*Crying laughing* Brilliant, Fran. Thanks for the giggles.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:26 PM, frantheman <[email protected]>wrote: > Not to be taken too seriously :-) > > (with apologies to Sheryl Crow) > > Background music: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5ouOa9k0gE&feature=related > > This aint no troll pit, it aint no chat-room either, > This is Minds Eye > > All I want to do is make my point and make it clear, > Says the girl/guy posting next to me. > It’s apropos of nothing > He/she says his/her name is Twirlip or Twirl, > And he/she’s never made his/her point clear in his/her whole life. > And the good fiddlers of the world are debunking religion > On their lunchbreaks, refuting faith and knocking down God, > But they’re nothing like Twirlip and me, cause > > All I want to do is make my point, > I don’t care if it gets the others’ noses out of joint, > All I want to do is make my point, > While enlightenment shines down along the Google Groups Boulevard. > > I like a good touch of wisdom whenever I come in here, > And Twirlip likes to agonize about his/her life, > He/she peels the layers from the problems > Of his/her history and character. > And he/she’s wondering about what the others are thinking. > A couple of monists come into the group, > dangerously one with each other, > the moderators look up from their computers … > > And all I want to do is make my point, > I don’t care if it gets the others’ noses out of joint, > All I want to do is make my point, > While enlightenment shines down along the Google Groups Boulevard. > > Otherwise the group is ours, > the monists and the pantheists too, > the atheists, the godswankers, believers and materialists, > the nuts and the trolls but > > All I want to do is make my point, > I don’t care if it gets the others’ noses out of joint, > All I want to do is make my point, > While enlightenment shines down along the Google Groups Boulevard. > > On 18 Jan., 20:02, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think your idea falls apart when comparing our virtual salon to IRL > > conversations. Allow me to elaborate: > > > > If someone walked into a bar for the first time, and was subject to a > jerk > > hassling them, would that then reflect on the bar itself? Perhaps, if > this > > was a repeated incident occurring with multiple regular patrons. In most > > cases, however, it's simply that there are jerks everywhere you go. > > > > There's no "shadow" for ME to own, given that the basis of your entire > > premise is based on you walking into a virtual bar, having a bad > encounter > > with a patron, and then spending a whole lot of time dwelling on that > > encounter, and what it says about "the bar", which in reality, is > nothing. > > In fact, given that this virtual bar stepped up fairly quickly to correct > > out of line behaviour, your premise is entirely fallacious. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Twirlip <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think this is worth explaining, even if it is not worth pursuing > > > very far (perhaps only adding to the "noise" for which I have already > > > been censured by more than one moderator). > > > > > After I was subjected to a verbal onslaught here a day or two ago > > > (only a day or two after I joined), after the initial surprise and > > > shock and anger had passed, I reflected that it might be a kind of > > > "test". > > > > > By this I meant two different things, which however might be related > > > to one another. (One thing that I didn't mean, by the way, was that it > > > was any kind of deliberate initiation or hazing ritual!) > > > > > I had no intention of posting about this, until today, when almost the > > > first thing that greeted me after I got out of bed was another such > > > verbal onslaught, from a different member of the group.(I would have > > > been far less bothered if it had only been the same person again.) > > > > > I don't think I coped with the latest onslaught too badly; but, as I > > > said, at least two moderators criticised me for my response, and I was > > > threatened with a ban if I persisted. > > > > > If I hadn't been ordered not to post any more in that thread (even > > > though it was started specifically to rant at me!), and promised not > > > to do so, I would naturally be posting these thoughts there; so, the > > > moderators will presumably consider this whole thread as more "noise", > > > and possibly even, if not a banning offence, then a reason for > > > returning me to moderation. > > > > > I think it is worth taking that risk, because I think that this is > > > philosophical information, not noise. > > > > > The first sense in which I thought that a personal attack on me in a > > > group like this might be a "test" was that it might be incumbent on me > > > to regard it as a challenge to accept the assault in a philosophical > > > spirit (in a familiar everyday sense of "philosophical"), and not to > > > respond in a petty egotistical way, or with too much self-pity (not > > > that I think that self-pity is altogether a bad thing), but to be > > > rational and ethical, and to see what I, at least, might learn from > > > the encounter. > > > > > For instance, even if I might not have done anything to deserve such > > > an attack, might it not nevertheless be a kind of karma? (I use the > > > word very loosely.) And, even though the person hounded me, and > > > accused me of stalking and harassing him, and this was ridiculous, > > > might each of in some unconscious way have been shadowing the other? > > > (Again, no precise use of language is here intended.) > > > > > But such questions are mainly for me to think about, and not to post > > > about here. > > > > > What I think does make it worth taking the risk of posting this > > > article is that the second sense in which I thought those events (and > > > today I thought this morning's events) might be a "test" is one which > > > I think has meaning for more than just me. > > > > > I have long wondered how one tests ideas about minds, given (what for > > > me is axiomatic, although others may dispute) that the scientific > > > method is not applicable. I have brooded for a long time about the > > > need for a movement in psychology and ethics which is progressive in > > > way analogous to the way in which science is progressive, yet (at > > > least for me) cannot possibly be literally considered to be > > > scientific. > > > > > I don't want to get banned for excessive verbosity, and this article > > > is getting a bit long already, so I'll cut to the chase. [Where on > > > Earth does that phrase come from?] > > > > > We all have ideas about minds, persons, selves. One of my reasons for > > > being here, probably my main reason, and probably also one of the > > > reasons why many others are here, is to test out such ideas in > > > discussion, and learn new ideas, and modify ideas in discussion. > > > > > Of course, we also have ideas about other things (also to be subjected > > > to the same trial by dialogue), but it is only ideas about "minds, > > > persons, selves" to which what I'm saying here is at all relevant. > > > > > The test is: how do such ideas survive when things go "wrong" in the > > > group? Can they even help to put "wrong" things "right", or do the > > > "wrong" things have to be banned? (Presumably /some/ do, such as spam, > > > or deliberate trolling.) > > > > > When conversation results from something going wrong here, is such > > > conversation only a distraction, is it only "noise", or can some of > > > it, at least, be seen as a part of the total philosophical enterprise, > > > perhaps in analogy to the way that engineering is related to science? > > > > > Can Minds Eye own its shadow? > > > > > (OK, here goes. I am hoping that this will lead to a discussion, not > > > to a ban from discussion, but my luck in such matters is bad, so I > > > can't be too hopeful, just a little bit brave. Prepare the hemlock!) > > > > > -- > > > 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]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups .com> > > > . > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > -- > 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]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > > >--
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.
