More than that Chris - new members other than Jihadis and such come and go without much posting. I speak to a few on email. Good to hear about Craig. Student intranets rarely take off either, despite apparent common interests (very difficult to convince lecturers students have any subject interest). The bullies soon rule, making sex threats or using what I now call Dottactics. There is a lot of religious silencing too. Much of what reaches me as subject advice call is really pastoral. I have had better conversations recently in a rugby league chatroom offshoot. We had classic examples of ME at university discussion groups, typically attracting a few lonely people who didn't read the material to discuss. I used to do academic conferences to meet the people who didn't go to the sessions. We seemed to be the only ones who had done the pre-reading
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 4:34:25 PM UTC, Chris Jenkins wrote: > > 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/ >>>>>>>> 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 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.
