I don't believe you ever did, Arch, but I'll add that one to my collection. :)
Atalante, Orn, ThePeasantKing...there were so many. I sorely miss Fran's voice, although I get to see it in the occasional blog post. Chaz was a sharp one, and we debated for hours amongst ourselves on his banning, but the fact is, he was killing conversation as fast as he was killing bottles, and no one wants to hang out in a room where any honest effort at conversation is met with "fack off ye daft twat". There's a difference between attacking a point and spitting in someone's face, and old Chaz clearly couldn't see what that difference was. I like having my position challenged. Some people take breaking into to start expanding their view. Without someone enforcing some reasonable modicum of basic human decency, all chats devolve into spamming and trolling, and nothing of value is gained. It's a delicate balance with bleeding feet walking across that razor's edge. On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:03 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I actually don't remember Chris. I'd been away at the time (Middle > East). People who could have a good barney and still invite you for a beer > had largely gone. I got a lot of emails about helping Allan from people > who pissed off quick. I always considered the rules rather fatuous > undergrad-uppity-cupidity - a bit like that Rebecca Watson broad - > half-read and not worth the fuss of a coffee offer. I had made a lot of > contribution here, but it was a good spot to write to myself and see if > anyone else had a clue. I liked Allan, so hung around. Orn (who I really > like) had it in for Allan for some reason never disclosed. I never > recovered from Chaz being banned and meant to leave in protest. I always > found the notion of rational debate amongst people who can't outline > argument interesting. Academics do it all the time. The line 'so what's > this to do with the price of fish?' rather kills all. > > Of course, I spend hours watching bees and ants. My fluency in their > communication and consensus languages is much greater than with humans, > though the models are not much different. Hygiene, for which you can > substitute human manners, is one of the keys. People rarely listen to > anything beyond the buzz. I would say a dozen people actually contributing > ideas and feedback might form an expanding core, much as in a group of 100 > undergraduates - but they get smart quick the core, amongst the > free-riders. Why should they put the effort in for the others? Chris, > Craig, Ian and Pottsie, Molly, Francis, James, Chaz, Vam - plenty I > wouldn't have missed - Tony now. I wonder how many of the members really > even said much though? > > The question is really whether there is any viable business model that > might support the admin. Porn was 98% of the original commercial traffic. > Thanks for the old efforts Chris. By the way, did I ever say 'fuck you > matey'? If not take one free now ... > > > On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 7:17:00 PM UTC, Allan Heretic wrote: >> >> It may not be fancy new format, but I personally like it. >> >> تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين >> Évitez; assassiner, le viol et l'esclavage des autres >> Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: archytas <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 8:13 PM >> Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Delusions >> >> Orn also took on this crown from which you stole the jewels to feed your >> raising-Allan-to-dust laser-tarot. I was asked so suggested you, already >> doing enough paid moderation for my needs. The crown was known to be >> empty. We could all have moved on, though the negativity of non-enthusiasm >> was entirely in positive decline. We could try the new Gabbywit format >> with its underlying moaning minnie architecture and stuck-in-the-mud >> operating system. I do know of formats we could have tried, but the >> essence, beyond smiling pussies in gif and Chris holding up a beer. is >> content and supervision of the nasties. Let me read you a bedtime story, >> with at least 4 policewomen standing by, from the Book of Management. >> That's what you get once people void themselves of responsibility for >> content and can only turn up with gossip, small talk and wassup >> sexism.ageism and control fetish. One almost misses the American >> exceptionalists and their use of the world socialist as a pejorative like >> an old spinster muttering 'sex'. >> >> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 5:37:42 PM UTC, Gabby 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/unsu >>>>>>>>>>> bscribe. >>>>>>>>>>> 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/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 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. > -- --- 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.
