> > and principles on everything, down to the smallest,
> > most trivial things. This is oh so Germanic!
>
> I think if I was a rules freak, I would refrain from
> referring to a "sad smiley." All that verbiage and
> he doesn't know the word "emoji."

Sorry, I was referring to Marc S.
Bad indentation.

dk

Op vrijdag 3 december 2021 om 01:56:00 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
> hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Donnerstag, 2. Dezember 2021 um 23:44:12 UTC+1:
> > Op donderdag 2 december 2021 om 22:09:51 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
> > > And to add: When talking about Adorno, it is the same object we are talking about. Your emotions are different than mine though in regards to every event, but a smiley suggests they are the same, which they are not. This needs to be articulated.
> > >
> > > Don't you agree that it is a pretty primitive and unpersonalized formula to congratulate someone to his birthday by posting "Happy Birthday *smiley*" on his timeline? I mean how stupid is this? I never did this. The next level is just a smiley. And the last silence.
> > Adorno refers to the historical Wiesengrund, in your case as well as mine. However, for you, he is "even more than just a hobby" - for me, he is above all Kracauer's Icarus. The same goes for "Happy Birthday!" plus partying smiley. For you, it is stupid - for me, it does exactly what it should do: letting the addressee know that my wife's calendar is up to date.
> >
> > Cognitive dissonance is from the 1960s and has become a tool to replace argument by diagnosis.
> >
> > There are different levels of abstraction and different kinds of abstracta. I'm not sure what you have in mind. In any case, Adorno and 😀 are signs (not abstracta) and refer to concrete beings: a historical figure and behaviour - and, of course, signs, historical figures and behaviour have different modes of being.
> >
> > You can do better than this, Marc!
> >
> > Henk
> I think you could actually do better in processing what you are reading. You did not understand a single thing I said. And it is quite funny of you to describe Adorno as Kracauer's Icarus without having a clue about his philosophy (as you mentioned earlier). As the standard formula goes: This says more about you than him. You probably even never read a book by him; and if you did, it does not seem that you tried to understand him. Yet you shamelessly make a strong statement about him. You are a funny guy...
>
> One can define Adorno as being a sign, yes; and one can also define :D as being a sign, yes. If you can't actually see which sign is more primitive based on what each sign represents... I don't know. For Adorno to make sense to someone, you need the skill to read, need to know about the difference of first name and last name etc., it is a sign of culture; for :D to make sense to someone, there is no need for culture, it makes sense to the greatest idiot on the planet.
>
> A comparison between the sign ":D", the word "happy", and a sentence describing why one is happy might make more sense maybe (totally abstract -> more concrete). But honestly, I am not interested in debating this anymore. You have your worldview in which everything seems to be fungible. All fine. Mine is different.
>
> Disclaimer for you: Don't confuse my thoughts in this thread with Adorno's. I really am no expert on him. Just some personal thoughts in this thread (influenced by Adorno and some other stuff I read; but really, I have no deep knowledge of his body of work; otherwise I could probably state my points more clearly).

Thanks for trying, Marc.

Although you deny it, I can only understand your views against the background of Adorno's notions of Bildung (untranslatable) and Halbbildung.

I am not interested in philosophies that are based on the conflict between Geist und Leben, spirit and nature, Apollo and Dionysos, civilised and primitive, etc. Not because they tend to favour one over the other or think they have to look for a synthesis, I just do not believe in the explanatory power of dichotomies.

As you say, it's time to put an end to this popular thread on the partying smiley.

Herman has a lot to answer for... 😀

Henk

..

On 12/3/2021 12:13 AM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 12:01:50 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 12/2/2021 9:56 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:09:51 PM UTC-5, Marc S wrote:
>>>> dan....@gmail.com schrieb am Freitag, 3. Dezember 2021 um 00:21:46 UTC+1:
>>>>
>>>>>> Your emotions are different than mine though
>>>>>> in regards to every event, but a smiley suggests
>>>>>> they are the same, which they are not. This needs
>>>>>> to be articulated.
>>>
>>> Nothing needs to be articulated unless the
>>> articulator believes it needs to.
>>>
>>>>> No, it doesn't. All that smileys signal is "watch out
>>>>> for hidden/additional/conflicting" meanings. They
>>>>> convey no other message by themselves.
>>>>
>>>> I think the point I am trying to make here, is articulated
>>>> in a pretty awkward way by myself. Was stupid of me
>>>> to even bring it up this way. Nevermind this.
>>>> It is still a primitive way to convey a message though.
>>>
>>> They serve a purpose, and that is good enough.
>>>
>>>> And in addition to what you are saying, smileys try to
>>>> convey a range of feelings (sad smiley etc.) as well.
>>>
>>> Some do, some don't.
>>>
>>> You really sound like you are bent on imposing rules
>>> and principles on everything, down to the smallest,
>>> most trivial things. This is oh so Germanic!
>>
>> I think if I was a rules freak, I would refrain from
>> referring to a "sad smiley." All that verbiage and
>> he doesn't know the word "emoji."
>
> Sorry, I was referring to Marc S.
> Bad indentation.
>
> dk
>

I know.

On Thursday, 2 December 2021 at 23:39:20 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
> I haven't read anything Marc has written since his unfortunate return.

It's such a pleasure to agree with you, Frank!

On 12/3/2021 9:30 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 12/3/2021 12:13 AM, Dan Koren wrote:
>> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 12:01:50 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> On 12/2/2021 9:56 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:09:51 PM UTC-5, Marc S wrote:
>>>>> dan....@gmail.com schrieb am Freitag, 3. Dezember 2021 um 00:21:46 UTC+1:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your emotions are different than mine though
>>>>>>> in regards to every event, but a smiley suggests
>>>>>>> they are the same, which they are not. This needs
>>>>>>> to be articulated.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing needs to be articulated unless the
>>>> articulator believes it needs to.
>>>>
>>>>>> No, it doesn't. All that smileys signal is "watch out
>>>>>> for hidden/additional/conflicting" meanings. They
>>>>>> convey no other message by themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the point I am trying to make here, is articulated
>>>>> in a pretty awkward way by myself. Was stupid of me
>>>>> to even bring it up this way. Nevermind this.
>>>>> It is still a primitive way to convey a message though.
>>>>
>>>> They serve a purpose, and that is good enough.
>>>>
>>>>> And in addition to what you are saying, smileys try to
>>>>> convey a range of feelings (sad smiley etc.) as well.
>>>>
>>>> Some do, some don't.
>>>>
>>>> You really sound like you are bent on imposing rules
>>>> and principles on everything, down to the smallest,
>>>> most trivial things. This is oh so Germanic!
>>>
>>> I think if I was a rules freak, I would refrain from
>>> referring to a "sad smiley." All that verbiage and
>>> he doesn't know the word "emoji."
>>
>> Sorry, I was referring to Marc S.
>> Bad indentation.
>>
>> dk
>>
>
> I know.

Wait a sec. Is this "Marc S" the same guy who hated religion so much that I used to argue with? What was his last name? I once referred to him as "Sniderman" but that was a slip of the mind owing to my knowing someone by that name.

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 5:51:16 AM UTC-5, hvt...@xs4all.nl wrote:
>
> Although you deny it, I can only understand your
> views against the background of Adorno's notions
> of Bildung (untranslatable) and Halbbildung.
>
> I am not interested in philosophies that are based
> on the conflict between Geist und Leben, spirit and
> nature, Apollo and Dionysos, civilised and primitive,
> etc. Not because they tend to favour one over the
> other or think they have to look for a synthesis, I
> just do not believe in the explanatory power of
> dichotomies.

If I may respectfully comment on your thoughtful
comment, NOTHING has caused as much damage
to the planet and to the people who inhabit it as the
German philosophy obsession with struggle between
concepts and ideas, good and evil, civilzation and
barbary, spirit and nature, and so on.

dk

In article <aa097086-95a2-4f8f-9298-a674a254b2c6n@googlegroups.com>,
Dan Koren <dan.koren@gmail.com> wrote:
>If I may respectfully comment on your thoughtful comment, NOTHING
>has caused as much damage to the planet and to the people who
>inhabit it as the German philosophy obsession with struggle between
>concepts and ideas, good and evil, civilzation and barbary, spirit
>and nature, and so on.

You can't blame Germans for originating dualism, but they certainly
did take it up aggressively! (One reference from elsewhere, among
many: Adi Sankaracarya)

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 5:03:23 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <aa097086-95a2-4f8f...@googlegroups.com>,
> Dan Koren <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >If I may respectfully comment on your thoughtful comment, NOTHING
> >has caused as much damage to the planet and to the people who
> >inhabit it as the German philosophy obsession with struggle between
> >concepts and ideas, good and evil, civilzation and barbary, spirit
> >and nature, and so on.
> You can't blame Germans for originating dualism,

Of course they didn't invent it, the Greeks did.
German philosophers however turned it into
the bread and butter of philosophy, that led
to the establishment of state and military
structures to enforce it. Believe it ir not,
like or not, agree or not, Nasizm started
with Kant.

dk

In article <b64e778a-2b79-4974-8d00-15ac40e8c213n@googlegroups.com>,
Dan Koren <dan.koren@gmail.com> wrote:
>Of course they didn't invent it, the Greeks did. German philosophers
>however turned it into the bread and butter of philosophy, that led
>to the establishment of state and military structures to enforce
>it. Believe it ir not, like or not, agree or not, Nasizm started
>with Kant.

You're unlikely to find anyone who dislikes Kant & (especially)
Hegel (& Aristotle...) as much as I do... but much of the above is
incorrect.