seymourblogger Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 George is just dressing out his game.Brant,Heh.That dog sure didn't sing.But it did bark at him. Even raised it's lip and snarled some...That's the bitch about the dog whistle.It sounds pretty and makes you want to do something nice since nobody else hears it, but the damn dog can't sing. MichaelActually dogs can sing. I listened to a musician on lat night radio of jazz etc and he came on with his guitar, music and dog, and the dog sang lovely. Then he talked about how the dog had learned. Lovely man too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 I saved the whole thread with the Firefox extension 'Scrapbook' and will put it up on the web in all its creaking glory (for aficionados of kook only). It tells us something about the "most open" forum that Lindsay promotes. Just remove the entire thing! That'll open things up ...Oh, good. I'm glad you did that. I have copies of some of it, but I'd like to see how the whole discussion developed. There is a certain amount of philosophic interest to me in the back-and-forth between Angela and Janet. Plus there's a post (one which I copied) in which Janet describes some early perception research when she was a student. I'd like to find references to that research if any of it was published. I don't know if she said anything further about it elsewhere in the thread, since I didn't have time to read all the posts.EllenI published a portion at my blog here, in a post "The most open Objectivish forum?" Only OL members have access to it. I will also post the entire thread in a blog post, if nobody minds. It is a bit fudgy in terms of format, but the road to inanity is clear ...If you want my thesis just search janet ballard abbey in google and it should come up. Stereoscopically Induced Subjective Contour . Actually my work was a forerunner of those dots you see in the newspaper that have a hidden design if you can look at it in a relaxed way. After I left I took my secret with me and it took 25 years for the world to catch up to me on that problem. The secret was: you don't need a steroscopic device to "see" the subjective illusion. It had great potential for clinical evaluations. That's what you get for fucking a black married grad student with children when the local drug store counter just got integrated 2 years before. And an office mate who can't think his way out of a wet paper bag. And refusing a NASA grant because it was a federal grant based on other people's tax money. You do not turn down one of those and continue to have a career. Saved me from a terrible productive life doing silly psychological research. There would have been no psychoanalysis, no art history, no performance art, no free school experimentation, no writing, no poetry, no endless movie viewing. Wasn't I lucky!As Badurillard said,he rad Nietzsche early, when he was very young, and he read him deeply and seriously. He thought he lucked out on his major exams when both parts of it concentrate on Nietzsche. Alas they didn't like his reading of Nietzsche and failed him. He laughed in the interview and said it saved him from something worse as Nietzsche would say.But I did love illusion problems. They cured me of Rand's authoritarian pronouncements. And most others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 Carol,Are you familiar with remote viewing? And how about sonar equipment for long distance mind control?Heh.You would be surprised at all the covert resources I'm aiming at her.The Internet stuff is just small potatoes and she's got it all wrong anyway. The trick is to get people to look at what you've got in one hand while you do the real deal with the other...Not to mention my contacts in Homeland Security, the MOSSAD, and the secret dark informatics warfare arm of the Bilderberg group. (Sorry, I can't mention everything else--I've gone too far already...)But I can say this. I've got a group of Brazilian Macumba people to sacrifice a herd of goats and 500 chickens in a three-day frenzy to send the whole damn hoard of spiritual entities to torture her sleep.She ain't gonna wiggle out of that one, that's for sure.How's them apples? MichaelAre you a tad obsessed with me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 The narrative continues.Her private property was destroyed and acts of aggression committed against her , but she did not call in the police, instead superprofessional hackers who came and fixed it all for free.If your best friends are professional Anonymous Internet Hackers, surely it is unwise to boast about it on a public forum?How do you know whether I am lying or not. This is simulated reality. there is no true and no false. There is only credibility. You are ilogicalo as you decide I am telling the truth in regards to your above, but think I am lying about the hacking of my computer. Contradictions, contradictions. A pity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Yes, how the pork glistens and sparkles and crackles over the fire. Them varmints make good eating.Dearest Carol, the truck is stuck. It says you are a sociopath. It needs a tow-line to get out of the ditch. But it insists that it's not IN a ditch and keeps revvin the engine and getting sucked in deeper.So ... The boys at SOLO are not nice, and Janet, bless her soul, is acting a bit tribal. Even if they would leave her on a beach to die, she thinks we would not leave her -- we would stalk her, kill her, and eat her. So, perhaps all parties and all missions of mercy should cease organizing, as Brant suggests, and we let the agitation and histrionics take a natural course. Most kooks wind down.Dear Nurse, don't worry about the lady in 2B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Things are getting interesting -- or at least amusing -- on SOLO. Check it out.http://www.solopassion.com/node/8949Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Things are getting interesting -- or at least amusing -- on SOLO. Check it out.http://www.solopassion.com/node/8949GhsGeorge,LOL...Thanks for the laugh.Maybe the dog can't sing, but the barefoot savages sure know how to howl with it.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Are you a tad obsessed with me?Janet,Actually, no.It's better than before though. Right now when I look on you, I oscillate between pity and amusement.Before it was irritation at myself and boredom with you.Things do tend to get better over time. I believe that and bear witness. I'm an optimist.btw - I thank you from the bottom of my heart for the gazillion times you spelled my name right on SLOP. I really hate it when people get my name wrong.See? I told you things get better.Dogs can't sing, but you can train them to do tricks.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 The narrative continues.Her private property was destroyed and acts of aggression committed against her , but she did not call in the police, instead superprofessional hackers who came and fixed it all for free.If your best friends are professional Anonymous Internet Hackers, surely it is unwise to boast about it on a public forum?How do you know whether I am lying or not. This is simulated reality. there is no true and no false. There is only credibility. You are ilogicalo as you decide I am telling the truth in regards to your above, but think I am lying about the hacking of my computer. Contradictions, contradictions. A pity.The narrative continues.Her private property was destroyed and acts of aggression committed against her , but she did not call in the police, instead superprofessional hackers who came and fixed it all for free.If your best friends are professional Anonymous Internet Hackers, surely it is unwise to boast about it on a public forum?How do you know whether I am lying or not. This is simulated reality. there is no true and no false. There is only credibility. You are ilogicalo as you decide I am telling the truth in regards to your above, but think I am lying about the hacking of my computer. Contradictions, contradictions. A pity.Illogicala, if you don't mind.How do you know I am telling the truth about whether I think you are telling the truth? Maybe I do not know I am simulated, and select elements of what I think is reality to re-create metaphor.To paraphrase Warren Beatty, maybe I can't know you, maybe I can't know Baudrillard or WSS or my son Jimmy or anybody, but nobody's gonna tell me I don't enjoy them very much.A pity indeed. A Maeve Binchy character put it best. "The woman is a pity, that's all. Just a poor pity." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Xray, in case I was thoughtless, "horse opera" is old reviewspeak for "western movie", another such term is "standard oater".Your English is so fluent that I often forget it is not your first language and you might be puzzled by outdated slang or journalese. Hope you enjoy them anyway, as I do.Carol, I did not know the term "horse opera", but guessed from the context it might refer ot Western movies.But as for "standard oater", without your info, I would have had no idea it means Western movie. "Oater" - does this have somehting to do with the oats frequently fed to the horses in these fllms?As for Germans being into "horse operas" - that's right. I had a phase when I was quite a fan too, but somehow I never got to see one of the greatest, of the genre: The Glorious Seven. Gotta catch up and fill that gap!Of Kurosawa's films, I've only see Rashomon, but it looks like I missed something in not having seen The Seven Samurai and Ran. I think I'll order them from Amazon. This is another thing I like about OL: one always gets inspired by co-posters.And did I get it right that there is a Play Nice Party scheduled over here?? (I still regret the one that never took place at Riggenbach's Bear's Lair, (I think this is what he calls his residence). I then had to eat all the calorie-loaded 'Dallmayr' delicatessen goodies myself. I bravely sacrificed myself, so to speak. ).lol yes, standard oater derives from the scene in the B western where the hero sololoquizes , laconically, as his faithful horse chomps stoically from the feedbag, gazing at her master the while. That horse is the only female who will ever truly understand him, the only durn female he'll ever understand and can really count on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I have solved one of my problems. How to help Janet not get her thread closed down. I figure George can get away with posting to SOLO since he is a personage. So, I follow him out the door at SOLO in re Janet with a cheery introduction of a blog where I can put Janet's DELETED posts back up one by one in tribute. At the moment, there is but a one hour window to become an adminstrator or writer at the new blog. Janet of course, as a possible future leader of the JPNP, along with current leader WSS, Carol, PDS and provisionally Tony. You may nominate yourself to the collective writer pool right now by copying the values below, or just send me an OL message backstage.Can write at nontelleck, since I sent them an email. Janet thus need to message me with an emailThenkyouverrymuch.................[PDS]william.scherk@....jrsowl@... [JONATHAN for images fresh]................[Tony]notaphilosopher.stuart@... [for devilish delights]MikellyUSAbr@... [for piquant musings]NinthDr@... [for the music]................[Jeff]EGould@... [Ellen].................[Adam].................[Angela] Just shoot me a message with a throwaway email and you and bog's your uncle..................[Janet].................[George]I have the Logo almost done. I want to get a stamp done with the logo, and also have a stencil done for out cupcakes. I still have not heard from Riggenbach. All our plans hinge on him and Ninth Doctor. I hope we can pull together for the sake of the party.Here is the background bare bones of the logo. To come are the cupcakes and other symbols (thank you Adam for the all-seeing eye). Long live DELETED!See the antics at "Nontelleckchewal Terrist" -- http://nontelleckche...t.blogspot.com/+ +++Genius. Dibs on the Viking helmet when if hits the shelves at Zellers. My stylist says it's the perfect topper for my w-cap and finally something to really complement the lappets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 It occurs to me that apophenia works for creativity, but not for identifying reality.Maybe that's why metaphysical apophenics insist so much that truth doesn't exist (and are not bothered by the "truth" they presume to utter thereby). It works when using things like free blogs that someone else designs and hosts, but it doesn't work for building the actual computers and the software.In other words, an apophenic mind (I'm talking about basic epistemology, not jazzing things up creatively to make them colorful) is a totally social way of being--opinion qua opinion. It is parasitical at root since other people have to provide the means of survival for the opiner.To build stuff that works, you need to respect and correctly identify reality.So, from what I have seen, there is no systemic difference between post-modern thinking and your run-of-the-mill conspiracy theories or even fundamentalist religious thinking of the crudest sort. They all have the same cognitive bias root. You connect dots from the random things swirling all around, but they are related only in your head, not in reality. The mind processes reality according to coincidence, not correspondence. Then you claim that your conclusions are somehow superior to understanding commonplace reality.That's basically what apophenia means. You make up meaning from random coincidences where reality provides nothing to mean.Foucault, Derrida, et al = apopheniaIlluminati secretly controlling the world = apopheniaHoly rollers = apopheniaThey all have their so-called evidence. You just have to ignore a butt-load of inconvenient facts to make this kind of thinking work. (in a half-assed manner, of course.)I'm thinking that this could be a good tool, though, for content curation, especially when the topic is unbearably trivial or overly saturated in the culture. Apophenia can get colorful.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 It occurs to me that apophenia works for creativity, but not for identifying reality.Maybe that's why metaphysical apophenics insist so much that truth doesn't exist (and are not bothered by the "truth" they presume to utter thereby). It works when using things like free blogs that someone else designs and hosts, but it doesn't work for building the actual computers and the software.In other words, an apophenic mind (I'm talking about basic epistemology, not jazzing things up creatively to make them colorful) is a totally social way of being--opinion qua opinion. It is parasitical at root since other people have to provide the means of survival for the opiner.To build stuff that works, you need to respect and correctly identify reality.So, from what I have seen, there is no systemic difference between post-modern thinking and your run-of-the-mill conspiracy theories or even fundamentalist religious thinking of the crudest sort. They all have the same cognitive bias root. You connect dots from the random things swirling all around, but they are related only in your head, not in reality. The mind processes reality according to coincidence, not correspondence. Then you claim that your conclusions are somehow superior to understanding commonplace reality.That's basically what apophenia means. You make up meaning from random coincidences where reality provides nothing to mean.Foucault, Derrida, et al = apopheniaIlluminati secretly controlling the world = apopheniaHoly rollers = apopheniaThey all have their so-called evidence. You just have to ignore a butt-load of inconvenient facts to make this kind of thinking work. (in a half-assed manner, of course.)I'm thinking that this could be a good tool, though, for content curation, especially when the topic is unbearably trivial or overly saturated in the culture. Apophenia can get colorful.MichaelExcellent post. I think we all have our inner apophenia about our own life narratives, the dots connect because they must, for our lives to be coherent to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Janet has made her five posts today, wasting at least four of them.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 May I have your indulgence for a portmanteau comment on the current riveting Janet/OL thread on SOLO?Ladies first, Janet, I do not know which sick piece I wrote you are referring to. I have written many sick pieces about you and some are very short. I disagree that I have been educated beyond my ability. I only have a BA (albeit with High Honours, she murmured with a blush) and a TESL certificate, but I don't think and have never been told, that these graduated me beyond my ability to write. Your comment about Rand's non-fiction philosophy I happen to agree with, reading it through my own filters, and have occasionally discussed it on the Rand-bashing site with the head pomo and others on ARCHN. Were you under the impression that I am an Objectivist? Nobody at OL is, and they never have been. I admire her achievements and personal strengths, I am hopelessly interested in the ongoing story of the movement she created, and I know personally and now online many Objectivists whom I deeply admire, respect, and like..Like? hell, I love those guys. But I don't agree with her philosophy in basic, and I don't like her novels much. If I don't say so often at OL it is out of respect and courtesy, and because my personal reactions to Oism are not important parts of my interactions there.George, you are at the top of your game. Whenever I think you can't get better, you do.Darren, as JFK is down in history as the man who brought Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris, you will forever go down as the man who brought Avatar Janet to Objectivshland. A votre sante. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Yes, how the pork glistens and sparkles and crackles over the fire. Them varmints make good eating.Dearest Carol, the truck is stuck. It says you are a sociopath. It needs a tow-line to get out of the ditch. But it insists that it's not IN a ditch and keeps revvin the engine and getting sucked in deeper.So ... The boys at SOLO are not nice, and Janet, bless her soul, is acting a bit tribal. Even if they would leave her on a beach to die, she thinks we would not leave her -- we would stalk her, kill her, and eat her. So, perhaps all parties and all missions of mercy should cease organizing, as Brant suggests, and we let the agitation and histrionics take a natural course. Most kooks wind down.Dear Nurse, don't worry about the lady in 2B.I am NOT a truck and They are trying to tell everybody they am, and they have me tied up in here HEEELLLPPP.....Dr Scherk? It's Juanita on the night desk -- we thought you should know, it's alright for you to say don't worry about 2B, but she has half the other patients and some of the LPNs convinced that we're poisoning her, and they are volunteering as her personal tasters, and the kitchen staff have asked me to make a formal protest...lplease call back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I think we all have our inner apophenia about our own life narratives, the dots connect because they must, for our lives to be coherent to us.Carol,A milder form of apophenia (one that actually corresponds to reality) is garden-variety induction.The apophenia I'm talking about is not related to reality except for a coincidence-with-label-on-it in the apophenics mind. But there's a problem.You can't sell it--hell, you can't even sell the label--because nobody's buying. People are not in your head. So you need to wed it to the Texas Sharpshooter technique before anyone will take it seriously. Otherwise people will just leave the apophenic babblers to babble on all alone.Look at the following explanation, then look at the cases with strong commonality I mentioned above, i.e, post-modernism, conspiracy paranoia and backwater revival tent meetings. It's a perfect fit.We already have the epistemology: bullshi,.. er... coincidence. Now for the marketing.Here's how the Texas Sharpshooter thing works. (btw - I have no idea why it's called "Texas," but there it is.)You take a rifle and go to a barn. Make sure nobody's around. This is because you don't want to shoot anyone by accident. You are, after all, a terrible shot. But you also don't want anyone to see you. Take along several cases of ammo.Start shooting at the side of the barn and keep shooting all day long.When you run out of ammo, go up to the side of the barn and notice the places where the bullet holes are clustered together. If you used enough ammo, there should be a few that look impressive. Draw a bulls-eye around the thickest sets of holes.Finally, bring your friends around and show them the bulls-eyes with multiple holes in them. Then brag about how good your sharpshooting is.Is that Baudrillard or is that Baudrillard?Be careful with THEM, though. THEY'RE everywhere!Praeeze Jaeeezzhus! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 She came here, and onto Solo, with one stated aim, to raise awareness of Baudrillard, and she has certainly succeeded in that. MSK and Linz the Lovable might just as well give up, reunite and name the new places Cheers, Jacques! (Chere Jacques, Frere Jacques, Cherish Jake, geddit? ) where everybody knows his name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 She came here, and onto Solo, with one stated aim..., to raise awareness of Baudrillard... Carol,No she didn't.She came around both places because she's lonely and has probably detonated all her personal relationships. And, after making a bunch of websites and still nobody coming around to help her kill the loneliness, even she's not stupid enough to not realize that she's gotta get her audience from someone else.The rest is gravy--the crap (including Baudrillard) that I imagine detonated her relationships.I only mentioned him because I was being a smart-ass. (I was correct, of course, but, I admit, in a smart-ass way. )Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 She came here, and onto Solo, with one stated aim..., to raise awareness of Baudrillard... Carol,No she didn't.She came around both places because she's lonely and has probably detonated all her personal relationships. And, after making a bunch of websites and still nobody coming around to help her kill the loneliness, even she's not stupid enough to not realize that she's gotta get her audience from someone else.The rest is gravy--the crap (including Baudrillard) that I imagine detonated her relationships.I only mentioned him because I was being a smart-ass. (I was correct, of course, but, I admit, in a smart-ass way. )MichaelMichael, I said stated .aim. Speculating about anyone's motives for joining a forum is part of the fun, of course, and fair game. We can only state our own, if asked or if we feel like sharing them, and duck if we hear gunfire nearby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Michael, I said stated .aim. Carol,Yes you did and I should have noticed.Anyway, she stated that was her aim?Where?If she did state that was her one aim, I missed it. (Might be because of that annoying sucking sound George mentioned on SLOP. )Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Miss Angela's coming...you trust her don't you? That silly idea that she has two brains that are fighting with each other, you know that wasn't her...she knows loooots of little boys who don't want to come out of their gullies, but they all want to come out and go to a party with Miss Angela don't they? They are brave boys who know they won't get eaten.....They are absolutely safe from getting eaten by me. I'm a vegetarian, after all. I already see Janet rise her subjectivist head again and tell me that I cannot know whether I'm a vegetarian or not because we are in - what did she call it - "simulated reality"? here ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 If you want my thesis just search janet ballard abbey in google and it should come up. Stereoscopically Induced Subjective Contour .Thank you. At this moment it comes up first on the Google screen. I'll get it.[....] Saved me from a terrible productive life doing silly psychological research. There would have been no psychoanalysis, no art history, no performance art, no free school experimentation, no writing, no poetry, no endless movie viewing. Wasn't I lucky!Yes, imo.Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Michael, I said stated .aim. Carol,Yes you did and I should have noticed.Anyway, she stated that was her aim?Where?If she did state that was her one aim, I missed it. (Might be because of that annoying sucking sound George mentioned on SLOP. )MichaelI said "one aim" -- should have said, one of her aims. I am looking for that one. So far I have only found her stated aim, above on this thread, to place Rand in the layers of postmodern thinking, and her various attempts to stuff Rand in there, and yak, yak about things she is not here for, and are irrelevant, or not important or dogs in which she has no fight , or she is not interested or indifferent to, and this is only one thread and I got a bad headache already.Tonstant Weader did not fwow up but she had to take four Adamsprins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I still regret the [party] that never took place at Riggenbach's Bear's Lair, (I think this is what he calls his residence).It's what he called his residence in San Francisco. He moved to Texas some years ago.Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now