We always follow your hidden instructions to the letter, my dear. I have been called a paedophile before by a particularly vile creature who was abusing her own children, but most are rather softer in their line, not calling me old because this is true. One hesitates to chase round your obviously well beaten bush, but we have a vacancy for an information manager here. You seem ideal for the job, giving none, up with the no blame rhetoric whilst blaming everyone else and being able to sit and do nothing. The last woman, rumoured to have been eaten by one of my slime moulds, told us in more than an hour, that we wouldn't run any Data Protection Act risks if we published nothing. You would fit right in and be able to go round killing things to what must be your enlarged generous heart's content. And you could take the advice of your new office and do nothing to breach the Data Protection Act by staying off the internet. What a charmed solution, except there is no sign you take your own advice.
On Wednesday, 11 February 2015 21:58:32 UTC, Gabby 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 because I knew it was an outdated format).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.
