will this become the century of paradigms?

am i reading it correctly?

calr schmitt (the concept of the political)
is saying
the political is the starting point for objective discussion (xx top).
an inquiry into the political was an inquiry into the "order of human
things," where the important word is "human" (xvi-xvii).

noam chmsky (on
anarchism...url: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html
is saying
i think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of
authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to
challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are
illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human
freedom.  That includes political power, ...
Nturally this means a challenge to the huge institutions of coercion and
control: the state, the unaccountable private tyrannis that control most
of the domestic and international economy, and so on...what I have always
understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden
of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled
if that burden cannot be met.

It will be assumed that political legitimacy is a relationship between
rulers and ruled that refers to the moral condition of individuals in
modern political communities: to say that citizens owe loyalty to the
state implies that legal and political requirements of the state authority
ought to be capable of justification
(url: http://www.ceu.hu/crc/Syllabi/97-98/Social_Theory/nenadleg.html

This chapter traces paradigm changes that result from the invention of new
theories brought about by the failure of existing theory to solve the
problems defined by that theory.  This failure is acknowledged as a crisis
by the scientific community (Ch. 7).

The awareness and acknowledgment that a crisis exists loosens the
theoretical stereotypes and provides the incremental data necessary for a
fundamental paradigm shift.  In this.... (Ch. 8).

When paradigms change, the world itself changes with them...(Ch. 10).

Because paradigm shifts are gnerally viewed not as revolutions but as
additions to scientific knowledge, and because the history of the field is
represented in the new textsbooks that accompany a new paradigm, a
scientific revolution seems invisible (Ch. 11).

(an outline on the structure of scientific revolutions--kuhn.  url: not
with me.)

url: http://www.pitt.edu/~gupst1.abstract%20publicity%20of%20introspection.htm
is a call for public discussion regarding unorthodox scientific methods in
use.

Ronald Pine, url: not with me, is likewsie calling for public discussion
regarding irregular/irrational assumptions in scientific research.

re: the above two, these are examples for my following concern.

in this bush/gore discussion
is there an
awareness & acknowledgment
that a crisis exists?
i know -- it's so obvious........

if yes, is there any one out there who can articulate it, the crisis?


MIT = Chomsky + Kuhn = the cnetury of paradigms

what does this mean
girls and boys
put on your thinking caps
to make real
renaissance II

am i dreaming all this or what?

what is your reality to this?

saka'i

sorry but i'm still stuck in quotes, quotes, and more quotes....
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Tony
Abdo wrote:

> Come off it, Jeff.     There has been no 'coup', just as there has been
> no democratic election in the United States.      The Democratic Party
> was complicit TOTALLY, in turning over the White House to Bush and Gang.
> So how do you get off in blaming non- voters, so turned off by this
> entire pile of phony electoral baloney fostered on us by the corporate
> media?
>
> And what is voting improperly?       Is it a little like driving while
> Black or Brown?      Dumb voters!     It's their fault that the junk
> machines were put in their communities where their votes would get
> chucked!      Assholes!      Get some money and go live in a better off,
> more Republican community.
>
> And Issodhos.... with his usual bizzarre idiocies!     Yes, Issodhos,
> that Dick Cheney is toooo liberal for me.     An 'Dub' doesn't push the
> death penaty for Blacks as much as you, the great Issodhos would like.
> No wonder you coudn't vote for them, Izzy.
>
> Michael P.?     You find Issodhos more intellectually stimulating than
> William Meecham?!       Yes???    Then I prefer Jela over your babble,
> too.        You need a political re-education camp to straighten up your
> limp brand of 'socialism'.       Let me talk to Jela about openings.....
> and then get back to you.
>
> How you can take a preference to Issodhos and his constant racism on
> this list is hard to understand?     But then again, you preferred Blair
> and Clinton over the satanic SM.      Go figure?
>
> Sincerely, Tony
> _________________________________
> <And my guy did not even place. I leave it to the party hacks of both
> sides and the moronic undecideds to squabble over which liberal becomes
> figurehead to their "true believers". Yours,
> Issodhos>
>
> ________________________________
> Jeff.....
> <Everyone know that if all US citizens voted (instead of a pitiful
> 40-some percent) the Democrats would win every time. The blame for
> allowing this 'coup' to occur, rests with those who did not vote, and
> those who voted improperly.>
>