Externe

nici n-am incercat in alta parte sa va gasesc,pentru ca va stiu deja dispozitia dvs. pentru stirile externe mai delicate(v.articolele despre Rusia sau Israel!...)
"Ce anume ar face?"(apropo prea multe intrebari...)
*Fiecare presedinte american repeta de mii de ori aceleasi lucuri legate de poziotia USA fata de Tara Sfanta.....E si normal ca cineva puternic sa apere pamanturile sfinte,cotropite de atatea ori de musulmani...
*"Yes We Can" este candidatul democrat Obama.In contextul provocator al discursurului lui Hillary,TV-germana ne-a prezentat si discursul lui Obama,care era cam acelasi lucru,doar ca nu vorbeste de <stergerea Iranului>,acest discurs ramanand retorica Teheranului......Dar si el ameninta Iranul destul de hart.
*Despre a treia dvs. nelamurire nu simt nevoia la replica,doar ca toata politica americana dupa Holocaust are un principiu clar:niciodata nu mai lasam pe poporul evreu fara aparare.Vi se pare curios?!
Numai de bine

Dl. Moroianu trebuie intai sa afle care este diferenta dintre evreul american Ben Stein si evreul, tot american, Al Franken. Cand va deslusi aceasta complicata stare de fapt, insa nu cu ajutorul forumistilor de pe Ziua, abia atunci dansul va inceta sa-si piarda timpul in conversatii sterile.;-)

La 2008-05-03 20:47:27, Adrian v.D. a scris:

La 2008-05-03 21:32:09, california a scris:

> Dl. Moroianu trebuie intai sa afle care este diferenta dintre evreul
> american Ben Stein si evreul, tot american, Al Franken.


Nici una !!


Cand va
> deslusi aceasta complicata stare de fapt, insa nu cu ajutorul
> forumistilor de pe Ziua, abia atunci dansul va inceta sa-si piarda
> timpul in conversatii sterile.;-)
>
> La 2008-05-03 20:47:27, Adrian v.D. a scris:
>
>

nu cu ajutorul forumistilor de pe Ziua. fie ei Kool Aid drinkers, sau vodka drinkers.:-))


La 2008-05-03 21:40:23, katty1 a scris:
>
> Nici una !!

La 2008-05-03 22:39:37, Robin a scris:

> nu cu ajutorul forumistilor de pe Ziua. fie ei Kool Aid drinkers, sau
> vodka drinkers.:-))
>
>



Nu te-a bagat nimeni in seama. Vezi-ti de drinkurile tale care te obesedeaza.

Nu-i cunosc pe nici unul din personajele pe care i-ati maintit, deci nu ma pot pronuntza asupra lor. Mai precis, singurii evrei americani despre care am o opinie (in fara de Wolfowitz, cel cu ciorapii rupti) sunt Noam Chomsky si George Soros.

Primul - unul din cei mai mari savanti in viatza, si un spirit non-conformist caruia pentru criticile lui la adresa derapajelor si "cant"-ului american i s-a scos renumele de antiamerican, exact asa cum disidentii din fosta URSS erau taxati cu epitetul de "antisovietici" si supusi unui tir de critici nimicitoare din partea propagandistilor care nu citisera nici o pagina scrisa de ei.

Iar cel de al doilea - un miliardar-filantrop, care a ajutat enorm Europa de Est in primul deceniu dupa caderea sistemului, si care, in Romania cel putin, a devenit brusc o non-persoana (tot ca pe vremea epocii de luminoasa amintire) in momentul cand s-a declarat adevrsar al lui Bush 43, reprosandu-i ca a condus America si lumea intr-o directie gresita prin campania lui antiterorista, pe care in loc sa o duca cu metode politienesti, a transformat-o in pretexte de razboaie preventive si incalcari din ce in ce mai grave ale drepturilor omului.

La 2008-05-03 21:32:09, california a scris:

> Dl. Moroianu trebuie intai sa afle care este diferenta dintre evreul
> american Ben Stein si evreul, tot american, Al Franken. Cand va
> deslusi aceasta complicata stare de fapt, insa nu cu ajutorul
> forumistilor de pe Ziua, abia atunci dansul va inceta sa-si piarda
> timpul in conversatii sterile.;-)
>
> La 2008-05-03 20:47:27, Adrian v.D. a scris:
>
>

La 2008-05-03 20:47:27, Adrian v.D. a scris:

> *Fiecare presedinte american repeta de mii de ori aceleasi lucuri
> legate de poziotia USA fata de Tara Sfanta.....E si normal ca cineva
> puternic sa apere pamanturile sfinte,cotropite de atatea ori de
> musulmani...
============================================================== Dar iertati-mi va rog curiozitatea: De cand "a apara" a devenit sinonim cu "a ameninta" - si anume cu o "distrugere totala" a unui popor de 75 de milioane de suflete? Dvs vi s epare admisibila luarea in calcul a exterminarii uneiintregii populatii pentru greselile eventuale ale conducatorilor ei? Nu va dati seama ca acesta este exact tipul de declaratii care au adus prestigiul Americii in lume acolo unde se afla el astazi?

> *"Yes We Can" este candidatul democrat Obama.In contextul provocator
> al discursurului lui Hillary,TV-germana ne-a prezentat si discursul
> lui Obama,care era cam acelasi lucru,doar ca nu vorbeste de <stergerea
> Iranului>,acest discurs ramanand retorica Teheranului......Dar si el
> ameninta Iranul destul de hart.
> *Despre a treia dvs. nelamurire nu simt nevoia la replica,doar ca
> toata politica americana dupa Holocaust are un principiu
> clar:niciodata nu mai lasam pe poporul evreu fara aparare.Vi se pare
> curios?!
============================================================
In realitate actuala administratie exact asta a facut: a lasat poporul evreu fara aparare in fata extremistilor care dorec continuarea confruntarii sangeroase si a aventurilor de tipul celei libaneze deacum doi ani, refuzand orice idee de compromis istoric cu palestinienii pe care-i considera un fel de sub-oameni.

La 2008-05-03 22:52:08, moroianu a scris:

> Primul - unul din cei mai mari savanti in viatza, si un spirit
> non-conformist caruia pentru criticile lui la adresa derapajelor si
> "cant"-ului american i s-a scos renumele de antiamerican, exact asa
> cum disidentii din fosta URSS erau taxati cu epitetul de
> "antisovietici" si supusi unui tir de critici nimicitoare din partea
> propagandistilor care nu citisera nici o pagina scrisa de ei.


I-am citit o carte mai lunga, si o brosurica pe care a scos-o la o saptamina dupa 9/11/2001. La asta din urma m-a apucat greatza (la propriu) cind o citeam. I-am vazut si un documentar. By the way, rafturile librariilor sint pline de "operele" lui Chomsky. So much for "nimicitoare"...

Domle, du-te la Humanitas si ia cartea "Intelectualii" a lui Paul Johnson. Am vazut-o eu acolo, prin 2005, tradusa in romaneste. Chomsky este in intelectual, in cea mai buna traditie a intelectualilor dezbatuti in cartea aia.

Presupun ca daca-ti spun ca in America curentul preponderent in mass-media zisa "mainstream": ziarele si posturile de televiziune majore, si in academie este pro-chomkyst, n-o sa ma crezi. Nu-i nimic! Problema lor, aceeasi ca problema tuturor intelectualilor tratati de Johnson, de la Rousseau incoace, este ca lumea isi vede de treaba ei si merge tot cum stie ea, nu dupa inchipuirile din mintile unora.

Cele stiintifice, prin care el a revolutionat pur si simplu cateva domenii ale cunoasterii secolului XX, in particular prin introducerea notiunii de "gramatica generativa", aflata la frontiera dintre lingvistica si matematica.

Si cele politice, de critica, extrem de aplicata si realista, a politicii externe a "imperiului" american.

Pe cele dintai, evident, nu le-ai deschis. Iar din cele secunde n-ai retzinut decat "greatza (la propriu)" care te-a apucat in timp ce citeai nu stiu ce brosura de-a lui. (Nu te intreb despre o posibila indigestie care ar fi putut sa fi contribuit la aceasta reactie sui generis.)

Dar in conditiile astea, cum vrei sa mai discutam despre el?

La 2008-05-03 23:14:46, Robin a scris:

> La 2008-05-03 22:52:08, moroianu a scris:
>
> > Primul - unul din cei mai mari savanti in viatza, si un spirit
> > non-conformist caruia pentru criticile lui la adresa derapajelor si
> > "cant"-ului american i s-a scos renumele de antiamerican, exact asa
> > cum disidentii din fosta URSS erau taxati cu epitetul de
> > "antisovietici" si supusi unui tir de critici nimicitoare din partea
> > propagandistilor care nu citisera nici o pagina scrisa de ei.
>
>
> I-am citit o carte mai lunga, si o brosurica pe care a scos-o la o
> saptamina dupa 9/11/2001. La asta din urma m-a apucat greatza (la
> propriu) cind o citeam. I-am vazut si un documentar. By the way,
> rafturile librariilor sint pline de "operele" lui Chomsky. So much for
> "nimicitoare"...
>
> Domle, du-te la Humanitas si ia cartea "Intelectualii" a lui Paul
> Johnson. Am vazut-o eu acolo, prin 2005, tradusa in romaneste. Chomsky
> este in intelectual, in cea mai buna traditie a intelectualilor
> dezbatuti in cartea aia.
>
> Presupun ca daca-ti spun ca in America curentul preponderent in
> mass-media zisa "mainstream": ziarele si posturile de televiziune
> majore, si in academie este pro-chomkyst, n-o sa ma crezi. Nu-i nimic!
> Problema lor, aceeasi ca problema tuturor intelectualilor tratati de
> Johnson, de la Rousseau incoace, este ca lumea isi vede de treaba ei
> si merge tot cum stie ea, nu dupa inchipuirile din mintile unora.
>
>

La 2008-05-03 23:28:48, moroianu a scris:

> Cele stiintifice, prin care el a revolutionat pur si simplu
> cateva domenii ale cunoasterii secolului XX, in particular prin
> introducerea notiunii de "gramatica generativa", aflata la frontiera
> dintre lingvistica si matematica.
>
> Si cele politice, de critica, extrem de aplicata si realista,
> a politicii externe a "imperiului" american.
>
> Pe cele dintai, evident, nu le-ai deschis. Iar din cele
> secunde n-ai retzinut decat "greatza (la propriu)" care te-a apucat in
> timp ce citeai nu stiu ce brosura de-a lui. (Nu te intreb despre o
> posibila indigestie care ar fi putut sa fi contribuit la aceasta
> reactie sui generis.)
>
> Dar in conditiile astea, cum vrei sa mai discutam despre el?


Nonsense! Daca Chomsky este celebru acum, nu este pentru gramatica regenerativa! Evident ca nu le-am deschis pentru ca nu ma intereseaza domeniul. Tu le-ai deschis? Yeah, sure!

Chomkystii de pretutindeni habar n-au de ce face Chomsky in timpul sau liber, pentru care primeste salariul academic. Rafturile de care-ti povesteam sint la "Current Affairs". Daca cauti la "Lingvistica" nu gasesti nici una.

Contributia academica a lui Chomsky este o aplicatie a structuralismului anilor '50 in lingvistica, combinata cu un kantianism intirziat al formelor apriorice. It' interesting, dar nu pentru asta il aduleaza luptatorii pentru libertate din lumea intreaga. Sa fim seriosi!

Chomsky este unul din intelectualii care isi inchipuie ca performantele lor academice ii face calificati sa ofere sfaturi in domenii in care nu au nici un motiv sa se considere mai calificati decit "the next man". Apetenta asta, in timp, ii face sa fie recunoscuti nu prin opera lor academica, ci prin opinii si atitudini care n-au nici o legatura cu domeniul lor. Nu stiu cit ajuta asta la posteritatea lor...

Cel mai de seama reprezentant al speciei a fost Bertrand Russell. In speranta ca vei cumpara cartea recomandata, iti pun aici citeva fragmente apropo de B. Russell. Sper sa apreciezi umorul englezesc. Sint sigur ca, in editia romaneasca, o buna parte din el (umorul) has been lost in translation.

***

No intellectual in history offered advice to humanity over so long a period as Bertrand Russell, third Earl Russell (1872-1970). He was born in the year General Ulysses S. Grant was reelected to the US Presidency and he died on the eve of Watergate. He was a few months younger than Marcel Proust and Stephen Crane, a few weeks older than Calvin Coolidge and Max Beerbohm; yet he lived long enough to salute the revolting students of 1968 and enjoy the work of Stoppard and Pinter. All this time he put forth a steady stream of counsel, exhortation, information and warnings on an astonishing variety of subjects. One bibliography (almost certain incomplete) lists sixty-eight books. The first, German Social Democracy, was published in 1896, when Queen Victoria still had five years to live; his posthumous Essays in Analysis (1973) came out the year Nixon resigned. In between he published works on geometry, philosophy, mathematics, justice, social reconstruction, political ideas, mysticism, logic, Bolshevism, China, the brain, industry, the ABC of atoms (this was in 1923; thirty-six years later came a book on nuclear warfare), science, relativity, education, scepticism, marriage, happiness, morals, idleness, religion, international affairs, history, power, truth, knowledge, authority, citizenship, ethics, biography, atheism, wisdom, the future, disarmament, peace, war crimes and other topics. To these should be added a huge output of newspaper and magazine articles embracing every conceivable theme, not excluding The Use of Lipstick, The Manners of Tourists, Choosing Cigars and Wife-Beating.

Why did Russell feel qualified to offer so much advice, and why did people listen to him? The answer to the first question is not immediately obvious. Probably the biggest single reason he wrote so much was that he found writing so easy, and in his case, so well paid.
...

Russell never believed that the populace could or should be encouraged to penetrate the frontiers of knowledge. His professional work in mathematics was carried out in a highly technical manner, making not the smalless concession to the non-specialist. Philosophical speculation, he argued, should be conducted in a special language and he fought not only to retain but to strengthen this hieratic code. He was a high priest of the intellect, forbidding outsiders to penetrate the arcana. He disagreed strongly with those of his philosophical colleagues, like G.E.Moore, who wanted to debate problems in an ordinary, common-sense language, insisting: 'common sense embodies the metaphysics of savages.' However, while the intellectual high priests had a duty, in his view, to keep the Eleusinian Mysteries to their caste, the had likewise a duty, on the basis of their store of knowledge, to regale the populace with some digestible fruits of their wisdom. He thus drew a distinction between professional philosophy and popular ethics, and practised both. Between 1895 and 1917, again 1919-21 and in 1944-49, he was a Fellow of Trinity, and he also spent many years lecturing and teaching at a variety of American universities. But an even larger part of his life he spent in telling the public what they ought to think and do, and this intellectual evangelism completely dominated the second half of his long life. Like Dr Albert Einstein in the 1920s and 1930s, Russell became, for masses of people all over the world, the quintesence, the archetype of the abstract philosopher, the embodiment of the talking head. What was philosophy? Well: it was the sort of things Bertrand Russell said.

Cei taxati drept antisovietici luau drumul puscariilor, lagarelor de munca sau spitalelor psihiatrice pe cand Chomsky lua bani cu patru maini (doua ale lui si doua ale sotiei) de la Pentagon in timp ce il demoniza in fel si chip. Nu crezi ca e o mica-mare diferenta?
P.S. In legatura cu Soros cred ca nu faptul ca e antibush conteaza in Romania ci ca multi "sorosisti" sint fosti colaboratori ai securitatii si acum ba'securisti "convinsi" (de securitate si de sinecurile oferite cu generozitate de aceasta institutie si de ce prezidentiala).La 2008-05-03 22:52:08, moroianu a scris:

Mai precis, singurii evrei
> americani despre care am o opinie (in fara de Wolfowitz, cel cu
> ciorapii rupti) sunt Noam Chomsky si George Soros.
>
> Primul - unul din cei mai mari savanti in viatza, si un spirit
> non-conformist caruia pentru criticile lui la adresa derapajelor si
> "cant"-ului american i s-a scos renumele de antiamerican, exact asa
> cum disidentii din fosta URSS erau taxati cu epitetul de
> "antisovietici" si supusi unui tir de critici nimicitoare din partea
> propagandistilor care nu citisera nici o pagina scrisa de ei.
>
>> La 2008-05-03 21:32:09, california a scris:
>
> > Dl. Moroianu trebuie intai sa afle care este diferenta dintre evreul
> > american Ben Stein si evreul, tot american, Al Franken. Cand va
> > deslusi aceasta complicata stare de fapt, insa nu cu ajutorul
> > forumistilor de pe Ziua, abia atunci dansul va inceta sa-si piarda
> > timpul in conversatii sterile.;-)
> >
> > La 2008-05-03 20:47:27, Adrian v.D. a scris:
> >
> >
>
>

Al meu, conform Wikipediei, in are in prezent 53 de ani de cand functioneaza fara intrerupere la Michigan Institute of Technology. Cum a putut deci sa ia "bani cu patru maini (doua ale lui si doua ale sotiei) de la Pentagon in timp ce il
demoniza in fel si chip"? O fi MIT o filiala a Pentagonului? Afirmatia ta (in masura in care nu faci o confuzie de persoane) are un puternic miros de manipulare. Era sa spun "calomnie", dar m-am corectat, deoarece chiar daca Chomsky ar fi fost colaborator al Pentagonului, asta nu-i rapea cu nimic dreptul moral de a-l critica ulterior. (Vezi cazul unuia care chiar a fost angajat acolo, si nu pe un post foarte modest - Robert McNamara, de aceeasi varsta cu Chomsky; sa-i fi confundat oare pe acestia doi?)

Cat despre situatia lui Soros in Romania - iarasi denaturezi faptele, si inca rau de tot. Personal n-am auzit decat de doi fosti "sorosisti" - Dan Oprescu si Sorin Antohi - care sa fi fost demascati drept colaboratori ai Securitatii. Si mai stiu ca numele lui Soros a disparut brusc din presa care il ridicase in slavi pana prin 2003, in momentul cand fundatia lui a incetat sa mai acorde burse de studiu, iar el insusi a devenit un critic si adversar al administratiei Bush. Toate astea nu au nici o legatura cu Securitatea - si foarte multa cu proverbiala lipsa
romaneasca de caracter...
La 2008-05-04 05:25:08, Paul din Ohio a scris:

> Cei taxati drept antisovietici luau drumul puscariilor, lagarelor de
> munca sau spitalelor psihiatrice pe cand Chomsky lua bani cu patru
> maini (doua ale lui si doua ale sotiei) de la Pentagon in timp ce il
> demoniza in fel si chip. Nu crezi ca e o mica-mare diferenta?
> P.S. In legatura cu Soros cred ca nu faptul ca e antibush conteaza in
> Romania ci ca multi "sorosisti" sint fosti colaboratori ai securitatii
> si acum ba'securisti "convinsi" (de securitate si de sinecurile
> oferite cu generozitate de aceasta institutie si de ce
> prezidentiala).La 2008-05-03 22:52:08, moroianu a scris:
>
> Mai precis, singurii evrei
> > americani despre care am o opinie (in fara de Wolfowitz, cel cu
> > ciorapii rupti) sunt Noam Chomsky si George Soros.
> >
> > Primul - unul din cei mai mari savanti in viatza, si un spirit
> > non-conformist caruia pentru criticile lui la adresa derapajelor si
> > "cant"-ului american i s-a scos renumele de antiamerican, exact asa
> > cum disidentii din fosta URSS erau taxati cu epitetul de
> > "antisovietici" si supusi unui tir de critici nimicitoare din partea
> > propagandistilor care nu citisera nici o pagina scrisa de ei.
> >
> >> La 2008-05-03 21:32:09, california a scris:
> >
> > > Dl. Moroianu trebuie intai sa afle care este diferenta dintre evreul
> > > american Ben Stein si evreul, tot american, Al Franken. Cand va
> > > deslusi aceasta complicata stare de fapt, insa nu cu ajutorul
> > > forumistilor de pe Ziua, abia atunci dansul va inceta sa-si piarda
> > > timpul in conversatii sterile.;-)
> > >
> > > La 2008-05-03 20:47:27, Adrian v.D. a scris:
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

...sa mai poata fi scoasa din punctul mort in care ajunsese aseara - dar iata ca m-am inselat! Iar aceasta salvare in extremis ti se datoreaza in exclusivitate, stimate domn, din moment ce chiar d-ta ai gasit termenul de comparatie potrivit pentru a-i aborda ambele fetze (cea stiintifica si cea social-critica) ale personalitatzii in chestiune, si anume:

*******************************BERTRAND RUSSEL********************************

Cei interesati sa inteleaga mai exact la ce ma refer nu au decat sa compare articolele dedicate celor doi in Wikipedia.

PS Din fragmentul pe care mi l-ai reprodus din cartea lui Johnson, am retinut in special urmatorul pasaj, extrem de savuros ca mostra de resentiment al foiletonistului grafoman impotriva "elitismului" unui locuitor al Olimpului stiintzific si intelectual:

> Russell never believed that the populace could or should be encouraged
> to penetrate the frontiers of knowledge. His professional work in
> mathematics was carried out in a highly technical manner, making not
> the smalless concession to the non-specialist. Philosophical
> speculation, he argued, should be conducted in a special language and
> he fought not only to retain but to strengthen this hieratic code. He
> was a high priest of the intellect, forbidding outsiders to penetrate
> the arcana. Etc.

Imi pare rau ca te dezamagesc, dar, departe de a ma determina sa citesc si restul, toate astea m-au confirmat in ideea de a fi facut bine evitand sa cumpar aceasta lucrare de fortzare a usilor deschise si de propagare a ideilor pe care pretinde ca le-ar combate (in stilul filmelor "anti-Mafia", care in realitate fac reclama Mafiei.)

PS 2 Cand te gandesti sa pui capat conflictului regretabil care se opune comunicarii d-tale cu colegul nostru Neamtu Tziganu? In ciuda unor animozitatzi trecatoare, parerea mea este ca suntetzi facutzi pentru a va intzelege - sau in orice caz pentru a contribui la diversitatea si culoarea discutziilor de pe acest forum...

La 2008-05-04 03:24:43, Robin a scris:

> Chomsky este unul din intelectualii care isi inchipuie ca
> performantele lor academice ii face calificati sa ofere sfaturi in
> domenii in care nu au nici un motiv sa se considere mai calificati
> decit "the next man". Apetenta asta, in timp, ii face sa fie
> recunoscuti nu prin opera lor academica, ci prin opinii si atitudini
> care n-au nici o legatura cu domeniul lor. Nu stiu cit ajuta asta la
> posteritatea lor...
>
> Cel mai de seama reprezentant al speciei a fost Bertrand Russell. In
> speranta ca vei cumpara cartea recomandata, iti pun aici citeva
> fragmente apropo de B. Russell. Sper sa apreciezi umorul englezesc.
> Sint sigur ca, in editia romaneasca, o buna parte din el (umorul) has
> been lost in translation.
>
> ***
>
> No intellectual in history offered advice to humanity over so long a
> period as Bertrand Russell, third Earl Russell (1872-1970). He was
> born in the year General Ulysses S. Grant was reelected to the US
> Presidency and he died on the eve of Watergate. He was a few months
> younger than Marcel Proust and Stephen Crane, a few weeks older than
> Calvin Coolidge and Max Beerbohm; yet he lived long enough to salute
> the revolting students of 1968 and enjoy the work of Stoppard and
> Pinter. All this time he put forth a steady stream of counsel,
> exhortation, information and warnings on an astonishing variety of
> subjects. One bibliography (almost certain incomplete) lists
> sixty-eight books. The first, German Social Democracy, was published
> in 1896, when Queen Victoria still had five years to live; his
> posthumous Essays in Analysis (1973) came out the year Nixon resigned.
> In between he published works on geometry, philosophy, mathematics,
> justice, social reconstruction, political ideas, mysticism, logic,
> Bolshevism, China, the brain, industry, the ABC of atoms (this was in
> 1923; thirty-six years later came a book on nuclear warfare), science,
> relativity, education, scepticism, marriage, happiness, morals,
> idleness, religion, international affairs, history, power, truth,
> knowledge, authority, citizenship, ethics, biography, atheism, wisdom,
> the future, disarmament, peace, war crimes and other topics. To these
> should be added a huge output of newspaper and magazine articles
> embracing every conceivable theme, not excluding The Use of Lipstick,
> The Manners of Tourists, Choosing Cigars and Wife-Beating.
>
> Why did Russell feel qualified to offer so much advice, and why did
> people listen to him? The answer to the first question is not
> immediately obvious. Probably the biggest single reason he wrote so
> much was that he found writing so easy, and in his case, so well
> paid.
> ...
>
> Russell never believed that the populace could or should be encouraged
> to penetrate the frontiers of knowledge. His professional work in
> mathematics was carried out in a highly technical manner, making not
> the smalless concession to the non-specialist. Philosophical
> speculation, he argued, should be conducted in a special language and
> he fought not only to retain but to strengthen this hieratic code. He
> was a high priest of the intellect, forbidding outsiders to penetrate
> the arcana. He disagreed strongly with those of his philosophical
> colleagues, like G.E.Moore, who wanted to debate problems in an
> ordinary, common-sense language, insisting: 'common sense embodies the
> metaphysics of savages.' However, while the intellectual high priests
> had a duty, in his view, to keep the Eleusinian Mysteries to their
> caste, the had likewise a duty, on the basis of their store of
> knowledge, to regale the populace with some digestible fruits of their
> wisdom. He thus drew a distinction between professional philosophy and
> popular ethics, and practised both. Between 1895 and 1917, again
> 1919-21 and in 1944-49, he was a Fellow of Trinity, and he also spent
> many years lecturing and teaching at a variety of American
> universities. But an even larger part of his life he spent in telling
> the public what they ought to think and do, and this intellectual
> evangelism completely dominated the second half of his long life. Like
> Dr Albert Einstein in the 1920s and 1930s, Russell became, for masses
> of people all over the world, the quintesence, the archetype of the
> abstract philosopher, the embodiment of the talking head. What was
> philosophy? Well: it was the sort of things Bertrand Russell said.
>
>

La 2008-05-04 08:41:36, moroianu a scris:

> PS Din fragmentul pe care mi l-ai reprodus din cartea lui
> Johnson, am retinut in special urmatorul pasaj, extrem de savuros ca
> mostra de resentiment al foiletonistului grafoman impotriva
> "elitismului" unui locuitor al Olimpului stiintzific si intelectual:
>
>
> > Russell never believed that the populace could or should be encouraged
> > to penetrate the frontiers of knowledge. His professional work in
> > mathematics was carried out in a highly technical manner, making not
> > the smalless concession to the non-specialist. Philosophical
> > speculation, he argued, should be conducted in a special language and
> > he fought not only to retain but to strengthen this hieratic code. He
> > was a high priest of the intellect, forbidding outsiders to penetrate
> > the arcana. Etc.


Tot e bine ca ai citit pasajul; sincer sa spun, nu ma asteptam.

Se pare ca toata discutia asta e o regretabila confuzie. Tu vorbesti de un Chomsky pe care l-ai gasit pe wikipedia de 53 de ani. Probabil fi-su' celui despre care vorbeam eu.

Noam Chomsky, marele lingvist, teoretician la limbajului si critic al imperialismului neo-conservator, descendent al unei familii de savantzi evrei, este nascut in 1928 si are 53 de ani DE FUNCTIONARE NEINTRERUPTA la Michigan Institute of Technology!

In Wikipedia poti gasi informatia ca prin 1990 a fost timp de cativa ani
NUMELE CEL MAI CITAT in revistele stiintifice din intreaga lume, iar in prezent ocupa locul 8 al clasamentului respectiv. Absolut de acelasi nivel cu Bertrand Russel!

La 2008-05-04 09:06:19, Robin a scris:

> Se pare ca toata discutia asta e o regretabila confuzie. Tu vorbesti
> de un Chomsky pe care l-ai gasit pe wikipedia de 53 de ani. Probabil
> fi-su' celui despre care vorbeam eu.
>
>

La 2008-05-04 09:17:25, moroianu a scris:

>
> Noam Chomsky, marele lingvist, teoretician la limbajului si
> critic al imperialismului neo-conservator, descendent al unei familii
> de savantzi evrei, este nascut in 1928 si are 53 de ani DE FUNCTIONARE
> NEINTRERUPTA la Michigan Institute of Technology!
>

la Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

La 2008-05-04 09:17:25, moroianu a scris:

>
> Noam Chomsky, marele lingvist, teoretician la limbajului si
> critic al imperialismului neo-conservator, descendent al unei familii
> de savantzi evrei, este nascut in 1928 si are 53 de ani DE FUNCTIONARE
> NEINTRERUPTA la Michigan Institute of Technology!

Right! Am citit neatent. Mea culpa.

Simteam si eu ca ceva nu e in ordine cu denumirea... mai ales ca unul din fiii mei a avut fericirea de a-si lua doctoratul in matematica la aceasta institutie de invatzamant.

PS Ma bucur sa va vad autoinclusa pe lista atat de scurta a aparatorilor lui Noam Chomsky de pe acest forum exceland in critici exigentzi si... atat de subtili!

La 2008-05-04 09:24:16, california a scris:

> La 2008-05-04 09:17:25, moroianu a scris:
>
> >
> > Noam Chomsky, marele lingvist, teoretician la limbajului si
> > critic al imperialismului neo-conservator, descendent al unei familii
> > de savantzi evrei, este nascut in 1928 si are 53 de ani DE FUNCTIONARE
> > NEINTRERUPTA la Michigan Institute of Technology!
> >
>
> la Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
>
>

Daca as fi un fel de Carter, cred v-as invita pe amandoi la niste convorbiri de pace la un subsitut de Camp David...

La 2008-05-04 09:29:17, Robin a scris:

> La 2008-05-04 09:17:25, moroianu a scris:
>
> >
> > Noam Chomsky, marele lingvist, teoretician la limbajului si
> > critic al imperialismului neo-conservator, descendent al unei familii
> > de savantzi evrei, este nascut in 1928 si are 53 de ani DE FUNCTIONARE
> > NEINTRERUPTA la Michigan Institute of Technology!
>
> Right! Am citit neatent. Mea culpa.
>
>

La 2008-05-04 10:59:52, moroianu a scris:

>
> Daca as fi un fel de Carter, cred v-as invita pe amandoi la
> niste convorbiri de pace la un subsitut de Camp David...
>


Asta-i o poanta?

Cum ziceam, proverbiala apetenta a romanului pentru spirite de gluma sufera teribil. Si io care vorbeam de lucruri sfinte... Umor englezesc...

P.S.: Nu mai incerca! Iese mai prost ca la Huhu Extratr.

Ute despre ce Chomsky este vorba:

Chomsky recently retired from his decades-long year career at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MIT is the largest non-profit US military contractor and the 12th largest military contractor overall. In 1955, when Chomsky began working at MIT, did not join the faculty of the MIT Linguistics Department, but according to Peter Schweizer&#8217;s recently published book, "Do As I Say, (Not as I Do), Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy." Chomsky instead first went to work for MIT&#8217;s "Research Laboratory of Electronics, which was funded entirely by the Pentagon.... Over the next half century, Chomsky would make millions by cashing checks from &#8216;the most hideous institution on this earth.&#8217;" (p21)

According to Schweizer, Chomsky&#8217;s first book, Syntactic Structures was written "with grants from the US Army (Signal Corps), the Air Force (office of Scientific Research, Air Research and Development Command), and the Office of Naval Research.

"His next book, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, was produced with money from the Joint Services Electronic Program (US Army, US Navy, US Air Force) as well as the US Air Force Electronic Systems Division."

Schweizer points out that Noam&#8217;s wife Carol, worked on a Department of Defense project known as "Baseball." (p22)

Questioned by Schweitzer about the contradiction between his anti-American and anti-military rhetoric and his role as a multi-million dollar Pentagon contractor, Chomsky did not deny the charge. Chomsky replied: "I think we should be responsible for what we do, not for the bureaucratic question of who stamps the paycheck." He then accused Schweitzer of attacking, "those who have not been living up to your exalted standards." (p23-24)

According to Schweizer, after years as part of the "war machine", Chomsky is among the top 2 percent of American households in net wealth. He owns two Massachusetts homes, which are together worth over $2 million. He owns a huge stock and bond mutual fund portfolio invested in multi-nationals, oil companies, military contractors and other blue-chip stocks and bonds though TIAA-CREF. Chomsky recently retained the Law firm of Phelps and Dodge to establish the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust which will protect his millions from the grasping tentacles of the Death Tax when the inevitable occurs. (p25-27)".

Tot articolul la: http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?6bf8ee4f-d41c-4f44-9e6f-92f4c1107e6d

La 2008-05-04 07:44:49, moroianu a scris:

> Al meu, conform Wikipediei, in are in prezent 53 de ani de cand
> functioneaza fara intrerupere la Michigan Institute of Technology. Cum
> a putut deci sa ia "bani cu patru maini (doua ale lui si doua ale
> sotiei) de la Pentagon in timp ce il
> demoniza in fel si chip"? O fi MIT o filiala a Pentagonului? Afirmatia
> ta (in masura in care nu faci o confuzie de persoane) are un puternic
> miros de manipulare. Era sa spun "calomnie", dar m-am corectat,
> deoarece chiar daca Chomsky ar fi fost colaborator al Pentagonului,
> asta nu-i rapea cu nimic dreptul moral de a-l critica ulterior. (Vezi
> cazul unuia care chiar a fost angajat acolo, si nu pe un post foarte
> modest - Robert McNamara, de aceeasi varsta cu Chomsky; sa-i fi
> confundat oare pe acestia doi?)
>
>

La 2008-05-04 15:40:54, Paul din Ohio a scris:

> Ute despre ce Chomsky este vorba:
>


Era vorba de Noam Chomsky

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chompsky

E adevarat ca au fost demascati doar doi prapaditi de informatori. Dar cei care au lucrat intr-adevar pentru secu au dosarele "la secret". Exemplu: Rodica Culcer (si desigur si alti sorosisti importanti). La 2008-05-04 15:40:54, Paul din Ohio a scris:

> Ute despre ce Chomsky este vorba:
>
> Chomsky recently retired from his decades-long year career at the
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MIT is the largest non-profit
> US military contractor and the 12th largest military contractor
> overall. In 1955, when Chomsky began working at MIT, did not join the
> faculty of the MIT Linguistics Department, but according to Peter
> Schweizer&#8217;s recently published book, "Do As I Say, (Not as I
> Do), Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy." Chomsky instead first went to
> work for MIT&#8217;s "Research Laboratory of Electronics, which was
> funded entirely by the Pentagon.... Over the next half century,
> Chomsky would make millions by cashing checks from &#8216;the most
> hideous institution on this earth.&#8217;" (p21)
>
> According to Schweizer, Chomsky&#8217;s first book, Syntactic
> Structures was written "with grants from the US Army (Signal Corps),
> the Air Force (office of Scientific Research, Air Research and
> Development Command), and the Office of Naval Research.
>
> "His next book, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, was produced with
> money from the Joint Services Electronic Program (US Army, US Navy, US
> Air Force) as well as the US Air Force Electronic Systems Division."
>
> Schweizer points out that Noam&#8217;s wife Carol, worked on a
> Department of Defense project known as "Baseball." (p22)
>
> Questioned by Schweitzer about the contradiction between his
> anti-American and anti-military rhetoric and his role as a
> multi-million dollar Pentagon contractor, Chomsky did not deny the
> charge. Chomsky replied: "I think we should be responsible for what we
> do, not for the bureaucratic question of who stamps the paycheck." He
> then accused Schweitzer of attacking, "those who have not been living
> up to your exalted standards." (p23-24)
>
> According to Schweizer, after years as part of the "war machine",
> Chomsky is among the top 2 percent of American households in net
> wealth. He owns two Massachusetts homes, which are together worth over
> $2 million. He owns a huge stock and bond mutual fund portfolio
> invested in multi-nationals, oil companies, military contractors and
> other blue-chip stocks and bonds though TIAA-CREF. Chomsky recently
> retained the Law firm of Phelps and Dodge to establish the Diane
> Chomsky Irrevocable Trust which will protect his millions from the
> grasping tentacles of the Death Tax when the inevitable occurs.
> (p25-27)".
>
> Tot articolul la:
> http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?6bf8ee4f-d41c-4f44-9e6f-92f4c1107e6d
>
> La 2008-05-04 07:44:49, moroianu a scris:
>
> > Al meu, conform Wikipediei, in are in prezent 53 de ani de cand
> > functioneaza fara intrerupere la Michigan Institute of Technology. Cum
> > a putut deci sa ia "bani cu patru maini (doua ale lui si doua ale
> > sotiei) de la Pentagon in timp ce il
> > demoniza in fel si chip"? O fi MIT o filiala a Pentagonului? Afirmatia
> > ta (in masura in care nu faci o confuzie de persoane) are un puternic
> > miros de manipulare. Era sa spun "calomnie", dar m-am corectat,
> > deoarece chiar daca Chomsky ar fi fost colaborator al Pentagonului,
> > asta nu-i rapea cu nimic dreptul moral de a-l critica ulterior. (Vezi
> > cazul unuia care chiar a fost angajat acolo, si nu pe un post foarte
> > modest - Robert McNamara, de aceeasi varsta cu Chomsky; sa-i fi
> > confundat oare pe acestia doi?)
> >
> >
>

cel despre care vorbeam si eu. La-05-04 15:49:00, katty1 a scris:

> La 2008-05-04 15:40:54, Paul din Ohio a scris:
>
> > Ute despre ce Chomsky este vorba:
> >
>
>
> Era vorba de Noam Chomsky
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chompsky
>

As avansa o ipoteza : in momentul in care cercetarile chomskiene nu au mai adus nimic nou pentru Pentagon, acesta i-a taiat grantul dupa care dl. Chomsky a inceput RAZBUNAREA. Este doar o ipoteza.La 2008-05-04 15:49:00, katty1 a scris:

> La 2008-05-04 15:40:54, Paul din Ohio a scris:
>
> > Ute despre ce Chomsky este vorba:
> >
>
>
> Era vorba de Noam Chomsky
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chompsky
>

La 2008-05-04 16:27:30, Paul din Ohio a scris:

> As avansa o ipoteza : in momentul in care cercetarile chomskiene nu au
> mai adus nimic nou pentru Pentagon, acesta i-a taiat grantul dupa care
> dl. Chomsky a inceput RAZBUNAREA. Este doar o ipoteza.La 2008-05-04
> 15:49:00, katty1 a scris:


Posibil da, posibil nu. Nu cunosc prea multe amanunte despre viata si activitatea lui Chomsky. O sa incerc sa ma documentez mai mult pe viitor.

Toate conexiunile pe care incerci sa le faci intre pozitia lui de disident al "sistemului" si cea de beneficiar al unor contracte cu Pentagonul (demascate intr-o lucrare a unui anonim scrib anti-liberal) sunt de-a dreptul ridicole in contextul aplicarii lor la modul de retribuire a muncii unui savant care a fost multa vreme nu numai "Number 1" in specialitatea lui, ci probabil cel mai prestigios dintre universitarii Americii in genere.

Ce sa mai vorbim despre ipoteza matereailist-dialectica a taierii granturilor drept origine a disidentzei lui Chomsky? Cred ca si sovieticii incercau sa-l combata pe Zaharov cu astfel de arme.

PS Complet de acord cutine in cazul Rodica Culcer; dar cauzele tacerii asternute ca prin farmec asupra numelui lui Soros in Romania raman cele enuntzate de mine: conformismul si lipsa de caracter. Dar, ca de obicei, faptele care nu te intereseaza, nu exista pentru tine.
La 2008-05-04 16:27:30, Paul din Ohio a scris:

> As avansa o ipoteza : in momentul in care cercetarile chomskiene nu au
> mai adus nimic nou pentru Pentagon, acesta i-a taiat grantul dupa care
> dl. Chomsky a inceput RAZBUNAREA. Este doar o ipoteza.La 2008-05-04
> 15:49:00, katty1 a scris:
>
> > La 2008-05-04 15:40:54, Paul din Ohio a scris:
> >
> > > Ute despre ce Chomsky este vorba:
> > >
> >
> >
> > Era vorba de Noam Chomsky
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chompsky
> >
>
>