<https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-7DtdkKYQpHA/VDqP9cqe1EI/AAAAAAAAADs/pU0vxMkHuc4/s1600/1a.jpg> Yes, when you said "Ant" it immediately came to mind although that was not part of my objective in making it.
Some other views might help: <https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-QPZVrxRQN0Y/VDqPlOkmjYI/AAAAAAAAADk/0TKzd5-Glho/s1600/new%2Bcaptures%2B100.jpg> On Sunday, October 12, 2014 5:17:39 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > The sculpture photo has haunted me Facil. It almost said 'ant' to me > given my current fascination with the creatures. Then a Liverpool slave > sculpture - I think 'the thinker in chains'. Fantastic in all kinds of > meaning. > > On Saturday, 11 October 2014 06:06:43 UTC+1, facilitator wrote: >> >> 'physics envy' That is the funniest thing I have heard in about a month! >> >> I told a fellow worker today: "Do you think people in California consider >> China, the Far West?" >> >> We can take little steps. Like explaining to people, contrary to what >> the collective is told by Meteorologists, the Sun never rises or sets. Back >> to a matter of perspective. It is an ill conceived notion that is >> perpetuated by naked kings. I actually have fewer doubts knowing I could be >> wrong. It gives me much more freedom. It is like the saying: "Since I >> gave up hope I feel much better!" Of late, science seems to be orgasmic >> about the concept (Panspermia) of the god called "Mars" having started life >> sooner than on Earth. The Earth it seems was not so friendly to life as it >> would appear. The origins timeline being pushed to it's ill conceived >> limits so as to require a third party. A bit of Menage a trois planetary >> orgy of sorts. Or is it all just because some need funding to travel to >> the ginger planet! Follow the money. >> >> >> >> On Friday, October 10, 2014 10:33:36 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >>> >>> How much should we charge for our 'Quantum Suspension of Belief Therapy' >>> sessions Tony? Should we be as touchy-feely as Molly's 'Embrace the >>> Paradox' class? I milked cows in my youth but am not Allan (inferior >>> precious metal bashing skills here). In Fleck's system, religion has a lot >>> of active elements directing how to see the world, science tending to more >>> passive element collection. I must say I have met little of Tony's 'we >>> might both (all) be wrong' perspective, though even this perspective, as >>> with any doubting can become prescriptive or merely the rule of the >>> doubters' club. >>> >> >> "Early choices of what clubs we join may have to do with competence." >> So true! I sohudl nto hvea jniode nya cbul taht acpcedte me as a mberem. >> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, 11 October 2014 01:41:59 UTC+1, archytas wrote: >>>> >>>> I had Pat on the garden path to the Kaliber Yawn space (getting stuck >>>> with the fairies at the bottom of the garden with only non-alcoholic beer) >>>> - and liked him because he had a better sense of humour than Zarathustra. >>>> I remember my first lab coat more or less as Facil describes. There is >>>> something of one of Molly's paradoxes with authority in science - the >>>> rules >>>> are always up for grabs in a perpetual legitimation crisis of a club >>>> designed around a 'no rules rule book'. >>>> >>>> I rather liked Ludwik Fleck (1896–1961), a Polish-Jewish >>>> microbiologist. Fleck claimed that cognition is a collective activity, >>>> since it is only possible on the basis of a certain body of knowledge >>>> acquired from other people. When people begin to exchange ideas, a thought >>>> collective arises, bonded by a specific mood, and as a result of a series >>>> of understandings and misunderstandings a peculiar thought style is >>>> developed. When a thought style becomes sufficiently sophisticated, the >>>> collective divides itself into an esoteric circle (professionals) and an >>>> exoteric circle (laymen). A thought style consists of the active elements, >>>> which shape ways in which members of the collective see and think about >>>> the >>>> world, and of the passive elements, the sum of which is perceived as an >>>> “objective reality”. What we call “facts”, are social constructs: only >>>> what >>>> is true to culture is true to nature. >>>> >>>> This is only the beginning. We couldn't distinguish the merits of >>>> evolution and creationism on this basis, or economics from a real science >>>> (economists basically suffer from 'physics envy'). Back in the 80's I >>>> came >>>> across people with laboratories and lab coats 'experimenting' with >>>> electrodes placed on human heads to prove left brain right brain >>>> hemispheric differences. They attracted a lot of funding, yet were so >>>> stupid they considered music a stimulus rather than a complex set of >>>> stimuli and could rarely describe any actual brain structure to someone >>>> like me who actually diced the things from time to time. Their equivalent >>>> today are those who calibrate various brain scanners so badly that they >>>> find intelligent activity in dead salmon. Quantum mechanics arises from >>>> black body radiation experiments, but we are not that sure quite what such >>>> is. >>>> >>>> Early choices of what clubs we join may have to do with competence. >>>> Anyone can bend the knee to the blue and white chequered rabbit, but not >>>> many can, say, dissect a rat solar plexus. I no longer possess a lab coat >>>> and am thus not a credible scientist. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday, 10 October 2014 20:01:43 UTC+1, facilitator wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Funny you should mention "Diversion". That is exactly what each is. >>>>> I look at them as being almost identical in presentation. Both rely on >>>>> a >>>>> set of "Fixed" beliefs. And both are dependent on adherents accepting >>>>> those "Beliefs". The priest wears robes and tunics and the scientist >>>>> escapes dissent among ranks by wearing the lab coat. Each new theorem >>>>> postulated requires a quantum suspension of belief until proven. (Or >>>>> unproven) >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, October 10, 2014 7:52:01 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm often struck that science versus religion is a diversion. There >>>>>> is bad science, there is bad religion. Some 'religion' (economics) >>>>>> pretends to be science. Some dreadful power gamers pretend to be >>>>>> religious. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
