Captain Mazdas Homevideo
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:16 pm
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:26 pm
terrible acting
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:39 pm
needs some camels
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:59 pm
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 7:05 pm
Leibniz's best known contribution to metaphysics is his theory of monads, as exposited in his Monadologie. Monads are to the mental realm what atoms are to the physical. Monads are the ultimate elements of the universe, and are also entities of perception. The monads are "substantial forms of being" with the following properties: they are eternal, indecomposable, individual, subject to their own laws, un-interacting, and each reflecting the entire universe in a pre-established harmony (a historically important example of panpsychism). Monads are centers of force; substance is force, while space, matter, and motion are merely phenomenal.
The ontological essence of a monad is its irreducible simplicity. Unlike atoms, monads possess no material or spatial character. They also differ from atoms by their complete mutual independence, so that interactions among monads are only apparent. Instead, by virtue of the principle of pre-established harmony, each monad follows a preprogrammed set of "instructions" peculiar to itself, so that a monad "knows" what to do at each moment. (These "instructions" may be seen as analogs of the scientific laws governing subatomic particles.) By virtue of these intrinsic instructions, each monad is like a little mirror of the universe. Monads need not be "small"; e.g., each human being constitutes a monad, in which case free will is problematic. God, too, is a monad, and God's existence can be inferred from the harmony prevailing among all other monads; God wills the pre-established harmony.
Monads are purported to solve the problematic:
* Interaction between mind and matter arising in the system of Descartes;
* Lack of individuation inherent to the system of Spinoza, which represent individual creatures as merely accidental.
The monadology was thought arbitrary, even eccentric, in Leibniz's day and since.
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 7:24 pm
Leibniz's best known contribution to metaphysics is his theory of monads, as exposited in his Monadologie. Monads are to the mental realm what atoms are to the physical. Monads are the ultimate elements of the universe, and are also entities of perception. The monads are "substantial forms of being" with the following properties: they are eternal, indecomposable, individual, subject to their own laws, un-interacting, and each reflecting the entire universe in a pre-established harmony (a historically important example of panpsychism). Monads are centers of force; substance is force, while space, matter, and motion are merely phenomenal.
The ontological essence of a monad is its irreducible simplicity. Unlike atoms, monads possess no material or spatial character. They also differ from atoms by their complete mutual independence, so that interactions among monads are only apparent. Instead, by virtue of the principle of pre-established harmony, each monad follows a preprogrammed set of "instructions" peculiar to itself, so that a monad "knows" what to do at each moment. (These "instructions" may be seen as analogs of the scientific laws governing subatomic particles.) By virtue of these intrinsic instructions, each monad is like a little mirror of the universe. Monads need not be "small"; e.g., each human being constitutes a monad, in which case free will is problematic. God, too, is a monad, and God's existence can be inferred from the harmony prevailing among all other monads; God wills the pre-established harmony.
Monads are purported to solve the problematic:
* Interaction between mind and matter arising in the system of Descartes;
* Lack of individuation inherent to the system of Spinoza, which represent individual creatures as merely accidental.
The monadology was thought arbitrary, even eccentric, in Leibniz's day and since.
Of note was Newton's near-simultaneous theorizing about gonads and gonadology, which received far greater acceptance and acclaim.
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:34 pm
Adorno was to a great extent influenced by Walter Benjamin's application of Karl Marx's thought. Adorno, along with other major Frankfurt School theorists such as Horkheimer and Marcuse, argued that advanced capitalism was able to contain or liquidate the forces that would bring about its collapse and that the revolutionary moment, when it would have been possible to transform it into socialism, had passed. Adorno argued that capitalism had become more entrenched through its attack on the objective basis of revolutionary consciousness and through liquidation of the individualism that had been the basis of critical consciousness.
Adorno's work focuses on art, literature and music as key areas of sensuous, indirect critique of the established culture and petrified modes of thought. The argument, which is complex and dialectic, dominates his Aesthetic Theory, Philosophy of New Music and many other works.
The culture industry is seen as an arena in which critical tendencies or potentialities were eliminated. He argued that the culture industry, which produced and circulated cultural commodities through the mass media, manipulated the population. Popular culture was identified as a reason why people become passive; the easy pleasures available through consumption of popular culture made people docile and content, no matter how terrible their economic circumstances. The differences among cultural goods make them appear different, but they are in fact just variations on the same theme. Adorno conceptualises this phenomenon pseudo-individualization and the always-the-same. Adorno saw this mass-produced culture as a danger to the more difficult high arts. Culture industries cultivate false needs; that is, needs created and satisfied by capitalism. True needs, in contrast, are freedom, creativity, or genuine happiness.
The work on mass culture Adorno with Horkheimer. His work heavily influenced intellectual discourse on popular culture and scholarly popular culture studies. At the time Adorno began writing, there was a tremendous unease among many intellectuals as to the results of mass culture and mass production on the character of individuals within a nation. By exploring the mechanisms for the creation of mass culture, Adorno presented a framework which gave specific terms to what had been a more general concern.
At the time this was considered important because of the role which the state took in cultural production; Adorno's analysis allowed for a critique of mass culture from the left which balanced the critique of popular culture from the right. From both perspectives — left and right — the nature of cultural production was felt to be at the root of social and moral problems resulting from the consumption of culture. However, while the critique from the right emphasized moral degeneracy ascribed to sexual and racial influences within popular culture, Adorno located the problem not with the content, but with the objective realities of the production of mass culture and its effects, e.g. as a form of reverse psychology.
Many aspects of Adorno's work are relevant today and have been developed in many strands of contemporary critical theory, media theory, and sociology. Thinkers influenced by Adorno believe that today's society has evolved in a direction foreseen by him, especially in regard to the past (Auschwitz), morals or the Culture Industry. The latter has become a particularly productive, yet highly contested term in cultural studies. Many of his reflections on aesthetics and music have only just begun to be debated, as a collection of essays on the subject, many of which had not previously been translated into English, has only recently been collected and published as Essays on Music.
Adorno, again along with the other principal thinkers of the Frankfurt school, attacked positivism in the social sciences and in philosophy. He was particularly harsh on approaches that claimed to be scientific and quantitative, although the collective Frankfurt School work The Authoritarian Personality that appeared under Adorno's name was the single most influential empirical study in the social sciences in America for decades after its publication in 1950.
Adorno's work in the years before his death was shaped by the idea of "negative dialectics", set out especially in his book of that title. A key notion in the work of the Frankfurt School since Dialectic of Enlightenment had been the idea of thought as an instrument of domination that subsumed all objects under the control of the subject, especially through the notion of identity, i.e. of identifying as real in nature and society only that which harmonized or fit with concepts, and regarding as unreal or non-existent everything that did not. Adorno's "negative dialectics" was an attempt to articulate a non-dominating thought that would recognize its limitations and accept the non-identity and reality of that which could not be subsumed under the subject's concepts.
[edit] Adorno and his critics
Adorno's work focuses on art, literature and music as key areas of sensuous, indirect critique of the established culture and petrified modes of thought. The argument, which is complex and dialectic, dominates his Aesthetic Theory, Philosophy of New Music and many other works.
The culture industry is seen as an arena in which critical tendencies or potentialities were eliminated. He argued that the culture industry, which produced and circulated cultural commodities through the mass media, manipulated the population. Popular culture was identified as a reason why people become passive; the easy pleasures available through consumption of popular culture made people docile and content, no matter how terrible their economic circumstances. The differences among cultural goods make them appear different, but they are in fact just variations on the same theme. Adorno conceptualises this phenomenon pseudo-individualization and the always-the-same. Adorno saw this mass-produced culture as a danger to the more difficult high arts. Culture industries cultivate false needs; that is, needs created and satisfied by capitalism. True needs, in contrast, are freedom, creativity, or genuine happiness.
The work on mass culture Adorno with Horkheimer. His work heavily influenced intellectual discourse on popular culture and scholarly popular culture studies. At the time Adorno began writing, there was a tremendous unease among many intellectuals as to the results of mass culture and mass production on the character of individuals within a nation. By exploring the mechanisms for the creation of mass culture, Adorno presented a framework which gave specific terms to what had been a more general concern.
At the time this was considered important because of the role which the state took in cultural production; Adorno's analysis allowed for a critique of mass culture from the left which balanced the critique of popular culture from the right. From both perspectives — left and right — the nature of cultural production was felt to be at the root of social and moral problems resulting from the consumption of culture. However, while the critique from the right emphasized moral degeneracy ascribed to sexual and racial influences within popular culture, Adorno located the problem not with the content, but with the objective realities of the production of mass culture and its effects, e.g. as a form of reverse psychology.
Many aspects of Adorno's work are relevant today and have been developed in many strands of contemporary critical theory, media theory, and sociology. Thinkers influenced by Adorno believe that today's society has evolved in a direction foreseen by him, especially in regard to the past (Auschwitz), morals or the Culture Industry. The latter has become a particularly productive, yet highly contested term in cultural studies. Many of his reflections on aesthetics and music have only just begun to be debated, as a collection of essays on the subject, many of which had not previously been translated into English, has only recently been collected and published as Essays on Music.
Adorno, again along with the other principal thinkers of the Frankfurt school, attacked positivism in the social sciences and in philosophy. He was particularly harsh on approaches that claimed to be scientific and quantitative, although the collective Frankfurt School work The Authoritarian Personality that appeared under Adorno's name was the single most influential empirical study in the social sciences in America for decades after its publication in 1950.
Adorno's work in the years before his death was shaped by the idea of "negative dialectics", set out especially in his book of that title. A key notion in the work of the Frankfurt School since Dialectic of Enlightenment had been the idea of thought as an instrument of domination that subsumed all objects under the control of the subject, especially through the notion of identity, i.e. of identifying as real in nature and society only that which harmonized or fit with concepts, and regarding as unreal or non-existent everything that did not. Adorno's "negative dialectics" was an attempt to articulate a non-dominating thought that would recognize its limitations and accept the non-identity and reality of that which could not be subsumed under the subject's concepts.
[edit] Adorno and his critics
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:04 pm
lol, leibniz invented underpants
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:50 am
People generally have strong views about Cpt. Mazda. Here's a quick review: Mazda doesn't want to acknowledge that he functions not as a social critic, but as an unoriginal imitator of the ruling ideologues. In fact, Mazda would rather block all discussion on the subject. I suppose that's because he has convinced a lot of people that his cajoleries are Right with a capital R. One must pause in admiration at this triumph of media manipulation. He says that he knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. That's a stupid thing to say. It's like saying that he is the way, the truth, and the light. Now that this letter has come to an end, I surely hope you walk away from it realizing that we need to lead each other towards the understanding that this conviction of mine is as firm as a rock.
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:57 am
:S
Worst bit of acting and scene transitions. I've seen 15-yr old media arts students make better use of a DV camera.diego wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSydiXjHNJI
Admit it, there's no denying matey!
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:42 am
I was a in a Media Arts class when I was 15... :icon33:Captain Mazda wrote:Worst bit of acting and scene transitions. I've seen 15-yr old media arts students make better use of a DV camera.
..It was even called "Media Arts."
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:21 pm
It's part of the curriculum here, I still remember it 