There, there, Jim, here's a song for you too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALa4T9UE-Mw
We also love you Jim, and your hat as well, though the latter seems to be strangely absent underwater. On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Jim Whitescarver <[email protected]>wrote: > I decided this was a silly message to send, but my curiosity about how > you react, got the better of me, so I am sending it anyhow, scrapping > it at this point seems wasteful. I guess the lesson is that to many > far out half baked ideas are spam, and bearing your humanity ought be > done with digression. > -------------------------------------------- > I must thank Maria, Carl, Elizabeth, etc. for helping me grow. I love > you guys no matter what you think of me. I might be learning, at > least I have not been admonished for spam again lately. If I have > spammed philosophers here, please continue to be forthright. I cannot > grow without honest feedback. The last thing I want to do is spam > anyone, it hurts good when I get the proper animal response, a slap in > my face. > > WE become greater, and perpetuate a memeon of existence that might die > if we did not promote it. All that exists in time is that which is > thus perpetuated exhibiting memory. What is not repeated does not > exist objectively yet. > > Sometimes I am slow and it may take many slaps before I learn. But > like a chicken, it is most certain that I will learn, even drain > bamage can be overcome. > > "dematerializing value of neural alienation" seemed at first to be a > compliment, in the context of combating one sided truth, but this is > considered spam. It is my natural tendency to affirmatively accept a > stroke memeon to perpetuate, preferring la la land to reality of the > slap memeon. She might have just said antisocial but what fun would > that be. I might have missed the point that my communication failed > totally. It seems clear now I missed that I simply shared a > disruptive meme, which can be good or bad depending on its final > outcome. > > What Carl calls overly dramatic, I just don't get it. So I can expect > my key blunder lies here. In order to play act one first needs to > learn how to act in a social community. I have been made aware I have > this disability but have not yet learned how to fix that in the realm > of philosophy. In my animal life, I have more than overcome the > disability in most ways, with just an occasional major faux-pas. > > Do not humor me, I am a real masochist, and will laugh privately at > many of your responses, but someday the desired behavior will be > favored in my habits such that I synergize in my ecology. I could not > be any happier, what I hope for is growth, and only pain in equal > measure balance to my happiness instantiates maximal growth in a > controlled ecology. I can laugh at myself because I do not feel > threatened, I feel blessed by providence in more ways than I can dream > of. For animals, what does not kill us, reinforces us and makes us > stronger, and so it is for philosophers as well. > > Tell me how I have spammed you. (duck:) > > What do you think my problem is? Why don't I get it. If you are > silent and allow me to bask in the illusion I have overcome my > difficulty, you may thus be encouraging more spam. > > I feel something. that this is spam because it is unsolicited because > no spam warning has been given since, and ther has been zero > encouragement to pursue it further. It is again about me, I am being > selfish. Why should I involve the whole universe in dealing with my > problems. I must say there are a lot of habits of thought I have yet > to master. I play the fool. I find comfort in eccentricity, taking > heart that someone needs to say these things even if they are not > ready for prime time they deserve to be repeated, if for nothing else, > a learning exercise, that may benefit others, but may be considered > spam. I am premature, as I have not yet fully applied what might be > learned from the thoughtful feedback I already received, > > I am excited by the perception of my recent clarity about how the > nature of information is the information of nature, as usual, now as > the direct link between epistemology and phenomenology, where the > memeion is the anyon, pattern or quantum arrangement is clocking by > alternating inverse logic propagating the memeion logically until it > meets equal and opposite logic, actualizing both participating > memeions and thus perpetuating them in time as a actual event in the > information ecology. A memeion may exhibit any algorithum at any > relative clocking frequency but only repeats where there is a perfect > analog propagating oppositely. As you can see it is still half baked. > I want to do my best to make it not spam, and present it in a form > worthy of an audience of philosophers. > > While I am still perusing other roads with other than philosophers, I > tend to favor an engineering approach, in the forum of philosophy I > have found much knowledge and valuable feedback I am exuberantly > thankful for. > > Anyone have thought on what I should call the particle on universal > logic of information physics, memeion, memeyon, memeon, I think my > mind is made up, memeon works. > > Thanks, > > Jim > http://InformationPhysics.com <http://informationphysics.com/> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Jim Whitescarver <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I erronoisly attributed the word retrogenetic to Maria, but her words > were classier, paleanthropidic and paleonthological in her insightful and > witty criticism. If I read it enough times I might get how I might be > different but not dysfunctional :) > > > > Jim > > > jim wrote: > > >>I would need to do some homework before I could comment on Maria's > > >>message. Unless I read all the references it just seems like > > >>philosophical mumbo jumbo. I think she is saying some similar > > >>things. > > > > You are an excellent example of a typology of the paleanthropidic > > specimen, with an irresistible tendency to refuse the motion of a > > normal dispositional evolution, but that nonetheless develops with > > some ease in pithecanthropic scenarios. > > > > Really, the type of reflexibility, that you evidentiate, reveals a > > real paleonthological vocation characterized by the slow emergence > > of reflexive thinking. Indeed, after reading some of your posts, I > > concluded that you provide for an interesting case of a casuistic of > > unstable spatial equilibrium, determined by an organic cognitive > > infrastructure, with grave disturbances of internal and external > > neuropsychological rhythmicity of operative enchaining, with > > periodic dissimulative oscillations, between a strange and complex > > lucidity intermixed with some stumbliness without referent or > > reference. > > > > A semiotic analysis, made to your written discourse, reveals a clear > > dematerializing value of neural alienation. > > > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Jim Whitescarver <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Carl Gustav <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > Jim, > >> > > >> > It's great that you feel good and happy, have a good family life, > etc…, > >> > however, concerning the issue, these postings of yours come out as > somewhat > >> > excessive. I think that Elizabeth tried to alleviate a little, what is > a > >> > certain dramatising that you usually like to make when you involve > yourself > >> > in debates around philosophy. As we (include here most of the group), > know > >> > very well from other discussions within other groups. > >> > >> Thank you Carl. My retrogenetic (Maria's term for my thinking) > >> sociality necessitates external revaluation of my writing. I suppose > >> medication might curb my excessive compulsive nature at the risk of > >> becoming very dull as I have seen with many creative people I know. > >> Redundancy and personalization are flaws I can comprehend may be > >> excessive, but how this is over dramatatisation may exceed my > >> comprehension in my subhuman mammalian social realm. I don't know if > >> I can get it. This may be a negative viewpoint where the positive > >> might be more constructive but has not been productive either thus > >> far. > >> > >> I can understand the taboo of my vision that this will be considered a > >> dark age of philosophy in the wake of Godel when philosophy failed to > >> provide an objective means of distinguishing fact from fantasy in an > >> era of relative and incomplete truth. I am not making an exaggeration > >> or dramatization about it, I am simply stating my view. Simply > >> stating the positive alone appearently simply fails to motivate change > >> or any comment at all, and stating the negative only brings > >> nonsubstansive criticism. I do not know how to express the importance > >> I see in the mission of philisophy in this time. > >> > >> For me, UFO's, creationism, scientism, rampant sophism etc., are > >> merely the tip of the iceberg of nonsensical scientific theory and > >> truth in every area of human endeavorer that has become subjective and > >> a popularity contest in reaction to philosophy that is in denial of > >> the need to accept that the law of the excluded middle stands > >> contradicted and the need to redefine objectivity with respect to > >> relative truth where there is no preferred cognitive context. > >> > >> I guess if I am wrong then I can be said to have been over dramatic. > >> But if this is true than I do not think I can make it more palitable. > >> Perhaps you can enlighten my how I am wrong. > >> > >> I wish only to participate in the eminent renaissance in philosophy, > >> and am perhaps a bit too impatient. It seems to me to be too soon for > >> philosophy to admit that it is always both right and wrong. It is not > >> an indictment against philosophy or just a withness crying "stop the > >> madness", I want to work on the problem, I think we have the answers > >> already, but there can be no exposition of quantum truth without > >> discovering how we are wrong where each thesis gives light to the > >> antithesis in an independent context and there is no preferred > >> context.. > >> > >> Thanks again, > >> > >> Jim > >> > --- On Fri, 8/22/08, Jim Whitescarver <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > From: Jim Whitescarver <[email protected]> > >> > Subject: Re: [cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy] Re: About spam > >> > To: [email protected] > >> > Cc: [email protected] > >> > Date: Friday, August 22, 2008, 9:27 PM > >> > > >> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Elizabeth Marckley > >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Oh Jim! > >> >> > >> >> You cannot go on writing such things, you are making me very sad, > your > >> > sadness is felt in your writing, you are in need of some kind of > therapy. > >> > Philosophy is disturbing you to a such an extent, that your suffering > makes > >> > me > >> > sad. Your pain is felt in your writing (sniff, sniff, buhaaa, buhaaa…) > >> > > >> > Dearest Elizabeth, > >> > > >> > Never fret over my happiness. My life may be pathetic but I am too > >> > stupid to know it. For me, its a wonderful life. I live passionately > >> > and reasonably, with gusto. Here is the slide show, > >> > > http://www.whitescarver.com/gallery/slideshow.php?mode=applet&set_albumName=JimsArchive > >> > And the musical score to go along with it, > >> > http://www.geocities.com/eugenef_86303/MIDI/bizcarto.mid > >> > It is such a great life its disgusting. I'm happier than a pig in > >> > shit. I am well loved, just not liked. I even created a website one > >> > day not long ago, http://WeAreGreat.org <http://wearegreat.org/> > >> > > >> > Thanks for the song. Don't worry, be happy for me. > >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjnvSQuv-H4 > >> > > >> > Love, > >> > > >> > Jim > >> > http://InformationPhysics.com <http://informationphysics.com/> > >> >> Take joy in this song: > >> >> > >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMbvcp480Y4 > >> >> > >> >> --- On Fri, 8/22/08, Jim Whitescarver <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> From: Jim Whitescarver <[email protected]> > >> >> Subject: [cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy] Re: About spam > >> >> To: [email protected], > >> > [email protected] > >> >> Cc: [email protected] > >> >> Date: Friday, August 22, 2008, 8:39 AM > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Maria Odete Madeira > >> >> <maria_odete_ [email protected] > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > This is the referent: > >> >> > > >> >> > "It seems most philosophers fantasize about notions of truth > >> > that are > >> >> > not actual and consider that the only real truth is according the > the > >> >> > legacy of human discourse and what has become common sense. They > >> >> > choose to consider only incomplete truth isolated in some > particular > >> >> > logical context employing the false notion of the excluded middle. > >> >> > They consider the quantum illogical when is is clearly perfect > logic > >> >> > which contradicts our classical incomplete notion of truth." > >> >> > >> >> My apologies to the group for posting what is deemed inappropriate > >> >> material. I have struggled to understand how it could be categorized > >> >> as spam, I am not too bright sometimes. > >> >> > >> >> > It is not worth losing time over this, when there is so much being > >> > put in the group that could be commented and discussed. > >> >> > >> >> Again my apologies for venting my frustration in this group. My dad > >> >> told me a long time ago I won't get anywhere telling people they are > >> >> stupid. Who do I think I am, Socrates? > >> >> > >> >> > This is spam. It is nothing about nothing. It has nothing to do > with > >> > philosophy, science, or whatever. It is just a Freudian release of a > >> > personal > >> > problem against a word "philosophy" , it is not a criticism against a > >> > discipline, not an argument, it is simply nothing. > >> >> > >> >> Is it wrong to be honest and say what we truly believe? I guess so. > >> >> Part of my social handicap that has hurt people I love is that I > blurt > >> >> out the truth, because it is what it is, in the hopes of helping > >> >> rather than hurting, truth is not always in my best interest, or that > >> >> of my loved ones and society. > >> >> > >> >> I first learned that Socrates was right about me. That my categorical > >> >> imperatives were delusional and the there is always tension between > >> >> the thesis and antithesis and there is no categorical imperative > until > >> >> the end of time, which never comes. Nobody can predict future > >> >> effects, and all knowledge is generalization that tells of the > >> >> ordinary rather than the extraordinary and the black swan will always > >> >> emerge. > >> >> > >> >> What I learned about myself I found applied to other people, we are > >> >> all stupid in our absolute beliefs. I stupidly allowed my remarks > >> >> here to be interpreted as an attack specifically against > philosophers, > >> >> of which I am one. I suppose I do hold philosophers to a higher > >> >> standard of truth than other people and have a frustration with > >> >> philosophers I do not have with people in general. My view is that > >> >> the philosophers must lead Science 2.0 so that we have Medicine 2.0 > >> >> and Ethics 2.0. It is simply the pendulum swinging from uniformity to > >> >> diversity as quantum, optical, neural network, and evolutionary > models > >> >> replace the straw frame legacy notions of truth. > >> >> > >> >> It seems this is only acutely important to me. And inflicting on > >> >> others is indeed spam. > >> >> > >> >> I do wish someone could tell me, for example, why proof by > >> >> contradiction does not require proof of decidability, in the light of > >> >> undecidable questions. If I could overcome my ignorance of this > >> >> perhaps I would feel less need to lash out at philosophy. > >> >> > >> >> Such is the nature of truth that there is another side to everything. > >> >> Though we are stupid, for believing one sided truth, my experience is > >> >> that we never believe anything for silly reasons and there is a great > >> >> truth lurking in every belief. We are stupid for intelligent reasons > >> >> that are generally not conscious. And while we do not know what we > >> >> think we know, it turns out that we know a lot of what we think we > >> >> don't know. > >> >> > >> >> Thank you for being tolerant. I will try to work more positively in > the > >> > future. > >> >> > >> >> Jim > >> >> > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy/ > > <*> Your email settings: > Individual Email | Traditional > > <*> To change settings online go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy/join > (Yahoo! ID required) > > <*> To change settings via email: > mailto:[email protected] > mailto: > cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [email protected] > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cosmology, Mathematics and Philosophy" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cosmology-mathematics-and-philosophy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
