No justifications, dear Gabs. Just a correction. :)
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:58 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh yes, What, who, whose questions are being ommitted is quite telling. > There is a geometry in that too, of course. I explicitly said no blaming, > and you come up with justifications?! For what? Yes, we were close to my > wish come true, but then Facil appeared and it all started again. There is > nothing I can do about it from where I sit. ;) > > Am Mittwoch, 11. Februar 2015 schrieb Chris Jenkins : > >> 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 because I knew it was an outdated format).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 outdated format here that doesn't generate much traffic anymore.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/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/ >>>>>>> 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 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.
