My name is Clayton Osterman, and I currently live in Cheyenne, Wyoming. I have decided to change my life, and am currently beginning the process of leaving my currently employment and returning to school.
What school you ask? That's a good question, I don't know for sure, but I have a couple in mind.
What kind of school? Business, definitely. Although I am unsure as to what level I want to go to. An MBA program would be an obvious choice, but it isn't the most appealing to me for a number of reasons: price (in both time and money), timing, and overexposure being the major three. The local community college here has exactly the type of program I am looking for: a quick and dirty introduction to entrepreneurship.
I like it for a number of reasons, but primarily because it is exposure to the necessary components I will need to run a business, but isn't so focused that it also conforms me into a specific role. I'm an intelligent guy, and I have two bachelors degrees in Mathematics and Philosophy from the University of Wyoming. While it may not be the best institution on the planet, it is still pretty good.
I happen to believe that an institution isn't really the source of value, but an institution can be a conduit for value already present. For example, for all the teaching that takes place in this world, it helps to have good teachers, but it is always the student who must learn: without the student, there is no learning. I've had a lot of experiences my almost 29 years on this planet, and I've finally decided on a path, and that path starts with business.
If you like what you read, please leave comments. If you don't like what you read, please leave comments. Criticism is always welcome, but I reserve the right to not go in certain directions as I see fit. I have no idea how this will go, but I have to be aware of my boundaries, hence the disclaimer.
Thanks again for reading my blog, I hope you enjoy!
Friday, September 5, 2008
Focault and Chomsky
I'm not really sure what a blog is supposed to be, but I've read in the Blogger introduction that a blog is a good place to keep things, like where one is at. I just watched this, and I at least thought it was interesting, so, I'll blog it I guess. Gotta start somewhere I guess.
A good friend recommended this: Part 1 and Part 2 .
My first introduction to Chomsky was through a .mp3 of Chomsky's speech on Linguistics at the University of New Hampshire at Durham, published by Radio Free Maine. I'd acquired it from a friend who had acquired it from who knows where, but I didn't listen to it for probably 3 years or so after getting it. One day I listened to it, and I found he presented a very interesting picture of language.
I listened to it again over the course of the last couple of days, and something out of it came up in a conversation I had - with the same good friend who had suggested the links above. Particularly, Chomsky said (and I'm interpreting) that a dictionaries don't really contain actual knowledge, it only contains clues, i.e., this information is already in our heads; the dictionaries just have enough clues to help us figure out what we already know.
I got to thinking about that, and came to the realization that this is a very Socratic notion of language. To Socrates, there were the Forms, which people knew, but forgot at birth. The process of learning was not of experience, but remembering what was already known - which is exactly what I believe Chomsky is saying.
I've since listened to more of Chomsky, but that might be a conversation for a later time...
As for Focault, I don't know too much about him. The good friend who recommended the debate above, has mentioned him before. I've looked him up, but I haven't had a chance to read any of his work yet. I tried to find it at the local library, but the Philosophy section there almost made me cry, and I wasn't quite ready to purchase a book of his yet.
My first impressions weren't too favorable, though, but then again, they are just first impressions. He seemed a little caught up in the very thing Chomsky was talking about in the video. I believe Chomsky was talking about progress within the means of what we have, while Focault was talking about fixing what we have before progressing. I don't know if I'm right on that or not, the video was a little hard for me to follow.
Also, Focault's excitement at possibly catching Chomsky in a logic trap seemed a little petty to me.
By the way, it was in a conversation with that same friend that I decided to create a blog, so here it is, and here I blog.
Hope you enjoy!
A good friend recommended this: Part 1 and Part 2 .
My first introduction to Chomsky was through a .mp3 of Chomsky's speech on Linguistics at the University of New Hampshire at Durham, published by Radio Free Maine. I'd acquired it from a friend who had acquired it from who knows where, but I didn't listen to it for probably 3 years or so after getting it. One day I listened to it, and I found he presented a very interesting picture of language.
I listened to it again over the course of the last couple of days, and something out of it came up in a conversation I had - with the same good friend who had suggested the links above. Particularly, Chomsky said (and I'm interpreting) that a dictionaries don't really contain actual knowledge, it only contains clues, i.e., this information is already in our heads; the dictionaries just have enough clues to help us figure out what we already know.
I got to thinking about that, and came to the realization that this is a very Socratic notion of language. To Socrates, there were the Forms, which people knew, but forgot at birth. The process of learning was not of experience, but remembering what was already known - which is exactly what I believe Chomsky is saying.
I've since listened to more of Chomsky, but that might be a conversation for a later time...
As for Focault, I don't know too much about him. The good friend who recommended the debate above, has mentioned him before. I've looked him up, but I haven't had a chance to read any of his work yet. I tried to find it at the local library, but the Philosophy section there almost made me cry, and I wasn't quite ready to purchase a book of his yet.
My first impressions weren't too favorable, though, but then again, they are just first impressions. He seemed a little caught up in the very thing Chomsky was talking about in the video. I believe Chomsky was talking about progress within the means of what we have, while Focault was talking about fixing what we have before progressing. I don't know if I'm right on that or not, the video was a little hard for me to follow.
Also, Focault's excitement at possibly catching Chomsky in a logic trap seemed a little petty to me.
By the way, it was in a conversation with that same friend that I decided to create a blog, so here it is, and here I blog.
Hope you enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
