Yes, I understood your title question. I have decided to not argue along the your-question-is-wrong line but to take it a step further, to take better care of my energy balance and to see where I am a social romantic myself. I find it relatively easy yo laugh at myself, maybe a side effect of my Gemini nature. But I don't want to bore you with my trivia.
Am Sonntag, 15. Februar 2015 schrieb archytas : > I was thinking more of a shift from hurt and pain from authority claiming > expertise and some radically different ways to live. Surfacing the deep > iconography which humans invent manners to avoid is obviously hurtful. > > On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 11:38:02 AM UTC, Gabby wrote: >> >> I prefer the social romantic quote from Facil to this quote here. New >> times demand new imagery to hurt and to ridicule. >> >> Am Sonntag, 15. Februar 2015 schrieb Molly : >> >>> http://youtu.be/sZrgxHvNNUc >>> >>> On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 6:20:05 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: >>>> >>>> That's true Molly. I'm only Oliver asking for more. >>>> >>>> On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 8:45:34 PM UTC, Molly wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No doubt the current event stuff is conCOCKted and restricted. Net >>>>> neutrality in the US is presented as not allowing broadband vendors doing >>>>> what the government already does. Though all that crap, we can still >>>>> manage >>>>> to extend our reach and ourselves in ways that raise consciousness >>>>> (McLuhan) >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 12:13:03 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Foucault (1979) put forward some ideas on what would happen as >>>>>> information technology took hold (The Postmodern Condition: a report on >>>>>> knowledge). Essentially, the professor would be less a repository of >>>>>> facts as we got free access to these. Much of this literature would glow >>>>>> bright from Gabby's red pen. Quite a few have taken Fuller's view on how >>>>>> to get more material into public scrutiny. These should include the >>>>>> distribution and circulation of knowledge claims. The task of social >>>>>> epistemology of science, according to Fuller, should be regulation of the >>>>>> production of knowledge by regulating the rhetorical, technological, and >>>>>> administrative means of its communication. While there has not been much >>>>>> uptake of Fuller's proposals as articulated, Lee's work begins to make >>>>>> detailed recommendations that take into account the current structures of >>>>>> funding and communication. Fuller encounter between individual-based >>>>>> social epistemology with its focus on testimony and disagreement as >>>>>> transactions among individuals and the more fully social epistemologies >>>>>> that take social relations or interaction as partially constitutive of >>>>>> empirical knowledge, is the goal. >>>>>> >>>>>> Whatever this mouthful says, much is not on the internet because >>>>>> existing power interests have prevented it. A new business model with >>>>>> countervailing structures is not really emerging. The lack of progress >>>>>> is >>>>>> not surprising, but I suspect most of us don't know how much has been >>>>>> blocked. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Fuller, Steve, 1988. Social Epistemology, Bloomington, IN: Indiana >>>>>> University Press. >>>>>> Lee, Carole J., 2012. “A Kuhnian Critique of Psychometric Research on >>>>>> Peer Review,” Philosophy of Science, 79(5): 859–870. >>>>>> –––, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang, and Blaise Cronin, 2013, “Bias >>>>>> in Peer Review,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science >>>>>> and Technology, 64(1): 2–17. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 3:14:39 PM UTC, archytas wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Welcome Twirly - you sound remarkably like someone else. We'll be >>>>>>> playing our cards right soon. I'm glad you bought a pair of Facil's >>>>>>> boots. Allan seems to have been filling his. The question probably >>>>>>> concerns what expert knowledge is. There is now a long history of what >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> wasn't. Think clerks trying to smash Babbage's counting machine or >>>>>>> Luddites on machinery generally. The shipyards I worked in were full of >>>>>>> expert skills not actually needed in building ships. We have embedded a >>>>>>> lot of work skill in technology. The resistance of the allocation class >>>>>>> has been aggressive. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do??? - there must be some German distinction between knowing that >>>>>>> and knowing how - wohl wissend, dass and zu wissen, wie? Finding the >>>>>>> root >>>>>>> metaphors is quite difficult. People are reluctant to show you what >>>>>>> they >>>>>>> actually do; perhaps beyond your category error and being left trying to >>>>>>> model a non-slip process with grease. We have plenty of examples of TPM >>>>>>> (total production maintenance) as you say. Teachers, lawyers, >>>>>>> accountants, >>>>>>> managers and politicians all claim expert knowledge. The expertise may >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> keeping up the delusion of expertise, rather than rule following and >>>>>>> ability to break the rules of actual practice, a bit like a secretive >>>>>>> form >>>>>>> of a soccer player allowed to carry a machine gun - think big company >>>>>>> tax-dodging and stuff like high frequency trading, front-running and >>>>>>> other >>>>>>> investment tricks since telescopes were used to spot ships on the >>>>>>> horizon >>>>>>> by commodities traders. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Big issues, of course, concerning who controls the technology. >>>>>>> Currently, ownership is very restricted, to niche markets like Molly's >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> those behind the smiling pussy internet and government and commercial >>>>>>> spying. Many still have no access. And we have no challenge to really >>>>>>> big >>>>>>> news-entertainment corporations - other than Democracy No, Real News and >>>>>>> illegal streams of the same old content. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 1:46:35 PM UTC, Gabby wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Okay. Next round. Twirly-girly at your service or at your command, >>>>>>>> whatever you prefer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In a different context I pulled my red pen on the sentence before >>>>>>>> the one that Facil marked. (Excellent video translation btw, Facil!) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My main point was that you cannot do(???) expert knowledge on a >>>>>>>> root metaphor with a categorical break at the wrong place - if not to >>>>>>>> say >>>>>>>> on the wrong metaphor, because the same car driving training one was >>>>>>>> used. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Meaning in speed and business terms, the earlier in the process you >>>>>>>> identify the error, the cheaper the error eradication process. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I took down a different different keyword from my eternal savior's >>>>>>>> doings in the delusion thread, but I will take better care this time >>>>>>>> as to >>>>>>>> not have it overwritten again this time. It will be one brick of a >>>>>>>> solid >>>>>>>> square. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am Freitag, 13. Februar 2015 15:41:22 UTC+1 schrieb archytas: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Most of my use of the internet concerns researching pretty dire >>>>>>>>> academic papers and books through still largely restricted access. >>>>>>>>> It's >>>>>>>>> much cheaper than buying the stuff directly, particularly as 99% of >>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>> shows up is dross. I've played with the rest to find out what is >>>>>>>>> there. >>>>>>>>> Search is a big plus compared with rooting through stuff in a >>>>>>>>> university >>>>>>>>> library. Now, much google search just turns up dross I don't want. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In an academic project we are interested in what is on the net >>>>>>>>> generally - in terms of how much of general consciousness this >>>>>>>>> represents. >>>>>>>>> Rational discussion is a tiny part of what is on the net. Techies >>>>>>>>> spend a >>>>>>>>> lot of time looking for cut and paste code and ways we might automate >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> sweep. There is a background idea that we are looking for new ways >>>>>>>>> to do >>>>>>>>> 'expert knowledge' on the metaphor of people not being able to build >>>>>>>>> cars >>>>>>>>> but able to drive them with a bit of training. My own bad is 'big >>>>>>>>> data' as >>>>>>>>> a new language that would bring a different speed to human discourse >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> potentially control of the means of production. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Lately, I'm interested in the lack of a business model for >>>>>>>>> anything except trash. I can join a site where a couple of young >>>>>>>>> women >>>>>>>>> will send me off-the-peg clothes on approval to ensure my sartorial >>>>>>>>> elegance, though don't. There are plenty of interesting Moochs, but I >>>>>>>>> don't have time. I bank n line and have the joy of never seeing a >>>>>>>>> bank >>>>>>>>> clerk. Shopping can be done in the same manner as shops don't >>>>>>>>> interest me >>>>>>>>> at all. My insurance renewals are always 30% higher than I can get >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> same cover for via one of the broker sites on the day. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I do electronic teaching. So I'm no longer racked by whatever >>>>>>>>> diseases undergraduate classes try to kill me with. And I never see >>>>>>>>> a boss >>>>>>>>> or have to attend a useless staff meeting, or have my classes flooded >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>> the students discover I'm an easier touch and tell jokes. The work >>>>>>>>> is more >>>>>>>>> or less pre-prepared and my timetable is not changed at ridiculous >>>>>>>>> short >>>>>>>>> notice and I don't have to take time to teach kids from other >>>>>>>>> classes, at >>>>>>>>> my door because they can't get anywhere with the guy supposed to help. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I can watch television and films through illegal sites, but would >>>>>>>>> really prefer to pay for channels where I could select from much wider >>>>>>>>> material without packaging. The current business model encourages >>>>>>>>> loads of >>>>>>>>> channels with the same (usually old) dross, or stuff like Netflix >>>>>>>>> with only >>>>>>>>> 1% I'd want to see and don't want to pay to support. Sports channels >>>>>>>>> require me to pay for soccer I don't want. Tony has done more for me >>>>>>>>> in a >>>>>>>>> few minutes (neglecting his production time) than Sky Arts bores ever >>>>>>>>> could. We lack a business model of actual choice. With one, >>>>>>>>> insanestream >>>>>>>>> news and other entertainment, the crap science pornography of the BBC, >>>>>>>>> Discovery and so on, would be things of my past. In chronic business >>>>>>>>> terms, I wonder how they do market segmentation at all. I am sick of >>>>>>>>> Blue >>>>>>>>> Peter (kids programme here) presentation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> One can imagine plenty of people like the best through this group >>>>>>>>> wanting something very different and something large enough not to be >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> part of when time presses and so on. Uber, properly supervised >>>>>>>>> against >>>>>>>>> racist drivers, could bring very radical change - I meet few who can >>>>>>>>> explain why - though we have not yet worked out that technology could >>>>>>>>> massively reduce what we currently call work and planet burning. In >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> meantime we can't even set up a discussion group without Gabby (and >>>>>>>>> everyone really) worrying on the curtain shades. Give us a twirl then >>>>>>>>> girl, like one of those doxies Bruce Forsythe used to encourage. I >>>>>>>>> can see >>>>>>>>> something of a business model, starting with Chris' 'attractors'. The >>>>>>>>> eventual key is content for a sophisticated audience - remembering >>>>>>>>> very few >>>>>>>>> people do education without any kind of accreditation pay-off and the >>>>>>>>> means >>>>>>>>> to pay for organisation does not move easily from free. Current >>>>>>>>> strategies >>>>>>>>> are advertising and the begging bowl. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>> >>> --- >>> 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/JQ9a6NzpVYU/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/JQ9a6NzpVYU/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','minds-eye%[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.
