Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The most ignorant threads on RMCG ever
144 views
Skip to first unread message
wollybird
Oct 5, 2012, 3:05:57 PM10/5/12
to
please share your memories
Andrew Schulman
Oct 5, 2012, 6:09:39 PM10/5/12
to
On Oct 5, 3:05 pm, wollybird <wollyb...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> please share your memories
>
>
Top ten? Top twenty? Top one hundred?
Please be a little more specific.
Andrew
> please share your memories
>
>
Top ten? Top twenty? Top one hundred?
Please be a little more specific.
Andrew
wollybird
Oct 5, 2012, 7:06:26 PM10/5/12
to
On Oct 5, 5:09 pm, Andrew Schulman <and...@abacaproductions.com>
wrote:
since when are there limits on RMGC?
wrote:
Fadosolrélamisi
Oct 5, 2012, 7:39:25 PM10/5/12
to
Le vendredi 5 octobre 2012 12:05:58 UTC-7, wollybird a écrit :
> please share your memories
Names ... good memories!
Alain
> please share your memories
Names ... good memories!
Alain
thomas
Oct 5, 2012, 8:01:14 PM10/5/12
to
On Friday, October 5, 2012 3:05:58 PM UTC-4, wollybird wrote:
> please share your memories
I remember this one time me and Julio were down by the schoolyard and something went down that was against the law. Mama spit on the ground and papa wanted to put me in the house of detention.
> please share your memories
JonLorPro
Oct 5, 2012, 8:07:51 PM10/5/12
to
The trouble is, some of the most ignorant threads are also the most
intelligent.
intelligent.
dsi1
Oct 5, 2012, 8:23:14 PM10/5/12
to
our generation thinking. :-)
John Nguyen
Oct 5, 2012, 9:25:03 PM10/5/12
to
Alphonsus Jr.
Oct 5, 2012, 9:32:44 PM10/5/12
to
On Friday, October 5, 2012 5:07:51 PM UTC-7, JonLorPro wrote:
> The trouble is, some of the most ignorant threads are also the most
>
> intelligent.
How to resolve this paradox? Impossible?
> The trouble is, some of the most ignorant threads are also the most
>
> intelligent.
Cactus Wren
Oct 5, 2012, 11:07:41 PM10/5/12
to
Ignorance and intelligence may be unrelated.
On Friday, October 5, 2012 5:07:51 PM UTC-7, JonLorPro wrote:
On Friday, October 5, 2012 5:07:51 PM UTC-7, JonLorPro wrote:
Steven Bornfeld
Oct 5, 2012, 11:46:49 PM10/5/12
to
Steve
Andrew Schulman
Oct 6, 2012, 12:40:09 AM10/6/12
to
This one certainly can't be considered ignorant. Ignoble? Maybe.
Andrew
Andrew
Benoit Meulle-Stef
Oct 6, 2012, 3:33:03 AM10/6/12
to
On Friday, October 5, 2012 9:05:58 PM UTC+2, wollybird wrote:
> please share your memories
I remember a argue between Michael and Matanya where about all the words of the swearing dictionary was used... Um... I think I even learned new ones this time!
> please share your memories
dewach...@gmail.com
Oct 6, 2012, 12:23:25 PM10/6/12
to
Alphonsus Jr.
Oct 6, 2012, 12:31:58 PM10/6/12
to
JonLorPro
Oct 6, 2012, 3:33:00 PM10/6/12
to
On Oct 6, 12:23 pm, dewachen1...@gmail.com wrote:
.>
Sure one can- there are many ways in which one can be ignorant and
intelligent at the same time. You cited one example, and as
"Cactuswren" observed, the two aren't necessarily related.
Strictly speaking, theads themselves are not ignorant, posters within
threads reveal them_selves_ to be so. Many threads are reddolent with
massive ignorance on display of some sort or other, but equally so
with intelligent replies. And, I'm glad "Cactuswren" picked up on
the distinction- the actual antonym to "ignorant"is "informed" not
"intelligent" I suppose the most obvious antonym to "intelligent"is
"stupid".
Therefore in addition to being informed and intelligent, or ignorant
and stupid, one can be but ignorant but intelligent, or informed but
stupid..As you said, one can be generally intelligent but ignorant of
a subject. If one is intelligent, then he probably has some sense as
to wherein he is informed and where ignorant. There have been plenty
of threads initiated by someone posing an intelligent question because
he is ignorant- and knows he is. He is hoping for informed replies,
and generally gets them here- some stupid ones, some intelligent
ones. If the original poster is intelligent, than he is likely to be
able to sort them out.
Or, one can be stupid and informed if he knows facts but no more-
doesn't collate them, discern connotations of their juxtapositions,
tends to ignore facts he knows but finds inconvenient, can't draw
conclusions from them. Some of the more cantankerous, riotously fun,
exasperating or even monotonous threads have been intitiated, or
sustained by someone who seems to be ignorant as to his own
ignorance, or stupidity. One can even be simulteneously stupid and
intelligent if he has native capacity for intelligence but just
doesn't use it.
Does it seem left unsaid that subjectivity plays a large part in
this? Then let it be said. Subjectivity plays a large part in this-
much though that may disappoint Jackson/Alphonsus in his constant
quest for absolute values (hope you take no offense J/A). It's
probably obvious that I like to flatter myself into thinking that I am
reasonably intelligent, reasonably informed. But I know that there
are others here who think I am neither, or at least that there are
ample postings in my history in which I have failed to exhibit either
characteristic. Though I admit to having been irked on occasion, and
having succumbed to the temptation of feeling compelled to launch
into fulsome justifications, that's really ok with me what people
think- and, I have to allow for the possibility that ultimately
( thereya go, J/A! ) maybe they're right!
.>
intelligent at the same time. You cited one example, and as
"Cactuswren" observed, the two aren't necessarily related.
Strictly speaking, theads themselves are not ignorant, posters within
threads reveal them_selves_ to be so. Many threads are reddolent with
massive ignorance on display of some sort or other, but equally so
with intelligent replies. And, I'm glad "Cactuswren" picked up on
the distinction- the actual antonym to "ignorant"is "informed" not
"intelligent" I suppose the most obvious antonym to "intelligent"is
"stupid".
Therefore in addition to being informed and intelligent, or ignorant
and stupid, one can be but ignorant but intelligent, or informed but
stupid..As you said, one can be generally intelligent but ignorant of
a subject. If one is intelligent, then he probably has some sense as
to wherein he is informed and where ignorant. There have been plenty
of threads initiated by someone posing an intelligent question because
he is ignorant- and knows he is. He is hoping for informed replies,
and generally gets them here- some stupid ones, some intelligent
ones. If the original poster is intelligent, than he is likely to be
able to sort them out.
Or, one can be stupid and informed if he knows facts but no more-
doesn't collate them, discern connotations of their juxtapositions,
tends to ignore facts he knows but finds inconvenient, can't draw
conclusions from them. Some of the more cantankerous, riotously fun,
exasperating or even monotonous threads have been intitiated, or
sustained by someone who seems to be ignorant as to his own
ignorance, or stupidity. One can even be simulteneously stupid and
intelligent if he has native capacity for intelligence but just
doesn't use it.
Does it seem left unsaid that subjectivity plays a large part in
this? Then let it be said. Subjectivity plays a large part in this-
much though that may disappoint Jackson/Alphonsus in his constant
quest for absolute values (hope you take no offense J/A). It's
probably obvious that I like to flatter myself into thinking that I am
reasonably intelligent, reasonably informed. But I know that there
are others here who think I am neither, or at least that there are
ample postings in my history in which I have failed to exhibit either
characteristic. Though I admit to having been irked on occasion, and
having succumbed to the temptation of feeling compelled to launch
into fulsome justifications, that's really ok with me what people
think- and, I have to allow for the possibility that ultimately
( thereya go, J/A! ) maybe they're right!
Steven Bornfeld
Oct 6, 2012, 6:35:10 PM10/6/12
to
On 10/6/2012 3:33 PM, JonLorPro wrote: and ignorant of a particular
newsgroup, I'd assumed your use of the word implied an element of
willfulness, as opposed to mere na�vet�.
One of my wife's memes (in response to a co-worker's observation that
there are many different ways to be smart) is that "there are many
different ways to be stupid".
On first blush this sounds facile...but since she first said this, I
must say it is very true (though I might have preferred to have remained
ignorant of this truth).
I like to think of myself as relatively thoughtful and articulate, but
(and here I'm more likely to arouse the ire of Learnwell) I seem to lack
a native ability to absorb and retain musical concepts--and in fact many
complex functions (think chess, or any mental operation requiring
conceptual flexibility and memory) I am surely deficient.
That's the breaks.
On a completely different note, I must say (with some embarrassment)
that I never before today listened to or watched any of your videos.
I've checked a couple of the videos you've uploaded of you and your
wife. You guys are wonderful!
Steve
subject, this is possible.
>
> Sure one can- there are many ways in which one can be ignorant and
> intelligent at the same time. You cited one example, and as
> "Cactuswren" observed, the two aren't necessarily related.
>
> Strictly speaking, theads themselves are not ignorant, posters within
> threads reveal them_selves_ to be so. Many threads are reddolent with
> massive ignorance on display of some sort or other, but equally so
> with intelligent replies. And, I'm glad "Cactuswren" picked up on
> the distinction- the actual antonym to "ignorant"is "informed" not
> "intelligent" I suppose the most obvious antonym to "intelligent"is
> "stupid".
I mistook your use of the word "ignorant". In the context of this
>
> Sure one can- there are many ways in which one can be ignorant and
> intelligent at the same time. You cited one example, and as
> "Cactuswren" observed, the two aren't necessarily related.
>
> Strictly speaking, theads themselves are not ignorant, posters within
> threads reveal them_selves_ to be so. Many threads are reddolent with
> massive ignorance on display of some sort or other, but equally so
> with intelligent replies. And, I'm glad "Cactuswren" picked up on
> the distinction- the actual antonym to "ignorant"is "informed" not
> "intelligent" I suppose the most obvious antonym to "intelligent"is
> "stupid".
newsgroup, I'd assumed your use of the word implied an element of
willfulness, as opposed to mere na�vet�.
there are many different ways to be smart) is that "there are many
different ways to be stupid".
On first blush this sounds facile...but since she first said this, I
must say it is very true (though I might have preferred to have remained
ignorant of this truth).
I like to think of myself as relatively thoughtful and articulate, but
(and here I'm more likely to arouse the ire of Learnwell) I seem to lack
a native ability to absorb and retain musical concepts--and in fact many
complex functions (think chess, or any mental operation requiring
conceptual flexibility and memory) I am surely deficient.
That's the breaks.
On a completely different note, I must say (with some embarrassment)
that I never before today listened to or watched any of your videos.
I've checked a couple of the videos you've uploaded of you and your
wife. You guys are wonderful!
Steve
Alphonsus Jr.
Oct 6, 2012, 6:33:16 PM10/6/12
to
See? I knew he'd come through.
JonLorPro
Oct 7, 2012, 3:18:18 AM10/7/12
to
On Oct 6, 6:25 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>
>
Yes, "willful ignorance" is , of course, qualified ignorance of a
peculiar manifestation which can be especially infuriating when
encountered- and you're right about it's sometimes having figured in
the context of this newsgroup. "Deliberately obtuse" seems to have
been the expression of choice in referring to it.
> I like to think of myself as relatively thoughtful and articulate, but...
>...I seem to lack
I used to play a lot of chess, and I did try to get good at it- even
exchanged for lessons in it from someone for a short time, believe it
or not. I don't think I ever got really good at it. But, just as in
music, I think there is a mis-perception that the highest order
thinking is always supposed to be, or must, be the product of hyper-
aware reasoning, detailed conscious intent, each and every step well
planned in advance.
But there is also high order thinking that comes from a sub-or other
conscious level, from a part of our mind that operates on its own
somewhere around the corner out of the line of sight of our inner
vision. The conclusions and incentives it offers up come in the form
of finished end products, of occult processes that remain obscure- but
these processes are no less "intelligent" for that. Because of their
seemingly unexplained origin, their coming is felt like instinctual
"inspiration", having come from without one's self or from above. In
fact, they are the products of one's own mind, our ignorance (to keep
this relevent) of the workings that went into them notwithstanding.
The guy I worked with on chess _was_ good at it- and I mean _really_
good. There is, of course, a lot of memorization of particular
typical lines of development in chess, some of them quite lengthy
(maybe that's why I didn't get so good myself- too lazy) which is
probably from where comes the stock-image of the chess grandmaster who
can conceive of his game twenty, thirty moves ahead. Maybe he does,
in an "off-the-rack" kind of game. But in a game that is really
individual and inspired, it can hard for anybody to think four or five
moves ahead. This guy I was working with told me once that a
grandmaster might launch upon a line of development that over the
course of several dozen or more moves, operates from first to last
with a smooth inexorability that just rolls unmercifully over his
opponent- yet if one were to ask him afterwards if he saw it all ahead
of time, had planned it, he would say," Of course not- nobody could do
that!" Yet I believe that it _would_ be a product of his
intelligence, but of an intelligence that is of a different order what
we usually think "intelligence" to be.
Good writers are open to this from within themselves. I read an
interview of J.R.R Tolkien once in which he said of the character
"Strider", whom the hobbits first encountered at the Inn of the
Prancing Pony in Bree, that as he was writing the book, he just
suddenly introduced the character, as if cropping up from a will of
the character's own, and that Tolkien had no idea as to who he was, or
who he would turn out to be. But Tolkien knew he had to be there. And,
of course, he turned out to be someone of central importance to the
novel, of extreme salience to the entire theme, and it was essential
to the development of that theme that the encounter took place at that
juncture.
Read Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of
the Bi-cameral mind" for more on thinking and intelligence that is
carried on within ourselves of which we are unaware.
> I am surely deficient. That's the breaks.
I bet you aren't. Trust yourself. Be it in music or chess, when
directive arises unbidden from within, don't reject it because it
feels like you weren't in on assuring that it's formulation was first
duly informed by the best standards of practice according to the
approved methodologies of whatever theory you've absorbed. Go with it.
Use theoretical knowledge to explain it to yourself _after_ the fact
if you can, or must, not before.
> On a completely different note...
> ... I never before today listened to or watched any of your videos.
wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 3:33 PM, JonLorPro wrote:
.>
> > Sure one can- there are many ways in which one can be ignorant and
> > intelligent at the same time. You cited one example, and as
> > "Cactuswren" observed, the two aren't necessarily related....
> > intelligent at the same time. You cited one example, and as
>
>
> I mistook your use of the word "ignorant". In the context of this
> newsgroup, I'd assumed your use of the word implied an element of
> willfulness, as opposed to mere na vet . [naivete?]
>
> I mistook your use of the word "ignorant". In the context of this
> newsgroup, I'd assumed your use of the word implied an element of
>
>
Yes, "willful ignorance" is , of course, qualified ignorance of a
peculiar manifestation which can be especially infuriating when
encountered- and you're right about it's sometimes having figured in
the context of this newsgroup. "Deliberately obtuse" seems to have
been the expression of choice in referring to it.
> I like to think of myself as relatively thoughtful and articulate, but...
>...I seem to lack
> a native ability to absorb and retain musical concepts--and in fact many
> complex functions (think chess, or any mental operation requiring
> conceptual flexibility and memory)....
> complex functions (think chess, or any mental operation requiring
I used to play a lot of chess, and I did try to get good at it- even
exchanged for lessons in it from someone for a short time, believe it
or not. I don't think I ever got really good at it. But, just as in
music, I think there is a mis-perception that the highest order
thinking is always supposed to be, or must, be the product of hyper-
aware reasoning, detailed conscious intent, each and every step well
planned in advance.
But there is also high order thinking that comes from a sub-or other
conscious level, from a part of our mind that operates on its own
somewhere around the corner out of the line of sight of our inner
vision. The conclusions and incentives it offers up come in the form
of finished end products, of occult processes that remain obscure- but
these processes are no less "intelligent" for that. Because of their
seemingly unexplained origin, their coming is felt like instinctual
"inspiration", having come from without one's self or from above. In
fact, they are the products of one's own mind, our ignorance (to keep
this relevent) of the workings that went into them notwithstanding.
The guy I worked with on chess _was_ good at it- and I mean _really_
good. There is, of course, a lot of memorization of particular
typical lines of development in chess, some of them quite lengthy
(maybe that's why I didn't get so good myself- too lazy) which is
probably from where comes the stock-image of the chess grandmaster who
can conceive of his game twenty, thirty moves ahead. Maybe he does,
in an "off-the-rack" kind of game. But in a game that is really
individual and inspired, it can hard for anybody to think four or five
moves ahead. This guy I was working with told me once that a
grandmaster might launch upon a line of development that over the
course of several dozen or more moves, operates from first to last
with a smooth inexorability that just rolls unmercifully over his
opponent- yet if one were to ask him afterwards if he saw it all ahead
of time, had planned it, he would say," Of course not- nobody could do
that!" Yet I believe that it _would_ be a product of his
intelligence, but of an intelligence that is of a different order what
we usually think "intelligence" to be.
Good writers are open to this from within themselves. I read an
interview of J.R.R Tolkien once in which he said of the character
"Strider", whom the hobbits first encountered at the Inn of the
Prancing Pony in Bree, that as he was writing the book, he just
suddenly introduced the character, as if cropping up from a will of
the character's own, and that Tolkien had no idea as to who he was, or
who he would turn out to be. But Tolkien knew he had to be there. And,
of course, he turned out to be someone of central importance to the
novel, of extreme salience to the entire theme, and it was essential
to the development of that theme that the encounter took place at that
juncture.
Read Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of
the Bi-cameral mind" for more on thinking and intelligence that is
carried on within ourselves of which we are unaware.
> I am surely deficient. That's the breaks.
directive arises unbidden from within, don't reject it because it
feels like you weren't in on assuring that it's formulation was first
duly informed by the best standards of practice according to the
approved methodologies of whatever theory you've absorbed. Go with it.
Use theoretical knowledge to explain it to yourself _after_ the fact
if you can, or must, not before.
> On a completely different note...
> ... I never before today listened to or watched any of your videos.
> I've checked a couple of the videos you've uploaded of you and your
> wife. You guys are wonderful!
Thanks, much appreciated. Obviously, you are intelligent!
> wife. You guys are wonderful!
JPD
Oct 7, 2012, 11:30:35 AM10/7/12
to
A few weeks ago I played in the 2012 US Chess Open. This year it was held in Vancouver, WA, just down the road from me, so I went. It was a blast. Nine rounds in nine days. 500+ players. Quite a scene!
Steven Bornfeld
Oct 7, 2012, 1:25:58 PM10/7/12
to
On 10/7/2012 3:18 AM, JonLorPro wrote:
>>
> Yes, "willful ignorance" is , of course, qualified ignorance of a
> peculiar manifestation which can be especially infuriating when
> encountered- and you're right about it's sometimes having figured in
> the context of this newsgroup. "Deliberately obtuse" seems to have
> been the expression of choice in referring to it.
One obvious example is the willful ignorance that feeds the conviction
>>
> Yes, "willful ignorance" is , of course, qualified ignorance of a
> peculiar manifestation which can be especially infuriating when
> encountered- and you're right about it's sometimes having figured in
> the context of this newsgroup. "Deliberately obtuse" seems to have
> been the expression of choice in referring to it.
of the deniers of anthropogenic global warming.
Very few scientists view this as an article of faith. Most will
maintain that the vast majority of measurable evidence is consistent
with the existence of man-made global warming--as opposed to opponents,
whose FAITH that it does not exist will fly in the face of any evidence
presented that is inconsistent with their faith.
This in no way means that there are no people who BELIEVE in global
warming with religious fervor--these certainly exist (as does science as
a religion).
>
>
>> I like to think of myself as relatively thoughtful and articulate, but...
>> ...I seem to lack
>> a native ability to absorb and retain musical concepts--and in fact many
>> complex functions (think chess, or any mental operation requiring
>> conceptual flexibility and memory)....
>
> I used to play a lot of chess, and I did try to get good at it- even
> exchanged for lessons in it from someone for a short time, believe it
> or not. I don't think I ever got really good at it. But, just as in
> music, I think there is a mis-perception that the highest order
> thinking is always supposed to be, or must, be the product of hyper-
> aware reasoning, detailed conscious intent, each and every step well
> planned in advance.
>
> But there is also high order thinking that comes from a sub-or other
> conscious level, from a part of our mind that operates on its own
> somewhere around the corner out of the line of sight of our inner
> vision. The conclusions and incentives it offers up come in the form
> of finished end products, of occult processes that remain obscure- but
> these processes are no less "intelligent" for that. Because of their
> seemingly unexplained origin, their coming is felt like instinctual
> "inspiration", having come from without one's self or from above. In
> fact, they are the products of one's own mind, our ignorance (to keep
> this relevent) of the workings that went into them notwithstanding.
As it happens, I recently read (my memory fails--again as to
>
>> I like to think of myself as relatively thoughtful and articulate, but...
>> ...I seem to lack
>> a native ability to absorb and retain musical concepts--and in fact many
>> complex functions (think chess, or any mental operation requiring
>> conceptual flexibility and memory)....
>
> I used to play a lot of chess, and I did try to get good at it- even
> exchanged for lessons in it from someone for a short time, believe it
> or not. I don't think I ever got really good at it. But, just as in
> music, I think there is a mis-perception that the highest order
> thinking is always supposed to be, or must, be the product of hyper-
> aware reasoning, detailed conscious intent, each and every step well
> planned in advance.
>
> But there is also high order thinking that comes from a sub-or other
> conscious level, from a part of our mind that operates on its own
> somewhere around the corner out of the line of sight of our inner
> vision. The conclusions and incentives it offers up come in the form
> of finished end products, of occult processes that remain obscure- but
> these processes are no less "intelligent" for that. Because of their
> seemingly unexplained origin, their coming is felt like instinctual
> "inspiration", having come from without one's self or from above. In
> fact, they are the products of one's own mind, our ignorance (to keep
> this relevent) of the workings that went into them notwithstanding.
where)--that so-called "intuitive" thought exists, and exists in males
as it does with females. (It tends to be thought of as a "female trait"
and, as the argument goes, tends to be suppressed in males). Much of
this is based on prior experience, and is doubtless a result of complex
cognitive functions operating subconsciously, and of course looks more
mysterious than it really is.
>
> The guy I worked with on chess _was_ good at it- and I mean _really_
> good. There is, of course, a lot of memorization of particular
> typical lines of development in chess, some of them quite lengthy
> (maybe that's why I didn't get so good myself- too lazy) which is
> probably from where comes the stock-image of the chess grandmaster who
> can conceive of his game twenty, thirty moves ahead. Maybe he does,
> in an "off-the-rack" kind of game. But in a game that is really
> individual and inspired, it can hard for anybody to think four or five
> moves ahead. This guy I was working with told me once that a
> grandmaster might launch upon a line of development that over the
> course of several dozen or more moves, operates from first to last
> with a smooth inexorability that just rolls unmercifully over his
> opponent- yet if one were to ask him afterwards if he saw it all ahead
> of time, had planned it, he would say," Of course not- nobody could do
> that!" Yet I believe that it _would_ be a product of his
> intelligence, but of an intelligence that is of a different order what
> we usually think "intelligence" to be.
Obviously this cannot be purely linear, because it has to either assume
a particular course of action by the opponent, or has to account for
multiple contingencies depending upon what moves the opponent makes.
I had a chem professor in college who was also a chess master. There
seem to be a disproportionate number of ranked players from central and
eastern Europe, and this man was from Hungary. Years later I met an
older man in my bicycle club who'd retired from the dental supply
company. He also was an avid chess player, and also from Hungary. I
asked him if he knew Orest Popovich. His reply was "Yes, I don't like
him--he beat me!".
>
> Good writers are open to this from within themselves. I read an
> interview of J.R.R Tolkien once in which he said of the character
> "Strider", whom the hobbits first encountered at the Inn of the
> Prancing Pony in Bree, that as he was writing the book, he just
> suddenly introduced the character, as if cropping up from a will of
> the character's own, and that Tolkien had no idea as to who he was, or
> who he would turn out to be. But Tolkien knew he had to be there. And,
> of course, he turned out to be someone of central importance to the
> novel, of extreme salience to the entire theme, and it was essential
> to the development of that theme that the encounter took place at that
> juncture.
>
> Read Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of
> the Bi-cameral mind" for more on thinking and intelligence that is
> carried on within ourselves of which we are unaware.
I'll look for it--thanks!
> Good writers are open to this from within themselves. I read an
> interview of J.R.R Tolkien once in which he said of the character
> "Strider", whom the hobbits first encountered at the Inn of the
> Prancing Pony in Bree, that as he was writing the book, he just
> suddenly introduced the character, as if cropping up from a will of
> the character's own, and that Tolkien had no idea as to who he was, or
> who he would turn out to be. But Tolkien knew he had to be there. And,
> of course, he turned out to be someone of central importance to the
> novel, of extreme salience to the entire theme, and it was essential
> to the development of that theme that the encounter took place at that
> juncture.
>
> Read Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of
> the Bi-cameral mind" for more on thinking and intelligence that is
> carried on within ourselves of which we are unaware.
>
>> I am surely deficient. That's the breaks.
>
> I bet you aren't. Trust yourself. Be it in music or chess, when
> directive arises unbidden from within, don't reject it because it
> feels like you weren't in on assuring that it's formulation was first
> duly informed by the best standards of practice according to the
> approved methodologies of whatever theory you've absorbed. Go with it.
> Use theoretical knowledge to explain it to yourself _after_ the fact
> if you can, or must, not before.
usually musical though)--and it's gotten me into trouble. ;-)
>
>
>> On a completely different note...
>> ... I never before today listened to or watched any of your videos.
>> I've checked a couple of the videos you've uploaded of you and your
>> wife. You guys are wonderful!
>
> Thanks, much appreciated. Obviously, you are intelligent!
Thank YOU!
>
>> On a completely different note...
>> ... I never before today listened to or watched any of your videos.
>> I've checked a couple of the videos you've uploaded of you and your
>> wife. You guys are wonderful!
>
> Thanks, much appreciated. Obviously, you are intelligent!
Steve
>
>
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
David Raleigh Arnold
Oct 8, 2012, 11:58:54 AM10/8/12
to
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 12:05:57 -0700, wollybird wrote:
> please share your memories
This one. ;-) Regards, daveA
> please share your memories
--
Guitar teaching materials and original music for all styles and levels.
Site: http://www.openguitar.com (()) eMail: d.raleig...@gmail.com
Contact: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html"
0 new messages