Yep, he passed the bar some time ago, which is a big part of why he no
longer had time for these conversations.

He's not alone in that, apparently. Over a thousand members, 5 actually
post?

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:32 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:

> Such charm as ever Gabby.  The term paedophile is not well taken here and
> may really insult Allan and make him sad.  Molly was gone, in the sense of
> 'gone fishin'.  Craig was becoming a lawyer.  Hope he made it. He was a
> Mormon too.
>
> It would have been nice to hear updates on Bacon.  There were eleven
> Idols.  I expect your superior model incorporates them, or perhaps spits
> spleen.  We can only be sure of never seeing it.
>
> We model defeasibly now and use a lot of geometry because a lot of us
> think in shape.  The idea is to make natural language usable by the
> machine.  It has even more difficulty making sense of just what humans say
> than a pair of paranoid-schizoid positionists.  We do consider 'shapes'
> like the molygon as underliers in our logic and they are instructive.  A
> gabbygon is on the horizon - some no doubt thinking this is the best
> place.  The general theory is called 'bag of words' - we look for shapes in
> text to give context meaning and identify root metaphors.  You probably
> know how the SNERT stands out like a sore thumb?  Maybe accusing old men
> and their dogs kind of thing?  We are trying to find much more routine
> issues in word use to get at some of Tony has described as dishonesty  from
> 'bag of words' samples taken from the 'marketplace' and other Idol
> conversations.  What the machine establishes from metadata - considering we
> often haven't - is fascinating because we are not sure what it i doing at
> all.  We have it working on the self-justification of psychopaths at the
> moment.
>
> Gravity obviously collapses on seeing a photograph of me.  Thanks for the
> memory.
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 3:13:50 PM UTC, Gabby wrote:
>>
>> This here is my real lesson. You have been bringing up and pushing this
>> idol model so many times that I have forgotten what the one was that I
>> found better. All that I remember is that it was either located in the
>> alchemy or in the metaphysical poetry context. It was a perfect four is all
>> that is left. It has been overwritten by your four idols.
>>
>> 2015-02-11 1:35 GMT+01:00 archytas <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> Francis Bacon classified the intellectual fallacies of his time under
>>> four headings which he called idols. He distinguished them as idols of the
>>> Tribe, idols of the e, idols of the Marketplace and idols of the Theatre.
>>> An idol is an image, in this case held in the mind, which receives
>>> veneration but is without substance in itself. Bacon did not regard idols
>>> as symbols, but rather as fixations.  They expand a bit like this:
>>>
>>> 1. Tribe
>>>
>>> The example of desiring to see more order in the universe than is
>>> actually there is one of his examples of an idol of the tribe. He thinks
>>> that we all suffer from that one.
>>>
>>> 2. Cave
>>>
>>> An example of an idol of the cave (one of Bacon's examples) is that some
>>> minds are more drawn to new things and new ideas than they are to what has
>>> been around for a long time, while other minds are more drawn to
>>> "tradition" and "old school" ideas and ways than they are to newness. Bacon
>>> thinks we should become aware what our own tendency is so that we can make
>>> corrections for it. He hopes that by becoming aware of our own mind's
>>> tendencies toward loving novelty or tradition that we might be able to
>>> "correct" for them and then hopefully see things more clearly and truly.
>>>
>>> 3. Marketplace
>>>
>>> We often use words very loosely in common discourse. Bacon sees nothing
>>> wrong with that when we are just speaking ordinary language with friends
>>> and family. But, when it comes to trying to describe the world accurately
>>> and precisely, we should be aware of our tendency to use words loosely and
>>> should try to correct for it. When we are trying to speak precisely we
>>> should probably not say things like "The mountain is out today" (anyone
>>> outside of the Puget Sound area wouldn't have a clue what this means); or
>>> "The sun went under a cloud" (the sun did not go anywhere, let along
>>> underneath something); or "The sun came up this morning" (the earth
>>> actually just rotated). None of those sentences is precisely true, and if
>>> we use language imprecisely like this it can sometimes accidentally lead to
>>> huge misapprehensions about the world. Bacon thinks this misuse of words
>>> and language causes far more problems than we realize.
>>>
>>> 4. Theatre
>>>
>>> If you can think of someone you know who has recently bought into a
>>> whole new religion or philosophy or psychology, you can probably see how
>>> they have suddenly come to interpret everything in the universe according
>>> to their new world view. That world view has become the new lens through
>>> which they perceive and interpret everything in their world. What Bacon
>>> says, though, is that we all do this. We all interpret the world through
>>> the lens of our own little world view. It's just easier to see other people
>>> doing it than it is to see ourselves doing it. Bacon thinks we should
>>> become aware of how these world views shape and distort our own perceptions
>>> of the world so that we might be able to correct for it a bit.
>>>
>>> This is old work.  My questions are about how we recognise the 'second
>>> head' as a delusion yet move hardly at all on obvious political delusions
>>> like economics, votes counting, social care, public ignorance and the
>>> making invisible of many social issues.  For me, deep questions on self are
>>> involved.  The internet self is unlikely to be, as Tony says, the same as
>>> the 'real'one - but then we have know for much longer than the internet
>>> people don't say the same things in different contexts.  In fact the man or
>>> woman in the bar often looks totally different the morning after, let alone
>>> what the politician says in a speech compared with when she is with her
>>> backroom boys in the spin room.
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 10:17:04 PM UTC, archytas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> At least with my knowledge of delusions I can imagine certain people
>>>> growing a second head overnight and shooting the wrong spare.
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 10:11:09 PM UTC, archytas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That seems to run to form Gabby.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 10:06:43 PM UTC, Gabby wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Facil picked up your question and gave his answer, I agreed and then
>>>>>> came Allan barking at Facil and I told Allan to watch his tongue or leave
>>>>>> to his own thread. Only then did you enter the group timeline to start 
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> big daddy has come home show. Now tell me what my deceitful intent was 
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Or better, tell me tomorrow, I'm off for today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am Dienstag, 10. Februar 2015 schrieb archytas :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only people I meet like that tend to be online students Tony.
>>>>>>> We use Skype video conferencing for a few sessions, so have actually 
>>>>>>> seen
>>>>>>> each other.  I'm quieter than people imagine, though none have yet said
>>>>>>> 'uglier'.  I'm very prone to catch whatever bugs go around university
>>>>>>> environments too, so rather like electronic distance.  With colleagues, 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> situation is we know a lot more about each other than most in online
>>>>>>> encounters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My version has 'confusion' written through it.  I say something,
>>>>>>> Gabby takes it another way, or knows what I intended and chooses another
>>>>>>> slant for whatever reason.  Online, I assume she has a sense of humour 
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> a good turn with words.  Deception is not part of this in the first 
>>>>>>> place.
>>>>>>> Just guesses with less risk than so called reality.  I suppose the 
>>>>>>> classic
>>>>>>> online deceiver is the groomer - where the intent is to set up and image
>>>>>>> and then meet the victim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 7:54:18 PM UTC, facilitator wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 2:11:33 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The delusion that we are what we project is interesting Tony.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "We claim to be what we project".  Your version allows for reality
>>>>>>>> mine allows for dishonesty. I think most people want to project a 
>>>>>>>> filtered
>>>>>>>> image of themselves enough so that if we ever meet people who we've 
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> conversed with online we become slightly astonished how different they
>>>>>>>> appear and act in "real life".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
>>>>>>> the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to
>>>>>>> pic/minds-eye/2_ICOWzarWY/unsubscribe.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>>>>>> [email protected].
>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>  --
>>>
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>>> Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
>>> topic/minds-eye/2_ICOWzarWY/unsubscribe.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>> [email protected].
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>  --
>
> ---
> 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.
>

-- 

--- 
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.

Reply via email to