... and why, among other things, he's formed the Rockridge Institute specifically to promote what he sees as a the creation and implementation of a necessary a "progressive"/nuturing metaphorical framing structure to supplant/compete with/counter what he sees as a "conservative"/authoritarian one that, in Lakoff's view, is the result of billions (with a b) of dollars that conservatives have spent on framing. (My own take, fwiw, is that he's got an advanced case of Chomsky's Disease -- a success or failure of a political view in the real world is merely evidence that his theories were correct in the first place. Hyperdeterministic, eh?)
See http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml .
I think that he's both misreading history and misunderstanding liberals, including both liberal donors, who -- in my reading of his quotes here, and elsewhere -- come across as well-meaning but softheaded (apparently, in his view, liberal donors don't understand what "seed money" might be -- something that I think would be a surprise to, among others, George Soros and EMILY'S list), as well as conservatives (who, in his view, focus on maintaining the status quo, something that the conservative folks I know involved in various things they consider to be [or, in Lakoffese, have "framed"] as "revolutions" would disagree with -- and very specifically those who view most of academia and the mainstream media as a successful liberal framing enterprise).
Reminds me of Freud, as much as Chomsky, really. From my POV, all hyperdeterminists sound much the same.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
That, I think, is where Lakoff disagrees with you...
Date: 2005-09-05 08:18 pm (UTC)See http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml .
I think that he's both misreading history and misunderstanding liberals, including both liberal donors, who -- in my reading of his quotes here, and elsewhere -- come across as well-meaning but softheaded (apparently, in his view, liberal donors don't understand what "seed money" might be -- something that I think would be a surprise to, among others, George Soros and EMILY'S list), as well as conservatives (who, in his view, focus on maintaining the status quo, something that the conservative folks I know involved in various things they consider to be [or, in Lakoffese, have "framed"] as "revolutions" would disagree with -- and very specifically those who view most of academia and the mainstream media as a successful liberal framing enterprise).
Reminds me of Freud, as much as Chomsky, really. From my POV, all hyperdeterminists sound much the same.