ZAPRASZA.net POLSKA ZAPRASZA KRAKÓW ZAPRASZA TV ZAPRASZA ART ZAPRASZA
Dodaj artykuł  

KIM JESTEŚMY ARTYKUŁY CIEKAWE LINKI 2002-2009 NASZ PATRONAT KRONIKA KRAKOWA DZIŚ W POLSCE

Ciekawe strony

Wielkie pytania o 9/11 
Strona poświęcona analizie wydarzeń z 11 września 2001 
Skazany za pestki moreli, B17  
Faszyzm w barwach demokracji 
Niezależna witryna Alexa Jones'a 
Alex Jones należy do nielicznych ludzi na świecie którzy mają odwagę mówić prawdę o antyspołecznej konspiracji 
"patriotyzm" po 1989 roku 
komentarz zbędny 
davidicke.pl 
Tym - którzy interesują się losami Świata nie ma potrzeby przedstawiać Davida Icke. Tym ktorzy do tej pory spali umysłowo ta strona może otworzyć oczy.  
Wszystko pod kontrolą 
Od zawsze służby specjalne kontrolowały rzekome niezaplanowane spotkania oficjeli z obywatelami.
Przykład podstawionego Putina - jako przypadkowego przechodnia.
 
Folksdojcz 
Fantastyczny zespół - poruszający ważne problemy społeczne stworzył bardzo dosadną piosenkę, będącą miksem wywiadu telewizyjnego z śpiewem zespołu. 
Polscy "nacjonaliści" o żydach 
Po prostu zobaczcie 
Na straży wolności: Goldman Sachs  
Gerald Celente i John Stossel rozmawiają z sędzią Napolitano o różnych, nie do końca jasnych powiązaniach, między amerykańskimi bankami i rządem USA. Największe podejrzenia budzi bank Goldman Sachs, który ma dziwną nadreprezentację we władzach rządowych. Dla przypomnienia, dodam, że pracownikiem tego banku jest były premier RP, Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, a bank był zamieszany w spekulacje na złotówce. 
whatreallyhappened.com 
Warto dodać ten link do Pana strony: http://whatreallyhappened.com/

99% tez dotyczących religii, polityki i ekonomii i filozofii się pokrywa z tezami zaprasza.net. Topowa strona. 
Kanciarze z Wall Street 
Film przedstawia kulisy Wall street . Metody działania , które doprowadziły w ciągu kilku ostatnich lat do wywołania kryzysu finansowego. 
Niemcy 1940 - Izrael 2009 - Szokujące zdjęcia 
 
Strzeżcie się Obamy 
Kto naprawdę stoi za Barakiem Obamą? 
Kto mordował w Katyniu 
Izraelska gazeta „Maariv” z 21 lipca 1971 r. wyjawia końcowy sekret katyńskiej masakry. 
Wołyń 1943. sł. muz. Lech Makowiecki  
Wołyń 1943. sł. muz. Lech Makowiecki. Utwór z płyty "Patriotyzm" 
Cała prawda o World Trade Center 
Filmik dokumentalny przedstawiający wydarzenia z 11 września 2001 roku. 
Cała prawda o ataku z 11 września 
Jeden z filmów usułujących przedstawić prawdę i ataku z 11 września 2001 roku 
www.globalresearch.ca 
świetne analizy polityczne i gospodarcze w skali mikro i makro + anty-NWO 
Zakrzyczana prawda 
Mamy 2010 rok a zbrodniarze którzy doprowadzili do wielu wojen i kryzysu światowego w w dalszym ciągu - z tupetem - niczym Josef Goebbels kłamią w oczy w kwestii sytuacji gospodarczej świata i Stanów Zjednoczonych
 
Młodzież izraelska w Polsce 
Doskonały dokument o wycieczce młodzieży izraelskiej do Polski. 
więcej ->

 
 

Antizoological* “Logos” of Noam Chomsky



Introduction



My recent text “Ahriman’s inspired fairy tales about Redemption and Natural Selection” was published at several websites. In particular at Kraków’s www.zaprasza.net of Artur Loboda, and on the website of Polish émigrés www.polskawalczaca.com/viewtopic.php?t=2515, with a commentary: Thank you very much for the nurture for thoughts. I placed this article in the category “Interesting texts in English” Once again I thank you, asking for more. Jerzy (Ulicki-Rek). This “heretic” text was published also at the international website www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/rd4.htm , with a following comment of Israel Adam Shamir, whom I was happy to visit, in his “summer hermitage” in Sweden in mid-July: “Some time ago we published Anthony McCarthy's critique of Christopher Hitchens' book God is not so Great. Now we offer the Polish heretic philosopher Marek Glogoczowski's response, while totally disagreeing with Marek's view.” I consider this comment to be entirely ok., especially if we recall that IAS joined the Orthodox Christian Church less than a decade ago, and that he surely feels compelled to accept its doctrine.



Israel Adam forwarded me a more eloquent opinion of his close collaborator Ken Freeland, who wrote: I am not sure I agree 100% with Marek G, but I recognize that he is articulating a critique of organized Christianity that is of the utmost importance. Will you please convey to him my offer to edit his text in this and future related pieces for English language readability. His Slavic wording makes it almost comical in parts, and it is unfair to his important work for people to have to slog through his broken English. My best to him and you.



And here showed up a problem, which may be of interest for these who are interested not only in religion, but also in achievements of modern science, especially in the domain of the “only human” capacity to communicate with others by a mean of a language.



Bizarre concepts of learning of professor Chomsky



I know that I have problems not only with “Slavic wording”, but also with the construction of sentences imposed by the English grammar – in Polish language, thanks to the richness of declension of nouns and adjectives (7 cases), the composition of sentences is relatively “free”, while in English we have an obligation to put the predicate after the subject, for otherwise a sentence becomes incomprehensible. My still frequent errors in English composition contradict Chomsky's theory of genetically coded, in all humans, rigid rules of grammar of the English type. From my personal experience – which is the experience of thousands grown in Slavic countries who learned English as adults – the Chomsky’s famous Theory of the Universal Generative Grammar has been built on an ignorance of grammar rules characterizing Slavic languages: in Polish books, examples demonstrating how the Universal Generative Grammar works, are given... in English, for once translated into Polish they look ridiculous!



Professor Chomsky has surely noticed that his “inborn ignorance”, in the domain of grammatical rules of languages different from English, has contributed to his professional success in the field of linguistics. No wonder thus, that by a simple association, very similar to associations which makes Pavlov’s dog sensing “where is the nurture (for a scientific carrier)”, Chomsky began to enounce ever more sophisticated “theories of learning” built on a full, as he likes to repeat it, ‘Cartesian’, detachment from the observed reality. These bizarre opinions soon took forms of scientific statements, somehow accepted by conspicuously tolerant in this sordid affair scientific establishment. Here I will quote only few such statements, taken from Chomsky writings, which were published by the Institute of Philosophy of Polish Academy of Science in 1996, in a book symptomatically titled “Noam Chomsky’s Attempt Of Scientific Revolution” (Noama Chomsky’ego próba rewolucji naukowej”[1]) :



[1] “Essential aspects of our mental and social life, among them also the language, are determined as a part of our biological endowment, and they are not acquired by the process of learning, in particular by a training”. One may wonder how many foreign languages has learned our distinguished scholar by this “no training” method. In his childhood, during a period when he was incapable of self-observation, Chomsky in all evidence has learned (by a spontaneous training, which characterises children) English, and probably also Hebrew, but later on we may safely bet that he hasn’t learned any foreign language: his conversations with the French linguist Mitsou Ronat, published in 1977 in form of a book titled “Language and Responsibility”[2], “were carried on in English on his part, in French on hers” as informs us its Translator’s Note.



[2] In an another scientific statement, which Chomsky enounced in the article „Looking into the future: perspectives of the research on human mind” from 1988, he asks “Why do intellectuals cling so much to the faith that the man is shaped by his life experience and not by his personal nature?” In this case the answer is that it is our life experience, which shapes our understanding of the world around us. As observed it already Aristotle “nihil est in intellectu quod prius fuerit in sensu”. Due to this “overlooked” by professor Chomsky (and earlier “overlooked” by St. Augustin and by imitating him René Descartes) fact, our life experience (in particular, our education) shapes the nature of our behavior. The nature of a child is to believe into everything his parents (and/or priests) tell him, while the nature of a revolting against the society adolescent is to disbelieve parents and teachers trying to bring to reason him (or her). Ultimately the nature of a mature adult is the well interiorised knowledge that one’s personal experience shapes his (or her) social behavior, for ex. his (or her) capacity (or lack of a such capacity) to communicate with others in foreign languages.



[3] In the same article “Looking into the future” we find an expression of a “juvenile” (at his age of 60!) disbelief of Noam Chomsky that “Constructions which are made by the brain are considered to be the result of few simple associative operations ... maybe slightly enriched by the capacity of making inductions. ... These possibilities are supposed to be a sufficient source of all human intellectual achievements”. In this case we may bet that Chomsky, during his high school training, never heard about Pavlov’s experiments with conditioning of brain (&body) reflexes of dogs – which endogenous system of spontaneous association of repetitive signals, permitting a more efficient adaptive behavior, exists of course also in humans learning how to behave in particular situations, in particular learning how to make a “scientific” career.



[4] Finally we have the year 2008, ageing Noam Chomsky is considered to be “the great luminary”, as writes Israel Adam Shamir in his general el-message posted on July 22 (http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Eng42.htm ). Shamir discuss there Chomsky’s reluctance to take a net stand in the case of “changing the world” 9/11 events: “Boston Professor does not want to fight Barrett’s war for crediting Bush and Mossad with 9/11. And so he does not. Does he have to? Barrett tried to push Chomsky into immersing himself in the technicalities of 9/11 “Truth Movement” discourse, and refused to take no for an answer. ... Chomsky did well to retort: “That's a curious feature of the Truth Movement … the curious ‘with us or against us’ mentality that pervades much of the movement: either you accept our claims, or you're a ‘left gatekeeper.’”



Knowing that our “great luminary” is [1] a professional ignorant in the domain of learning of foreign languages, and [2] that he is also an ignorant in the matter of influence of personal life experiences onto one’s social behavior, we are inclined to think, by a means of a despised by Chomsky reasoning called induction [3], that it is due to his ignorance of physics this great American luminary obstinately refuses to take stand in “in the technicalities of 9/11 “Truth Movement” discourse”. (At U.C. Berkeley in 1972 I met a Comparative Literature graduate, who told me that she never had, in her 25 years long life experience, a single lesson of physics – supposedly a feature quite common among American professionals of “humanities”.)



As these “technicalities of 9/11” are considered, it is worth to recall a very concise opinion of Tom Mysiewicz published, as a commentary to Chomsky’s refusal to take stand in 9/11 events, by ISH (http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/rd3.htm ): “Powdering of concrete, presence of thermite/thermate, the rate of collapse, cool-burning fire, etc. ALL point to a controlled demolition using internal explosive charges--not an air crash.” Does Chomsky is competent enough to accept/reject this opinion? If he took during his schoolboy life experience a course of elementary physics, he would be able to calculate himself, that an object falling from the height of 400 meters to the ground in 8-10 seconds, must fall practically unhindered by a material which it encounters during such free fall. For a man who has interiorised elementary laws of physics it is evident that the structure of WTC building was demolished using internal explosive charges, as points it Mysiewicz. By refusing to accept this evidence Chomsky has automatically associated himself not with US (us, unbelievers in the official version of 9/11 events), but with THEM – it means with the Cancer-like Assembly of Criminals (the biblical “Brigands Cavern”) forming the “democratic” government of USA (and in the much desired perspective, the government of the entire world).



Chomsky as “homo ignorans” in the domain of construction of knowledge[3]



How it happened that the negation of practically all our collective cognitive acquisitions, be it in the domain of physics, be it in the domain of developmental psychology, has become the essence of “Noam Chomsky’s Attempt of Scientific Revolution”? These quoted above, “scientific statements” of the Great American Luminary suggest rather his cognitive infirmity than an ability to realize a ‘scientific revolution’: the statement [3] for example, which puts into question the human capacity of association of ideas, suggests that the organ, known to neurologists as ‘associative cortex’ is completely superfluous in our brains! In a similar way, the repeated by Chomsky assertions that the acquisition of a language does not need a repetitive training [1], implies that all these numerous schools of languages are completely obsolete institutions! Statements quoted above form only a ‘tip of an iceberg’ of Chomsky’s “Revolutionary Learning Theory, by a non-training of organs, in particular by a non-exercise of the organ of speech”.



The science of developmental ophthalmology informs us that very young mammals, in case they are not exposed to light during so called “critical periods” of their growth, remain functionally blind for the rest of their lives. All our intracerebral connections reach their maturity in the same physiological manner. It means that in case a given person is not exposed, during “critical periods” of his development during the youth, to principles of physics, principles of logics, and to facts about the physiology of brain (& body) development, he (or she) risks to become “blind” to them – like I am frequently “blind” to stiff rules of the English grammar, about the existence of which rules I learned only at the age of 16 (see the Introduction).



These psychological observations (and self-observations) suggest that we shall search, for the origin of Chomsky’s attachment to ignorance loaded concepts of learning, in young Chomsky cognitive activities. What he was doing during the most appropriate for the acquisition of knowledge period of his youth, when I was compelling myself to solve more than a thousand problems in physics? Chomsky recalls that in his youth he has read and re-read the Old Testament so many times that he has memorized by hart its long fragments. And what is the substantial message of this Holy Book of not only orthodox Jews, but also of “our” Christian clergy?

1st – Curiosity is a sin, which may lead to the loss of the “god blessed” status of nearly eternal happiness in a Paradise. The ignorance how species developed is considered to be a “virtue”, which ennobles all Bible believers.

2nd – Any ventures beyond limits of one’s inherited household, like it was the case of “mobile like a wild animal” biblical Esau, may result in an interception of this household by a someone more “quiet”, similar to biblical Jacob, not at all interested how the outside world looks like.

3rd – All animals are godless Beasts to be or domesticated or eradicated, and there is not a single character in their behavior (the strength, the virility, the perfection of vision, agility of movements for ex.), which is worth to be admired and/or imitated by humans.



No wonder thus that the so-called “monkey’s curiosity”, which according to Aristotle, forms the zoological basis of human natural search for truth and knowledge (“All men want to know, by nature”, states Aristotle’s “Metaphysics”), become suppressed in “super humans”, grown in saturated with Dummheiten of all kinds, fumes of Old Testament. As I argue in the “Syndrome of the Blind Watchmaker”[4], the accepted at present practically worldwide, neoDarwinian and Cartesian concepts of living beings, as “inanimate machines”, unable to cope with “selecting them” environment, have their origin in Old Testamental very superficial, practically mechanical, concepts of life limited to “multiplication and consumption of everything edible”. In Old Testament we find no place describing biblical heroes as men striving for their self-perfection, like this story of Greek leader Demostenes, who by a strenuous exercise, has managed to overcome his inborn speech handicap.



Antizoological “Logos” of professor Chomsky



While doing my late Ph. D. research on Chomsky’s cognitive behavior, I was searching for a term which will encompass both his views as a scientist specialised in linguistics, and his ideas of a social activist, incessantly criticising misdeeds of the American Empire “under God”. What kind of a term will be able to cover so vast area of intellectual activity of Chomsky, linking his bizarre concepts of education, with his cherished, anarchistic idea of the “world without elites”? As this last concept is considered, it is worth to quote Chomsky’s critics of Walter Lippman’s quite rational statement:



[5] “(According to Lippman) the rule of elites is good, even necessary. It is necessary due to the fact that the “general good entirely escapes the public attention” ... this theory assumes that only a narrow elite, the community of intellectuals ... is able to understand the common good. (In this respect) the theory of liberal democracy and Marxism-Leninism are very close in their ideological assumptions[5].”



But how to organise the society in a manner that everyone will have not only the same rights, but also the same obligations, for example an obligation to operate, from time to time, a sophisticated machinery, which necessitates years of training to learn it? Already Friedrich Engels ridiculised the 19th century Bakounin’s anarchistic concepts of “participative economy”, so much admired by Chomkists. Engels wrote that in such “super democratic” manner even a simple railway system will not be able to function. Every higher organism, consisting of a large number of cells, develops specialised organs, in particular organs of sensing the external reality, which organs differentiate in a manner inhibiting their backward re-differentiation: neither eyes, neither neurones transmitting signals from eyes, can reverse into epithelium or germinative tissue. A primitive hierarchy exists among all socially living higher animals. Eventual lack of such hierarchy would mean the impossibility of teaching of younger, less experienced animals by their elder relatives and companions. To be, like Chomsky, against the hierarchy of living beings, is to be against the Zoological Order, simply to be an Antizoologist, an enemy of ‘animals’, it means an enemy of beings having the sensory, cognitive soul, as Aristotle defined them. What the “world without elites” would be in practice, demonstrates us the only exception from the “hierarchical principle of zoology”, which is the cancerous growth. The neoplastic tissue effectively, “multiplies and consumes” the parental organism while maintaining its own non-diversification, in particular the underdevelopment of its sensory micro-organs.



The similar “humanoidal cancer” would be the logical outcome of Chomsky’s – very American, by the way – dream about the “world without elites”. Who is than Noam Chomsky? Is he, as I suggested in the first chapter of my “’Antizoological’ Philosophy of N.Ch” thesis, an inverted copy of “Mister Jekyll” from Stevenson’s novel – a noble social activist, full of compassion for all downtrodden people? Or is he “doctor Hyde” – an Ahriman’s apostle, breathing hate – like “Christian” apostle Paul – towards the providing a noble goal to our lives, perfection of our senso-motorial skills? It is worth to notice that all, [1] to [5] quotations from Chomsky writings, be it in the domain of Learning Theory (LT), be it in the domain of the general social organization, are aggressively sabotaging the knowledge we accumulate via our sensory inputs. Without these “orientational truths”, considered by Chomsky to be “futile beliefs of intellectuals”, we are completely defenseless in front of the Monstrous Dumbing Machine, having the form of greed motivated corporate media.



Seen from author’s position of a someone well experienced in the ever less creative environment of both physical and social sciences, “the great luminary” Chomsky, who for many – the author of this text including – was/is appearing to be someone full of wisdom, after a more scrupulous investigation of his so numerous writings, shows up his face of an individual who fits surprisingly well the description of antique Israeli Blind Lawyers, who “have taken the key of knowledge; they did not enter themselves and they hindered those who were entering” (Luke 11, 52). Such “gatekeeper” behavior of professor Chomsky indicates that “9/11 truth seekers”, like enumerated in the message of Israel Shamir Barret, Petras, Blankfort and so many others, are indeed right, judging that Chomsky is still working for THEM – this Cancer-like Assembly of Blind Microcephalians, dreaming about the World Conquest. And the planned by “them” AMERICAN XXI CENTURY will surely end up in a total devastation of the Planet Earth which is, since already four hundred years, colonised by a completely devoid of organs of sight, so-called “Cartesian”, termite-like Army of Robots.



dr Marek Glogoczowski, professor emeritus of political philosophy at AP, PL



*Antizoologism – the unwillingness to accept the human kinship with other animal species, and in particular with primate mammals. The antizoologism existed already in Antiquity in the culture of Hebrews, in which animals were considered to be purely utilitarian tools serving, among others, as objects capable to carry human sins. (These are, producing the so-called false consciousness, rites of “redemption of sins”, described in the Book of Priests of Pentateuch). In modern times the antizoologism achieved the most developed form in built on the Bible Anglo-Saxon civilization, in which also appeared ritualized methods of blaming, appropriately chosen scapegoats, for various crimes and mishaps. Antizoologists – commonly known under the term of (neo)Darwinists – negate, the resulting from Lamarckian Law of Zoology, developmental and creative character of efforts performed by men and by animals. NeoDarwnists, which are making efforts in order not to see this bio-phenomenon (“the so-called ‘conspiracy of blindeness’), attribute all the creativity in the biosphere to fully stochastic events.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1].”Noama Chomsky’ego próba rewolucji naukowej”, tom I i II, IFIS PAN, Warszawa, 1996; this book contains articles translated from abook: Noam Chomsky et al “Théories de langage, théories de l’apprentissage. Colloque d’octobre 1975 dans l’Abbaye de Royaaumont ; débat entre Jean Piaget et Noam Chomsky”. Paris 1976. The tome II of the Polish edition contains articles on the theme of Learning Theory (LT),written by Noam Chomsky after 1975.



[2] Noam Chomsky “Language and Responsability”, Pantheon Books, New York, 1979 (Original in French, “Noam Chomsky, Dialogues avec Mitsou Ronat”, Flammarion, 1977).



[3] The statement “Chomsky as homo ignorans in construction of knowledge” I gave as a sub-title of a wider, detailed work on Chomsky’s philosophy, which I gave the title “’Antizoological’ socio-political philosophy of Noam Chomsky”, and for which I received my late doctorate degree at the University of Silesia in 2003. (My early doctorate attempt was done 31 years earlier at U.C. Berkeley, and had a title “The Not Too Divine Comedy”; in this “scientific comedy” I described bizarre notions of life, which were characterising several illustrious Berkeley professors, in particular Michael Scriven.)



[4] “Syndrome of Blind Watchmaker” A dialogue in 13 acts between believing neoDarwinian and doubting Lamarckian, written in 1998 and published at www.marek.glogoczowski.zaprasza.net .



[5] Noam Chomsky „The Control of Media”, Open Magazine, no 10, California 1991


6 sierpień 2008

 

  

Archiwum

Kto stoi za plecami Saakaszwilego?
sierpień 14, 2008
Boruta
Dobre sygnały. Ministerstwo nie sprzedało ani jednej obligacji
luty 13, 2003
zaprasza.net
Jechałem koszernym sabłejem
marzec 1, 2005
Artur Łoboda
Polskojęzyczny wymiar bezprawia
maj 25, 2004
PAP
oczekiwanie
perelka
Poziome drabinki bezpieczeństwa
styczeń 15, 2008
Mirosław Naleziński, Gdynia
Ostateczne cele globalistow
styczeń 13, 2008
Markus
Zamach Kaczyńskiego na ... lustracje
styczeń 23, 2006
http://www.raportnowaka.pl/
Bulterier Kaczyńskich - Jacek Kurski znów atakuje. Prawie wszystko o Kurskim.
czerwiec 18, 2006
Zdzisław Raczkowski
*Nowy Dzień* daje 5 milionów!
luty 26, 2006
Mirosław Naleziński, Gdynia
Bardzo niepolskie myślenie o prawie....
wrzesień 7, 2008
Artur Łoboda
Polityka zniszczenia polkich rybaków
maj 4, 2005
baba
65 miliardów
luty 11, 2007
przesłała Elżbieta
Po co lustracja?
sierpień 9, 2008
jobstalker
Jan Paweł II
listopad 22, 2005
Jan Paweł II
Zakażone żółtaczką na oddziale onkologicznym
padziernik 18, 2003
Co pokażą Serbowie? Czy możemy pomóc ewentualnej partyzantce?
luty 20, 2008
marduk
Skutki prywatyzacji służb wojskowych i tajnych
sierpień 26, 2006
Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski
Otwieranie puszki Pandory
wrzesień 9, 2003
Nauczyciel to nie zawod!
listopad 25, 2006
mik4
więcej ->
 
   


Kontakt

Fundacja Promocji Kultury
Copyright © 2002 - 2012 Polskie Niezależne Media