So your response to the dictionary definition of macrology is to link me to a wiki page about macrosociology?Maybe start here (if you're serious, which I now doubt).
So your response to the dictionary definition of macrology is to link me to a wiki page about macrosociology?Maybe start here (if you're serious, which I now doubt).
I didn't realise you were doing a "gotcha" (a poor one, too).So your response to the dictionary definition of macrology is to link me to a wiki page about macrosociology?
With "macro-logic" merely the inverse of micro-logic (large instead of small; as in, the logic [logos] of large-scale social processes, hence the link to "macrosociology", but the distinction holds in economics, linguistics, and many, many more disciplines, if you want more evidence that I have, in fact, used the term correct). Late for etymological disputes but this one isn't controversialmicro-
word-forming element meaning "small in size or extent, microscopic; magnifying;" in science indicating a unit one millionth of the unit it is prefixed to; from Latinized form of mikros, Attic form of Greek smikros "small, little, petty, trivial, slight," perhaps from PIE *smika, from root *smik- "small" (source also of Old High German smahi "littleness"), but Beekes thinks it a Pre-Greek word.
-logy
word-forming element meaning "a speaking, discourse, treatise, doctrine, theory, science," from Greek -logia (often via French -logie or Medieval Latin -logia), from -log-, combining form of legein "to speak, tell;" thus, "the character or deportment of one who speaks or treats of (a certain subject);" from PIE root *leg- (1) "to collect, gather," with derivatives meaning "to speak (to 'pick out words')." Often via Medieval Latin -logia, French -logie. In philology "love of learning; love of words or discourse," apology, doxology, analogy, trilogy, etc., Greek logos "word, speech, statement, discourse" is directly concerned.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/micrology#etymonline_v_44686
Macrosociology is a large-scale approach to sociology, emphasizing the analysis of social systems and populations at the structural level, often at a necessarily high level of theoretical abstraction.[1] Though macrosociology does concern itself with individuals, families, and other constituent aspects of a society, it does so in relation to larger social system of which such elements are a part. The approach is also able to analyze generalized collectivities (e.g. "the city", "the church").[2]
In contrast, microsociology focuses on the individual social agency. Macrosociology, however, deals with broad societal trends that can later be applied to smaller features of society, or vice versa. To differentiate, macrosociology deals with issues such as war as a whole; distress of Third-World countries; poverty on a national/international level; and environmental deprivation, whereas microsociology analyses issues such as the individual features of war (e.g. camaraderie, one's pleasure in violence, etc.); the role of women in third-world countries; poverty's effect on "the family"; and how immigration impacts a country's environment.[3]
A "society" can be considered as a collective of human populations that are politically autonomous, in which members engage in a broad range of cooperative activities.[3] The people of Germany, for example, can be deemed "a society", whereas people with German heritage as a whole, including those who populate other countries, would not be considered a society, per se.[3]
I am truly amazed that you’re quadrupling down against the English Dictionary here… and your take on the etymology is wrong.I didn't realise you were doing a "gotcha" (a poor one, too).
But.... Whenever I use micro-/macro-, I am using it in connection with the below, which dates from the 17th century.
With "macro-logic" is merely the inverse of micro-logic (large instead of small; as in, the logic [logos] of large-scale social processes, hence the link to "macrosociology", but the distinction holds in economics, linguistics, and many, many more disciplines, if you want more evidence that I have, in fact, used the term correct). Late for etymological disputes but this one isn't controversial![]()
I don't remember using "macrology", I think you introduced that term (which has an archaic etmylogical existence, far as I can tell). Your point, though, was that my use of "macrological" was wrong. Your evidence was a Collins entry on a different, but philologically related term. It was meant as a "gotcha", I think, and has since become ridiculous. Let's just say you win and the term "macrological" has no use at all in any social science or natural science or science at all. I bow to your dictionary prowess.I am truly amazed that you’re quadrupling down against the English Dictionary here… and your etymology is wrong.
Webster Dictionary
Chambers 20th Century Dictionary
- Macrology noun
long and tedious talk without much substance; superfluity of words
Etymology: [L. macrologia, Gr. ; long + lo`gos discourse: cf. F. macrologie.]
- Macrology
mak-rol′o-ji, n. much talk with little to say. [Gr. makros, long, logos, a word.]
Scientists from Aristotle to William Paley thought of evolution as the result of an interaction between micrological causes such as natural selection and macrological causes such as an immanent essence or telos (Aristotle), a transcendent essence or eidos (Plato) or the providential design of an intelligent creator (Judeo-Christian religion). Darwin reduced this dialectic to one of its poles: That is why his theory is called “reductive.” He instituted what Gould calls a “panselectionist paradigm” and employed a “microevolutionary extrapolationism” to argue that natural selection, based on random genetic variation and guided by the competitive adaptation of individual organisms to their environments, was in effect the only cause of evolutionary change.
The irony of your post being the definition of the adjective “macrological” is not lost on me.I don't remember using "macrology", I think you introduced that term (which has an archaic etmylogical existence, far as I can tell). Your point, though, was that my use of "macrological" was wrong. Your evidence was a Collins entry on a different, but philologically related term. It was meant as a "gotcha", I think, and has since become ridiculous. Let's just say you win and the term "macrological" has no use at all in any social science or natural science or science at all. I bow to your dictionary prowess.
The irony of your post being the definition of the adjective “macrological” is not lost on me.
Surely MG is an AI designed to be as annoying and obtuse as possible.
Nonstop Corporate News on Ukraine Is Fueling Support for Unchecked US Militarism
BY Henry A. Giroux
https://truthout.org/articles/nonst...-fueling-support-for-unchecked-us-militarism/
People making this argument live outside of Russia. Not much you can do. If you live in the West, though, you can do something. And I don't think the West (particularly the US) cares much for peace (their interest is a long, drawn out, war).Anybody complaining that the West and Ukraine aren't doing more to get a peaceful solution should use that energy for Russia.
And what do you propose the West to do to convince Putin for peace? What if Putin isn't at the moment interested in peace at all?People making this argument live outside of Russia. Not much you can do. If you live in the West, though, you can do something. And I don't think the West (particularly the US) cares much for peace (their interest is a long, drawn out, war).
I think the negotiations have been promising, before they were torpedoed or else suspended. I think the emphasis should be on supporting them again as quickly as possible. What does victory look like for Putin? By now, it has to be more or less what Russia had at the beginning plus the possibility of a landbridge (Ukraine won't accept that, or it's doubtful), Ukrainian neutrality, and an end to the hostilities in the Donbas. I think he could sell some version of that as a win (if he's still going with the "special operation" instead of war rhetoric, he can say he achieved peace for the besieged residents of the separatist republics, or some version of that). For Ukraine victory will look pretty similar except no landbridge, continued hostilities/disputes surrounding Donbass, and no neutrality. That seems a deadend because it will go on forever until one side gives way.And what do you propose the West to do to convince Putin for peace? What if Putin isn't at the moment interested in peace at all?
It's not like Ukraine is offering nothing of note to the Russians. The Russians so far just seem hellbent on getting any kind of battlefield success.
Maybe it's time that the Russians start speaking out about peace:I think the negotiations have been promising, before they were torpedoed or else suspended. I think the emphasis should be on supporting them again as quickly as possible. What does victory look like for Putin? By now, it has to be more or less what Russia had at the beginning plus the possibility of a landbridge (Ukraine won't accept that, or it's doubtful), Ukrainian neutrality, and an end to the hostilities in the Donbas. I think he could sell some version of that as a win (if he's still going with the "special operation" instead of war rhetoric, he can say he achieved peace for the besieged residents of the separatist republics, or some version of that). For Ukraine victory will look pretty similar except no landbridge, continued hostilities/disputes surrounding Donbass, and no neutrality. That seems a deadend because it will go on forever until one side gives way.
I'd start talking about peace, for a start. Everyone knows we're sending weapons, it's all you hear about. Now start talking about how this conflict ends (you can still send weapons as you do it).
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60987350Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky has said peace talks will continue with Russia despite accusing Moscow of war crimes and genocide.
Mr Zelensky was speaking in Bucha, near the capital Kyiv, where bodies of civilians were found strewn on the streets after Russian troops withdrew.
I'll have to cite, but I have read reports of the Russians talking about peace. They also reject the idea of genocide (which I agree with; there hasn't been any genocide yet, in the strict sense of the term, but there have been war crimes).Maybe it's time that the Russians start speaking out about peace:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60987350
Would you have called for peace when the US invaded Iraq? is a more appropriate question, and the answer is yes
When America was at war with Iraq, I don't remember thinking "it would be great if the Iraqis slaughtered Americans", despite America clearly being in the wrong
I do remember that. There was outrage over it. Galloway also said something (he was in the group at the time) to that effect and was threatened with legal action/expulsion iirc. But it definitely wasn't widespread. Besides Pilger, Galloway, and maybe a few other fringe members of the left, this didn't spill over into conventional thinking. What did, though, were EDL marches (a tangent, but the right rose more during this period than the left). I find it weird either way to celebrate the death of soldiers as is done now by all sides in any given conflict. I get you're showing support for whatever side (beyond Ukraine/Russia) you think is right, but it's a foreign concept to me. That's why I said it would have been weird to see someone wanting Americans/British troops murdered en masse (or waving Iraqi flags), but times change. Maybe that will happen in the next war.In October 2004 the Stop the War Coalition issued a statement reaffirming “its call for an end to the occupation, the return of all British troops in Iraq to this country and recognises once more the legitimacy of the struggle of Iraqis, by whatever means they find necessary, to secure such ends.”
Likewise John Pilger in February of that year:
“Do you think the anti-war movement should be supporting Iraq's anti-occupation resistance? Yes, I do. We cannot afford to be choosy. While we abhor and condemn the continuing loss of innocent life in Iraq, we have no choice now but to support the resistance, for if the resistance fails, the “Bush gang” will attack another country. If they succeed, a grievous blow will be suffered by the Bush gang.”
This was happening around the same time that al-Zarqawi’s group were emerging as the biggest faction driving the insurgency, (in the actual sense that Putin projects the Azov battalion are in Ukraine). In the second half of 2004 aid workers and others were being kidnapped and beheaded on video.
@GlastonSpur thanks for your posts they are the only good argument I've seen yet about why I should be a loyal Modi supporter. Hope we build a few more nukes too.
Why would he need to even call on the West for help? Surely the noble West would immediately ride to his defence in order to protect democracy.In which case you'd be supporting the shameful and gutless response of Modi's government - refusing to condemn Putin and merely issuing a meaningless call for peace - to Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
Russia is China's closest ally. If China were to invade India and started reducing Indian cities to rubble, I've no doubt that Modi would instantly be calling on the West for help
Why would he need to even call on the West for help? Surely the noble West would immediately ride to his defence in order to protect democracy.
BBCSome asylum seekers who cross the Channel to the UK will be given a one-way ticket to Rwanda, under new government plans.
The trial will involve mostly single men arriving on boats or lorries.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the £120m scheme would "save countless lives" from human trafficking.
Refugee organisations have criticised the plan as cruel, questioned its cost and impact, and raised concerns about Rwanda's human rights record.
If China were to invade India and started reducing Indian cities to rubble, I've no doubt that Modi would instantly be calling on the West for help
That depends on how much democracy will be left in India after Modi's authoritarianism and Hindu Nationalism has done with it.
In our last major war with China, it was the west's (lack of) help that pushed us closer to the USSR.
Which explains why the west helped (democratic) India in 1971 against Pakistan, which wasn't just a military dictatorship, but was engaging in a mass terror campaign? You are astoundingly ignorant.
Actually, I think it's rather the Russian involvement that causes this: all united against the bogeyman. Russia never lost its 'enemy' image post-Cold War, and while it grew softer in the 90s, Putin has been pretty 'good' at hardening that again in the 2000s - culminating in this invasion of Ukraine and what that did for Russia's image. If this had been Poland invading LIthuania (maybe a similar difference in military strength), the response across the EU and North America wouldn't have been the same.On the issue of being removed from the crisis. That's true, except the West has taken Ukraine to be its proxy in way you don't usually see in proxy wars (the Ukrainian flag now serves as proxy for the US/NATO, essentially).
The US could have tried to facilitate peace talks though, like Turkey is doing (and Israel tried). Although the US probably would have been a much less acceptable partner for Russia, given its clear siding with Ukraine.Shouldn’t that be up to Russia and Ukraine?
I think if the war ended, we'd only know in a few years if Ukraine really did emerge victorious, even if Russia would give back all Ukrainian territory (outside Crimea I suppose). Cause if the EU, US, and Canada wouldn't invest enormously in rebuilding Ukraine and providing military safety, the Ukraine would be in a really poor state for a very long time, which would likely lead to political instability and the return of Russia before too long.I think you mistake Ukrainian victory for American victory (many American media pundits do the same).
Not very important, but 'macrology' is really not a common word. For myself, I don't remember having ever seen it. I would say it's not the kind of word we should use on a forum with readers from all backgrounds and all levels of expertise on topics.Macro/Microeconomics for future reference. Has to be easier than other examples so far. It really is a very simple distinction.
Yeah, I didn't use it, nor had I heard of it. I used "micrological/macrological", which are very common distinctions in all social sciences and some natural sciences.Not very important, but 'macrology' is really not a common word. For myself, I don't remember having ever seen it. I would say it's not the kind of word we should use on a forum with readers from all backgrounds and all levels of expertise on topics.
Yes, because Russia exists outside NATO and is largely the reason NATO continued to exist when it had no mandate for existence post-1991. But I agree. Still, the US/EU have taken the Ukrainian flag as their own. It becomes nationalism by proxy imo. Also why I find the side-taking idea to be counterintuitive (among many other reasons). A condemnation of Russia becomes a proclamation of support for the US/EU/NATO; as, in some contexts, does support for Ukraine. I can do without that. I'll condemn Russia apriori for its invasion but I'm not going to repeat it continuously when it should be taken as given once already stated.Actually, I think it's rather the Russian involvement that causes this: all united against the bogeyman. Russia never lost its 'enemy' image post-Cold War, and while it grew softer in the 90s, Putin has been pretty 'good' at hardening that again in the 2000s - culminating in this invasion of Ukraine and what that did for Russia's image. If this had been Poland invading LIthuania (maybe a similar difference in military strength), the response across the EU and North America wouldn't have been the same.
As I said, we tried to avoid the war happening at all. Once it started, it’s been rather clear that Russia wants nothing to do with peace. I mean, how many world leaders have now asked them for it only to come away with nothing?The US could have tried to facilitate peace talks though, like Turkey is doing (and Israel tried). Although the US probably would have been a much less acceptable partner for Russia, given its clear siding with Ukraine.
Do you think there is zero chance that the US wanted Russia to invade (or that it surmised there was a fair chance Russia would invade, and in part, due to its own activities in the region)? There came a point where the US was wishing for Russia to make a strategic blunder, imo, and it did. Now it will try to exact a toll in the form of a protracted insurrgency, which Clinton among others have been arguing for since the outbreak (it is the orthodox view).As I said, we tried to avoid the war happening at all. Once it started, it’s been rather clear that Russia wants nothing to do with peace. I mean, how many world leaders have now asked them for it only to come away with nothing?
Robert Kagan said:just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact.
I don't know... and really, neither do you. What we do know is that the US made multiple attempts at de-escalation, attempts which were rejected by Russia. We also know that multiple countries have gone and met with Putin to seek peace, and have been rebuffed. Finally, we know that Ukraine and Russia have met for peace talks themselves, and still nothing. It just seems to me that looking to the US to create peace out of this is barking up the wrong tree.Do you think there is zero chance that the US wanted Russia to invade (or that it surmised there was a fair chance Russia would invade, and in part, due to its own activities in the region)? There came a point where the US was wishing for Russia to make a strategic blunder, imo, and it did. Now it will try to exact a toll in the form of a protracted insurrgency, which Clinton among others have been arguing for since the outbreak (it is the orthodox view).
Yeah that's fair enough.I don't know... and really, neither do you. What we do know is that the US made multiple attempts at de-escalation, attempts which were rejected by Russia. We also know that multiple countries have gone and met with Putin to seek peace, and have been rebuffed. Finally, we know that Ukraine and Russia have met for peace talks themselves, and still nothing. It just seems to me that looking to the US to create peace out of this is barking up the wrong tree.
What's actually astoundingly ignorant is India's cosying up to Putin's Russia - an "ally" that will support China over India in any future conflict, an "ally" that lies through its teeth about everything (of which the invasion of Ukraine is just the latest example), and an "ally" that will happily sell military equipment to India that is greatly inferior to any equivalent from the West ... again as the Ukrainian war is showing.
But if India foolishly wishes to climb in bed with Russia, then good luck to you ... you'll need it.
Sorry, I did mean 'micro/macrological'. Can't remember having seen that before.Yeah, I didn't use it, nor had I heard of it. I used "micrological/macrological", which are very common distinctions in all social sciences and some natural sciences.
Interestingly enough, micrologic / micrological is another term for microscopic.Sorry, I did mean 'micro/macrological'. Can't remember having seen that before.
Sorry, I did mean 'micro/macrological'. Can't remember having seen that before.
Yeah, the microscopic view of events or data is what it implies (and the logic of such). You see these twin frames used everywhere from art to science.Interestingly enough, micrologic / micrological is another term for microscopic.
Microeconomics vs. Macroeconomics: An Overview
Economics is divided into two categories: microeconomics and macroeconomics. Microeconomics is the study of individuals and business decisions, while macroeconomics looks at the decisions of countries and governments.
Well yes, I know what the macro- and micro- prefixes are for, and have seem them used in various contexts (including those economy examples); just not with the suffixes -logy or -logical.Yeah, the microscopic view of events or data is what it implies (and the logic of such). You see these twin frames used everywhere from art to science.
That's really all it is. The individual versus the collective/totality; trying to situate the individual (person/event/object) within its broader, macro, (or historical), context. Used to using these terms without much thought, but point wasn't to be (purposefully) incomprehensible.
Nah, I think a country siding with its long-term ally is less astounding than someone talking about world politics without knowing one single thing.
You might be (on to something).I think we need a new thread for discussions on the meaning of the word macrological (and the overuse of parentheses to add comment or context that should otherwise have been written into the sentence).
The notion that we need to support this or that capitalist bloc is but a symptom of the lack of an organized antiwar movement. Thus, the task of the left is not to choose sides amid inter-imperialist rivalry, but to raise mass consciousness regarding the history and present circumstances of international conflicts and to build a mass internationalist, anti-imperialist, antiwar movement capable of intervening on the side of peace, even when the ambitions of the world’s ruling classes demand bloodshed and war.
It isn't the Russian narrative, it's the geopolitical fact within which the war has been based. The Americans understand it perfectly well but are adept at pretending they don't know what's happening when acknowledging the facts proves inconvenient. Yes, this is the CFR* admitting what everyone already knew about spheres of influence, NATO encroachment, and likely Russian response. The framing is that the US is an idealist power which works according to realism and that the second is at odds with the first, despite the first being the "real" intent of the US. In reality, the US works according to realpolitik and uses idealism as a means to assert a distinction in international affairs where none actually exists (to assert a false naivety).
Sure, but is it not also the US's responsibility to call for a peaceful settlement (even though it supports Ukraine)? It has been calling for an immediate ceasefire/peace in Yemen for years despite supporting Saudi Arabia. The same is true in Israel/Palestine, that whenever conflict breaks out the US calls for an immediate peace even though it actively supports Israel. And you can go around the world and find example after example. What the US is doing here is setting a precedent of sorts. When was the last time the US didn't call for an immediate peace/ceasefire in a comparable situation in which the US itself was not at war?
Also, as much as the US could offer to facilitate talks or push for them, I doubt Russia would accept a neutral role for them, as they'd question the US's neutrality. Maybe they would accept negotiating directly with the US, but Ukraine wouldn't accept letting the US speak (and decide!) for them, and the US wouldn't want to give the impression that Ukraine is just a pawn in their game (regardless of whether it actually is or isn't).In a vague platitude sense sure, but in a tangible sense, I don't see what the US or UK could say in regards to concrete actions. Without the Ukraine and Russia reach a point where they want to negotiate, the US can't really do much. They can't make any real concrete recommendations right now. Would they tell Ukraine to accept what Russia wants? And Russia clearly won't listen to any recommendations on negotiations either.
Piss off, nimic. There can never be enough parentheses in my poorly construed and lazily written posts.I think we need a new thread for discussions on the meaning of the word macrological (and the overuse of parentheses to add comment or context that should otherwise have been written into the sentence).
Piss off (nimic); there can never be enough parentheses in my (poorly construed and lazily written) posts.
I did think it kinda needed some, but then I was too lazy to get back and add them.FTFY![]()