Utopia,, strange thought.. The future is not bright.. But there is hope in small communities.. Verses standing valiantly alone against the odds.. Ocean community barges are looking good.. تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others
-----Original Message----- From: archytas <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 9:18 PM Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: What could the internet be? 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. -- --- 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.
