....sure wish I could keep up neil....i'm at a loss as to what fables you discuss...
On Mar 5, 2:34 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Just an incidental Orn - your scientific view (no qualms on my > interpretation here) is rather postmodern - on close scrutiny most > religious sagas become myths and fables - yet the myths and fables > themselves are part of a real history in the present. This seems > entirely sensible. It is statements of the fables as fact that > remains problematic, especially in legitimation through this in such > matters as shooting up cricket players or the more hidden forms in > Western foreign policy. > > On 2 Mar, 09:17, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Degeneration into an epistemology demanding linguistic acumen is very > > pertinent Orn. I tend to lapse back to an anecdote involving Ron Ions > > - paper illiterate and innumerate - yet by far the best performer in > > leadership-getting the job done activities over 6 months of courses. > > Hands like shovels, every bit a working stiff (a gourmand too, which > > no stereotyping would have predicted - he couldn't even do the Belbin > > Test on which the team issues were supposedly predicated). There is > > much we could learn and do from this insight of yours - though there > > is a paradox in needing to 'articulate' it. I read the NS stuff much > > as you have btw. > > > We are not likely to be Celts genetically Francis - but I take your > > point well. Religion is sorry stuff, yet fellowship surely is not > > (with some reservations about the gender connotation of the word). > > How do we move though in a fellowship not construed about in-group > > play and in 'mystery' that is not palpable nonsense requiring faith > > where there should be none that is at least not tentative - a regular > > point of yours? > > > My feeling is that 'soft skills' are essentially degenerate and lay us > > open only to manipulation. We need to know more on this and there are > > some pretty horrifying scientific explanations I suspect are true - > > including that we make decisions before we even start to think about > > them. > > > On 1 Mar, 20:11, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 1 Mrz., 19:00, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I'm Scots Francis, so I have little interest in seeing other than a > > > > cricket score when Wales play England at the sport I was barred from > > > > because I took broken time payments that were often somewhat less than > > > > the "amateurs" took in "expenses". > > > > My profoundest apologies, Neil. I'm afraid I'm not completely free of > > > the Irish tendency to regard everyone living on the largest island in > > > the North-East Atlantic Archipelago simply as "Brit." Thnk you for > > > reminding me that we are really, in fact, Celtic cousins and, as such, > > > should be allies against the perfidious Sassenach. > > > > Sport remains a fascinating microcosm for politics and society, not > > > least because of its amazing capability for hypocrisy and because the > > > people in charge generally have nothing to do with any kind of > > > performance and productivity. Samaranch is proabably the greatest role > > > model in sport today. > > > > Francis > > > > > Science is close to making a bit more sense than Wittgenstein in terms > > > > of much that works in dialogue that is not easy to trace in the > > > > words. It may soon be possible to do some kind of "discourse analysis > > > > at speed" - or perhaps the turn will be the discovery some of us do > > > > have such a faculty. Deception is key in politics and the key in > > > > discourses of actual sciences is transparency. > > > > I've had the odd word with my grandson of late and he has loads of > > > > problems believing the biology of puberty or that I'm a biologist for > > > > that matter! He is working something out about lying at the moment. > > > > My guess is something goes wrong with this process because cheating > > > > and bullying really are the names of the language-games we play - and > > > > maybe (I think likely) these are built-in rather like 'rank' in social > > > > insects? My feeling is we are on the verge of a scientific unpacking > > > > of this stuff that will allow our debates to change and produce new > > > > 'leadership' forms - perhaps embodied in technology without us being > > > > run by Deep Thought. > > > > I'm afraid we are going to collapse to war before this. My guess is > > > > that what links foreign policy and bwanking is the false notion of > > > > cleverness put about. What actually happens is something we never > > > > know and the heroic stories are always told in retrospect. I wonder > > > > if we could detach idiot prejudices (Bacon's Idols) and fast-speed > > > > analysis - and find a way of making people argue under public scrutiny > > > > using new technologies, subjecting the votaries and worthies who have > > > > made 'negotiation' into a from of life to scientific scrutiny? > > > > I feel a lot of sympathy with what Don says above. The politicians > > > > are crap and make interventions that only work in terms of the > > > > publicity they generate and the lies they uphold. New Labour in the > > > > UK have been so bad they have only ensured that pretty committed > > > > democrats like me and Sue will never vote again. Brown and his > > > > cabinet sound more like Mugabe and his henchmen every day. They can > > > > admit no wrong. > > > > > On 1 Mar, 13:19, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On jobs. Whatever happened to apprenticeships? We call them interns > > > > > now, I suppose-but most of those are expected to complete or be in the > > > > > process of completing some form of higher(conformist) education. Not > > > > > all professions have interns and I would argue our onerous 'minimum > > > > > wage' is mostly to blame. I know I'm beating a dead horse here but it > > > > > seems to me every time Congress passes a law to regulate the economy > > > > > it just mucks up the process and makes it less efficient. > > > > > > Montessori school has a decent rep. of encouraging originality. Of > > > > > course, this is only for the very young children. Looking back in > > > > > history, many of the truly innovative and brilliant were practically > > > > > hermits. Less chance of being corrupted by humanity I suppose. Or > > > > > maybe they were just weird. > > > > > > “I would sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand > > > > > names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by > > > > > the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.” -- William F. > > > > > Buckley, Jr., c. 1965 > > > > > > I'd say I agree but I'd pick Provo, Utah over Boston. I'm just > > > > > sayin'. > > > > > > dj > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 1:14 AM, archytas <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Einstein recommended impudence, and we might draw some ideas from > > > > > > certain polarities between which he worked and lived. I sense this > > > > > > would miss the point in some ways by individual focus. If common > > > > > > sense were reliable we wouldn't need science and I wonder whether > > > > > > most > > > > > > people even get the messages about just how hard observation is and > > > > > > so > > > > > > on. Current forensic science, as accepted in our courts, is highly > > > > > > unreliable, yet so totally reliable in CSI. Something is afoot in > > > > > > rationalising terms (Freudian) in public "science" - and this > > > > > > involves > > > > > > massive ignorance pretending it knows what science is about. > > > > > > Standards in our universities are now dismally low and based on > > > > > > massively outdated ideas of what might be good for and useful to > > > > > > students. We lie to them about job prospects and more or less > > > > > > everything. Incompetence and rigidity have turned to corruption. > > > > > > The > > > > > > kids I used to teach genuinely believed degrees from my third rate > > > > > > institution would buy them that BMW, yet their fate was as shelf- > > > > > > stackers and call-centre fodder. Yet even in more prestigious > > > > > > places > > > > > > the syllabus is the same sad dross. I don't want to elevate > > > > > > creativity to something only a few academically capable can do - > > > > > > thus > > > > > > I follow a sense that creativity must lie elsewhere in large part. > > > > > > My > > > > > > guess is we could start with jobs that could have meaning and > > > > > > develop > > > > > > productive skills - this is an essentially communal task. > > > > > > > On 28 Feb, 20:17, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> Academia's rigid walls seemed designed to supress dissent, and > > > > > >> thus, originality. I wonder if I were an academic if I would have > > > > > >> the courage to publish at all. Some of my heroes were crucified > > > > > >> for their ideas, especially if any flaw at all was discovered in > > > > > >> their proof. Hawking's 10 dimension version of M theory comes to > > > > > >> mind...sending him into seclusion for ten years! Yet when he > > > > > >> returned, he had 11 dimension M theory in hand, problem neatly > > > > > >> solved. > > > > > > >> Conformity always has been the enforced ideal. > > > > > > >> [ Attached Message ]From:archytas > > > > > >> <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds Eye\"" > > > > > >> <[email protected]>Date:Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:37:51 -0800 > > > > > >> (PST)Local:Sat 28 Feb 2009 12:37Subject:[Mind's Eye] critical > > > > > >> consensus > > > > > > >> Academics generally hold that your average plonker is about as > > > > > >> likely > > > > > >> to come up with anything original as a Pope is likely to be non- > > > > > >> Catholic (Francis will no doubt tell us some were!) - this > > > > > >> actuality > > > > > >> runs somewhat in contrast with learning organisation myths and so > > > > > >> on > > > > > >> that stress that we are all originals and it's just school that > > > > > >> beats > > > > > >> it out of us. Quite why a bunch of inveterate plagiarists should > > > > > >> hold > > > > > >> such views on other people's originality, I'm not sure. I seem to > > > > > >> have wasted much time discussing originality amongst people utterly > > > > > >> devoid of it. I have a sense of what it might be and that we > > > > > >> ascribe > > > > > >> it to individuals falsely, as > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
