What is the Opposite of Evaluation?

Dear College,

ANTI-THESIS (always for the sake of argument. )

Our rigorous vigorous talk about systematic and
systemic EVALUATION (our assessmental
studies & leadership programs):

when and
how and
where and
whether and
who and why:
complete-to-incomplete ratios
what percentage of work-to-be-done
across the bored, etc



smells like industrialization of local food.

What would our counter-institutional concern
for initiating and inaugurating and originating
and generating, stimulating, and provoking
the process we are so conscientious
to evaluate & assess, ratio and
rationalize look like?

Sound like?

***

What do I Talk About
When I Talk About
Dialect?

IT can't be talked about without
ruining the Joke. Never the less:
IT must be talked about.

1) to love opposition on the one hand and to
2) to appreciate Hierarchies of LEVELS of
Contexts of MEANING on the other hand and
3) to savor the resulting duplicity, double-edged
ironic error-ing and play of “language” on third



Other than the notion that OPPOSITION is the heart
of dialectic and provides the dynamic, and the means
(via/per) by which a 3^rd term “synthesis” may emerge
that does not (however) annihilate the opposition or
privilege one “side” or the other, but rather by sustaining
a fight-club frame of mind: enjoys the wrestling and
wrangling of thesis and anti-thesis, so that we might hope
to “jump” a level—from a binary dualistic duel to the
emerging realization of a super-ordinate 3^rd term
synthesis: revealing a ternary relationship that contains
the opposing sides, forces, issues, notions, teams, beliefs,
biases, prejudices, convictions & parties appropriately
hostile to each other but actually as complementary as
Siamese Twins severed at birth and now—eureka—joined
at the hip all this time the way temperature hosts the
prodigality of both “hot” and “cold” and their ratios index
variations of comfort/discomfort in some room or house or
tub class room or person-of-mercurial- temper...

As I was saying: other than the wonderful marriage of
heaven and hell by which one might avoid getting stuck
in the middle between two Power Strugglers advocating
THIS or THAT ouch, oo, damnit, ah, yes Yes YES: . . what
characterizes DIALECTIC is the appreciation of the
“LEVELS” [of logical type] that differentiate & distinguish
bottom-line same-level conflict [agon-agony] going on
between TAGONISTS (pro & con), and the LEAP, JUMP,
disporting liveliness from one level to the next higher power
up—out-of-the- box-ness—that occurs when Syn-Thesis
emerges and is revealed: a higher-power revelation [other
wise, as Emmet pointed out: the relationship is linear, on
the same plane, and not hierarchical and so all-in-the-same
-box so to speak which is what happens when we VOTE a
compromise as opposed to jumping beyond our selves….
wonderfully para-noetic and paranoid].

So:

to confuse the 2 (or more) levels of a logical hierarchy
(subordinate This's and That’s' with their 3^rd term super-
ordinate synthesis) is like confusing the news-to-noise ratios
with INFORMATION: their “embracing” term—fusing
MEANING with the clarity-to-confusion ratios that
generate IT and that would be an Error of Logical Typing.

We err all the time, like mixing metaphors & other than
EngTeachers: who cares? It's unavoidable —broad margin
of error and room for play. BUT KNOWING about IT
(the mix) –is sometimes better than ignorance: to be
perfectly clear about my confusions is I suppose better
than just being merely confused. .

It would be like thinking this CLASS D&D 101 was also
a member of itself and therefore descriptive in terms
of the members [interesting, slow, challenging, soporific]…
or declaring Warren Wilson responsible, moral, green and
environmentalist and calling DC—hotbed of political
opportunists, andmy teddy Bear, Mohamed: an offense
to Muslims.

Calling the WHOLE & holy by the characteristics and
in-the-terms of the parts: it’s a MIX of LOGICAL Type.
But I do it all the time & it’s a question of knowing better
even as I commit these crimes. And so:

in order to sustain a sense of “levels” (context within
context within context: box within box within box)
and the hierarchy of logical type (not to be confused
with political hierarchies we might want to subvert),
there has to be some wary watchful appreciation for
the function of contradiction and paradox in the service
of the GAME, a savvy which allows one to say stuff like…

Look:
I am SERIOUS about fooling around
& working hard at PLAY, and I CARE so
much for the whole process that I could care
less whether you do or don't, not to mention
product assessment: whether it hits or misses
and or dwellsin margins of & rooms for play;

I think my thinking gets in the way of my
THINKING and my conscious purposive
intentional will power undermines
my Conscious Purposive Intentional
WILL POWER…

…without being unnecessarily accused of contradiction,
paradox, and foolish inconsistency because how else does
“language” get used/abused as it crisscrosses dia-lectically
levels of logical type and mental organization and contexts
and cultures and conventions without generating doubling
duplicity & double-edged irony? It can not.

This here is not pretty or poetic, damnit. I would leave
ugly & awkward out of the picture if I could—send
awkward to the attic and ugly to the cellar.
A cover-up & to hell with both. But
wouldn't that be half-assed?
Incomplete? Un-holy,
really.

And any one can always improve my terms and images:
IT always depends on the play of converse-action or
it’s just unilateral self-abuse.