Oh, how quickly time muddles the recollection...perhaps you should go back and review some of those posts before I left. It was for the same reason Craig did, and had nothing to do with the legacy nature of an email list. I was overloaded between job and family, and simply couldn't keep up with the volume of communication (a strike against your assertion I left because I knew it was an outdated format). There were hundreds of posts, some of them quite combative (*ahem*), and any action taken by mods to keep the list adhering to its original intent was met with a hearty round of "fuck you matey". It was draining.
My goodbye: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/minds-eye/by$20chris/minds-eye/ZQB5vLJ2rSI/0GbRK-9nz-AJ Note that I put it to the group to decide, specifically because there was no other way to effectively determine any sort of self governance, and I didn't feel I had the right to make an arbitrary decision without input. You promptly attacked every facet of my decision (and I expected no less). There was a long and robust conversation with a ton of familiar faces (most missing now). Your first vote was for a natural death. Have you gotten your wish? On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:37 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Over a thousand members, 5 actually post? > > > This question coming from you? YOU! Oh come on, Chrissy baby! This is an > outdated format here that doesn't generate much traffic anymore. You know > that, that`s your job to know that, that`s why you quit the mod job here! > No one is blaming you for that but don´t play the innocent here! You > introduced no transparent polling as to who should become your successor, > but lay down your crown to the one who threw his hat in the ring, a method > acceptable for the queen also. Nice try, dear. > > 2015-02-11 17:34 GMT+01:00 Chris Jenkins <[email protected]>: > >> 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 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.
