hp, I understand your motivation for "bailing" but you really don't have to worry about me. I'm confused: "I thought your third "dodging questions" call out to me in 5 months thing sucked" This doesn't make sense to me. I have accused you of dodging 3 times in 5 months? I cannot speak for achebe, but I think he was just playing attack for the fun of attack. He likes to pretend like he can keep up, even though he has only studied fake majors and grad disciplines. ricealum, Don't try to bring Peircian semiotics into the fold. You would not be able to keep up with me. I can, however, point out that his diagram of sign to interpretant to object was a triangle...is that a coincidence? Did Tex Winters study semiotics? Obviously, basketball falls within all of the three major branches of semiotics: text analytical - text (visuals) reduced to a system. The subcategory for basketball falls in the temporal series, or, continuous series of moving pictures. This is applicable to the scouting process. system analytical - the creation of imaginary properties to determine limits of compatability within a system. Obviously, this comes into play in the creation of plays and diagraming stuff on their little boards. experimental - when those fictional "texts" are created to try out in reality the limits of the system. This comes into play during practices and, eventually, at game time. Peirce alone is a little basic, though (might as well bring up Saussure's outdated, static fraction, sign over signifier). Why not bring in Barthes crappy semiotic analysis structure. Apply structuralism to signs - offensive/defensive formations. Build a model of objects to be investigated (structure over content) - positioning within plays, ignoring who is in each position. Limit to one viewpoint - pick weakside perimeter, for example and make viewpoint the most relevant to signification - see how the offensive set can best be worked around this one position. Restrict to signs themselves, ignore meaning - only analyze formation on court, do not worry about how to score baskets. Deal with every other factor in the same way - all the other positions independently. Determine place and function of all in the overall system of meaning - finally look at how the whole formation/play works. uh...then try to score. Better yet, look at Tarasti's existentialist semiotics and decide how the passage from being to nothingness to sign relates to Steve Francis's PG abilities. Bah, you all are beneath me. ps- orgasmitron is Woody Allen, like hp said. Both achebe and hp have said I won, so I am up 2 on everyone.
<ul><li>jammie vs bk, you posted a list of questions regarding race...and said I dodged you....when I was really dismissing your box. <li>jammie vs Jeff in the new arena. you posted a list of types of season ticket holders (or something) and I dismissed all but #5. <li>the sirhangover environment thread from France...?I think? <li>and this thread.</ul> rimmy, sometimes debates are predefined, and require one to walk done a Socratic path of questions. When you do that with your infamous lists, don't be surprised when the wiseman dismisses your questions on face as not being within their own realm of reason, thus meaningless. Shouldn't it actually be beneath you to call out people to answer your lists when they don't respond; "Answer my Questions! They have meaning to ME!" Whereas me, I'm a classless punk; I have no reputation to protect, just a bunch of nothing.
Why not apply musical semiotics to the discussion, as you have with Tarasti? Look to Meyer's "constraints" and Saussurean langue, or Heideggerian notion of Gelassenheit, all of which influenced Tarasti. The emancipation of the sign! We can come to a better understanding of the expressive meaning of the Rockets' offense ,and Griffin's role in it, by gathering information from a variety of perspectives, and through this process, which is both hermeneutic and structuralist, will help us in not only understanding what Griffin's role is on this team, but what the meaning of that role is. code
HP, You mean you actually remember/pay attention to those things? I honestly don't remember them...although the Jammie thing sounds familiar. In any event, lists are fun...I make them because I want to. If I want them to be answered, then I want them to be answered. That is all that matters. You all must conform to my way, that is all. tpl, Honestly, did you know that or did you look it up? Musical semiotics is fairly obscure and Tarasti's book is brand new. If this was all something you know off hand, I will be very afraid, in light of other things I know about you.
Now if this thread were just about Eddie Griffin's internal dielectric we could talk about whether he's insulated from his teammates, or whether his game has the capacity to provide some electricity to the Summit crowd.
Originally posted by rimbaud Oooh, I was scared there for a minute, but you blinked. If we are so beneath you, why are you courting the approval of achebe and crispee? As for Peirce, I only brought him up so I could mention Plato. Kristeva is a bit <i>passé</i>, and Eco ... <i>un peu trop de rigueur.</i> Barthes is useful in literary criticism, especially his distinction between metaphor and metonymy. There are so many others we <i>could</i> mention ... Jacobson, Fish, Iser, Saïd (<i>Sense of an Ending</i> and the Rockets in the 4th quarter?) ... but my thought had been to relate the triad á la Plato's material, symbolic, and ideal Cratylus to the Rockets' fast break thusly:<ul> <li>The ideal fast break as glimpsed by John Wooden<br> <li>The actual fast break as employed by the '87 Lakers<br> <li>The purely theoretical fast break of the Rockets.<br></ul> But basketball, as an art form, is most closely aligned with ballet and cinema, so I suggest Christian Metz as a starting point. Or we could argue that it's all <i>faire du vent</i> and start over. Ottomaton: Puns are the number one form of humor ... and there's nothing lower than number one. Well, among ordinals, anyway... P.S. my Orgasmatron reference was far to easy. I should have done something with Ellison's "A Boy and His Dog." P.P.S. rimbaud, if it makes you feel better, I'll say you won, too. But won what? P.P.P.S. Orlando beat the Bulls by 28 last night. Does that mean they'd beat us by <b>56</b>?
ricedoublesulfate, now you are depressing me. Why did you have to bring up Metz? I don't mind his psychoanalytical-semiotic treatment of the cinema/spectator experience, but I have never applied it to my Rockets/spectator experience. I can't get "The Fiction Film and its Spectator: A Metapsychological Study" out of my mind now. Is RudyBall really fictional, and I should no longer be duped by it? Am I merely creating a BBS diegetic illusion that Rudy knows what he is doing? Now you have me thinking I should disavowel my belief that the Rockets are showing basketball reality and comes to terms with their reality is really fiction. Francis isn't playing real basketball. But then, maybe that's why we talk about it on the BBS, because in Rockets/spectator events the make-believe must be respected, or we lose our purpose for attending and chatting on this BBS. Inside every incredulous spectator (who knows we don't play real basketball) there is a credulous one (who still has an "I Still Believe" Rocket's poster). The symbolism of hanging up cinema posters, or SamCassell reciting Ralph Wiggum lines, are meant to preserve the fantansy in our everyday life, and further, provide us with identity. I am a Trekker! I am a the Reliant Energy dork playing air guitar with the lamp. Metz apparently has us pegged to a "t," as well as Calvin Murphy: In our creation of a diegetic illusion, the merging of games and BBS narrative, we as a spectator enter a regime of belief in which we are the coach of the game, creating our own Rockets fiction, using Fantasy stats to help us dreamcast player rotation, and applying metamagical themas of Phil Jackson's Triangle, and not surprisingly this recurs over and over to Hofstadter's satisfaction as we recycle BBS narratives, even adding redundant and recursive links to them. But I disgress, Phil Jackson makes me do that. Where was I, oh yeah, Freudian fantasmic productions of trade scenarios whereby our ego really wants to be the rockHEAD hero for a day!!! There is also a matter of thinking you are the coach or the player. And it is not so surprising that the roles spectators want to define the most are the ones most left to fantasy--where the subject leaves a lot to imagination, yet bares enough everyday reality. Creative coaches rarely describe the makings of their script. Rudy for instance cryptically describes a bad script, or bad acting, as "Family Reunion Ball," where "Cousin Billy takes a shot, then Uncle Joe gets his turn," like a banal montage of cameo appearances epitomized by Abrahams/Zucker movies. No one really knows what creative NBA coaches are doing or thinking. Similarly, Steve Francis interviews never make the mistake of crossing the fictional line between actor/spectator, as described most aptly in the Bull Durham thesis of staying vague in interviews...the line Charles Barkley and Allen Iverson foolishly crossed early in their careers. By staying vague, the spectator not only can image that they are Stevie Franchise soaring through the air for a tomahawk slam, but that they are smart like Jason Kidd, and charismatic like Isiah and Magic, and not a punk who insulted Canada. Francis indeed is "Isiah with Hops." And Rudy's game plan is indeed developing into a formidable 4out1 Flex system. So what is really troubling for me is that not only is Metz suggestion that we're creating our own Rocket's fiction here on the BBS, but that I could be creating my own individual dream despite the profound reality of others, not only being my own producer/coach of the cinematic/sport event, but projecting my own reality into a viewpoint that no one else shares. In Metz idea of how 'story' comes from nowhere to add more opportunity for imagination from the spectactor, can an open slate for imagination produce such narcissitic Rockets ideation that we find ourselves seeing things on the court that no one else sees. Then Freud just has to remind us that every separate fantasy contains the fulfillment of a wish and improves on unsatisfactory reality. Do the Rockets really SUCK? Rudy Sucks?! And Francis has no instincts? And is my sex life actually unsatisfactory, and that's why I'm here? damn you ricealum. The next time you play with us, I hope you go blind.
Originally posted by crispee Sheesh, now you're depressing <b>me.</b> Please, don't bring Wittgenstein into it! It sounds like you took a film course from McEvily. I'm sorry, but the only cure is to take a course from Huberman as an antidote. Or am I dating myself? Are they even still there? Or is that even discernible in our current frame of reference? And if I'm dating myself, will I go blind? Now step away from the computer, crisp. Back away. Throw some darts at Valhalla. You'll feel better after a few pints. BTW Phil Jackson's triangle may be golden, but it's not eternal.
McEvily...ahhh...hmmm, I don't know if he was still there. Last class I had with him was "Art in the Mind," the McEvily-dismounting-a-nude class. (Am I dating myself? Hint: I helped Robert Irwin put up the scrims.) McEvily was flying in once a week from his ArtForum editor gig in NY to teach the class. He always wore black (all black) and had two cups of coffee, and then 2 more after our break. I thought he was trying to make some monochrome statement. But at least he gave us time to run and get a beer at Valhalla during the break. Don't remember Huberman. Was he the Western Films prof? <b>crossover</b>, What? It is so bad that it is not even worth choosing a Ralph Wiggums quote to more cleverly summarize your sentiments, like SamCassell did. Let me know if you find a good trade scenario thread.
Has crispee been reading too much Umbert Ecco lately ? I'd prefer to think of basketball as modern tragedy, in which Appollinian law (the arbitrary constructions of points, fouls, and other rules) reach synthesis with the mad, chaos of a Dionysian frenzy of chaotic action on court. Raw physical prowess and emotion are shaped into rational images that we can identify with, thus channelling our own inner chaos into an illusion of rational understanding . In the end, we have only the stat sheet, the rational manifestation of images that defy interpretation within the context of themselves without the arbitration of the larger system. Just to bring Nietzsche's theory of tragedy into the equation!
sorry, let me clarify the philosophical analogies - farce or not - are posted in a public forum and commit the same fallacies that most philosophical circles commit. the jargon and cases, rather than create a more acute understanding, enters into large realm of Vague. i wonder if the references are thrown out for the readers to see or the poster. citations should be used for clarity, not for dodging nor the ego. however, the most heinous crime is that of exclusion. you may well be intelligent... yet unknowing of the poor demeanor you tred while on your philosophical high. there are many forms intelligence - some of which include communal interaction and the ability to teach (transfer learned or intrinsic knowledge). you (to whom it applies) have failed on both ...and most likely have had a negative effect of being somewhat elitist and, knowingly or not, have tried belittling several of the posters on this BBS by exclusion. how so you might ask? intelligence is a valued trait... as is beauty... when you're the ugly one excluded from getting attention throughout high school. as is athleticism... when you're always picked last for a basketball game. ergo this is stupid btw, crispee, that trade scenario crack hurt. the observer is the observed?
crossover, It's OK. Rimbaud already beat me. So you can say his exclusive hangout intelligence got the better of me. This is a thread about stupid, useless intelligence. It is really meant for stupid, overly done mock-editorials that are so common in college newspapers and The Onion, and stuff. This time is a lull in the BBS where I realized many were bailing on topics. I thought a joke thread would be fun, and I tried a new theme based on pulling hangout people into the Rockets Forum. rimmy's first use of "Internal Dialectic" in this forum inspired me. Nothing more, nothing less. Wow...I guess I should not have offered a topic like "Eddie's Mistakes." I was actually thinking of doing the "Quote of the Year" theme and just doing #1 and later #2 if it flew. Obviously, there won't be a #2. btw: that was a fun read Haven. It's about time you gave us adding some useless intelligence to this thread.
Originally posted by haven Hey, I like it -- <i>Francis and Dionysus</i> ... <i>Thanatos and Mobley</i> ... Not bad. <b>crossover:</b> Thank you for puncturing our balloons with your sharp keyboard. <b>crispee:</b> You mean this has all been a <i>joke?</i> Pointless? Without meaning? Ah, I knew the universe was without meaning, I knew life was pointless. But Clutch? Alas! At least I can take refuge in the comforting ritual of smilies. O Bliss! P.S. Huberman taught the introductory film courses and all the filmmaking courses. He was (I believe) a founding member of the Southwest Alternative Media Project (SWAMP), a fine documentary filmmaker, and friends with renowned documentarians such as James Blue. I'm sorry to hear he's not there anymore. P.P.S. Just to prove I have faith: HOUSTON (AP) -- April 27, 2002 -- After beating the San Antonio Spurs 3-1 in the first round of the playoffs, several Rocket players reflected on how they turned their season around. "It was the Washington game," said starting forward Walt Williams. After the debacle in Chicago, to be able to turn it around and gain such a crucial moral victory over a strong Eastern Conference opponent was huge." "Damn straight," said MVP candidate Steve Francis. "When Glen went down, Walt, Kenny, and Eddie stepped up big time. Who'd have thought Kenny and Eddie could shut down the twin towers like that? And Oscar -- without his D on Steve Smith, we don't win this series." "Yo quiero Kobe Bryant!" shouted sixth man Oscar Torres, smiling. Former NBA player Glen Rice, vacationing at Rudy Tomjanovich's favorite fishing spot in Michigan, could not be reached for comment. A dejected Tim Duncan summed up the Spurs' mood with a cryptic comment as he left for the summer: "Crispee is right. The universe is pointless."
