Look, I love Rod Swenson's emphasis on maximum entropy as most general dynamics of any universe, but he seems absolutely incapable of constructing an explanation. Explanation's have zero to do with endless goings over of the history of academic thought. Explanations start with a proposition and then go about constructing a path from the audience preconceptions to fleshing out that proposition. Rod seems incapable of considering the audience. Sad. My guess is that he is too interested in constructing a effagy of his audience as someone he imagines will look a lot like the prestige he wishes to be considered as. Its exactly as though he talks as though his audience is some kind of philosophy department construction of Leonardo DiVinci as post modern fancy gibberish purveyor such that anyone watching from the wings will find themselves felling less than. Sad, as what he has to, but cant seem to say, is important to hear. All of these concepts can be explained with common colloquial language and without reference to intellectually prideful affect. "… that constitute their identity through flow… " as pathetic example. "… after this is memorialized… " instead of the simple "after this is recorded". Whatever.
hard to believe this is the same guy who created and managed the Plasmatics!! Rod you rock thank you for your creation!!
he has a master degree from Yale
You can see some of Rod Swenson's sources regarding Gibsonian ecological psychology, perception, and action, on my channel.
You've come a long way since the Plasmatics, Mr Swenson!
Look, I love Rod Swenson's emphasis on maximum entropy as most general dynamics of any universe, but he seems absolutely incapable of constructing an explanation. Explanation's have zero to do with endless goings over of the history of academic thought. Explanations start with a proposition and then go about constructing a path from the audience preconceptions to fleshing out that proposition. Rod seems incapable of considering the audience. Sad. My guess is that he is too interested in constructing a effagy of his audience as someone he imagines will look a lot like the prestige he wishes to be considered as. Its exactly as though he talks as though his audience is some kind of philosophy department construction of Leonardo DiVinci as post modern fancy gibberish purveyor such that anyone watching from the wings will find themselves felling less than. Sad, as what he has to, but cant seem to say, is important to hear. All of these concepts can be explained with common colloquial language and without reference to intellectually prideful affect. "… that constitute their identity through flow… " as pathetic example. "… after this is memorialized… " instead of the simple "after this is recorded". Whatever.
I have the exact opposite view. He is the only one providing an actual explanation. Go figure...