More;s Utopia is pretty grim. No astrology for Gabby and no tavern for me - indeed privacy was no concern at all - rather activity was supposed to be under public scrutiny. Atheists were tolerated, but had to take instruction from priests. We would have to get Facil to build a full size raft to commemorate our arrival on the place, close to somewhere to launch it.
On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 5:41:59 PM UTC, archytas wrote: > > One of the fantasies of academics who want a free internet is that this > will somehow remove bias. This rather like the fantasy that markets are > free and unregulated (like in the unregulated times of the robber barons on > the Rhine?). Astrology is based on fictions, yet what of such as > personality psychology in search of the ungroundable personality, or any of > the 'bag of words' my lot use that rely on words? I'm Taurus and might get > on with half of you. Solomon's sword comes to mind! > > On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 5:16:01 PM UTC, archytas wrote: >> >> Utopia is a book that, like More (who preached religious tolerance and >> persecuted Protestants), attempted to navigate a course through the ideal >> and the real, between a desire to create perfection and the pragmatic >> understanding that perfection, given the fallibility of mankind, is >> impossible. Your social romantic might be interesting. I must have spotted >> your sense of humour to invite you down the rabbit hole. There remains the >> question we might just be ostrich and sticking our heads into the ground to >> evade an already unromantic world. Gemini is a long way away. We must be >> flouting relativity, but then, what are rules? >> >> >> On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 3:17:25 PM UTC, Gabby wrote: >>> >>> 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]. >>>> 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.
