Question

General chit-chat

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Walker
Posts: 5392
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Question

Post by Walker » Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:58 am

Principle: To exclude excellence from university.

Corruption?

The answer is either yes, or no.

Which is it, and why?

If you wish to elaborate, what does this mean for you, and humanity?

You're welcome, for the focus of your thesis.

Use it or trash it.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2325
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Question

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:09 am

Walker wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:58 am
Principle: To exclude excellence from university.

Corruption?

The answer is either yes, or no.

Which is it, and why?

If you wish to elaborate, what does this mean for you, and humanity?

You're welcome, for the focus of your thesis.
I can answer the question right now:

Determining graduate acceptance based off of race or sex, and not merit negates personal responsibility and in itself is unjust.

Pulling string by getting someone you know to get in without merit is wrong.

(My case) I had a person who recommended me call the graduate admissions, state my intent, and the graduate admissions claimed with a proper letter of intent (submitting to the institutions guidelines, not promoting personal philosophy, intent to understand system presented) admission is possible. Because this is not the standard, as the system is transcended without contradicting its nature, no moral code is violated...just out of the box thinking that does not negate the universities values.

In real short terms, in the application I stated the philosophical problems I hoped to address and the multitude of them...and someone got pissed.

Walker
Posts: 5392
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Question

Post by Walker » Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:12 pm

As the objective and impartial advisor-simulacrum that you implicitly requested, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if corrupted tendrils have in fact turned shallow, snap-analysis into the gold standard at the masters level.

A truthful investigation into your approved topic is more likely to be found when heads get pulled out the dark, lower regions of opinion to actually speak face-to-face with the parties of a current hot issue.

You may laugh, but it’s called original research.

True, academia has traditionally preened towards a common view from the ivy tower, distant from the common pursuits down there on street level, but academic activism activated a change in the sixties.

Adapt or die gets you For Profit U. FPU, no football team. Just look at all the internet scholars these days, sourcing their information from monitored and censored sources on-line.

One can likely buy a sheepskin these days without ever cracking a leather-bound book, or speaking face-to-face with a human bean.

Masters Level word salads. Sometimes funny, sometimes sad.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2325
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Question

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:18 pm

Walker wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:12 pm
As the objective and impartial advisor-simulacrum that you implicitly requested, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if corrupted tendrils have in fact turned shallow, snap-analysis into the gold standard at the masters level.

What you wrote can be interpreted a number of ways, so I am not entirely sure what your point is.

The "pulling of strings" is moral relative to the context with the context being absolute. Going outside the boundaries of an institution does not necessitate a corruption of the institutions identity or ethics, but rather transcends them.

Pullings string inside the university, where rule and a merit system are broken, causes a dissolution of the system by corrupting it.

Transcend the system and let it deal with its own problems.



A truthful investigation into your approved topic is more likely to be found when heads get pulled out the dark, lower regions of opinion to actually speak face-to-face with the parties of a current hot issue.

You may laugh, but it’s called original research.

Original research and academic research can go hand in hand, the contradiction occurs when one is given premise over the other.



True, academia has traditionally preened towards a common view from the ivy tower, distant from the common pursuits down there on street level, but academic activism activated a change in the sixties.

The sixties set into place a continual cultural revolution that prevents any form of freedom in choice by eliminating cultural structure under a false individualism where everyone tries to fit in by do there own thing.

The sixties formed academia today, but where not a cause in themselves as the dissolution of natural law led to a generation of bored and spoiled people that passed on there dissolusioment to the following generations and blamed them for it.

They can argue about Vietnam, etc. and be right in many degrees, but a war for meaning in time where young children are killing eachother and themselves is a whole different beast altogether. They talked about free sex, young men today cannot even pursue that without fear of some accusation and legal recourse.



Adapt or die gets you For Profit U. FPU, no football team. Just look at all the internet scholars these days, sourcing their information from monitored and censored sources on-line.

Adapt or die dually occurs to the university as well considering they must adapt to an era or information which can be received online in an instant, due to diversity of opinion, as well as the multitude of information that inhibits any one framework the university presents as being right.

Anyone who has to rely on statistics in order to find the truth, in an age where information is subject to faulty or biased research, is doomed to fail unless that have a rational and logical base necessary to interpret that information. Even logic itself is put to question and a new system of logic must be developed to provide a framework or reason to effectively contains the ideological, religious and moral chaos.



One can likely buy a sheepskin these days without ever cracking a leather-bound book, or speaking face-to-face with a human bean.

Masters Level word salads. Sometimes funny, sometimes sad.

People who accuse others of words salads only speak to there own interest. For me to say someone is speaking in word salads is effectively to say either I do not care or I do not understand.

The system must be transcended or one is locked inside of it. Those who fail to transcend it do so because of ignorance and weakness.


Walker
Posts: 5392
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Question

Post by Walker » Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:03 am

"The system must be transcended ..."

Quite different from the sixties and burn baby, burn.

*

University alumni prefer that their alma maters' sports teams, win.

As far as I know, no one has adapted Sumo to Harvard football.

Could be an awesome pass pocket.

A passel of Sumos would boost admissions for Asians who are being denied their reward for being too smart, too excellent, too already-educated.

That way, Asians won’t have to dumb themselves down for admission.

Eat lots of rice.

Walker
Posts: 5392
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Question

Post by Walker » Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:27 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:09 am

In real short terms, in the application I stated the philosophical problems I hoped to address and the multitude of them...and someone got pissed.
“While corporations were checked and progressive presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson 1879 were voted in, the Progressive Era — 1900 to 1920 — was marred by a darker history of racism and xenophobia among its politicians. The legacy of that racism surfaced on Princeton’s campus last year with a call by student activists to remove Wilson’s name from its public-affairs school and a residential college.”
https://paw.princeton.edu/article/racis ... essive-era

The Russian Revolution was in the Progressive Era.

Plenty of world-wide meat during those twenty years for a thesis.
It was the cause of dada.

Don’t forget who’s reading your work, and the fine line between risqué and brown-nosing the advisor you’ve already angered.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2325
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Question

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:21 pm

Walker wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:27 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:09 am

In real short terms, in the application I stated the philosophical problems I hoped to address and the multitude of them...and someone got pissed.
“While corporations were checked and progressive presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson 1879 were voted in, the Progressive Era — 1900 to 1920 — was marred by a darker history of racism and xenophobia among its politicians. The legacy of that racism surfaced on Princeton’s campus last year with a call by student activists to remove Wilson’s name from its public-affairs school and a residential college.”
https://paw.princeton.edu/article/racis ... essive-era

The Russian Revolution was in the Progressive Era.

Plenty of world-wide meat during those twenty years for a thesis.
It was the cause of dada.

Don’t forget who’s reading your work, and the fine line between risqué and brown-nosing the advisor you’ve already angered.
What are you talking about with Racism? None of the issues I wanted to address had anything to do with racism...

I was stating the current academic establishment focuses less on merit and more on race and sex.

Walker
Posts: 5392
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Question

Post by Walker » Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:49 pm

As your shadow advisor I’m obligated to inform you that at the Master’s Level you will be required to figure some things out for yourself, and then row not in circles with that.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2325
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Question

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:43 pm

Walker wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:49 pm
As your shadow advisor I’m obligated to inform you that at the Master’s Level you will be required to figure some things out for yourself, and then row not in circles with that.
The issues with a master's is strictly not presenting a strictly pure logical argument (as I do here for the most part), but rather synthesizing research together from prior author's.

I can easily fit 10 to 20 sources per page, in these regards, with these sources giving evidence I am not overrouting anyone prior research by any means but rather building upon it.

Most of the work here is original as the arguments about the nature of the line, point and circle are extensions of original work while building off of certain principles in Pythagoras, Hegel, Neitzche, Wittgenstien, Plato, Aristotle, Parmenides, Anaximander, Leupidicus (not spell correctly), Husserl, Heidegger, Leiniz, Newton, Einstein, Tesla (he had some philosophical works or rather comments) Hall, Popper, and various Eastern Philosopher's (I cannot count the number and do not remember how to spell there names), as well as a long list of other author's and philosopher's.

It is a synthesis of everything, hence not my own while the interpretations are mine.

Directed movement through the point, line and circle is the common foundation.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest