Dung beetles can't do astrology, but can navigate by polarised light from the sun we can't see and by the Milky Way at night. They dance too. Atopia is an odd name for a cafe you can't get anywhere from, given the no borders aspect. Pathetic no, history would be a lot of use if we had a real one people could understand in their own terms. Two women rolled into one? Sounds temptingly right Gabby. I did the dogged detective bit once (Taurus), but now seem disparate and unfocused. Not really interested in the birth sign connections, but anything that gets people talking is worth looking at.
We could restructure our living space into villages and have a net collectivity. Utopia, on its etymology, should not exist anywhere, as in the recent television series that should never have been made. 'Standing on the shoulders of giants' was, maybe, just sarcasm by Newton against Hooke, who was small. So you scoped your horror then Allan? I just look in the mirror. On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 11:10:52 PM UTC, Gabby wrote: > > I'd be lost would I have to rely on astrology or astronomy for my > orientation. Which is why I have the deepest respect for the generations > and generations and generations of men and women and the time they took to > do all their observations, their remembering, and their drawing lines and > conclusions to bring us to where we are. Standing on the shoulders of > giants. Pathetic yes. > The Atopia is a cafe here in Berlin with free wlan access, but it's not > really suitable get somewhere. > > Am Sonntag, 15. Februar 2015 schrieb archytas : > >> 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 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.
