When You Become Dispensible, You Will Be Dispensed With
Slow Eddy
postpones the pogrom because us Jews are too important to the clock-making
industry. For the time being. Until they train goyim to do the job.
(My word! So Eddy's Jewish. No wonder he has visions and can calculate the
labyrinth of Caesar's mind... Actually not quite yet. I'm working on it,
though. Am a bit too attached to my foreskin, for one thing, to go the
whole way. But whether you like it or not, you are now a Jew if you're not
part of the master race. ... There's a great business opportunity: Those
who have many years of experience at being Jewish, and living through
pogroms etc. could offer lessons in how to do it for those who are new to
the experience.)
As a very rough and general rule, you can't destroy your enemy without
harming yourself. Napoleon's EU found out that. This insight is the origin
of the free trade idea (roughly speaking), for one. Make economic war on
the French, and your own economy suffers. Make economic peace with them,
and trade freely, and the benefits are mutual.
An illustration of the harm destroying your enemy can do to you is Zimbabwe.
Stupid Bob had to deliberately take aim and shoot himself in the foot, in
order to destroy his enemies. And I don't just mean white commercial
farmers. They've moved on, and will go and thrive somewhere else (I'm
surprised they don't make a point of reporting on how well they're doing at
starting again from nothing on soc.culture.zim, because whoever Stupid Bob
delegates the job of reading that newsgroup would surely suffer a little,
hearing how many of his destroyed enemies have turned Phoenix and risen up
from the ashes). The deepest harm Stupid Bob has done is to the poor
bastards who're too poor to go anywhere else. And supposedly these don't
count as enemies unless they're Matabele or Karanga etc. Anyway, the point
is it doesn't take a great deal of intelligence to work out that revenge
normally comes at a price.
Now let me flatter our masters by saying what they probably say to
themselves. Something like what our infallible Broeders would've said.
"Look at us. Best brains in the country all gathered in one place and
working together. Where else on earth do you have something like that?
Together we have the greatest collection of pure brilliance anywhere on
earth, don't we?" OK, maybe I'll not go that far, but they're not very
stupid, at least. They're stupid enough to have missed the only golden
opportunity this country ever had, but they're not stupid enough to cook
the goose that lays the golden eggs. Not until they're satisfied they've
bred one of their own, anyway.
... That was a such a long preamble that even I have lost track of where
this was going... Oh yes. I was saying I think that as soon as you become
dispensible you must expect to be dispensed with. You're not so much
welcome as living on temporary sufferance. An unfortunate necessity of the
present. So what this means is that you need to teach yourself an entirely
new work ethic. Your very survival depends on your remaining indispensible
as long as you possibly can.
The other Jews have discovered that pushing yourself hard, to the point
where you've achieved such excellence, and have made yourself so valuable
to the goyim that they'll surely start appreciating having you around one
day, doesn't work. Not entirely. It does help postpone the pogrom, when the
Emperor has to figure in the loss of the clock-making industry into the
cost side of the calculation, but sometimes the jealousy of people who've
put less effort into the pursuit of excellence than you just explodes. Many
a pogrom has happened this way. For us new Jews, we need only look to
Zimbabwe to see that making yourself a very valuable contributor is no
guarantee of your security or acceptance. Nonetheless, we can start with a
fairly obvious First Rule of Indispensibility: Be Better Than Your Very
Best. If you were misguided by school counsellors etc. in the 70's, then
you've been told you have to "do your best", and then been given some slack
in defining that "best". Wrong. You have to be the very best. If you don't
absolutely shine, you'll always be last in the queue, even if you're better
than average. It's a bit like being Black in the 70's, isn't it?
Add to that the new career guidance advice: Do the MOST DIFFICULT THING you
can manage. I've got a bunch of younger cousins up in Jo'burg looking to
improve their circumstances by the qualification route. Every time I hear
one of them talking about going and studying, it's a marketing diploma they
want to go and do. Trouble is every man and his dog has one of those. They
give them away in lucky packets (remember?). Stupid idea. Waste of money
and time. The thing to do is work out the most Difficult thing you can do.
"Get a marketing diploma" is olden-days-style career advice. Somehow become
a doctor. That's what you have to do. Within sensible limits you have to
refuse to hear that it's too difficult and beyond you. Or if you go into
IT, go into something like programming superclusters rather than joining
the long queue of MCSEs. These cousins are still talking as if a career is
just an extension of the flower-child golden path in search of your bliss.
Fact is you can *make* yourself happy with just about anything. And that's
the kind of job someone not bailing out to somewhere friendlier needs to be
looking for: Something difficult and well-paid. Go buy your bloody bliss
later.
OK. I need at least one other law, otherwise I've no excuse for the long
preamble. I said we all need to learn a new work ethic. It needs to include
as much hard work as is necessary, but some of the more diligent habits of
the ancient world need to be unlearned. The basic principle is to stay
indispensible, right? So if you have an overpaid incompetent boss whose
work you must add to your own, don't complain. Take over as many of the
bosses functions as you can. You won't get paid for this, but the more
ignorant you keep that boss of yours, the more he needs you. Occupy more
territory. Do even more than the overload you've already got.
That'd do for a rule, eh? Then to go with this, there's a more golden rule:
Be Secretive. Openness is bad for your own cause. The more you share, the
sooner you'll be done away with. If you have a good client list, working as
a rep, be sure to protect this. It's your most important private property.
When questioned, be vague. Make the extraction of information or guidance
from you a long, drawn-out, painful process. That way, they'll eventually
tire of trying to learn your secrets. And Everything is a Secret. If you
know the best way to sharpen pencils, that's your secret. If you know the
right person to contact when dealing with Ganga Ganga Trading, that's your
secret. Hide it away somewhere if you need to note it down. Where do you
hit the copier machine to make it work? If you know, don't show anyone
else. Go and hit the machine for them if they ask, but never show anyone
how you do it, and certainly never explain *why* it works. In short,
preserve the Mystery of the Broken Server.
Ag. That'll do for a starter. I'm sure you all get the general idea by now.
One more thing. When you have a job, your first concern from then on is to
find the next one. A better job. And when you've found your next job, leave
as quickly as you can. "Ask anyone there; things just fell apart when I
left", is what you can say when you need to do some boasting. If you have
to work a notice period, don't. Don't work. I know this is incredibly
difficult to do, but for your notice month you need to go to work late
every day, go and put your feet up on the desk, be as unhelpful as you can.
What the hell. Have a little piss-up at lunchtime every day, too. And be
insolent. I can't stress enough how important it is for you to be insolent.
Some will tell you that if you do that you can never go back. But I'll bet
you can. As long as you remind people of how well things worked when you
were there, chances are they'll forget what a mess they were when you left.
Or rather your contribution to that mess.
Or maybe sometimes thinking "outside the box" (for pity's sake! Be
illogical!) is a bit Dom, hay?
--
Slow Eddy
Fables hold more Truth than Facts ever can;
but does that really mean every Story is true?
Innocence is a wire snare.
Skokkie
"Slow Eddy" <man...@siyaganga.ko.zam> wrote in message
news:dm7i44$4t7$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
Tew trew mi awld sunshine - Well written
handyman
How did your studying of the four different languages go? Maybe I missed
some posts when our local (saix net?) failed to deliver.
"Slow Eddy" <man...@siyaganga.ko.zam> wrote in message
news:dm7i44$4t7$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
Slow Eddy
> Hi Slow Eddy. Nice to see you back.
> How did your studying of the four different languages go? Maybe I missed
> some posts when our local (saix net?) failed to deliver.
>
>
Hola Senor Handyman! Ni hao ... er ... and that's about as far as I get.
Survived the four languages, but only just. Thank goodness I only did first
semester of each, so I've only done a half-year course of all but Deutsch.
German isn't too difficult if your Afrikaans is good. Sometimes the
Afrikaans trips you up, it's true, but in general having the Afrikaans
gives you probably twice as vocab for free as you get by speaking that
other Germanic language, English.
I wouldn't advise doing the initial courses in Spanish and Portugese at the
same time to anyone (although that's how they do it in Aussie - a mate of
mine there - who turned out to be gay, if that matters - studied Portugese
after returning from Brazil and the way they did it at his "Uni" was to
combine both languages. He'd already become quite nationalistic about
Portugese, so considered Spanish to be a silly language. Hmmm ... now I
remember he slagged it off as being effeminate. Strange world we force
people to contort themselves into... mind you it's different these days,
isn't it?) Anyway, do the Spanish first. Spanish is actually pretty easy
(even though I did quite craply in the course). It's as close to
phonetically written as any language will ever get, so once you've attuned
to the Spanish way of pronouncing the letters of the alphabet it's easy to
build vocab.
Most people would assume that Mandarin is the most difficult of the lot, but
from a grammar point of view that's not so. At least to the low neanderthal
Occidental level they carry their first semester course to in lands where
thickies prevail. The most difficult of the lot is Portugese, I found.
Portugese is a bit like English. You need to know the word before you learn
the spelling, because the spelling is often not all that helpful -
especially in guiding you toward the subtleties of pronunciation. Lovely
language, though.
Ja ja, aber ich habe nur Deutsch fur eine entire year gelernenen ... oder
something like that. Diese ist von trying to sprechen Deutsch mit mein
cousin in Deutschland, who mixen seine languages severely. Der ganse time
he keeps telling me how filthy the Germans are. Nicht so gut fur fitting
in, oder?
Peter H.M. Brooks
> handyman wrote:
>
>
> Most people would assume that Mandarin is the most difficult of the lot, but
> from a grammar point of view that's not so. At least to the low neanderthal
> Occidental level they carry their first semester course to in lands where
> thickies prevail. The most difficult of the lot is Portugese, I found.
> Portugese is a bit like English. You need to know the word before you learn
> the spelling, because the spelling is often not all that helpful -
> especially in guiding you toward the subtleties of pronunciation. Lovely
> language, though.
>
I'd hope that the language is nice because, sad to relate, neither
Portuguese chaps, nor chapesses are paragons of beauty.
--
"They cooked him on the Nine Stane Rig
And a grand brothe they made on't,
And had his gear and beasts awa'
His good wife and his daughters twa,
He, 'twas salt tae the broth they made on't.
- Scotch ballad, quoted by George MacDonald Fraser in 'The Candlemass Road'
* TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
Camel
Hi Slow Eddy,
At the ripe old age of 39, and with very little to do in the
foreseeable future, I am contemplating a bit of a part-time study gig,
what.
I seem to have an inherent distrust of the sciences, so I am toying
with the idea of a BA with Law closely linked.
1.] Do you think I could handle it? (Insanity, you understand.)
2.] UNISA ok?
3.] BA first?
4.] Subjects?
5.] etc...
Ta ever so,
Camel (wreapfrop :))
Peter H.M. Brooks
What have you got against science? If your maths isn't that strong then
it won't be for you, but there shouldn't really be any other objection.
>
> 1.] Do you think I could handle it? (Insanity, you understand.)
>
> 2.] UNISA ok?
>
> 3.] BA first?
>
> 4.] Subjects?
>
What do you want to do law for? It's lots of fairly tedious learning and
close reading of texts - my cousin's daughter has done very well in law,
now qualified as a solicitor (I forget what they call them here) and
I've chatted to her about her course over the past few years. One recent
exercise was to spend ages reading some really boring legislation
(written in dreadful legalese) so as to answer a comprehension test.
She's bright, top of her class, top of everybody in the Western Cape as
far as I can tell, and doesn't seem to have a very clear idea of why she
is doing it all, and, apart from doing really well (which is obviously
very important to her - she has very competitive parents) it all seems,
to me, rather a waste of time.
Why not read philosophy and history? If you're keen to study they will
both test the old brain cells an the latter (if not the former) will
give you an interesting insight into the human condition - at least it
should!
--
"Aye, of that Chingis was it said that while he carpeted all Asia
with bones, yet might a virgin with a bag of gold walk the length of his
dominions without harm, so perfect was his governance" - George
MacDonald Fraser, 'The Candlemass Road'
Camel
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>Camel wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 18:00:44 +0000, Slow Eddy
>> <man...@siyaganga.ko.zam> wrote:
>
>>
>> I seem to have an inherent distrust of the sciences, so I am toying
>> with the idea of a BA with Law closely linked.
> >
>What have you got against science? If your maths isn't that strong then
>it won't be for you, but there shouldn't really be any other objection.
>>
Mathematics was one of my fortés actually. So, at this stage, I
consider it "done". Programming and music too.
>>
>What do you want to do law for? It's lots of fairly tedious learning and
>close reading of texts - my cousin's daughter has done very well in law,
>now qualified as a solicitor (I forget what they call them here) and
>I've chatted to her about her course over the past few years. One recent
>exercise was to spend ages reading some really boring legislation
>(written in dreadful legalese) so as to answer a comprehension test.
>She's bright, top of her class, top of everybody in the Western Cape as
>far as I can tell, and doesn't seem to have a very clear idea of why she
>is doing it all, and, apart from doing really well (which is obviously
>very important to her - she has very competitive parents) it all seems,
>to me, rather a waste of time.
>
>Why not read philosophy and history? If you're keen to study they will
>both test the old brain cells an the latter (if not the former) will
>give you an interesting insight into the human condition - at least it
>should!
Philosophy is a possibility.
History...hmm..."Who's version of history?" is the question that
immediately comes to mind.
Besides, history can get you thrown in jail ala historian David Irving
or that Ernst Zundel fellow, or Germar Rudolph.
No, history (whosestory?) is for people with more guts than I.
Any other potentials?
Regards,
Camel
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 18:55:57 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
> <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
>
>>Camel wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 18:00:44 +0000, Slow Eddy
>>><man...@siyaganga.ko.zam> wrote:
>>
>>>I seem to have an inherent distrust of the sciences, so I am toying
>>>with the idea of a BA with Law closely linked.
>>>
>>
>>What have you got against science? If your maths isn't that strong then
>>it won't be for you, but there shouldn't really be any other objection.
>>
>
> Mathematics was one of my fortés actually. So, at this stage, I
> consider it "done". Programming and music too.
>
You might wish to reconsider this, actually. University mathematics is
quite different from school mathematics, which is mainly arithmetic and
algebra. Many mathematicians - or, at least, those with degrees in
mathematics (myself being one of them) are actually dreadful at arithmetic.
I'd recommend that you get 'Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden
Braid' by Hofstadter from the library and give it a read. It is a Yank
book, but very well written and gives you an excellent introduction to
real mathematics (rather than school) in good English.
After reading that book you might (or, indeed, might not) change your
view of mathematics. You might even wish to study it.
>
>
>>What do you want to do law for? It's lots of fairly tedious learning and
>>close reading of texts - my cousin's daughter has done very well in law,
>>now qualified as a solicitor (I forget what they call them here) and
>>I've chatted to her about her course over the past few years. One recent
>>exercise was to spend ages reading some really boring legislation
>>(written in dreadful legalese) so as to answer a comprehension test.
>>She's bright, top of her class, top of everybody in the Western Cape as
>>far as I can tell, and doesn't seem to have a very clear idea of why she
>>is doing it all, and, apart from doing really well (which is obviously
>>very important to her - she has very competitive parents) it all seems,
>>to me, rather a waste of time.
>>
>>Why not read philosophy and history? If you're keen to study they will
>>both test the old brain cells an the latter (if not the former) will
>>give you an interesting insight into the human condition - at least it
>>should!
>
>
> Philosophy is a possibility.
>
Philosophy is possibility.
>
> History...hmm..."Who's version of history?" is the question that
> immediately comes to mind.
>
> Besides, history can get you thrown in jail ala historian David Irving
> or that Ernst Zundel fellow, or Germar Rudolph.
>
> No, history (whosestory?) is for people with more guts than I.
>
Yes, these are interesting historical questions. If you can find
somewhere that isn't infested with post-modernism (pomo), you might find
interesting answers to these, and other, questions.
I had the opportunity to consider what do do for a year or two a decade
and a half ago. I investigated various fields of research and thought
about various degrees - including an MBA. In the end, I think that I
made the right decision and opted for a trip, overland, down Africa.
If you're considering a change then realise that your options are very
open. It's a great privilege, denied most people, to choose exactly what
you'll do for a few years. Don't waste the opportunity.
A trip down Africa might not be your thing. However, I rather doubt that
you'll find the best solution as to how to spend an important part of
your life in reading law.
Slow Eddie might well advise your differently. I'm eagerly awaiting his
advice, actually, but remember that you choose.
Just try not to choose because it seems fashionable, prestigious or
'what you ought to do'. It's your life. Make sure you make it that. Not
anybody else's. Particularly not people you think are important or
influential. I'm biased, of course, but I'd recommend that, if you
choose to take any advice, take it from a happy person. That's why I
offer mine to you.
--
In mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
- Johann von Neumann
Slow Eddy
> Slow Eddy wrote:
>> handyman wrote:
>>
>>
>> Most people would assume that Mandarin is the most difficult of the lot,
>> but from a grammar point of view that's not so. At least to the low
>> neanderthal Occidental level they carry their first semester course to in
>> lands where thickies prevail. The most difficult of the lot is Portugese,
>> I found. Portugese is a bit like English. You need to know the word
>> before you learn the spelling, because the spelling is often not all that
>> helpful - especially in guiding you toward the subtleties of
>> pronunciation. Lovely language, though.
>>
> How so? Or is it difficult to describe?
>
> I'd hope that the language is nice because, sad to relate, neither
> Portuguese chaps, nor chapesses are paragons of beauty.
>
If you have a secret DSTV decoder hidden away in the basement, where you
occasionally sneak off (like a dog that's just been given a bone, and is
off to bury it somewhere safe) to watch plebvision, may I recommend a look
at Channel 92 for something refreshing. You won't understand the lingo, but
you'll get the gist of what's going on. More importantly, having many years
of experience at being a human being, you'll get a fairly good idea of the
attitudes of the presenters and the people they interview. One of the best
things you'll see are the large number of naughty little boys with greying
hair that Portugal seems to produce. Channel 92, of course, is used by RTP
(Radio e Telivisao Portugal).
Paragons? No, can't say I've seen paragons on RTP. But then I'm reaching the
point where paragons are a bit repellant. I prefer something plainer.
Haven't experienced this myself, but I know people who've been dealt lives
of misery by paragons of beauty. They've got some pretty girls, though. And
if you want real dynamite, the only place on earth worth going to is Brazil
(if TV is anything to go by). I know that Portugese men grow moustaches so
that they can look like their mothers (or so the old joke goes), but
there's a certain charm the Portugese manage to pull off like no-one else.
> --
> "They cooked him on the Nine Stane Rig
> And a grand brothe they made on't,
> And had his gear and beasts awa'
> His good wife and his daughters twa,
> He, 'twas salt tae the broth they made on't.
> - Scotch ballad, quoted by George MacDonald Fraser in 'The Candlemass
> Road' * TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
--
Camel
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
Thank you verily Peter.
Wise words, as ever.
Come to think of it, I dabbled with calculus post-matric.
Mathematics: Another possibility, definitely.
Regards,
Camel
Slow Eddy
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 18:00:44 +0000, Slow Eddy
> <man...@siyaganga.ko.zam> wrote:
>
>>handyman wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Slow Eddy. Nice to see you back.
>>> How did your studying of the four different languages go? Maybe I missed
>>Ja ja, aber ich habe nur Deutsch fur eine entire year gelernenen ... oder
>>something like that. Diese ist von trying to sprechen Deutsch mit mein
>>cousin in Deutschland, who mixen seine languages severely. Der ganse time
>>he keeps telling me how filthy the Germans are. Nicht so gut fur fitting
>>in, oder?
>
> Hi Slow Eddy,
>
> At the ripe old age of 39, and with very little to do in the
> foreseeable future, I am contemplating a bit of a part-time study gig,
> what.
>
First thing to decide is what the object of the studies are, I suppose. Do
you want to achieve enlightenment or something? Or do you want to get over
the barrier between yourself and an interesting job?
If it's enlightenment you're after, don't go expecting too much of any
university. I see Peter suggests philosophy as an interesting field. I'd
agree (though a deep quest for common sense will serve you better for
actual living), but I can't recommend doing it through a certifying body.
Certainly not if you want enlightenment. I've looked at UNISA's philosophy
courses, and decided I won't bother with them later on. All political.
Because I happen to be located in Afrika, it's deemed necessary to study
African philosophy. In other words nationalism is built into the very
fabric of the curriculum, and if any South African is unaware of the perils
of nationalism of any kind then he must be bloody blind. -- no. Stupid,
actually. "Foolish" if you like your terms more high-fallutin', and
"Stoopid" if you like to lay it on thick and rough. Universities
indoctrinate priests. They don't educate in the ideal sense I imagine to be
possible. Oxford started as a place for teaching dogma to priests, and is
too stupid to realise it still does, for instance. All they've gone and
done is stripped down christianity (sorry moira, i'm just appeasing peter
here) and dished it up under new names. Stripped out the god, the part of
love that has to do with loving your enemies, etc. Another topic. One I'm
not up to at the moment.
Ja. So university philolosophy? Not unless you can put lots of salt in it.
Maybe go trolling in alt.philosophy.trosky or something like that if you
want to get philosophical. Get yourself one of the translations on
Socrates, too. There's not a huge amount attributed to Socrates (and
nothing purporting to be from his own pen), but it's quite interesting. A
window into another place in time, if nothing else, because Socrates comes
down to us as a series of stories. Parables, almost. Nietzsche is also
interesting. Because he's completely barking mad. There's lots of serious
academic stuff written about Nietzsche, but in truth and fact the man was
just barking mad. Barking mad with some striking moments of lucidity, mind
you. What I like about Nietzsche is that his mind died of something like a
broken heart for the sake of a broken horse. He was in Italy with friends,
when he saw some bastard beat a poor horse to death. It upset him so much
that he went all catatonic, clinging to the horse's neck as if to comfort.
It was appparently a bugger to drag him off his dead horse, and when they
did, the remnants of Nietzsche's fragile sanity were gone. From the point
of view of being a part of the rest of humanity he was dead. Can't say I
like the ending that much. I don't go in for romanticizing insanity. I've
felt it stalk me, and seen it destroy members of my family, and there's
nothing at all wonderful about it. It's like leprosy or something incurable
like that. The only thing to admire around insanity is that people manage
to live their way round it. Like people who're missing legs manage to get
some mobility.
I'd say go in for DIY philosophy for at least 15 or 20 years before
considering embarking on any formal, regulated and controlled study of it,
guided by an institution.
> I seem to have an inherent distrust of the sciences, so I am toying
> with the idea of a BA with Law closely linked.
>
Being someone who went through the BA Law route, I'm afraid I can't
recommend it. Why and inherent distrust of the sciences? Science is just a
method, not an ideology. The untrustworthy part of the "sciences" is
generally the uncomprehending interpretation of science that
mumbo-jumbo-seeking journalists, historians, archaeologists etc. give out
as describing science.
Pull that sentence apart like a good lawyer, and critically examine the
terms. "Inherent". Do you mean you have some kind of anti-science gene? And
why be guided by what "seems"? I know the majority of the field of history
Peter is so keen on misguiding you towards is based on supposition. Which
would be fair enough if there wasn't the tendency to transpose supposition
into fact. Science is a bit ruthless on supposition, generally (although it
has a debt to many insights that come from roughly the same brainpart as
this - possibly).
Hmmm... maybe dig around for something on the philosophy of science as a
first step? Or ask Peter to point you toward the golden road. He probably
knows some good websites etc. "Zen and the Art of Motorcycling" is about as
far as I've ever gone in philosophically placing where I locate "science".
It's probably worth reading, anyway.
If it's law you're interested in, firstly I'd recommend hanging around the
criminal courts for a while. Get to know the prosecutors. Ingratiate
yourself by making yourself useful round the place. See how the (small)
forensic aspect of law operates. (Forensic actually means "to do with court
proceedings". It's not a medical term). You'll find it's 90% chaos and
rushed jobs. You'll also find that traffic court is not something anyone
would like to do for the rest of their lives.
Then once you've done the magistrates courts for a few weeks, go to the High
Court. Apparently things are done with more grace and elegance there.
What you need to be on the look out for is the kind of eye for detail the
trial lawyer needs. See if you can get into that. What you need is the mind
of a nagging wife who never forgets her husband wore the wrong tie to their
eleventh wedding anniversary do.
Then forget the idea that what you've experienced in all these courts is
what law is all about. Law is much more to do with things like knowing that
you don't fill in Deeds Office documents in anything other than black ink.
If the ink is blue, it'll be sent back to you. It's more about processing
Motor Vehicle Accident Fund forms than about drafting clever contracts,
too. I don't know if you'd manage to get yourself inside a law firm to get
an insider's view, but if you can manage it you'll get a realistic view of
what law is really about.
If you find that law is what you want to do (and I find it difficult to
imagine anyone would want to just study it out of curiosity) then you don't
need to do a BA first. I know that at least the University of Natal has now
turned their LLB into a four-year undergrad degree, instead of the old
postgrad version.
Oh then there's the issue of law being a traditional black trade. Do you
think you'll be black enough to get a job once you're done? You may get
away with being of the wrong race as an engineer, because engineering isn't
a very sought-after black job (or wasn't - maybe that's changed), but as a
lawyer you're looking at quite a high BEE risk. And you can't export your
qualifications very easily, either, if all doors close on you here.
> 1.] Do you think I could handle it? (Insanity, you understand.)
>
You seem to be a pretty intelligent bloke, Camel, insanity notwithstanding.
Insanity, itself, isn't a bar. I've encountered some truly loony legal
practitioners in my time. Most have the souls of Monty Python accountants,
but there are some very strange folk out there.
> 2.] UNISA ok?
>
Ja, I'd say so. I've picked up on the odd hint of semi-literacy in English
from my chemistry lecturer, but science folk do generally tend not to be
very particular about their language use, so I can't say this is a sign of
danger and decay.
UNISA has the great virtue that it's cheap. I was looking at doing a
laboratory course at Mazaryk University in Czech. Didn't find it (on
account of my basic Czech phrase book not taking me that far), but I did
find a one-semester course on teaching English as a second language. In
Rand terms I calculated the cost of this was R 350000!! At that rate an LLB
would cost you several million, then.
The UNISA language people seem pretty on the ball to me. Very helpful
comments in the margins of assignments etc., so at least there they're
fine.
It's internationally accredited (they submit to being monitored by a board
based in the USA, for instance), too.
The big difficulty with UNISA is that you miss out on things like tutorial
groups, and personal contact with the lecturers. You can't just ask
questions as they strike you, or pop in to pester them at the drop of a
hat. And studying on your own takes a bit of discipline. For those who're
working it takes an almost unimaginable amount of discipline, and I take my
hat off to them (as well as get down on my knees and bang my forehead on
the floor).
> 3.] BA first?
>
Possibly with UNISA, yes. But then don't expect to be able to go into
something interesting like Patent Law. If it were me I'd do a BSc Chem Eng
first, rather. (If I could - and I'm assuming you could). If not science,
it's probably better to take a well-constructed BComm. (Take no easy
subjects unless they're unavoidable).
No. BA/ BComm you can probably assume will leave you unemployable on account
of your not being black enough. The only real option is to start on the
sciences (and engineering, if possible - ie. not UNISA), get a Phd in that
first, and then knock off a quick LLB. That way you're probably scarce
enough to be employable in spite of your more obvious disadvantages to the
community.
> 4.] Subjects?
>
LLB is pretty much a fixed list with just a few optionals. And your choice
of speciality will pretty much determine the optionals. I wanted to nail
criminals and stay poor for the rest of my life, so I took Forensic
Medicine, for instance. Very interesting.
> 5.] etc...
>
> Ta ever so,
>
> Camel (wreapfrop :))
Like I say, it's largely a matter of what you want from the degree/ studies.
If your heart is pure and you seek the Buddhah, it would be better for you
to trek into Tibet with a laptop, and keep in contact with enlightened
newsgroups .... ??? What am I saying??? Where do you find such a thing ???
If you want to work in some new field, then you need to do a recce. See what
looks good, and then make up your mind to point yourself in that direction.
A bit easier to outward appearances, but probably more difficult in actual
fact.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> Thank you verily Peter.
>
> Wise words, as ever.
>
> Come to think of it, I dabbled with calculus post-matric.
>
> Mathematics: Another possibility, definitely.
>
If you do take that particular plunge then please let me know.
I'd be very happy to help you along the way (fee free). If your lecturer
failed to make anything clear then I'd be delighted to do so myself.
--
Politics are not an instrument for effecting social change; they are
the art of making the inevitable appear to be a matter of wise human
choice. -Quentin Crisp, 'Resident Alien'
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
> If you have a secret DSTV decoder hidden away in the basement, where you
> occasionally sneak off (like a dog that's just been given a bone, and is
> off to bury it somewhere safe) to watch plebvision, may I recommend a look
> at Channel 92 for something refreshing. You won't understand the lingo, but
> you'll get the gist of what's going on. More importantly, having many years
> of experience at being a human being, you'll get a fairly good idea of the
> attitudes of the presenters and the people they interview. One of the best
> things you'll see are the large number of naughty little boys with greying
> hair that Portugal seems to produce. Channel 92, of course, is used by RTP
> (Radio e Telivisao Portugal).
>
still rid of it.
I'm happy to take your word for what can be seen on channel XX.
>
> Paragons? No, can't say I've seen paragons on RTP. But then I'm reaching the
> point where paragons are a bit repellant. I prefer something plainer.
> Haven't experienced this myself, but I know people who've been dealt lives
> of misery by paragons of beauty. They've got some pretty girls, though. And
> if you want real dynamite, the only place on earth worth going to is Brazil
> (if TV is anything to go by). I know that Portugese men grow moustaches so
> that they can look like their mothers (or so the old joke goes), but
> there's a certain charm the Portugese manage to pull off like no-one else.
>
If they were paragons then you wouldn't want anything else. Few people have.
Yes, I know about the copacabana.
Have you been to Salzburg though?
If you haven't then you haven't seen beautiful women.
The mix of genes that you find in that particular part of Europe have
produced women that will make you understand the Dutchess:
Duchess (reviewing the wounded): Well, my man, where have you been wounded?
Man: I shouldn't like to say.
Duchess: Don't worry, my man, I'm married, so I know about these things.
Man: Actually, I've been shot through the penis.
Duchess: Did it break the bone?
Man: Give my congratualtions to the Duke.
Boom Boom.
--
Anybody who is a wide reader can't be a prude - Verity
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
>
> First thing to decide is what the object of the studies are, I suppose. Do
> you want to achieve enlightenment or something? Or do you want to get over
> the barrier between yourself and an interesting job?
>
>
> If it's enlightenment you're after, don't go expecting too much of any
> university. I see Peter suggests philosophy as an interesting field. I'd
> agree (though a deep quest for common sense will serve you better for
> actual living), but I can't recommend doing it through a certifying body.
> Certainly not if you want enlightenment. I've looked at UNISA's philosophy
> courses, and decided I won't bother with them later on. All political.
> Because I happen to be located in Afrika, it's deemed necessary to study
> African philosophy. In other words nationalism is built into the very
> fabric of the curriculum, and if any South African is unaware of the perils
> of nationalism of any kind then he must be bloody blind. -- no. Stupid,
> actually. "Foolish" if you like your terms more high-fallutin', and
> "Stoopid" if you like to lay it on thick and rough. Universities
> indoctrinate priests. They don't educate in the ideal sense I imagine to be
> possible. Oxford started as a place for teaching dogma to priests, and is
> too stupid to realise it still does, for instance. All they've gone and
> done is stripped down christianity (sorry moira, i'm just appeasing peter
> here) and dished it up under new names. Stripped out the god, the part of
> love that has to do with loving your enemies, etc. Another topic. One I'm
> not up to at the moment.
>
spending the year (or years) in the library. You can't do better than that.
No need to appease me - appease the theists. They need it.
I'm with you entirely. If you think you need to seek enlightenment then
you are already lost. There isn't any. All you'll find is frauds - after
your money.
>
> Ja. So university philolosophy? Not unless you can put lots of salt in it.
> Maybe go trolling in alt.philosophy.trosky or something like that if you
> want to get philosophical. Get yourself one of the translations on
> Socrates, too. There's not a huge amount attributed to Socrates (and
> nothing purporting to be from his own pen), but it's quite interesting. A
> window into another place in time, if nothing else, because Socrates comes
> down to us as a series of stories. Parables, almost. Nietzsche is also
> interesting. Because he's completely barking mad. There's lots of serious
> academic stuff written about Nietzsche, but in truth and fact the man was
> just barking mad. Barking mad with some striking moments of lucidity, mind
> you. What I like about Nietzsche is that his mind died of something like a
> broken heart for the sake of a broken horse. He was in Italy with friends,
> when he saw some bastard beat a poor horse to death. It upset him so much
> that he went all catatonic, clinging to the horse's neck as if to comfort.
> It was appparently a bugger to drag him off his dead horse, and when they
> did, the remnants of Nietzsche's fragile sanity were gone. From the point
> of view of being a part of the rest of humanity he was dead. Can't say I
> like the ending that much. I don't go in for romanticizing insanity. I've
> felt it stalk me, and seen it destroy members of my family, and there's
> nothing at all wonderful about it. It's like leprosy or something incurable
> like that. The only thing to admire around insanity is that people manage
> to live their way round it. Like people who're missing legs manage to get
> some mobility.
>
Why recommend a mad fucker like Nietzsche? He can read Camus and Kafka
and learn far more. Before that he can read Plato's 'Republic' that's a
nice moral tale for any South African.
>
> I'd say go in for DIY philosophy for at least 15 or 20 years before
> considering embarking on any formal, regulated and controlled study of it,
> guided by an institution.
>
You're right, Eddie. The problem is that many people have a religious
belief in degrees (and Universities). It might help them to visit these
places to learn how insubstantial they are - most need to get degrees
from them to learn this properly (I know that I did).
>
>>I seem to have an inherent distrust of the sciences, so I am toying
>>with the idea of a BA with Law closely linked.
>>
>
> Being someone who went through the BA Law route, I'm afraid I can't
> recommend it. Why and inherent distrust of the sciences? Science is just a
> method, not an ideology. The untrustworthy part of the "sciences" is
> generally the uncomprehending interpretation of science that
> mumbo-jumbo-seeking journalists, historians, archaeologists etc. give out
> as describing science.
>
We're in agreement here.
>
> Pull that sentence apart like a good lawyer, and critically examine the
> terms. "Inherent". Do you mean you have some kind of anti-science gene? And
> why be guided by what "seems"? I know the majority of the field of history
> Peter is so keen on misguiding you towards is based on supposition. Which
> would be fair enough if there wasn't the tendency to transpose supposition
> into fact. Science is a bit ruthless on supposition, generally (although it
> has a debt to many insights that come from roughly the same brainpart as
> this - possibly).
>
What's wrong with a but of ruthlessness when you want to learn? I only
recommend history as I've seen people learn the art of analysis,
critical thought and more from it. Pomo history is better left alone -
you'd do better to put all your money into a bordello membership.
>
> Hmmm... maybe dig around for something on the philosophy of science as a
> first step? Or ask Peter to point you toward the golden road. He probably
> knows some good websites etc. "Zen and the Art of Motorcycling" is about as
> far as I've ever gone in philosophically placing where I locate "science".
> It's probably worth reading, anyway.
>
It is well worth reading. Probably a good place to start before Hofstadter.
>
> If it's law you're interested in, firstly I'd recommend hanging around the
> criminal courts for a while. Get to know the prosecutors. Ingratiate
> yourself by making yourself useful round the place. See how the (small)
> forensic aspect of law operates. (Forensic actually means "to do with court
> proceedings". It's not a medical term). You'll find it's 90% chaos and
> rushed jobs. You'll also find that traffic court is not something anyone
> would like to do for the rest of their lives.
>
Yes, and it is all free. The bile, the nihilism, the...
Good idea!
>
> Then once you've done the magistrates courts for a few weeks, go to the High
> Court. Apparently things are done with more grace and elegance there.
>
If he really likes that then maybe the theatre is a more productive
outlet. He might find it useful to follow the dustbin men and the sewage
workers and the slaughter men to get a grip of what most of us choose to
out-source (and, maybe, why).
>
> What you need to be on the look out for is the kind of eye for detail the
> trial lawyer needs. See if you can get into that. What you need is the mind
> of a nagging wife who never forgets her husband wore the wrong tie to their
> eleventh wedding anniversary do.
>
And then consider how he can avoid contempt for people.
>
> Then forget the idea that what you've experienced in all these courts is
> what law is all about. Law is much more to do with things like knowing that
> you don't fill in Deeds Office documents in anything other than black ink.
> If the ink is blue, it'll be sent back to you. It's more about processing
> Motor Vehicle Accident Fund forms than about drafting clever contracts,
> too. I don't know if you'd manage to get yourself inside a law firm to get
> an insider's view, but if you can manage it you'll get a realistic view of
> what law is really about.
>
No point in contemplating your navel - indeed, you're right. You should
start contemplating your arse hole. If that really appeals to you then
appeals might well be just your thing.
>
> If you find that law is what you want to do (and I find it difficult to
> imagine anyone would want to just study it out of curiosity) then you don't
> need to do a BA first. I know that at least the University of Natal has now
> turned their LLB into a four-year undergrad degree, instead of the old
> postgrad version.
>
> Oh then there's the issue of law being a traditional black trade. Do you
> think you'll be black enough to get a job once you're done? You may get
> away with being of the wrong race as an engineer, because engineering isn't
> a very sought-after black job (or wasn't - maybe that's changed), but as a
> lawyer you're looking at quite a high BEE risk. And you can't export your
> qualifications very easily, either, if all doors close on you here.
>
For this we have two solutions. One is black polish. The other is
Fergies point that we live in an open democracy. Being shat on for
several years would appeal (another bit of self-examination needed
here)) to the coprophiliac.
>
>
>>1.] Do you think I could handle it? (Insanity, you understand.)
>>
>
> You seem to be a pretty intelligent bloke, Camel, insanity notwithstanding.
> Insanity, itself, isn't a bar. I've encountered some truly loony legal
> practitioners in my time. Most have the souls of Monty Python accountants,
> but there are some very strange folk out there.
>
Strange? Strange? Isn't that level of insanity rather the norm? No
offence to Norm, but, really, is Norm a man known for his sanity?
>
>
> Like I say, it's largely a matter of what you want from the degree/ studies.
> If your heart is pure and you seek the Buddhah, it would be better for you
> to trek into Tibet with a laptop, and keep in contact with enlightened
> newsgroups .... ??? What am I saying??? Where do you find such a thing ???
>
If Camel decides exactly what he wants then I'd like to hear from him.
We might have a nice opening for a new religion or, at least, a new line
in Self-Help books.
>
> If you want to work in some new field, then you need to do a recce. See what
> looks good, and then make up your mind to point yourself in that direction.
> A bit easier to outward appearances, but probably more difficult in actual
> fact.
>
Quite.
Don't start with fashion, though. It might look really appealing, but
those bones do really get in the way of good sex.
Be practical.
Ideals and dreams are great, but they don't soften hard pelvices.
--
a fizzle, a fiste, a close farte - Sloffa, FLorio 1598
Camel
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>Camel wrote:
>
>>
>> Thank you verily Peter.
>>
>> Wise words, as ever.
>>
>> Come to think of it, I dabbled with calculus post-matric.
>>
>> Mathematics: Another possibility, definitely.
>>
>If you do take that particular plunge then please let me know.
>
>I'd be very happy to help you along the way (fee free). If your lecturer
>failed to make anything clear then I'd be delighted to do so myself.
That is an incredibly kind offer. Thank you.
Regards,
Camel
Camel
<man...@siyaganga.ko.zam> wrote:
>Camel wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 18:00:44 +0000, Slow Eddy
>> <man...@siyaganga.ko.zam> wrote:
>>
>>>handyman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Slow Eddy. Nice to see you back.
>>>> How did your studying of the four different languages go? Maybe I missed
>
>>>Ja ja, aber ich habe nur Deutsch fur eine entire year gelernenen ... oder
>>>something like that. Diese ist von trying to sprechen Deutsch mit mein
>>>cousin in Deutschland, who mixen seine languages severely. Der ganse time
>>>he keeps telling me how filthy the Germans are. Nicht so gut fur fitting
>>>in, oder?
>>
>> Hi Slow Eddy,
>>
>> At the ripe old age of 39, and with very little to do in the
>> foreseeable future, I am contemplating a bit of a part-time study gig,
>> what.
>>
>First thing to decide is what the object of the studies are, I suppose. Do
>you want to achieve enlightenment or something? Or do you want to get over
>the barrier between yourself and an interesting job?
Fortunately, I need not or want not a "job".
In fact, from a very early age, I found the word "job" quite vulgar.
Is it true that Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle?
>I'd say go in for DIY philosophy for at least 15 or 20 years before
>considering embarking on any formal, regulated and controlled study of it,
>guided by an institution.
>
>> I seem to have an inherent distrust of the sciences, so I am toying
>> with the idea of a BA with Law closely linked.
>>
>Being someone who went through the BA Law route, I'm afraid I can't
>recommend it. Why and inherent distrust of the sciences? Science is just a
>method, not an ideology. The untrustworthy part of the "sciences" is
>generally the uncomprehending interpretation of science that
>mumbo-jumbo-seeking journalists, historians, archaeologists etc. give out
>as describing science.
>
>Pull that sentence apart like a good lawyer, and critically examine the
>terms. "Inherent". Do you mean you have some kind of anti-science gene? And
>why be guided by what "seems"? I know the majority of the field of history
>Peter is so keen on misguiding you towards is based on supposition.
I was fairly misguided on my own, thank you. "School" taught me so.
>Which would be fair enough if there wasn't the tendency to transpose supposition
>into fact. Science is a bit ruthless on supposition, generally (although it
>has a debt to many insights that come from roughly the same brainpart as
>this - possibly).
>
>Hmmm... maybe dig around for something on the philosophy of science as a
>first step? Or ask Peter to point you toward the golden road. He probably
>knows some good websites etc. "Zen and the Art of Motorcycling" is about as
>far as I've ever gone in philosophically placing where I locate "science".
>It's probably worth reading, anyway.
Twice.
>
>If it's law you're interested in, firstly I'd recommend hanging around the
>criminal courts for a while. Get to know the prosecutors. Ingratiate
>yourself by making yourself useful round the place. See how the (small)
>forensic aspect of law operates. (Forensic actually means "to do with court
>proceedings". It's not a medical term). You'll find it's 90% chaos and
>rushed jobs. You'll also find that traffic court is not something anyone
>would like to do for the rest of their lives.
How romantic you make it sound, dear Eddy.
>Then once you've done the magistrates courts for a few weeks, go to the High
>Court. Apparently things are done with more grace and elegance there.
>
>What you need to be on the look out for is the kind of eye for detail the
>trial lawyer needs. See if you can get into that. What you need is the mind
>of a nagging wife who never forgets her husband wore the wrong tie to their
>eleventh wedding anniversary do.
>
>Then forget the idea that what you've experienced in all these courts is
>what law is all about. Law is much more to do with things like knowing that
>you don't fill in Deeds Office documents in anything other than black ink.
>If the ink is blue, it'll be sent back to you. It's more about processing
>Motor Vehicle Accident Fund forms than about drafting clever contracts,
>too. I don't know if you'd manage to get yourself inside a law firm to get
>an insider's view, but if you can manage it you'll get a realistic view of
>what law is really about.
Maybe next week.
>If you find that law is what you want to do (and I find it difficult to
>imagine anyone would want to just study it out of curiosity) then you don't
>need to do a BA first. I know that at least the University of Natal has now
>turned their LLB into a four-year undergrad degree, instead of the old
>postgrad version.
>
>Oh then there's the issue of law being a traditional black trade. Do you
>think you'll be black enough to get a job once you're done? You may get
>away with being of the wrong race as an engineer, because engineering isn't
>a very sought-after black job (or wasn't - maybe that's changed), but as a
>lawyer you're looking at quite a high BEE risk. And you can't export your
>qualifications very easily, either, if all doors close on you here.
>
>> 1.] Do you think I could handle it? (Insanity, you understand.)
>>
>You seem to be a pretty intelligent bloke, Camel, insanity notwithstanding.
>Insanity, itself, isn't a bar. I've encountered some truly loony legal
>practitioners in my time. Most have the souls of Monty Python accountants,
>but there are some very strange folk out there.
Oh, stop that flattery, please do!
>> 2.] UNISA ok?
>>
>Ja, I'd say so. I've picked up on the odd hint of semi-literacy in English
>from my chemistry lecturer, but science folk do generally tend not to be
>very particular about their language use, so I can't say this is a sign of
>danger and decay.
Ja, my language i did got is cool wiff braais and stuffs.
>UNISA has the great virtue that it's cheap. I was looking at doing a
>laboratory course at Mazaryk University in Czech. Didn't find it (on
>account of my basic Czech phrase book not taking me that far), but I did
>find a one-semester course on teaching English as a second language. In
>Rand terms I calculated the cost of this was R 350000!! At that rate an LLB
>would cost you several million, then.
>
>The UNISA language people seem pretty on the ball to me. Very helpful
>comments in the margins of assignments etc., so at least there they're
>fine.
>
>It's internationally accredited (they submit to being monitored by a board
>based in the USA, for instance), too.
>
>The big difficulty with UNISA is that you miss out on things like tutorial
>groups, and personal contact with the lecturers. You can't just ask
>questions as they strike you, or pop in to pester them at the drop of a
>hat. And studying on your own takes a bit of discipline. For those who're
>working it takes an almost unimaginable amount of discipline, and I take my
>hat off to them (as well as get down on my knees and bang my forehead on
>the floor).
>
>> 3.] BA first?
>>
>Possibly with UNISA, yes. But then don't expect to be able to go into
>something interesting like Patent Law. If it were me I'd do a BSc Chem Eng
>first, rather. (If I could - and I'm assuming you could). If not science,
>it's probably better to take a well-constructed BComm. (Take no easy
>subjects unless they're unavoidable).
BComm? I hate money enough. No, that could not be done.
>No. BA/ BComm you can probably assume will leave you unemployable on account
>of your not being black enough. The only real option is to start on the
>sciences (and engineering, if possible - ie. not UNISA), get a Phd in that
>first, and then knock off a quick LLB. That way you're probably scarce
>enough to be employable in spite of your more obvious disadvantages to the
>community.
Employment is not the issue, praise Jesus, and pass the ammunition!
>> 4.] Subjects?
>>
>LLB is pretty much a fixed list with just a few optionals. And your choice
>of speciality will pretty much determine the optionals. I wanted to nail
>criminals and stay poor for the rest of my life, so I took Forensic
>Medicine, for instance. Very interesting.
The fact that I still have a pulse is, for instance, interesting.
>> 5.] etc...
>>
>> Ta ever so,
>>
>> Camel (wreapfrop :))
>
>Like I say, it's largely a matter of what you want from the degree/ studies.
>If your heart is pure and you seek the Buddhah, it would be better for you
>to trek into Tibet with a laptop, and keep in contact with enlightened
>newsgroups .... ??? What am I saying??? Where do you find such a thing ???
>
>If you want to work in some new field, then you need to do a recce. See what
>looks good, and then make up your mind to point yourself in that direction.
>A bit easier to outward appearances, but probably more difficult in actual
>fact.
Thank you Slow Eddy. Much.
Regards,
Camel
Moira de Swardt
"Camel" <dr...@dref.com> wrote in message
> At the ripe old age of 39, and with very little to do in the
> foreseeable future, I am contemplating a bit of a part-time study
gig,
> what.
I know this was addressed to Slow Eddy and not to me, but you can
have my five cents worth free.
> I seem to have an inherent distrust of the sciences, so I am
toying
> with the idea of a BA with Law closely linked.
> 1.] Do you think I could handle it? (Insanity, you understand.)
Insanity helps when contemplating studying just for fun.
> 2.] UNISA ok?
I'm a die-hard UNISA fan.
Studying arts and law courses part time requires that you look at
the course ahead of time to determine what needs to be done when.
Put these dates somewhere where you will really be reminded about
them. I use an old fashioned diary, but a calendar or cell phone
reminder system will work equally well. Do not be tempted to give
yourself too much time unless you're one of those paragons that can
really work without pressure.
Secondly you need to be able to access quite large blocks of time
round exam time so that you can cram all the work you didn't do in
the year into the time you put into studying for the exam. This will
not work for the sciences or language acquisition or accountancy
where you have to be more diligent throughout the year.
Thirdly, you need good study skills to make the above two
requirements workable. If you already have these it is likely that
you know it. Few people acquire them by accident. If you're lucky
you would have had a mother that taught them to you in Standard
Three, as I did, or you learned them at high school when some
teacher with a conscience taught them to you. However, most people
have to acquire them through the advice of other people. There are
many courses to help you acquire them, but the information is
actually freely available from the university and other people, like
Slow Eddy or even me.
> 3.] BA first?
This used to be the way to go. First a bachelors then a
postgraduate LLB. Today the LLB is a bachelors degree. Get the
relevant information from UNISA and then decide the route you want
to go. UNISA has excellent online facilities, including downloads
of yearbooks.
> 4.] Subjects?
Check out what's compulsory but not to your liking. Do NOT do this
subject till you have all your other subjects.
--
Moira de Swardt
The most beautiful, most intelligent, most amusing, most charming,
richest, most talented woman currently posting to
soc.culture.south-africa
Moira de Swardt
"Camel" <dr...@dref.com> wrote in message
> Mathematics was one of my fortés actually. So, at this stage, I
> consider it "done". Programming and music too.
The three are linked skills. Music and maths have long been known
to be linked, and the programming stuff has been a more recent
discovery. An amazing amount of hi-tech IT people have B.Mus
degrees. Of course, the fact that it's difficult to earn a living
in music helps the transition.
Moira de Swardt
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
> You're right, Eddie. The problem is that many people have a
religious
> belief in degrees (and Universities). It might help them to visit
these
> places to learn how insubstantial they are - most need to get
degrees
> from them to learn this properly (I know that I did).
A degree is one of those things that one actually needs to have
*before* one can safely dismiss it as valueless. Mine certainly is.
I've never ever seen it, even though I went to collect it. It's in
the original cardboard roll it came in shoved behind the books I use
most often and keep nearest my desk. I can safely disclose this
"hiding place" because when the thieves come looking for my money
they'll find my degree. They won't steal it.
Camel
Thank you Moira.
Happy 27th of November, by the way!
Peter may have swayed me towards mathematics.
Although, it is about time that I *did* learn English, dammit!
Regards,
Camel
Slow Eddy
> Slow Eddy wrote:
>>
>>
>> First thing to decide is what the object of the studies are, I suppose.
>> Do you want to achieve enlightenment or something? Or do you want to get
>> over the barrier between yourself and an interesting job?
> >
> Quite. Not something most students will understand.
Students can be forgiven for not understanding, what with them being green
and still wetting their nappies when they go for their indoctrination.
Persisting with this into adulthood, though, is another matter.
> >
> Why recommend a mad fucker like Nietzsche? He can read Camus and Kafka
> and learn far more. Before that he can read Plato's 'Republic' that's a
> nice moral tale for any South African.
Because Nietzsche can never be accused of offering guidance, and hence,
control and direction. He's a good way of opening up strange new roads
through the jungle.
And anyway isn't the best philosopher for us mad fuckers a fellow mad
fucker?
>>
>> I'd say go in for DIY philosophy for at least 15 or 20 years before
>> considering embarking on any formal, regulated and controlled study of
>> it, guided by an institution.
>>
> You're right, Eddie. The problem is that many people have a religious
> belief in degrees (and Universities). It might help them to visit these
> places to learn how insubstantial they are - most need to get degrees
> from them to learn this properly (I know that I did).
>>
"Religious" is exactly the right word. Almost (and damn nearly) literally
so. I have my problems with traditional religion - not least of which is
the fact that I strongly suspect they have no factual basis - but a humane
reading of the content leaves me a lot more impressed than I am by any of
the currently fashionable secular religions. For one thing, at least you
pretend that there's a God behind it all. The ultimate impartiality. A
prohibition on Ego... For the most of us it's just a simpler, more
practical way of avoiding becoming insects, done in a sensible way.
So I suppose I advocate a religion of sensibility, then? Hell of a thing for
a proven Fool to be putting about, isn't it?
>> supposition. Which would be fair enough if there wasn't the tendency to
>> transpose supposition into fact. Science is a bit ruthless on
>> supposition, generally (although it has a debt to many insights that come
>> from roughly the same brainpart as this - possibly).
> >
> What's wrong with a but of ruthlessness when you want to learn? I only
> recommend history as I've seen people learn the art of analysis,
> critical thought and more from it. Pomo history is better left alone -
> you'd do better to put all your money into a bordello membership.
Historiography could be interesting if you're willing to be the unheard
voice in the wilderness. Ruthlessness is a good quality in a scholar, I
think. And these days a very rare one.
>>
>> Hmmm... maybe dig around for something on the philosophy of science as a
>> first step? Or ask Peter to point you toward the golden road. He probably
>> knows some good websites etc. "Zen and the Art of Motorcycling" is about
>> as far as I've ever gone in philosophically placing where I locate
>> "science". It's probably worth reading, anyway.
> >
> It is well worth reading. Probably a good place to start before
> Hofstadter.
Ich muss deise Name nachscreiben ...
>> court proceedings". It's not a medical term). You'll find it's 90% chaos
>> and rushed jobs. You'll also find that traffic court is not something
>> anyone would like to do for the rest of their lives.
> >
> Yes, and it is all free. The bile, the nihilism, the...
>
> Good idea!
I don't know about nihilism. It's just ordinary reality. Just another
cost-effective way of getting things done ... ja, well I suppose the
cost-effectiveness could be improved, but then you'd be dealing in real
nihilism.
Seems that a lot of this stuff is now being outsourced. Round these parts
there are camera traps going up all the place. A bit expensive, I thought.
But then I found out it's a business. Someone connected gets the contract
to enforce the law for an area, and pays the municipality a 25% kickback
for the monopoly.
>>
>> Then once you've done the magistrates courts for a few weeks, go to the
>> High Court. Apparently things are done with more grace and elegance
>> there.
> >
> If he really likes that then maybe the theatre is a more productive
> outlet. He might find it useful to follow the dustbin men and the sewage
> workers and the slaughter men to get a grip of what most of us choose to
> out-source (and, maybe, why).
Among the few people on earth who can go to bed every night with an
(absolutely) free conscience are the sewage men, because what they do is
unquestionably good. (Except of course the sewage men of Delmas, who seem
to have redefined their job to be the art of sleeping on grassy knolls
under trees all day). On Carte Blanche they once managed to get an
interview with a hijacker wanting to give his side of the story. "What must
I do?!" he shouted at the camera, "Must I sweep streets??" -- and I thought
to myself, "Boyo, you have got some really kak Values in that head of
yours, haven't you? At the moment you're something that has to be cleaned
off with a high pressure hose, and the spot you contaminated disinfected
with Aqua Regia; and you think it'd be worse to be the decent bloke who
cleans the place up? Instead of destroying the future?... "
I'm not all that convinced that the theatre is necessarily a productive
outlet. Depends whether you're part of dogma and political education or
not.
>>
>> What you need to be on the look out for is the kind of eye for detail the
>> trial lawyer needs. See if you can get into that. What you need is the
>> mind of a nagging wife who never forgets her husband wore the wrong tie
>> to their eleventh wedding anniversary do.
> >
> And then consider how he can avoid contempt for people.
Now here we differ a little. To my mind it's important to learn as much
contempt for people as you can manage. Maybe that's just on account of
having spent time pulling their schemes apart and looking inside the parts
of their heads that decency demands should be properly covered.
>>
>> contracts, too. I don't know if you'd manage to get yourself inside a law
>> firm to get an insider's view, but if you can manage it you'll get a
>> realistic view of what law is really about.
> >
> No point in contemplating your navel - indeed, you're right. You should
> start contemplating your arse hole. If that really appeals to you then
> appeals might well be just your thing.
>>
For no good reason the idea now occurs to me that the real future lies with
the merchant marine. Go to sea, Camel. Not in a floating condo in the
British Virgin Islands, but in a real ship with oil on the floor of the
engine room. Get in touch with your heritage, and go ashore in a thousand
wrong sides of town for whoring and fighting. And then when you're about
79, and the machines have chewed off too many of your fingers for you to
keep at it, pull back a little, philosophize about what it all meant, and
then write some new rites down right. (ok at least i trid)
>> Oh then there's the issue of law being a traditional black trade. Do you
>> think you'll be black enough to get a job once you're done? You may get
>> away with being of the wrong race as an engineer, because engineering
>> isn't a very sought-after black job (or wasn't - maybe that's changed),
>> but as a lawyer you're looking at quite a high BEE risk. And you can't
>> export your qualifications very easily, either, if all doors close on you
>> here.
> >
> For this we have two solutions. One is black polish. The other is
> Fergies point that we live in an open democracy. Being shat on for
> several years would appeal (another bit of self-examination needed
> here)) to the coprophiliac.
Fergie? Ag shame man. Did you know that it was actually the English who
invented apartheid? For some strange reason they decided that it would be
nice to be unwelcome second-class citizens in this country in 1948 ...
Actually I do get that point. .... But it does seem though that some okes
are doing the ANC's divida et impera work for them. Go to farmers meetings
these days, and there will be some oke there who's gone back to remembering
the Boer War again. Most don't truck in this kind of attempt to ingratiate
themselves to the previously oppressed by pointing out an alternative
culprit to bliksem. Hey it might work. And then when that's done who's
going to be next to be bliksemed?
Open democracy? When I was an innocent little Lamb, that was my favourite
daydream. And it got beyond that. Got to a point where I really honestly
believed it could come true. Which serves as a good warning to anyone
thinking of following me on the sacred road to Valhalla of the Aesir today,
doesn't it? If a man can be a fool once he can pull off the trick a second
time, too. If what we now have is open democracy, then obviously "open
democracy" is another of those phrases I no longer understand.
>> You seem to be a pretty intelligent bloke, Camel, insanity
>> notwithstanding. Insanity, itself, isn't a bar. I've encountered some
>> truly loony legal practitioners in my time. Most have the souls of Monty
>> Python accountants, but there are some very strange folk out there.
>>
> Strange? Strange? Isn't that level of insanity rather the norm? No
> offence to Norm, but, really, is Norm a man known for his sanity?
>>
I'd like to say yes, but sadly all I can tell you is that lawyers are not at
all boring. Really. They get up at 6:42 am, and drink expensive coffee,
which is very exciting, then they ...
>>
> If Camel decides exactly what he wants then I'd like to hear from him.
> We might have a nice opening for a new religion or, at least, a new line
> in Self-Help books.
>
It would be quite amazing if this ever happened. And a bit of a loss to this
newsgroup, I'm afraid. What would the world be like without an unstable
Camel? Mind you a new religion could be very profitable, couldn't it? Good
market for one of those at the moment.
>
> Don't start with fashion, though. It might look really appealing, but
> those bones do really get in the way of good sex.
>
> Be practical.
>
> Ideals and dreams are great, but they don't soften hard pelvices.
>
Excellent advice, and put in suitably Camelian (which he can use with only
small violence to dissonate somethingly with Chameleon) terms. Yes, in
principle I agree with the idea that bones are bad, but in practice my
obsessive phase was filled with boney images, and that tends to set you for
life. The country song "Marry an Ugly Woman" (sorry I only ever heard it
once, and can remember just about only the title) could be good advice. My
experience of pretty ones is that they're full of shit. And they get old,
anyway.
Slow Eddy
> Slow Eddy wrote:
>> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>> If you have a secret DSTV decoder hidden away in the basement, where you
>> occasionally sneak off
> I'm an honest man, Eddie. I got rid of my plebvision in 1982 and I am
> still rid of it.
>
I'll soon be rid of mine, too. And no regrets anticipated.
> I'm happy to take your word for what can be seen on channel XX.
I'm trying to think of an alternative, but can't. The Portugese don't even
produce movies you could go and watch, prefering to watch Monty Python with
subtitles.
>>
>> Paragons?
> If they were paragons then you wouldn't want anything else. Few people
> have.
>
> Yes, I know about the copacabana.
>
> Have you been to Salzburg though?
>
I was going to say no I haven't, but then I realized I spent half an hour
there once. I was in a hurry to get to St Johann, you see. Bierfest. Quite
attractive women there, all dancing to really crappy music, and therefore
beneath contempt, even if they were to look like Audry Hepburn cloned out a
hundred times.
> If you haven't then you haven't seen beautiful women.
>
> The mix of genes that you find in that particular part of Europe have
> produced women that will make you understand the Dutchess:
>
> Duchess (reviewing the wounded): Well, my man, where have you been
> wounded?
>
> Man: I shouldn't like to say.
>
> Duchess: Don't worry, my man, I'm married, so I know about these things.
>
> Man: Actually, I've been shot through the penis.
>
> Duchess: Did it break the bone?
>
LOL!
> Man: Give my congratualtions to the Duke.
>
> Boom Boom.
>
> --
> Anybody who is a wide reader can't be a prude - Verity
> * TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
--
Slow Eddy
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 21:40:52 +0000, Slow Eddy
> <man...@siyaganga.ko.zam> wrote:
>
>>Camel wrote:
>>First thing to decide is what the object of the studies are, I suppose. Do
>>you want to achieve enlightenment or something? Or do you want to get over
>>the barrier between yourself and an interesting job?
>
> Fortunately, I need not or want not a "job".
>
> In fact, from a very early age, I found the word "job" quite vulgar.
>
Well then you can have fun, can't you? No need to name the field of your
studies as "BA" etc. Just take everything interesting for Non Diploma
Purposes.
The School of Medicine probably has some interesting things. I mentioned
Forensic Medicine for Law, but that's a very passive and superficial
course. You don't get to cut the bodies up. However, if you do Anatomy
you'll get at least a share in a John or Jane Doe to examine in detail. Not
quite the miracle of living tissue, but your imagination can fill in that
part for you. What I'd suggest is that you aim to fail the course as many
times as they allow, so that you can repeat it a few times. Buy yourself a
skeleton for your entrance hall, too.
Then you need to look into Marine Biology. If you go diving with a two-level
appreciation of your environs, you could almost say you get two dives for
every one. Level one is "Gee look at those pretty colourful fish; I think
I'll come and live with them". Level two is to do with things like the
hydrodynamics of a box fish, for instance. Something you can only fully
appreciate through a mathematical model.
Another thing to study is motor mechanics. Buy yourself a few early 70's
motor bikes of the same breed (for spares), and then pull them apart and
make one that works. Then gas flow it and so on, and get it going faster
than it's meant to. The insides of machines are not quite as interesting as
those of living creatures, but they're more neatly laid out.
Astronomy would be good if you lived in the Karoo, but not otherwise. The
light pollution of the city would frustrate you.
Then there's the sea. Go to sea. The best way to do this is in a 15 to 19
footer (that's a little bit dangerous, but can at least be made unsinkable
if you put in enough bulkheads). Anything bigger requires that you gather a
crew and go through all sorts of rigmarole before leaving port, whereas
with a little boat you just hop in and go. Press gang one of your women
into coming along to do all the hard work, and flog her a bit if she
mutinies. No point in going to sea if you can't have a nice mug of tea to
drink at the helm while you scream threats at your crew. Whatever you do,
do not give into the temptation to get yourself that big boat with
everything you'll never need. It'll just sit in port all the time.
One great idea I had was to fit a Venetian type sculling post on the back of
a small yacht (small means you move better in light wind - and in heavy
seas you get better adventures too). Thought I'd get myself out of comfy
chair mode and scull round the Equator. Become a piece of living biltong
and get eaten by mistake when I got back home.
Climb rocks, too. I tried it once, and have spent the rest of my life fully
intending to do it again. The trick is to put a childlike trust in the
equipment and the the oke at the other end of the rope. Put the fact that
it's boring looking after the rope out of your mind, and don't allow
yourself to imagine the bastard is suddenly going to become distracted by a
butterfly, and leave enough slack in the rope to kill you. If you manage
the absolute trust trick you can enjoy the freedom of standing on just your
heels (with toes etc. dangling over the precipice) halfway up and at a
quintuply lethal height above the scree below. Once fear is out of the
equation you find that even little finger-sized holes and cracks are
perfectly adequate purchase on that outwardly smooth-looking rock.
Possibly the reason I've only got as far as intentions ever again is that
I'm secretly too terrified to risk it again.
But we're meant to be all academic about this, aren't we? Geology might be
interesting. It's quite a trip looking at the evidence for how ancient this
earth is. And you get to have one of those funny little hammers too.
Sometimes you crack open an ordinary brown pebblish rock and the whole of
its innards are amethyst. A geologist friend of my dad's showed me this
when I was young, and it left a lasting impression.
Geology is not terribly interesting if you don't have the Chemistry, though.
And if you do enough Chemistry you may one day be able to extract the active
ingredient of Salvia Divinorum ... or make things explode. I rather like
the idea of learning how to destroy things.
English? Get a role in a Shakespeare play. Rehearsing etc. will eventually
break the dawn of the words over you, all rosy and flame.
>>incurable like that. The only thing to admire around insanity is that
>>people manage to live their way round it. Like people who're missing legs
>>manage to get some mobility.
>
> Is it true that Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle?
>
Absolutely. You can take everything you heard from Senhor Python as true. I
drink therefore I am. Swallows carry coconuts when they migrate, too.
>>Pull that sentence apart like a good lawyer, and critically examine the
>>terms. "Inherent". Do you mean you have some kind of anti-science gene?
>>And why be guided by what "seems"? I know the majority of the field of
>>history Peter is so keen on misguiding you towards is based on
>>supposition.
>
> I was fairly misguided on my own, thank you. "School" taught me so.
>
Learning contempt for schools is the first step toward a philosophy that
could notionally mean something. Schools were designed to create a
widespread loathing of all things interesting, I think.
They taught us at school that history wasn't all about dates. I've tried to
oppose that idea in my mind ever since. Unfortunately I have a terrible
memory for dates. 1487 is when Diaz rounded the Cape, I think. Most
important date in history (whether personal perspective makes that "good"
or "bad"). From the point of view of our history as people not enslaved by
the Turks, we owe absolutely everything to the Portugese. If you study
history I'd recommend Portugese history. The rest is all pretty much dross.
>>Hmmm... maybe dig around for something on the philosophy of science as a
>>first step? Or ask Peter to point you toward the golden road. He probably
>>knows some good websites etc. "Zen and the Art of Motorcycling" is about
>>as far as I've ever gone in philosophically placing where I locate
>>"science". It's probably worth reading, anyway.
>
> Twice.
>
Sehr gut! I think I may have the same number. First time I read it I
couldn't make head or tail of it. But it put the right questions in my
head. Sometimes the thing to read for is questions rather than answers.
Another one I can recommend is called "Drawing on the Right Side of the
Brain". It transformed the way I (literally, I mean) see the world. Can't
draw more than stick men still, but that doesn't matter. Didn't realise I
couldn't See, till I did that bit of Zen.
>>
>>> 3.] BA first?
>>>
>>Possibly with UNISA, yes. But then don't expect to be able to go into
>>something interesting like Patent Law. If it were me I'd do a BSc Chem Eng
>>first, rather. (If I could - and I'm assuming you could). If not science,
>>it's probably better to take a well-constructed BComm. (Take no easy
>>subjects unless they're unavoidable).
>
> BComm? I hate money enough. No, that could not be done.
>
It's the LOVE of money that's the root of all evil. I'm more inclined to the
view that a belief in and desire for power is closer to the root. So
accountancy need not be boring. Cultivate a dispassionate view of the
numbers as numbers, and you're ok.
Good to hate bad values though. So maybe the BComm idea has too great a
contamination risk. Enough money for a cup of tea is a very good thing.
Enough money to make you happy is all Noddy and Big Ears.
>>LLB is pretty much a fixed list with just a few optionals. And your choice
>>of speciality will pretty much determine the optionals. I wanted to nail
>>criminals and stay poor for the rest of my life, so I took Forensic
>>Medicine, for instance. Very interesting.
>
> The fact that I still have a pulse is, for instance, interesting.
>
And that there's air to breathe. Containing oxygen instead of the usual
methane or carbon dioxide or sulphuric acid. Good idea to spend about two
minutes a day just breathing. And visualizing a blue planet. Set side by
side against various lumps of rock, ice, dust, etc.
There's a magnetic field. That's a good thing too. Without one the radiation
would toast us. Mars doesn't have one, I don't think.
Why is it we always notice what's missing rather than what's present?
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 21:40:52 +0000, Slow Eddy
> <man...@siyaganga.ko.zam> wrote:
>
> Is it true that Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle?
>
who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out consume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'bout the raisin' of the wrist.
Socrates himself was permanently pissed.
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
after half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away,
'alf a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
and Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
-- Monty Python
--
"You will not ask me what is the point of envy.--You are determined, I
see, to have no curiosity.--You are wise--but _I_ cannot be wise. Emma,
I must tell you what you will not ask, though I may wish it unsaid the
next moment." -- Emma, Jane Austen
Moira de Swardt
"Camel" <dr...@dref.com> wrote in message
> Although, it is about time that I *did* learn English, dammit!
That probably falls into the category of needing real work.
Rich MacDonald
>>>"Zen and the Art of
>>>Motorcycling" is about as far as I've ever gone in philosophically
>>>placing where I locate "science". It's probably worth reading,
>>>anyway.
>>
>> Twice.
>>
> Sehr gut! I think I may have the same number. First time I read it I
> couldn't make head or tail of it. But it put the right questions in my
> head. Sometimes the thing to read for is questions rather than
> answers.
Twice myself. Lila is a great followup as well. A neat, organized structure
of how things are in the first few pages then lots of examples to follow.
P.S. The son died.
sportsfan
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:dma86r$gb8$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
I consider the above very sound advice, under most
circumstances, if a person is truly happy then, he
has learned much that many will never learn. If any
person chooses any coarse in life that is influenced by
prestige or by fashion they would be very shallow.
Obviously excluding women when choosing their
clothing.
Slow Eddy
That's the first I ever heard of a follow-up. Must look for it in a library
when I get to civilization. Did the son die young, then, I suppose? Or did
he write the book after his son died, and reinvent history to have turned
out the way it should've as opposed to the way it did?
Can't be many people who've read it, because I don't see much evidence
around the world of today to suggest that anyone took his advice. Pity.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Rich MacDonald wrote:
>
>
>>Slow Eddy <man...@siyaganga.ko.zam> wrote in
>>news:dmc038$r1r$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net:
>>
>>
>>>>>"Zen and the Art of
>>>>>Motorcycling" is about as far as I've ever gone in philosophically
>>>>>placing where I locate "science". It's probably worth reading,
>>>>>anyway.
>>>>
>>>>Twice.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sehr gut! I think I may have the same number. First time I read it I
>>>couldn't make head or tail of it. But it put the right questions in my
>>>head. Sometimes the thing to read for is questions rather than
>>>answers.
>>
>>Twice myself. Lila is a great followup as well. A neat, organized
>>structure of how things are in the first few pages then lots of examples
>>to follow. P.S. The son died.
>
>
> That's the first I ever heard of a follow-up. Must look for it in a library
> when I get to civilization. Did the son die young, then, I suppose? Or did
> he write the book after his son died, and reinvent history to have turned
> out the way it should've as opposed to the way it did?
>
> Can't be many people who've read it, because I don't see much evidence
> around the world of today to suggest that anyone took his advice. Pity.
>
was rather a bore.
--
Perfection requires a high tolerance for boredom.
Rich MacDonald
> Slow Eddy wrote:
>> Rich MacDonald wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Slow Eddy <man...@siyaganga.ko.zam> wrote in
>>>news:dmc038$r1r$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>"Zen and the Art of
>>>>>>Motorcycling" is about as far as I've ever gone in philosophically
>>>>>>placing where I locate "science". It's probably worth reading,
>>>>>>anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>Twice.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sehr gut! I think I may have the same number. First time I read it I
>>>>couldn't make head or tail of it. But it put the right questions in
>>>>my head. Sometimes the thing to read for is questions rather than
>>>>answers.
>>>
>>>Twice myself. Lila is a great followup as well. A neat, organized
>>>structure of how things are in the first few pages then lots of
>>>examples to follow. P.S. The son died.
>>
>>
>> That's the first I ever heard of a follow-up. Must look for it in a
>> library when I get to civilization. Did the son die young, then, I
>> suppose? Or did he write the book after his son died, and reinvent
>> history to have turned out the way it should've as opposed to the way
>> it did?
Son died in 1979 (after the book). A mugging/stabbing in San Francisco.
The bike ride was real. Wikipedia has some starting links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Pirsig
>> Can't be many people who've read it, because I don't see much
>> evidence around the world of today to suggest that anyone took his
>> advice. Pity.
>>
> I wouldn't recommend 'Lila'. I was pleased to find it, but, sadly, it
> was rather a bore.
Not to me. Certainly "Zen" was a better story and the characters in
"Lila" are depressed, but "Lila" provides a fascinating and accurate
"hipbone is connected to the thighbone" description of the earth's
operations. Static vs dynamic forces operating on a system. A stacked
system of physical, chemical, social, and individual levels. Very
insightful and very powerful explanatory/descriptive capability. A
philosophy you can "use" :-) Far more so than "Zen". Plus a bonus
"history of the American Indian" theory that is very original.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in
> news:dmfg8p$ff3$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net:
>
> "Lila" are depressed, but "Lila" provides a fascinating and accurate
> "hipbone is connected to the thighbone" description of the earth's
> operations. Static vs dynamic forces operating on a system. A stacked
> system of physical, chemical, social, and individual levels. Very
> insightful and very powerful explanatory/descriptive capability. A
> philosophy you can "use" :-) Far more so than "Zen". Plus a bonus
> "history of the American Indian" theory that is very original.
>
of celebration of the hey-wow - and we know how the hey-wow love the
idea of Red Indians - not real Red Indians, of course, but the idea of
them and their smoke lodges is really shoo-wow-man.
--
"It is the mark of a civilised man, and a hallmark of his culture,
that he applies no more precision to a problem than its nature permits,
or its solution demands." - Aristotle
Rich MacDonald
nnrp2.saix.net:
> Philosophy? They were both popular novels. If anything they were a sort
> of celebration of the hey-wow - and we know how the hey-wow love the
> idea of Red Indians - not real Red Indians, of course, but the idea of
> them and their smoke lodges is really shoo-wow-man.
?
You saying his writings don't qualify as philosophy because they were
presented within popular novel form? Or just wanting to be dismissive?
To each his own, I guess. I never had a problem with the "hey-wow" "shoo-
wow-man" aspect you're talking about. The concept of quality and
static/dynamic forces were strikingly valid enough for me I didn't need
good weed to appreciate them. And Pirsig is honest enough to let you know
when he might be wrong, i.e., when his previous sentence may suffer from a
temporary "hey-wow" filter. When you're writing about yourself working
through ideas its can't be helped.
Now "Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test"...that one definitely benefited from good
weed.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in news:dmgnbl$8hg$1@ctb-
> nnrp2.saix.net:
>
>
>>Philosophy? They were both popular novels. If anything they were a sort
>>of celebration of the hey-wow - and we know how the hey-wow love the
>>idea of Red Indians - not real Red Indians, of course, but the idea of
>>them and their smoke lodges is really shoo-wow-man.
>
>
> presented within popular novel form? Or just wanting to be dismissive?
>
books, as did the recently deceased John Fowles (once the top living
novelist). They are too simplistic and naive to be classed as
philosophy. They are at the right level for starting a cult, I suppose.
marika
Slow Eddy wrote:
>. Buy yourself a
> skeleton for your entrance hall, too.
what about shoes? what is the name brand of the shoes you wore.?
would like to get a pair, are they very comfortable.
>
> Then you need to look into Marine Biology. If you go diving with a two-level
> appreciation of your environs, you could almost say you get two dives for
> every one. Level one is "Gee look at those pretty colourful fish; I think
> I'll come and live with them". Level two is to do with things like the
> hydrodynamics of a box fish, for instance. Something you can only fully
> appreciate through a mathematical model.
>
> Another thing to study is motor mechanics. Buy yourself a few early 70's
> motor bikes of the same breed (for spares), and then pull them apart and
> make one that works.
Do you think I can buy them on line?
I would like to be governmental about it. A representive from Dept of
human resourses is coming next week to see if I need any special help.
and yeaterday I bought coupons for the taxi cab.twenty tickets worth 1
dollar each.for 10 dollars.wich I think is a good deal.
mk5000
"What's the use of make believe?
The needles of the clock
Are moving right to left
Pretend we never heard of things we said "--day and time, shakira
Slow Eddy
>
> Slow Eddy wrote:
>>. Buy yourself a
>> skeleton for your entrance hall, too.
>
> what about shoes? what is the name brand of the shoes you wore.?
> would like to get a pair, are they very comfortable.
>
I wish I could remember the funny things the forensics prof wrote on the
feet of his cadavers. There was one that just had "I'm tired" on it, but
the others were abominably funny.
It's always a bit better if you drape a bit of steak on some of the bones of
your skeleton. Much more lifelike, if you like.
>
>> Another thing to study is motor mechanics. Buy yourself a few early 70's
>> motor bikes of the same breed (for spares), and then pull them apart and
>> make one that works.
>
> Do you think I can buy them on line?
>
Actually you could. bikes4sale.co.za has quite a range of machines.
The Kawasaki Z1000 is possibly a good choice.
>> Possibly the reason I've only got as far as intentions ever again is that
>> I'm secretly too terrified to risk it again.
>>
>> But we're meant to be all academic about this, aren't we?
>
> I would like to be governmental about it. A representive from Dept of
> human resourses is coming next week to see if I need any special help.
> and yeaterday I bought coupons for the taxi cab.twenty tickets worth 1
> dollar each.for 10 dollars.wich I think is a good deal.
>
Tell the representative that you do. Even if you don't. No harm in receiving
help from the government. I would actually make a lovely change to hear of
someone being helped instead of hindered by the government.
What I'd really love to hear is that in some areas the police don't think of
their job as being that of handing out CR numbers for insurance claims.
> mk5000
>
> "What's the use of make believe?
> The needles of the clock
> Are moving right to left
> Pretend we never heard of things we said "--day and time, shakira
Sounds deep, but I'm afraid that your lips move, but I can't hear what
you're saying. I must be comfortably numb or something.
sportsfan
"Slow Eddy" <man...@siyaganga.ko.zam> wrote in message
news:dmkta2$eih$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> What I'd really love to hear is that in some areas the police don't think
> of
> their job as being that of handing out CR numbers for insurance claims.
Our police do much more than that they stop you to see if you
have any outstanding warrants for traffic violations, they stop
you to see if they can illicit bribes, and they drive their friends
around in official police vehicles. They really have such
demanding duties its no wonder they don't have time to
catch criminals.
Rich MacDonald
nnrp2.saix.net:
>>>Philosophy? They were both popular novels. If anything they were a sort
>>>of celebration of the hey-wow - and we know how the hey-wow love the
>>>idea of Red Indians - not real Red Indians, of course, but the idea of
>>>them and their smoke lodges is really shoo-wow-man.
>>
>>
>> You saying his writings don't qualify as philosophy because they were
>> presented within popular novel form? Or just wanting to be dismissive?
>>
> No, I don't say that. Camus managed to express philosophical ideas in
> books, as did the recently deceased John Fowles (once the top living
> novelist). They are too simplistic and naive to be classed as
> philosophy. They are at the right level for starting a cult, I suppose.
Its not clear what you're trying to say and it just got worse. Now you say
"they" .. are too simplistic ... Do you mean Pirsig, Camus and Fowles? Or
do you mean only Pirsig?
And if you're saying Pirsig's ideas were too simplistic and naive to be
classed as philosophy, you're only exposing your philosophy, not defining
it :-)
Peter H.M. Brooks
the previous paragraph.
Part of the confusion, as you clarify in your final paragraph, is that
you're talking about "one's philosophy", which is a rather different
matter from philosophy itself.
As a Patience Strong style style-guide to a particularly Luddite and
sixties personal 'philosophy', I'd agree Persig is probably your man.
His thesis, insofar as he had one, was that, to mend machines, or even
operate them properly, you had to have a mechanical mind of the sort
that worried more about 'feeling the machine' than carburettor settings.
Given the rather haphazard engineering of pre-Jap motorbikes there's a
certain logic to that, but it's applicability is limited.
How do you extend the engineering stance to mending your iPod should it
go on the blink some day?
Don't think that the hero of ZATAOMM would have been that anti-iPods,
mind you. With the right recording and a crotch-mounted iPod vibrator
accessory (such things exist, I assure you) you could get the full
Harley-Davidson experience without ever leaving home. (OK, you'd also
need a fan and a large insect collection to mount behind it)
--
"But God doesn't exist"
"Let's hope so, Let's hope so" - dialogue from Le Fate ignoranti
marika
sportsfan wrote:
> Our police do much more than that they stop you to see if you
> have any outstanding warrants for traffic violations, they stop
> you to see if they can illicit bribes, and they drive their friends
> around in official police vehicles.
But what if my name is not on their list. I can't
imagine how it would make them feel if they saw the warrant list and
didn't see
my name on it. They would cry
mk5000
"Oh, some pages turned,
Some bridges burned,
But there were lessons learned,
Lessons learned
"----carrie underwood
marika
Slow Eddy wrote:
> I wish I could remember the funny things the forensics prof wrote on the
> feet of his cadavers. There was one that just had "I'm tired" on it, but
> the others were abominably funny.
what did he write these comments with. was it indelible ink?
mk5000
"They hop out and you hop in
I look fly and they jockin
The way you drop, drop makes me wanna pop
Is your man, on the flo' --
Run it Ft. Bow Wow & Jermaine Dupre. Chris Brown
Lester Mosley
marika wrote:
> Slow Eddy wrote:
> > I wish I could remember the funny things the forensics prof wrote on the
> > feet of his cadavers. There was one that just had "I'm tired" on it, but
> > the others were abominably funny.
>
> what did he write these comments with. was it indelible ink?
What colour was the ink?
Slow Eddy
Ours dawdle along to burglaries and so on, but rush to accidents for the
important business of throwing their weight around and generating conflict.
Had some German tourists turn into the farm right before my very eyes the
other day, straight into an accident I could see coming from the moment I
saw them. They were completely focused on reading the signs and finding
their way, crawling along at 20 km/h first over the yellow line, and then
suddenly shooting across toward the entrance. I think they forgot they were
driving on the left side of the road, and that in a right turn you must
look out for oncoming traffic. They'd slipped back into German mode - apart
from the fact that they were doddering along like old ladies.
Bang! Bakkie smacks them, spins them completely around, and ends up off its
own side of the road with the engine on fire. (Never believed these
Hollywood burning cars up till now).
OK, so the Germans are mainly to blame, and they admit as much once they've
gotten over the shock. The Ethiopians in the bakkie should've seen there
was trouble ahead and slacked off a bit, but in the end it's the Germans
responsibility to look before turning. (This is a long, straight stretch of
road, so it takes quite a phenomenal amount of stupidity and carelessness
to have an accident here).
The tow company comes, I give the particulars of the driver to the Ethiopian
driver, and all is peaceful enough for an accident scene. Very nice people
these Ethiopians. No they're not insured, and their life's savings is
probably burning away, but their only concern to start with is whether
anyone has been hurt. That's all they have to say about the accident: Thank
God nobody was killed.
Once this is all done, the Germans can leave the crash scene. Everything's
taken care of. And I try very, very hard to get them to leave. Because I
don't want them there when the cops arrive. No-one's dead, they've given
their particulars, (and they're saying "Tut mir Leid! Arme Leute ..." etc.
(ie ag shame man, poor buggers)) Whatever happens later, things will be
sorted out. The cops are coming so lets get the hell out of here, I try to
tell them in my ragged German. They understand, but they don't. They don't
properly understand that it's a bloody good idea to clear off, and go deal
with the cops later at the police station, and not here on the road.
And then it's too late. There come the cops. Revving the hell out of that
police van, and screaching to a halt. In striking contrast to their typical
burglary response.
So now we have to work on getting the cops on their way before there's any
trouble. No chance of that. The sargeant just wants to do his routine work,
but the constable (or whatever he was) want's some action. Struts around,
and starts shouting at my brother. Turns to the Ethiopians and says
something like, "These whites think I'm stupid, but I'm clever! (literally
in those kinds of terms) Watch out! They lie!! They'll make you stupid if
you let them!" He was trying really hard to get the peaceful Ethiopians
into conflict mode. It didn't work, which just made him try harder.
Then he wants to know the telephone number my brother has just given me, and
my brother finally loses his rag, and pokes the place on the paper where
the number is written rather vigorously. Irritably. Not having the common
sense to disguise the "there it is, you stupid arsehole, are you blind?"
expression that's come onto his face. This is getting bad, because I can
see my brother is not very far from blikseming this unprofessional cop, and
if that happens we've got big kak on our hands instead of just some
irritation.
What can I say? It got quite ugly out there. I remained basically friendly
to this arsehole throughout, but eventually I had to intimidate him by
getting too far into his personal space. I'm a lot bigger than he is, so
this had a calming effect on him. smile smile - with a little hint of the
threat of ripping this dick's head off if he carries on the way he has been
- "Yes, I agree we should all respect the police [but I know you can't
charge me for an offence of holding you in the utmost contempt you little
worm]. Sorry my brother's just had a very rough day at work ... etc. etc.
etc."
And eventually that sheepdog that failed to pen the sheep feeling is
relieved when finally all the Germans get in the bloody car like they
should've when I asked them to in the first place, and off we go. My
brother wanted to bliksem the cop once the cop started to turn amateur
lawyer and professional racist; me, I wanted to give those bloody stupid
Germans a good clip across the ear. I've come to expect the police to go
telling people what terrible people all whites are, so all that was like
water off a duck's back for me.
Slow Eddy
Yes, I think it may well have been. May not have been him who done it,
though. There was a police sargeant there who thought it was funny to start
eating his lunch when the students came in to watch the disections (and
this worked - a good few would fall down instantly). Could be him who made
the corpses all happy before they went to their graves.
Slow Eddy
Black or blue. Can't remember, but it was one of those.
Slow Eddy
Where on earth did you get that impression from, Peter? As I recall, Pirsig
rejected the whole "hey-wow" approach to life. He tried it, found it wasn't
to his liking, and then set out to try and make peace between it and logic.
My recollection is that he showed the failings of the hey'wow approach to
motorcycle maintenance in the character of the couple who started out the
journey on the other bike. It packed in, I seem to recall, and Mr Heywow on
the other bike was simply bewildered and angry at machines in response.
Pirsig then went on to point out the simple common sense of doing things
like setting your carb properly, regular maintenance, etc. The exact
opposite of "feeling the machine".
Later on he tries to put the "feeling the machine" and "analizing the
problem" approaches into a synthesis that had something to do with a
train,and which lost me at the time I last read the book. But he never
crosses the floor to the heywow party, only acknowledges that in some
regards they have some point.
Slow Eddy
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 18:00:44 +0000, Slow Eddy
> <man...@siyaganga.ko.zam> wrote:
>
>>handyman wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Slow Eddy. Nice to see you back.
>>> How did your studying of the four different languages go? Maybe I missed
>>Ja ja, aber ich habe nur Deutsch fur eine entire year gelernenen ... oder
>>something like that. Diese ist von trying to sprechen Deutsch mit mein
>>cousin in Deutschland, who mixen seine languages severely. Der ganse time
>>he keeps telling me how filthy the Germans are. Nicht so gut fur fitting
>>in, oder?
>
> Hi Slow Eddy,
>
> At the ripe old age of 39, and with very little to do in the
> foreseeable future, I am contemplating a bit of a part-time study gig,
> what.
>
First thing to decide is what the object of the studies are, I suppose. Do
you want to achieve enlightenment or something? Or do you want to get over
the barrier between yourself and an interesting job?
If it's enlightenment you're after, don't go expecting too much of any
university. I see Peter suggests philosophy as an interesting field. I'd
agree (though a deep quest for common sense will serve you better for
actual living), but I can't recommend doing it through a certifying body.
Certainly not if you want enlightenment. I've looked at UNISA's philosophy
courses, and decided I won't bother with them later on. All political.
Because I happen to be located in Afrika, it's deemed necessary to study
African philosophy. In other words nationalism is built into the very
fabric of the curriculum, and if any South African is unaware of the perils
of nationalism of any kind then he must be bloody blind. -- no. Stupid,
actually. "Foolish" if you like your terms more high-fallutin', and
"Stoopid" if you like to lay it on thick and rough. Universities
indoctrinate priests. They don't educate in the ideal sense I imagine to be
possible. Oxford started as a place for teaching dogma to priests, and is
too stupid to realise it still does, for instance. All they've gone and
done is stripped down christianity (sorry moira, i'm just appeasing peter
here) and dished it up under new names. Stripped out the god, the part of
love that has to do with loving your enemies, etc. Another topic. One I'm
not up to at the moment.
Ja. So university philolosophy? Not unless you can put lots of salt in it.
Maybe go trolling in alt.philosophy.trosky or something like that if you
want to get philosophical. Get yourself one of the translations on
Socrates, too. There's not a huge amount attributed to Socrates (and
nothing purporting to be from his own pen), but it's quite interesting. A
window into another place in time, if nothing else, because Socrates comes
down to us as a series of stories. Parables, almost. Nietzsche is also
interesting. Because he's completely barking mad. There's lots of serious
academic stuff written about Nietzsche, but in truth and fact the man was
just barking mad. Barking mad with some striking moments of lucidity, mind
you. What I like about Nietzsche is that his mind died of something like a
broken heart for the sake of a broken horse. He was in Italy with friends,
when he saw some bastard beat a poor horse to death. It upset him so much
that he went all catatonic, clinging to the horse's neck as if to comfort.
It was appparently a bugger to drag him off his dead horse, and when they
did, the remnants of Nietzsche's fragile sanity were gone. From the point
of view of being a part of the rest of humanity he was dead. Can't say I
like the ending that much. I don't go in for romanticizing insanity. I've
felt it stalk me, and seen it destroy members of my family, and there's
nothing at all wonderful about it. It's like leprosy or something incurable
like that. The only thing to admire around insanity is that people manage
to live their way round it. Like people who're missing legs manage to get
some mobility.
I'd say go in for DIY philosophy for at least 15 or 20 years before
considering embarking on any formal, regulated and controlled study of it,
guided by an institution.
> I seem to have an inherent distrust of the sciences, so I am toying
> with the idea of a BA with Law closely linked.
>
Being someone who went through the BA Law route, I'm afraid I can't
recommend it. Why and inherent distrust of the sciences? Science is just a
method, not an ideology. The untrustworthy part of the "sciences" is
generally the uncomprehending interpretation of science that
mumbo-jumbo-seeking journalists, historians, archaeologists etc. give out
as describing science.
Pull that sentence apart like a good lawyer, and critically examine the
terms. "Inherent". Do you mean you have some kind of anti-science gene? And
why be guided by what "seems"? I know the majority of the field of history
Peter is so keen on misguiding you towards is based on supposition. Which
would be fair enough if there wasn't the tendency to transpose supposition
into fact. Science is a bit ruthless on supposition, generally (although it
has a debt to many insights that come from roughly the same brainpart as
this - possibly).
Hmmm... maybe dig around for something on the philosophy of science as a
first step? Or ask Peter to point you toward the golden road. He probably
knows some good websites etc. "Zen and the Art of Motorcycling" is about as
far as I've ever gone in philosophically placing where I locate "science".
It's probably worth reading, anyway.
If it's law you're interested in, firstly I'd recommend hanging around the
criminal courts for a while. Get to know the prosecutors. Ingratiate
yourself by making yourself useful round the place. See how the (small)
forensic aspect of law operates. (Forensic actually means "to do with court
proceedings". It's not a medical term). You'll find it's 90% chaos and
rushed jobs. You'll also find that traffic court is not something anyone
would like to do for the rest of their lives.
Then once you've done the magistrates courts for a few weeks, go to the High
Court. Apparently things are done with more grace and elegance there.
What you need to be on the look out for is the kind of eye for detail the
trial lawyer needs. See if you can get into that. What you need is the mind
of a nagging wife who never forgets her husband wore the wrong tie to their
eleventh wedding anniversary do.
Then forget the idea that what you've experienced in all these courts is
what law is all about. Law is much more to do with things like knowing that
you don't fill in Deeds Office documents in anything other than black ink.
If the ink is blue, it'll be sent back to you. It's more about processing
Motor Vehicle Accident Fund forms than about drafting clever contracts,
too. I don't know if you'd manage to get yourself inside a law firm to get
an insider's view, but if you can manage it you'll get a realistic view of
what law is really about.
If you find that law is what you want to do (and I find it difficult to
imagine anyone would want to just study it out of curiosity) then you don't
need to do a BA first. I know that at least the University of Natal has now
turned their LLB into a four-year undergrad degree, instead of the old
postgrad version.
Oh then there's the issue of law being a traditional black trade. Do you
think you'll be black enough to get a job once you're done? You may get
away with being of the wrong race as an engineer, because engineering isn't
a very sought-after black job (or wasn't - maybe that's changed), but as a
lawyer you're looking at quite a high BEE risk. And you can't export your
qualifications very easily, either, if all doors close on you here.
> 1.] Do you think I could handle it? (Insanity, you understand.)
>
You seem to be a pretty intelligent bloke, Camel, insanity notwithstanding.
Insanity, itself, isn't a bar. I've encountered some truly loony legal
practitioners in my time. Most have the souls of Monty Python accountants,
but there are some very strange folk out there.
> 2.] UNISA ok?
>
Ja, I'd say so. I've picked up on the odd hint of semi-literacy in English
from my chemistry lecturer, but science folk do generally tend not to be
very particular about their language use, so I can't say this is a sign of
danger and decay.
UNISA has the great virtue that it's cheap. I was looking at doing a
laboratory course at Mazaryk University in Czech. Didn't find it (on
account of my basic Czech phrase book not taking me that far), but I did
find a one-semester course on teaching English as a second language. In
Rand terms I calculated the cost of this was R 350000!! At that rate an LLB
would cost you several million, then.
The UNISA language people seem pretty on the ball to me. Very helpful
comments in the margins of assignments etc., so at least there they're
fine.
It's internationally accredited (they submit to being monitored by a board
based in the USA, for instance), too.
The big difficulty with UNISA is that you miss out on things like tutorial
groups, and personal contact with the lecturers. You can't just ask
questions as they strike you, or pop in to pester them at the drop of a
hat. And studying on your own takes a bit of discipline. For those who're
working it takes an almost unimaginable amount of discipline, and I take my
hat off to them (as well as get down on my knees and bang my forehead on
the floor).
> 3.] BA first?
>
Possibly with UNISA, yes. But then don't expect to be able to go into
something interesting like Patent Law. If it were me I'd do a BSc Chem Eng
first, rather. (If I could - and I'm assuming you could). If not science,
it's probably better to take a well-constructed BComm. (Take no easy
subjects unless they're unavoidable).
No. BA/ BComm you can probably assume will leave you unemployable on account
of your not being black enough. The only real option is to start on the
sciences (and engineering, if possible - ie. not UNISA), get a Phd in that
first, and then knock off a quick LLB. That way you're probably scarce
enough to be employable in spite of your more obvious disadvantages to the
community.
> 4.] Subjects?
>
LLB is pretty much a fixed list with just a few optionals. And your choice
of speciality will pretty much determine the optionals. I wanted to nail
criminals and stay poor for the rest of my life, so I took Forensic
Medicine, for instance. Very interesting.
> 5.] etc...
>
> Ta ever so,
>
> Camel (wreapfrop :))
Like I say, it's largely a matter of what you want from the degree/ studies.
If your heart is pure and you seek the Buddhah, it would be better for you
to trek into Tibet with a laptop, and keep in contact with enlightened
newsgroups .... ??? What am I saying??? Where do you find such a thing ???
If you want to work in some new field, then you need to do a recce. See what
looks good, and then make up your mind to point yourself in that direction.
A bit easier to outward appearances, but probably more difficult in actual
fact.
marika
Slow Eddy wrote:
>
> Black or blue. Can't remember, but it was one of those.
>
> --
If you used both then you could fake bruises.
mk5000
"this gives you a split second of separation, and that's all you need.
You're dancing and he's on skates"--Trikz
marika
Slow Eddy wrote:
> sportsfan wrote:
>
>
>
> Ours dawdle along to burglaries and so on, but rush to accidents for the
> important business of throwing their weight around and generating conflict.
> Had some German tourists turn into the farm right before my very eyes the
> other day, straight into an accident I could see coming from the moment I
> saw them. They were completely focused on reading the signs and finding
> their way, crawling along at 20 km/h first over the yellow line, and then
> suddenly shooting across toward the entrance. I think they forgot they were
> driving on the left side of the road, and that in a right turn you must
> look out for oncoming traffic. They'd slipped back into German mode - apart
> from the fact that they were doddering along like old ladies.
>
>
that was an interesting story.
the only thing worse than racism is hypocritical racism that's brushed
over and excused for one reason or another
I had an unusual chance to watch alot of coverage over the week of the
hurricanes in Louisiana and Mississippi. And see FOX
And see the arrogance that IS FOX News.
Sickening. They did a few things i liked, like useful graphics and
stuff.
But, listening to Shepard Smith, repeatedly refer to how 'these people
from the Projects . . .'
Anyone else would have been having their NEIGHBORHOOD referred to.
And some clearly too young bimbo doing a report on some of the evacuees
removal from the Superdome, and SHE FOCUSES ON THE LITTER THEY LEFT
BEHIND???????????????????????????????????????
THAT, is the essense of FOX news.
FOX NEWS IS the water that covered New Orleans
mk5000
"almost anyone, whether you're short or fat or 55 can do this move.
But if you can't walk or chew gum, this is not the trick for
you."--Trikz
Peter H.M. Brooks
It's amazing what you can understand by applying it. It is a sort of
bullshit razor, a handy implement - though these days a bullshit combine
harvester might be more the trick.
--
A young lady who faints, must be recovered; questions must be
answered, and surprises be explained. Such events are very interesting,
but the suspense of them cannot last long. A few minutes made Emma
acquainted with the whole. - Emma, Jane Austen
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Camel wrote:
>
>
> what law is all about. Law is much more to do with things like knowing that
> you don't fill in Deeds Office documents in anything other than black ink.
> If the ink is blue, it'll be sent back to you. It's more about processing
> Motor Vehicle Accident Fund forms than about drafting clever contracts,
> too. I don't know if you'd manage to get yourself inside a law firm to get
> an insider's view, but if you can manage it you'll get a realistic view of
> what law is really about.
>
Whilst making these constant and extensive rulings over minuscule form
matters and neglecting substantive issues the size of mammoths, the
system still has the lack of self-knowledge to declare - de minibus non
curat lex!
The Byzantine and trivial nature of these rules also gives vivid meaning
to the word 'accretion' and a useful insight into what a lawyer is
likely to spend his time doing if given free rein and your money.
>
> If you find that law is what you want to do (and I find it difficult to
> imagine anyone would want to just study it out of curiosity) then you don't
> need to do a BA first. I know that at least the University of Natal has now
> turned their LLB into a four-year undergrad degree, instead of the old
> postgrad version.
>
People find theology and taxonomy interesting for similar reasons - an
obsession with minute detail with no desire whatsoever for any 'bigger
picture' view helps enormously to make them fascinating. Much insect
taxonomy (in pre-DNA days) involved distinguishing tiny features in the
genitalia of apparently identical insects almost too small to see with
the naked eye - the insects, I mean, not just their genitalia.
>
> Oh then there's the issue of law being a traditional black trade. Do you
> think you'll be black enough to get a job once you're done? You may get
> away with being of the wrong race as an engineer, because engineering isn't
> a very sought-after black job (or wasn't - maybe that's changed), but as a
> lawyer you're looking at quite a high BEE risk. And you can't export your
> qualifications very easily, either, if all doors close on you here.
>
The relative of mine who did so spectacularly well in her final exams
towards becoming a solicitor( a matter of no tiny concern to me, as you
can imagine, from the genes point of view ) asked me - whilst actually
doing her finals - why it was that they had to learn so much irrelevant
material and answer such detailed questions on it when it could, after
all, be so easily looked up if required. Obviously this sort of work is
useful as it enables people to learn where to look things up - many,
before google, finding it a difficult matter all on its own - but I
pointed out that, like any trades union, there have to be bars to entry
(if you excuse the pun). After all, if any clever person could read the
matter up and DIY (or, rather DIH) then there'd be very lean pickings
for the majority of rather dim lawyers - just the sort who occupy the
committees of legal societies who make the rules as to who it is who can
join next (being, of course, not very good at the law itself themselves).
--
I should many a good day, have blown my brains out, but for the
recollection that it would have given pleasure to my mother-in-law - Byron
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
> Where on earth did you get that impression from, Peter? As I recall, Pirsig
> rejected the whole "hey-wow" approach to life. He tried it, found it wasn't
> to his liking, and then set out to try and make peace between it and logic.
>
> My recollection is that he showed the failings of the hey'wow approach to
> motorcycle maintenance in the character of the couple who started out the
> journey on the other bike. It packed in, I seem to recall, and Mr Heywow on
> the other bike was simply bewildered and angry at machines in response.
> Pirsig then went on to point out the simple common sense of doing things
> like setting your carb properly, regular maintenance, etc. The exact
> opposite of "feeling the machine".
>
> Later on he tries to put the "feeling the machine" and "analizing the
> problem" approaches into a synthesis that had something to do with a
> train,and which lost me at the time I last read the book. But he never
> crosses the floor to the heywow party, only acknowledges that in some
> regards they have some point.
>
about it, there was that contrast earlier on.
I hadn't remembered that he didn't actually cross the floor - for me,
I'm afraid, acknowledging that the hey-wow have some point in some
regards is too fine a distinction from agreeing with them to notice the
difference. I acknowledge this as a failing, but I fear that I'm
unlikely to remedy it.
--
Perfection requires a high tolerance for boredom.
Slow Eddy
>
> Slow Eddy wrote:
>> sportsfan wrote:
>>
>>
>
>>
>> Ours dawdle along to burglaries and so on, but rush to accidents for the
>> important business of throwing their weight around and generating
>> conflict. Had some German tourists turn into the farm right before my
>> very eyes the other day, straight into an accident I could see coming
>> from the moment I saw them. They were completely focused on reading the
>> signs and finding their way, crawling along at 20 km/h first over the
>> yellow line, and then suddenly shooting across toward the entrance. I
>> think they forgot they were driving on the left side of the road, and
>> that in a right turn you must look out for oncoming traffic. They'd
>> slipped back into German mode - apart from the fact that they were
>> doddering along like old ladies.
>>
>>
>
> that was an interesting story.
>
> the only thing worse than racism is hypocritical racism that's brushed
> over and excused for one reason or another
>
Here, it seems to work on a kind of selective immunity from any allegation
of racism. Some races are capable of racism whereas others are not.
> I had an unusual chance to watch alot of coverage over the week of the
> hurricanes in Louisiana and Mississippi. And see FOX
>
More bloody hurricanes?? Yeowch! Thought that lot must be over by now. Shows
how little I watch the news. Like you, I find it quite irritating, and I
work on the assumption that if something that affects me happens I'll hear
about it from my friends or family.
Slow Eddy
Pirsig (himself, apparently - the book was quite autobiographical) went the
whole hog with the heywow thing. Went to India and found himself a guru.
And became profoundly disillusioned with the whole thing. But what drove
him there was a disillusionment with scientific method. His problem was you
can generate a nearly infinite number of explanatory models/ hypotheses to
explain a phenomenon, and then you only test one. And when your data comes
back incompatible with the hypothesis, you assume automatically that there
must've been a mistake in the readings. The imperfections of it irked him,
and it took him a while to get comfortable with the fact that in spite of
this, it seems to work pretty well (I think this is partly what the book is
about). There's a "heywow" aspect to science. You pick the model you're
going to destructively test by a kind of gut feel. There isn't an algorithm
for model selection.
Slow Eddy
That would be quite handy I suppose ... um ...
And if you used green and yellow dye you could do quite a good imitation of
putrefaction, too. Although I don't know how you'd do the swelling of the
tissues, gas bloat etc....
Slow Eddy
But Occam's Razor is something quite different, I think. ? A rule of thumb.
A policy guideline. Asserted as wisdom rather than formal philosophy (ie.
common sense).
Probably the best way to make logic useful is to learn the list of classic
logical fallacies, rather than view it as a construction tool. Use it as a
bullshit razor, IOW. Yes. They could actually teach schoolkids logic if
they did it that way. Teaching right logic first may seem logical, but
actually it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense because in practice
most people fall asleep before they get the point (this "falling asleep" is
a spiritual state, rather than something accompanied by loud snoring).
Teach wrong logic first. It's easier to grasp intuitively.
Peter H.M. Brooks
thumb.
A policy guideline. Asserted as wisdom rather than formal philosophy
(ie.
common sense).
Probably the best way to make logic useful is to learn the list of
classic
logical fallacies, rather than view it as a construction tool. Use it
as a
bullshit razor, IOW. Yes. They could actually teach schoolkids logic if
they did it that way. Teaching right logic first may seem logical, but
actually it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense because in
practice
most people fall asleep before they get the point (this "falling
asleep" is
a spiritual state, rather than something accompanied by loud snoring).
Teach wrong logic first. It's easier to grasp intuitively.
---
I was referring to Occam's razor, yes, but I wasn't actually meaning it
itself.
You can't prove a principle, you're right. it is, however, instructive
to try to build a list of instances where Occam's razor has been shown
to be false.
I agree completely. The trick, and the difficulty, is twofold.Firstly
you need a very good teacher finding good examples of logical fallicies
that make them clear. That is not an insignificant hurdle - books exist
that do this, but few, apparently, read them.
The second is more serious. I thought Polonius an old fool when reading
Hamlet as a young lad. Now I find Hamlet a bore because Polonius is
simply stating obvious truisms. Clearly Hamlet hasn't changed. I have.
You have, it seems, in life, to make your own mistakes and learn from
them. Despite acres of books telling you what not to do, actually, you
still have to go out and fuck up personally to get the point.
I don't think that there is a cure for this. After all, it makes good
evolutionary sense. Old men might be wise and know all there is about
surviving a famine - but, if the rains are now good then you need to
ignore them and try different things to do well. If we simply absorbed
the lessons from our elders as truths too deep for taint (lovely peom),
then we'd soon be extinct. Maybe that's what happened to the
Neanderthals - after all they were cleverer than us.
Peter H.M. Brooks
He's wrong about the scientific method though. He got the penny seat
version. When the results come back negative you find another model that
fits them and try to find a test to disprove that one. I's progressive,
not exhaustive.
Yea, its imperfect. Fuck perfection though. Look at what it did for god.
--
"Me!--not at all," replied Mr. Knightley, rather displeased; "I do not
want to think ill of him. I should be as ready to acknowledge his
merits as any other man; but I hear of none, except what are merely
personal; that he is well-grown and good-looking, with smooth, plausible
manners." -- Emma, Jane Austen
Slow Eddy
> Slow Eddy wrote:
>> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>>
>>
>> Pirsig (himself, apparently - the book was quite autobiographical) went
>> the whole hog with the heywow thing. Went to India and found himself a
>> guru. And became profoundly disillusioned with the whole thing. But what
>> drove him there was a disillusionment with scientific method. His problem
>> was you can generate a nearly infinite number of explanatory models/
>> hypotheses to explain a phenomenon, and then you only test one. And when
>> your data comes back incompatible with the hypothesis, you assume
>> automatically that there must've been a mistake in the readings. The
>> imperfections of it irked him, and it took him a while to get comfortable
>> with the fact that in spite of this, it seems to work pretty well (I
>> think this is partly what the book is about). There's a "heywow" aspect
>> to science. You pick the model you're going to destructively test by a
>> kind of gut feel. There isn't an algorithm for model selection.
>>
> You can't write a book that good without being fairly bright.
>
> He's wrong about the scientific method though. He got the penny seat
> version. When the results come back negative you find another model that
> fits them and try to find a test to disprove that one. I's progressive,
> not exhaustive.
>
The one who probably got the penny seat is me, not Pirsig. I'll have to read
the book again now and refine my personal summary of the parts that make it
through the barrier zones of my mind. Pirsig wasn't a professional
philolosopher/ rhetorician to begin with. He started out somewhere in the
deep end of Chemistry, I think it was. He was a full-blooded scientist (or
maybe it's his character in the book that was - must take care to
distinguish there) when he upped and left on the hippie trail. I'd guess
that he tried to fit another equation to the curve if the data came back
"wrong" .... no ... I'm almost sure he did say that the practice was to
find some reason to doubt the data, and not the equation ...
> Yea, its imperfect. Fuck perfection though. Look at what it did for god.
>
You're on quite a roll today, aren't you? I need to open a wordprocessor
file for quotable scsa sayings now. Do you mind if I go and print that on a
T-shirt? Could be a bit of dosh in it, I reckon.
>
>
>
> --
> "Me!--not at all," replied Mr. Knightley, rather displeased; "I do not
> want to think ill of him. I should be as ready to acknowledge his
> merits as any other man; but I hear of none, except what are merely
> personal; that he is well-grown and good-looking, with smooth, plausible
> manners." -- Emma, Jane Austen
> * TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
--
Slow Eddy
> But Occam's Razor is something quite different, I think. ?
> ---
> I was referring to Occam's razor, yes, but I wasn't actually meaning it
> itself.
>
> You can't prove a principle, you're right. it is, however, instructive
> to try to build a list of instances where Occam's razor has been shown
> to be false.
>
To be particularly picky for a moment, "false" is probably the wrong term
here. It's probably better to leave that nice and clean and pure and so on
in the realm of logic, and to say something like "a list of instances where
Occam's razor turned out to be bad judgement" or something like that. But
yes, it would be instructive to have a list like that. Any pointers?
> I agree completely. The trick, and the difficulty, is twofold.Firstly
> you need a very good teacher finding good examples of logical fallicies
> that make them clear. That is not an insignificant hurdle - books exist
> that do this, but few, apparently, read them.
>
I must try to remember to put "logical fallacies" into Google later on, and
see what comes out of it after all the people selling fallacies or
whaddever have been disposed of (-discount -amazon ... )
> The second is more serious. I thought Polonius an old fool when reading
> Hamlet as a young lad. Now I find Hamlet a bore because Polonius is
> simply stating obvious truisms. Clearly Hamlet hasn't changed. I have.
> You have, it seems, in life, to make your own mistakes and learn from
> them. Despite acres of books telling you what not to do, actually, you
> still have to go out and fuck up personally to get the point.
>
Very well put. I agree entirely. (I think. I've actually forgotten most of
Hamlet. All I can remember was that in the movie version I saw, the nice
looking stukkie they cast as Ophelia went and bloody drowned, and then
there wasn't much to look at any more. Youth is definitely wasted on the
young).
> I don't think that there is a cure for this. After all, it makes good
> evolutionary sense. Old men might be wise and know all there is about
> surviving a famine - but, if the rains are now good then you need to
> ignore them and try different things to do well. If we simply absorbed
> the lessons from our elders as truths too deep for taint (lovely peom),
> then we'd soon be extinct. Maybe that's what happened to the
> Neanderthals - after all they were cleverer than us.
There's a very fine balance here. Pretending that all you need is to be open
and creative is going to get you in trouble, because for the time being
there remain things that just stay stubbornly the way they are. (And the
people actually most committed to keeping it that way are the young, I now
find. The whole Sixties youth cult was a myth, I've discovered.
Open-mindedness takes a long time to develop - and it's not "anything
goes".)
Sticking to the wisdom of the ages - truths too deep to taint (I'll remember
that one) - is also, as you say, not a complete answer. There are no
complete answers. And I suppose life could get pretty boring if there were.
Peter H.M. Brooks
speed of light in vacuo to be a few mile an hour then you know you've
buggered up the experiment or dropped curry into your calculator. Other
situations are, of course, much less straightforward. It's like normal
life, really, if somebody claims that there's pure champagne coming out
of the bathroom taps then you accept that it isn't impossible, but you
certainly don't make any fundamental changes to your views of water
supplies and taps without some further investigation.
>
>
>>Yea, its imperfect. Fuck perfection though. Look at what it did for god.
>
> You're on quite a roll today, aren't you? I need to open a wordprocessor
> file for quotable scsa sayings now. Do you mind if I go and print that on a
> T-shirt? Could be a bit of dosh in it, I reckon.
>
that I ought to be working on - as was the case. With attribution, you
ware welcome to use that in the way you describe - if it does make loads
of dosh, then I'd be happy to discuss licensing arrangements for other copy.
--
Secretly I have always held the opinion that it would be less depressing
to be alcoholic than to be anonymous- Quinten Crisp, Resident Alien
Camel
Just a primitive thought or two:
Why *did* God create the universe?
Personal gain? Was he not happy with what he had? Did he feel a need
to share his unhappiness with others? Sheer cruelty? Boredom?
Was he aware of the repercussions?
Primitive, as I said, but these things must have answers.
Regards,
Camel
Peter H.M. Brooks
into being. The question 'why' doesn't apply - even less than in 'Why
did the chicken cross the road' - in the latter case there might be an
answer, a matter involving intent and causality.
--
O how I cried when Alice died
The day we were to have wed!
We never had our Roasted Duck
And now she's a Loaf of Bread!
At nights I weep an cannot sleep,
Moonlight to me recalls
I never saw her Waterfront
Nor she my Waterfalls
- W.H. Auden verses for 'The Dog Beneath the Skin'
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
>
>>But Occam's Razor is something quite different, I think. ?
>>---
>>I was referring to Occam's razor, yes, but I wasn't actually meaning it
>>itself.
>>
>>You can't prove a principle, you're right. it is, however, instructive
>>to try to build a list of instances where Occam's razor has been shown
>>to be false.
>>
>
> To be particularly picky for a moment, "false" is probably the wrong term
> here. It's probably better to leave that nice and clean and pure and so on
> in the realm of logic, and to say something like "a list of instances where
> Occam's razor turned out to be bad judgement" or something like that. But
> yes, it would be instructive to have a list like that. Any pointers?
>
[I wrote a long reply to this, but my machine then died and I'm not
going to type it all in again!]
I don't think that there are many exceptions and I wouldn't want to be
responsible for producing such a list. If you forget the rider to the
razor (things should be as simple as possible - but not simpler) then
you can imagine some.
The finding that the heart is chaotic and that the vagus nerve alters
its beat by using attractors was a surprise to some - but it had been
known to be a difficult problem in dynamics and the arrival of chaos
theory was an obvious time to try to see if it applied.
The fact that marine mammals were once terrestrial might seem a more
complex explanation for their being there than the others (that they
evolved separately or that all mammals were originally aquatic), but
reflection (even though it is admittedly after the fact) shows that it
isn't.
I think that the world is simpler with energy quantized than it would be
if it were continuous, but that could be debated.
That the complex emergent patterns shown in the flocking of birds, bats
and insects could be modelled by simple rules applied by the individual
agents was a bit of a surprise - but was itself a reinforcement of Occam.
>
>>I agree completely. The trick, and the difficulty, is twofold.Firstly
>>you need a very good teacher finding good examples of logical fallicies
>>that make them clear. That is not an insignificant hurdle - books exist
>>that do this, but few, apparently, read them.
>>
>
> I must try to remember to put "logical fallacies" into Google later on, and
> see what comes out of it after all the people selling fallacies or
> whaddever have been disposed of (-discount -amazon ... )
>
Quite a few - as you'll have discovered.
>
> Sticking to the wisdom of the ages - truths too deep to taint (I'll remember
> that one) - is also, as you say, not a complete answer. There are no
> complete answers. And I suppose life could get pretty boring if there were.
>
It's from Wilfred Owen's unfinished poem 'Strange Meeting':
"
It seemed that out of battle I escaped
Down some profound dull tunnel, long since scooped
Through granites which titanic wars had groined.
Yet also there encumbered sleepers groaned,
Too fast in thought or death to be bestirred.
Then ,as I probed them, one sprang up, and stared
With piteous recognition in fixed eyes,
Lifting distressful hands, as if to bless.
And by his smile, I knew that sullen hall, -
By his dead smile I knew we stood in Hell.
With a thousand pains that vision's face was grained;
Yet no blood reached there from the upper ground,
And no guns thumped, or down the flues made moan.
'Strange friend,' I said, 'here is no cause to mourn.'
'None,' said that other, 'save the undone years,
The hopelessness. Whatever hope is yours,
Was my life also; I went hunting wild
After the wildest beauty in the world,
Which lies not calm in eyes, or braided hair,
But mocks the steady running of the hour,
And if it grieves, grieves richlier than here.
For by my glee might many men have laughed,
And of my weeping something had been left,
Which must die now. I mean the truth untold,
The pity of war, the pity war distilled.
Now men will go content with what we spoiled,
Or, discontent, boil bloody, and be spilled.
They will be swift with swiftness of the tigress.
None will break ranks, though nations trek from progress.
Courage was mine, and I had mystery,
Wisdom was mine, and I had mastery:
To miss the march of this retreating world
Into vain citadels that are not walled.
Then, when much blood had clogged their chariot-wheels,
I would go up and wash them from sweet wells,
Even with truths that lie too deep for taint.
I would have poured my spirit without stint
But not through wounds; not on the cess of war.
Foreheads of men have bled where no wounds were.
I am the enemy you killed, my friend.
I knew you in this dark: for so you frowned
Yesterday through me as you jabbed and killed.
I parried; but my hands were loath and cold.
Let us sleep now...'
"
--
Time comes from the future, which does not yet exist, into the
present, which has no duration, and goes into the past, which has ceased
to exist. - St. Augustine
Moira de Swardt
"Slow Eddy" <man...@siyaganga.ko.zam> wrote in message
> Open-mindedness takes a long time to develop - and it's not
"anything
> goes".)
True open-mindedness, anyway. What many, if not most, young people
have is a desire to do things differently from the way their parents
do them.
--
Moira de Swardt
The most beautiful, most intelligent, most amusing, most charming,
richest, most talented woman currently posting to
soc.culture.south-africa
Slow Eddy
> Slow Eddy wrote:
>> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>>
> That the complex emergent patterns shown in the flocking of birds, bats
> and insects could be modelled by simple rules applied by the individual
> agents was a bit of a surprise - but was itself a reinforcement of Occam.
>>
Have encountered this before, but I only got the penny seat to that one. And
didn't quite get it. If I recall, Mr Quark, Murray Gell-Mann, has since
devoted himself to this, and to the Game of Life. And it's a good example.
Complex models sometimes do a better job than simple ones do. But Occam is
still probably a good rule of thumb where you don't have the kind of data
these guys are now bringing in.
>> Sticking to the wisdom of the ages - truths too deep to taint (I'll
>> remember that one) - is also, as you say, not a complete answer. There
>> are no complete answers. And I suppose life could get pretty boring if
>> there were.
>>
> It's from Wilfred Owen's unfinished poem 'Strange Meeting':
>
Took a few moments for me to realize I've encountered this one before. Nice
to meet it again ... nice? perhaps a darker word would be more appropriate,
but I can't find one that also says "yes".
Slow Eddy
Certainly my inclinations when I was young were to be as contrary as
possible. Dunno if that's changed that much. The youth of today that I've
encountered don't seem as hung up on breaking out. Seems that teenagers are
a lot closer in their views to their parents than I was to mine. But you'll
still get people working out kinds of 'open-mindedness' that just mean
"anything goes", eh?
Slow Eddy
> Slow Eddy wrote:
>> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Slow Eddy wrote:
>>>
>>>>Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>>>>
>> the equation ...
> >
> In practice, the practice varies. If you find that the data shows the
> speed of light in vacuo to be a few mile an hour then you know you've
> buggered up the experiment or dropped curry into your calculator. Other
> situations are, of course, much less straightforward. It's like normal
> life, really, if somebody claims that there's pure champagne coming out
> of the bathroom taps then you accept that it isn't impossible, but you
> certainly don't make any fundamental changes to your views of water
> supplies and taps without some further investigation.
Thanks. Now I'm a bit better informed, I think. And the way I'm planning for
things to work out, this is more important than satisfying mere curiosity.
>>
>>
>>>Yea, its imperfect. Fuck perfection though. Look at what it did for god.
>>
>> You're on quite a roll today, aren't you? I need to open a wordprocessor
>> file for quotable scsa sayings now. Do you mind if I go and print that on
>> a T-shirt? Could be a bit of dosh in it, I reckon.
>>
> Well, thank you. It's usually (as then) a sign that I've got another job
> that I ought to be working on - as was the case. With attribution, you
> ware welcome to use that in the way you describe - if it does make loads
> of dosh, then I'd be happy to discuss licensing arrangements for other
> copy.
>
The lawyer in me senses a minefield ahead ... Nothing personal, just a kind
of conditioned reflex. In the unlikely event that I ever go ahead we can
haggle a bit about this with all these witnesses present. (Unlikely because
I'm one of those people who thinks "That's a good idea", and then
grasshopper-minds off to something else. I'm a rolling stone... The
"rolling stone" in the saying: I somehow doubt it would be a stone rolling
down a hill. Every stone that rolls down whatever hill eventually reaches a
point at which it can roll no more, and will get mossy if it's not on the
seabed or in the Sahara at that time. So what kind of "rolling stone" were
they originally talking about? I'm inclined to think it would be the
rolling stone of a mill. And if that's the case, the meaning of the saying
has surely then changed over time?)
>
> --
>
> Secretly I have always held the opinion that it would be less depressing
> to be alcoholic than to be anonymous- Quinten Crisp, Resident Alien
> * TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
Strange, that. For me the idea of not being anonymous is quite horrific. I
imagine it must be a (comfy, admittedly) Hell to be a member of our Royal
Family for instance.
Slow Eddy
>
> Just a primitive thought or two:
>
> Why *did* God create the universe?
>
> Personal gain? Was he not happy with what he had? Did he feel a need
> to share his unhappiness with others? Sheer cruelty? Boredom?
>
> Was he aware of the repercussions?
>
> Primitive, as I said, but these things must have answers.
>
> Regards,
>
> Camel
Well that greatest of all 20th Century thinkers, Douglas Adams, settled for
"which everyone now agrees was a mistake", if I recall collectedly. We all
make mistakes, even if we're not only human.
marika
Slow Eddy wrote:
> >
> Here, it seems to work on a kind of selective immunity from any allegation
> of racism. Some races are capable of racism whereas others are not.
>
> > I had an unusual chance to watch alot of coverage over the week of the
> > hurricanes in Louisiana and Mississippi. And see FOX
> >
> More bloody hurricanes??
Actually yes. The weather is really bizarre this year.. But none have
made US land fall. They remain in the Carribean.
Though here, I was actually referring to a report I had seen on TV way
back when the Louisiana disaster first happened.
>Yeowch! Thought that lot must be over by now.
You would think but as I said the weather has been very strange this
year.
>Shows
> how little I watch the news. Like you, I find it quite irritating, and I
> work on the assumption that if something that affects me happens I'll hear
> about it from my friends or family.
>
> --
>
I found out this week that last year;s hurricanes did quite a bit more
damage than I had heard on the news. It turns out that they rendered
homeless 2/3 of the populace of Grenada. They haven't yet recovered
and have been hit a few more times this year. But you don't hear any
of that on the news at all.
Some satirist or comedian mentioned the other day that the only reason
that the tsunamis, New Orleans and Florida were mentioned was because
they are wealthy tourist sites. The other sites are never mentioned
and thus never get any charitable relief.
mk5000
"At first I thought I was going to be a superstar. But after getting
cut, I took it upon myself to do whatever it takes. Busting wedges was
my ticket to the NFL."--Keith Adams
Rich MacDonald
news:dmlom4$6e$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net:
> As a Patience Strong style style-guide to a particularly Luddite and
> sixties personal 'philosophy', I'd agree Persig is probably your man.
> His thesis, insofar as he had one, was that, to mend machines, or even
> operate them properly, you had to have a mechanical mind of the sort
> that worried more about 'feeling the machine' than carburettor
> settings. Given the rather haphazard engineering of pre-Jap motorbikes
> there's a certain logic to that, but it's applicability is limited.
As I said earlier, I think our attitude towards his "thesis" describes
ourselves and not the thesis itself. For example, my take on it is formed
by my background: In the 80s (my formative college yrs), I worked in a
thermodynamic lab, surrounded by custom-built, highly-sensitive
equipment, that measured the bubblepoints of liquids. You'd spend 6
months living with the equipment, day and night, and be happy to gain 5
new data points you'd release to the world via publication.
For us, Pirsig's "art of the mechanic" was not a philosophy, it was a
bible filled with utter, undeniable truths. You learned the hard way that
a "sixties hey wow" approach gained you absolutely nothing. GIGO. The
only way to get good data was to "become one with your equipment". Not in
a "cool dude" kind of way; in a real-world scientific/engineering kind of
way. Nature was not perverse, but she could not be fooled. You paid your
dues, swallowed the kool-aid, whatever, but you couldn't get where you
wanted to go without passing through Pirsig's mapping of the world. Price
of entry and nothing wrong with it since thats just how nature is.
Frankly, this is not up for debate. Its fact. Pirsig absolutely nailed
it. You either "got it" and could therefore do experimental work, or you
would wash out. (Or choose to do computer work instead, like I did :-)
> How do you extend the engineering stance to mending your iPod should
> it go on the blink some day?
*Very* fascinating question I've been thinking about since you posted it.
In many ways, the push to make "consumer-worthy" (read: non-maintenance
tools for dummies) computer products has forced a distancing from the
technology. You, the consumer, can't mend your iPod. But I, the
programmer, spend my life as close to Pirsig's observations as I ever
did. If the computer has a problem, you cannot fix it until you (1)
understand the real/physical/logical model underneath, (2) trouble-shoot
by posing hypotheses and testing them, and (3) manage your "mind" by
patient, logical, progression to arrive at the ultimate explanation and
solution. The computer will tell you the truth; the hard-part as always
is thinking of the right questions to ask. Then the fix is simple. IOW,
the problem makes no sense until you solve it, then it made perfect sense
in hindsight.
In "this" business, the quality of the individual is perfectly correlated
with the qualities that Pirsis stated. (And I mean the normal definition
of "quality", not his philosophical definition; pardon the syntactical
overloading.)
Yes the consumer is distanced. But say you took your iPod in for service:
Just exactly what do you think the service technician is going to be
doing?
> Don't think that the hero of ZATAOMM would have been that anti-iPods,
> mind you.
He wouldn't be anti-technology (Your Luddite remark was completely out of
line, btw. Pirsig always appreciated good technology.). He might be
critical of the "distancing" factor, but he would certainly appreciate
its necessity. Probably, he'd merely describe the pros and cons of the
development and move on.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Slow Eddy wrote:
>
>
> that the tsunamis, New Orleans and Florida were mentioned was because
> they are wealthy tourist sites. The other sites are never mentioned
> and thus never get any charitable relief.
>
statement of the world as it is.
The famous newspaper title from The Times (back when it was a newspaper)
was 'Small earthquake in Peru, not many dead', making the same point.
--
"Me!--not at all," replied Mr. Knightley, rather displeased; "I do not
want to think ill of him. I should be as ready to acknowledge his
merits as any other man; but I hear of none, except what are merely
personal; that he is well-grown and good-looking, with smooth, plausible
manners." -- Emma, Jane Austen
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
>
>>Slow Eddy wrote:
>>
>>>Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>>>
>
>
>>That the complex emergent patterns shown in the flocking of birds, bats
>>and insects could be modelled by simple rules applied by the individual
>>agents was a bit of a surprise - but was itself a reinforcement of Occam.
>>
> Have encountered this before, but I only got the penny seat to that one. And
> didn't quite get it. If I recall, Mr Quark, Murray Gell-Mann, has since
> devoted himself to this, and to the Game of Life. And it's a good example.
> Complex models sometimes do a better job than simple ones do. But Occam is
> still probably a good rule of thumb where you don't have the kind of data
> these guys are now bringing in.
>
the Scientific American a couple of decades back when Martin Gardener
was doing the puzzle page. It is, of course, the generalisations of such
games that are really interesting, since the rules are pretty arbitrary,
how can one tell useful ones.
The complexity of a model isn't, I think, related to Occam as it doesn't
necessarily reflect the complexity of the object modelled.
>
>
>>>Sticking to the wisdom of the ages - truths too deep to taint (I'll
>>>remember that one) - is also, as you say, not a complete answer. There
>>>are no complete answers. And I suppose life could get pretty boring if
>>>there were.
>>>
>>
>>It's from Wilfred Owen's unfinished poem 'Strange Meeting':
>>
>
> Took a few moments for me to realize I've encountered this one before. Nice
> to meet it again ... nice? perhaps a darker word would be more appropriate,
> but I can't find one that also says "yes".
>
It's one of my favourites. Though it is, in fact, unfinished, it never
seems that way to me.
--
Those who know anything about the matter are aware that every writer,
from Epicurus to Bentham, who maintained the theory of utility, meant by
it, not something to be contradistinguished from pleasure, but pleasure
itself, together with exemption from pain; and instead of opposing the
useful to the agreeable or the ornamental, have always declared that the
useful means these, among other things. -- J.S.Mill Chapter II,
Utilitarianism
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Moira de Swardt wrote:
>
> Certainly my inclinations when I was young were to be as contrary as
> possible. Dunno if that's changed that much. The youth of today that I've
> encountered don't seem as hung up on breaking out. Seems that teenagers are
> a lot closer in their views to their parents than I was to mine. But you'll
> still get people working out kinds of 'open-mindedness' that just mean
> "anything goes", eh?
>
the ones with high androgen loads, are as keen to rebel as any
adolescent since Hercules (and before), but it's a real bugger rebelling
against a non status quo - they'd like to be conservatives to upset
their parents, but htf can you be a conservative rebel?
--
It may be objected, that many who are capable of the higher pleasures,
occasionally, under the influence of temptation, postpone them to the
lower. But this is quite compatible with a full appreciation of the
intrinsic superiority of the higher. Men often, from infirmity of
character, make their election for the nearer good, though they know it
to be the less valuable; and this no less when the choice is between two
bodily pleasures, than when it is between bodily and mental.-- J.S.Mill
chapter II, Utilitarianism
Peter H.M. Brooks
has been at fault, then I agree. I was hopeless at experimental work in
a way that showed me that there was absolutely no point in my getting
involved with it in any way. When my girlfriend in Bristol drilled
through a power line whilst putting up some shelves for me I comforted
her with a G&T, of course, until she was over the shock and could get on
with the rest. It wasn't her fault, the electrician had laid the cable
under the plaster diagonally up the wall from the power point. I was,
secretly, a little pleased that it wasn't only me who had things like
that happening to them. I was also very impressed by the shape of the
blob of metal that was all that remained of the bit.
Before I learned to work within my limitations, I built a BBQ out of
bricks. It taught me a lot about why those chaps in Pisa had problems,
or, at any rate, one possible reason why.
>
>
>>How do you extend the engineering stance to mending your iPod should
>>it go on the blink some day?
>
>
> *Very* fascinating question I've been thinking about since you posted it.
> In many ways, the push to make "consumer-worthy" (read: non-maintenance
> tools for dummies) computer products has forced a distancing from the
> technology. You, the consumer, can't mend your iPod. But I, the
> programmer, spend my life as close to Pirsig's observations as I ever
> did. If the computer has a problem, you cannot fix it until you (1)
> understand the real/physical/logical model underneath, (2) trouble-shoot
> by posing hypotheses and testing them, and (3) manage your "mind" by
> patient, logical, progression to arrive at the ultimate explanation and
> solution. The computer will tell you the truth; the hard-part as always
> is thinking of the right questions to ask. Then the fix is simple. IOW,
> the problem makes no sense until you solve it, then it made perfect sense
> in hindsight.
>
I'd like to agree with you. I think you're right about it most of the
time. I've been vastly impressed, though, at how well some complete
bodges have worked - I have been fully aware that I didn't fully know
how the model underneath worked, I had gone through the hypothesis
testing phase and emerged frustrated and unenlightened and my deadline
meant that I was well past any logical or patient progression. I had the
brainwave of a bodge - I was building a simulation of an X.25 network
that had to prove itself in the field [it was all because of a
commitment that I foolishly made to a customer to provide end-to-end
predictions of the response time, only to find that none of the
mathematicians or programmers in HP Labs could offer any solution, so I
was forced either to solve it myself or go back and admit failure]. In
the end I took my model (object-oriented programming was just taking
off, so it was my first bash at that {turbo Pascal if you're really
interested}) added a variable called 'fudge' and tuned it until the
result matched the data I'd taken from the existing network - then
produced the predictions. I thought that they wouldn't be too bad, but I
was utterly gobsmacked to discover that they were accurate to within
less than a percentage point - so accurate, indeed, that, on the fourth
installation, when they found a discrepancy in the field, they called
the PTT first and got them to fix a fault in the line rather than call me.
Now that isn't supposed to happen, is it.
>
> In "this" business, the quality of the individual is perfectly correlated
> with the qualities that Pirsis stated. (And I mean the normal definition
> of "quality", not his philosophical definition; pardon the syntactical
> overloading.)
>
> Yes the consumer is distanced. But say you took your iPod in for service:
> Just exactly what do you think the service technician is going to be
> doing?
>
Throwing away the module that his diagnostic tool tells him is buggered
and fitting a new one - if not simply discarding the entire machine and
giving me a new one. Its been a pretty brainless activity for more than
a decade.
>
>>Don't think that the hero of ZATAOMM would have been that anti-iPods,
>>mind you.
>
>
> He wouldn't be anti-technology (Your Luddite remark was completely out of
> line, btw. Pirsig always appreciated good technology.). He might be
> critical of the "distancing" factor, but he would certainly appreciate
> its necessity. Probably, he'd merely describe the pros and cons of the
> development and move on.
>
I accept the correction.
The point was that those bikes, compared to the Japanese ones, were very
badly engineered, they weren't technological marvels, they were
hack-jobs, like mine mentioned above. That was why people had to have a
'feel' for the sound and vibration to know what was wrong - you couldn't
measure that the gap was out by a few thou and reset it in the knowledge
that it would all spring to life after that. As you can with a well
engineered bit of kit - usually, anyway.
--
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said ina rather scornful tojne, 'it
means just what I choose it so mean - neither more nor less' - Alice in
Wonderland, Lewis Carrol
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
>>>You're on quite a roll today, aren't you? I need to open a wordprocessor
>>>file for quotable scsa sayings now. Do you mind if I go and print that on
>>>a T-shirt? Could be a bit of dosh in it, I reckon.
>>>
>>
>>Well, thank you. It's usually (as then) a sign that I've got another job
>> that I ought to be working on - as was the case. With attribution, you
>>ware welcome to use that in the way you describe - if it does make loads
>>of dosh, then I'd be happy to discuss licensing arrangements for other
>>copy.
>>
>
> The lawyer in me senses a minefield ahead ... Nothing personal, just a kind
> of conditioned reflex. In the unlikely event that I ever go ahead we can
> haggle a bit about this with all these witnesses present. (Unlikely because
> I'm one of those people who thinks "That's a good idea", and then
> grasshopper-minds off to something else. I'm a rolling stone... The
> "rolling stone" in the saying: I somehow doubt it would be a stone rolling
> down a hill. Every stone that rolls down whatever hill eventually reaches a
> point at which it can roll no more, and will get mossy if it's not on the
> seabed or in the Sahara at that time. So what kind of "rolling stone" were
> they originally talking about? I'm inclined to think it would be the
> rolling stone of a mill. And if that's the case, the meaning of the saying
> has surely then changed over time?)
>
ever wanted to (and I think my acceptance would be a legally binding
release of copyright to you, despite the medium), I was being jocular
about the rest.
You're right, it must have been a 'rolling-stone' that is a stone used
for rolling, rather than a 'rolling stone' a stone that happens to be
rolling. Good point. Actually stones rolling down hills do gather moss
if they crunch into a clump of it, a point that had occurred to me
before, though your one about mills and 'rolling-stones' hadn't.
It may not have been a millstone in a large water operated mill, but a
rolling-pin type stone used for grinding a small quantity at home.
How has it changed its meaning? A rolling-stone is in constant use, so
gathers no moss, so, somebody who is constantly moving about doesn't
gather accretions. I though that it was the action of rolling, rather
than the fact that rolling stones cover distance that was the metaphor -
after all, falling stones (down cliffs) don't gather any either.
>
>>
>>Secretly I have always held the opinion that it would be less depressing
>>to be alcoholic than to be anonymous- Quinten Crisp, Resident Alien
>>* TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
>
> Strange, that. For me the idea of not being anonymous is quite horrific. I
> imagine it must be a (comfy, admittedly) Hell to be a member of our Royal
> Family for instance.
>
Utter hell, yes. Fame seems a bloody silly thing to go for - unless
you're hopelessly vain.
--
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as to
seem not worth stating, and toe end with something so paradoxical that
no one will believe it -Betrand Russell
Rich MacDonald
4ax.com:
> Why *did* God create the universe?
IMHO, he is an experimentalist. Plug a few values into the settings then
let 'er rip.
Some of the good stuff I've been reading is "A new kind of science" by
Wolfram. His concept (and its more than just good; if wrong its the most
important work since Godel; if right its the most important work since
Newton) is that even God has to run his model in order to find out how it
turns out. The rules are simple; the outcome isn't.
Rich MacDonald
nnrp2.saix.net:
>> Was he aware of the repercussions?
>>
>> Primitive, as I said, but these things must have answers.
>>
> They're all quite simple, really. The universe wasn't 'created', it came
> into being. The question 'why' doesn't apply
Who was it complaining about "hey wow" :-? Sure that answer explains. But
only because of its vacuity.
P.S. Its an answer that is good enough for me too. But there is no denying
its lameness. Quite frustrating.
Moira de Swardt
"Slow Eddy" <man...@siyaganga.ko.zam> wrote in message
> Certainly my inclinations when I was young were to be as contrary
as
> possible. Dunno if that's changed that much. The youth of today
that I've
> encountered don't seem as hung up on breaking out. Seems that
teenagers are
> a lot closer in their views to their parents than I was to mine.
But you'll
> still get people working out kinds of 'open-mindedness' that just
mean
> "anything goes", eh?
I was never a rebellious child. I always operated on a different
plane, if not a completely different planet, but I wasn't always
quite aware of how "different" I was. But I never took up these
strange opinions as a form of rebelliousness.
On the subject of open-mindedness, my father always instructed us to
"keep an open mind, but not so open that our brains fall out". :-)
Peter H.M. Brooks
Wrong answers can certainly be entertaining, baroque in their
inventiveness, but these are not any indication that there is any
rightness about them.
--
"They cooked him on the Nine Stane Rig
And a grand brothe they made on't,
And had his gear and beasts awa'
His good wife and his daughters twa,
He, 'twas salt tae the broth they made on't.
- Scotch ballad, quoted by George MacDonald Fraser in 'The Candlemass Road'
Peter H.M. Brooks
> "Slow Eddy" <man...@siyaganga.ko.zam> wrote in message
>
>
> plane, if not a completely different planet, but I wasn't always
> quite aware of how "different" I was. But I never took up these
> strange opinions as a form of rebelliousness.
>
mothers - I'm not trying to invoke any imagined Electra complex, but
rather something that happens - and in more subtle ways. Though my niece
deciding to cut her own hair, when her mother has rather strong views of
how it ought to look, was not that subtle, but I think the subtlety will
develop.
>
> On the subject of open-mindedness, my father always instructed us to
> "keep an open mind, but not so open that our brains fall out". :-)
>
--
I do not know as much as god, but I know as much as god did at my age
- unnamed mathematician quoted by Milton Shulman
Slow Eddy
> marika wrote:
>> Slow Eddy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Some satirist or comedian mentioned the other day that the only reason
>> that the tsunamis, New Orleans and Florida were mentioned was because
>> they are wealthy tourist sites. The other sites are never mentioned
>> and thus never get any charitable relief.
>>
> It doesn't sound funny or satirical to me. It sounds like a simple
> statement of the world as it is.
>
> The famous newspaper title from The Times (back when it was a newspaper)
> was 'Small earthquake in Peru, not many dead', making the same point.
>
Human nature rears its ugly head again. It's a simple fact that not one of
us is capable of being deeply concerned about everything. If you had to
take on the worries of all the world you'd be up at night sympathising with
the people of Burma, China, Iran, etc. all the time. There are some places
where there's a more-or-less constant disaster is on the go.
But it still is a bit callous to reveal your weighting of disasters relative
to how far away they're perceived to be, even if it is only natural, isn't
it? That kind of thing *needs* to be veiled in a little benign hypocricy.
-- hang on, I think I've got my wires crossed here. The Times ... one of
the world's few literate newspapers ... they must be aware of what they're
saying ... so the headline would then have been a piece of satire?
Slow Eddy
> Slow Eddy wrote:
>> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
> How has it changed its meaning? A rolling-stone is in constant use, so
> gathers no moss, so, somebody who is constantly moving about doesn't
> gather accretions. I though that it was the action of rolling, rather
> than the fact that rolling stones cover distance that was the metaphor -
> after all, falling stones (down cliffs) don't gather any either.
>>
Could it be that the original saying meant that the poor bugger who actually
does the all the work never makes much money out of it? If you're the
rolling-stone of the mill, you grind away all day, but keep going round in
circles. If you're the Miller, all you do is point the vanes in the right
direction, and then shoot off to go and haggle with the Baker over flour
prices and this new bread-delivery scheme you've been thinking about.
Between cups of tea, and maybe a round of golf, perhaps.
Slow Eddy
> Slow Eddy wrote:
>> Moira de Swardt wrote:
>>
>> Certainly my inclinations when I was young were to be as contrary as
>> possible. Dunno if that's changed that much. The youth of today that I've
>> encountered don't seem as hung up on breaking out. Seems that teenagers
>> are a lot closer in their views to their parents than I was to mine. But
>> you'll still get people working out kinds of 'open-mindedness' that just
>> mean "anything goes", eh?
>>
> There's a nasty trap been sprung on the current youth. They, at least
> the ones with high androgen loads, are as keen to rebel as any
> adolescent since Hercules (and before), but it's a real bugger rebelling
> against a non status quo - they'd like to be conservatives to upset
> their parents, but htf can you be a conservative rebel?
>
I'd always thought my Dad was a pretty conservative old bloke who was
unlikely to have rebelled against his parents. They seemed to all work from
the same book. But then I think a bit more about it, and there are a few
things even in his life that probably started out as sheer acts of
rebellion. For one thing, he refused to call England "Home". He made a
point of his being "South African" - something I've now come to believe was
just an invention, something some previous generation made up in the name
of tribalism. And he refused to follow scores of generations of farmers
onto the land. Borrowed the money from a rich aunt and went to become an
engineer. In the Sixties the generation of the Fifties was routinely
poo-poo'd, but when I look at things like the writing of that time, and the
science of time I'm inclined now to think that it was those people who wore
suits and believed that you had to do a good day's work who really built
the foundations of the current prosperity.
Slow Eddy
>
> "Slow Eddy" <man...@siyaganga.ko.zam> wrote in message
>
>> Certainly my inclinations when I was young were to be as contrary
> as
>> possible. Dunno if that's changed that much. The youth of today
> that I've
>> encountered don't seem as hung up on breaking out. Seems that
> teenagers are
>> a lot closer in their views to their parents than I was to mine.
> But you'll
>> still get people working out kinds of 'open-mindedness' that just
> mean
>> "anything goes", eh?
>
>
> I was never a rebellious child. I always operated on a different
> plane, if not a completely different planet, but I wasn't always
> quite aware of how "different" I was. But I never took up these
> strange opinions as a form of rebelliousness.
>
As a child I was normally very, very good. Must've done something naughty to
have made our maid Selina lose her temper and chase me out the back door
with a carving knife in her hand, screaming, "I cut you neck off!! I cut
you neck off!!" - and to have gotten a hiding for whatever it was, too. But
I had no rebellious inclinations. I think very few young kids do.
However as a "teenager" (which is really just a child) things changed ...
Hah ... youth is wasted on the young ...
> On the subject of open-mindedness, my father always instructed us to
> "keep an open mind, but not so open that our brains fall out". :-)
>
Yes, above all other things comes Common Sense. Your dad sounds like he was
a wise man.
Peter H.M. Brooks
subs.
So, yes, it was a bit satirical.
--
"It is the mark of a civilised man, and a hallmark of his culture,
that he applies no more precision to a problem than its nature permits,
or its solution demands." - Aristotle
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
>
>>Slow Eddy wrote:
>>
>>>Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
>
>>How has it changed its meaning? A rolling-stone is in constant use, so
>>gathers no moss, so, somebody who is constantly moving about doesn't
>>gather accretions. I though that it was the action of rolling, rather
>>than the fact that rolling stones cover distance that was the metaphor -
>>after all, falling stones (down cliffs) don't gather any either.
>>
> Could it be that the original saying meant that the poor bugger who actually
> does the all the work never makes much money out of it? If you're the
> rolling-stone of the mill, you grind away all day, but keep going round in
> circles. If you're the Miller, all you do is point the vanes in the right
> direction, and then shoot off to go and haggle with the Baker over flour
> prices and this new bread-delivery scheme you've been thinking about.
> Between cups of tea, and maybe a round of golf, perhaps.
>
considered being a little less cryptic. I can see the mossy connection
with the golf course dimly.
The OED doesn't help much. Most of its references to rolling stones are
to the magazine of that name - which appears to have mentioned a few
words first 'Acid', 'Animatronics', 'Ass', 'beaver', 'buff', 'bong',
'nostomania', 'segue', 'Serax', 'stoned', 'tennies', 'toxoplasma',
'Vaseline', 'yuppification' and 'zonked' (not all of them). They do
rather suggest reasons why the magazine wasn't in our periodicals room
at school. It probably should have been though.
But, hold, I've not been literal enough (an uncommon failing in me). I
should have looked for the term directly. Here we have it:
"
rolling stone
Also rolling-stone. [f. rolling ppl. a. or vbl. n.2]
1. In the prov. a rolling stone gathers no moss, or variants of this:
see moss n.1 3b.
The proverb, with the same or similar wording, is found in various
languages from at least the 15th century.
1546 Heywood Prov. (1867) 26 The rollyng stone neuer gatherth mosse.
1581 Mulcaster Positions xxxvii. (1887) 156 [They] reape as much
learning, as the rowling stone doth gather mosse. 1618 Breton Courtier
& Countryman Wks. (Grosart) II. 8/2, I haue heard that roling stones
gather no mosse. 1720 T. Boston Fourfold State (1797) 305 A rolling
stone gathers no fog. 1853 Trench Prov. 45 The old Greek proverb, ‘A
rolling stone gathers no moss’. 1886 ‘Sarah Tytler’ Buried Diamonds
xxii, The sudden turning up of Jack as a roving brother, who, like a
rolling stone, gathered no moss.
2. A rambler, wanderer; a good-for-nothing.
1611 Cotgr., Rodeur,+a rolling stone, one that does nought but runne
here and there. 1621 Sanderson Serm. I. 212 Some men are ever
restless.+ But thes rowling stones carry their curse with them; they
seldom gather moss. 1887 H. Smart Cleverly Won i. 1 It was odd that he
should have been so much of a rolling-stone. 1892 Boston (Mass.) Jrnl.
6 Dec. 6/5 He was a shiftless fellow,—a rolling stone. 1887 T. A.
Trollope What I remember I. ii. 41 One of the results of such a
rolling-stone life as mine has been.
3. A cylindrical stone used for crushing, flattening, etc., esp. in the
form of a heavy roller.
1611 Cotgr., Rollon, a rowler, a rowling stone. 1664 Evelyn Sylva
(1679) 26 Stubbed oak is the fittest timber for the case of a cider
mill, and suchlike engines, as best enduring the unquietness of a
ponderous rolling stone. 1709 J. Ward Introd. Math. v. (1734) 402 A
Cylinder (or Solid, like a Rolling-stone in a Garden). 1768–74 Tucker
Lt. Nat. (1834) I. 474 A rolling stone, a wheel~barrow,+are fitted for
peculiar uses of mankind. 1839 H. T. De la Beche Rep. Geol. Cornw.,
etc. xv. 494 The granite annually raised in the district and employed
for bridges, pavements, rolling-stones [etc.]. 1846 Keightley Notes
Virg. 353 It [the threshing-floor] was then made solid and level with
rammers or a rolling-stone.
"
--
Most of us are staring at a piece of furniture for half the time we
are not sleeping or working - "Get a Life!" by David Rurke and Jean
Lotus, White Dot
Peter H.M. Brooks
Just as the Victorians were. A better balance would be nice. There are
probably some good books out there by now, it'd just be a matter of
looking them out.
--
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said ina rather scornful tojne, 'it
means just what I choose it so mean - neither more nor less' - Alice in
Wonderland, Lewis Carrol
Lester Mosley
> But it still is a bit callous to reveal your weighting of disasters relative
> to how far away they're perceived to be, even if it is only natural, isn't
> it? That kind of thing *needs* to be veiled in a little benign hypocricy.
I have seen far worse in other areas as well. But again the tusnami
talk is long gone, you harldy hear about how New Orleans is doing,
other than how now the Goverment has suspended elections.. Seems this
is a plan only to allow control to be reached as planned by the
planners.
> -- hang on, I think I've got my wires crossed here. The Times ... one of
> the world's few literate newspapers ... they must be aware of what they're
> saying ... so the headline would then have been a piece of satire?
I am happy to learn the Times has been able to read and write. I did
not know many papers did even have this ability. I am sure the ones
that taught the papers this, are the same ones that taugh the monkeys
sign language.
>
marika
Lester Mosley wrote:
> I have seen far worse in other areas as well.
I'll keep an eye out for briefing materials. I'll be curious to hear
what you say , too.
mk5000
"No, no, leave the high heels on." --everybody wants some, david
lee roth
marika
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
> The famous newspaper title from The Times (back when it was a newspaper)
> was 'Small earthquake in Peru, not many dead', making the same point.
>
> --
It's sad that we have to get our truths from satirists and not the
politicians who we elected to tell us the truth
mk5000
"I'm a man of means by no means, king of the road
I know every engineer on every train
All the children and all of their names
And every handout in every town"--roger miller
Moira de Swardt
"Slow Eddy" <man...@siyaganga.ko.zam> wrote in message
> > On the subject of open-mindedness, my father always instructed
us to
> > "keep an open mind, but not so open that our brains fall out".
:-)
> Yes, above all other things comes Common Sense. Your dad sounds
like he was
> a wise man.
He was. And kind and gentle. Always polite. Truly eccentric.
Sorely missed even though he was never what one would term "a good
provider".
Slow Eddy
>
>> -- hang on, I think I've got my wires crossed here. The Times ... one of
>> the world's few literate newspapers ... they must be aware of what
>> they're saying ... so the headline would then have been a piece of
>> satire?
>
> I am happy to learn the Times has been able to read and write. I did
> not know many papers did even have this ability. I am sure the ones
> that taught the papers this, are the same ones that taugh the monkeys
> sign language.
>
Well, yes, if you insist on being literal. Perhaps I should've specified
what's now known as "functional" literacy, and that this was in fact
possessed by the journalists of the paper, rather than the thing that
stands in piles at the newsstands. But I'm much too lazy for that.
"Illiteracy" (substitute any better term your common sense suggests to you
as more appropriate) would be exemplified by, for instance, not knowing the
meaning of important words. The one that makes me really angry is
"refuted". It seems that because *some* words change their meaning over
time (though it's hard to see how say "it", "word", "change", "time" and
"meaning" would be able to change much) words no longer have set meanings,
and can be used by feel. So if "refute" feels like a nice word to use for
vigorous bare denials, let's use it that way. Can't say I like that much.
"Refute" means something more like "disprove" in my language, and so far as
I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't restrict its use to that is speaking
something other than English for the duration of the sentence the word is
in.
Rich MacDonald
nnrp2.saix.net:
> The right answer can afford to be lame, if that is what you think it is.
> Wrong answers can certainly be entertaining, baroque in their
> inventiveness, but these are not any indication that there is any
> rightness about them.
LOL. Good point. I agree.
marika
I have never heard refute used quite that wrongly.
I have heard a lot of other words morph meaning, one particular
favorite is problematic.
I can probably think of more, but for today, I'm going to love my day
off and try to get up on all the
personal work I have to do.
marika
Lester Mosley
> It's sad that we have to get our truths from satirists and not the
> politicians who we elected to tell us the truth
Quite sad, Mad magazine only comes out monthly.
sportsfan
"Slow Eddy" <man...@siyaganga.ko.zam> wrote in message
snip
> In the Sixties the generation of the Fifties was routinely
> poo-poo'd, but when I look at things like the writing of that time, and
> the
> science of time I'm inclined now to think that it was those people who
> wore
> suits and believed that you had to do a good day's work who really built
> the foundations of the current prosperity.
for the coming generations, we should just be grateful that those kind
of people excist.
What prosperity are the current crop in Africa going to leave for
the coming generations, what legacy or ethics will they leave or
inspire in the future.
Slow Eddy
>
> "Slow Eddy" <man...@siyaganga.ko.zam> wrote in message
> news:dmucmm$hb2$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> snip
>> In the Sixties the generation of the Fifties was routinely
>> poo-poo'd, but when I look at things like the writing of that time, and
>> the
>> science of time I'm inclined now to think that it was those people who
>> wore
>> suits and believed that you had to do a good day's work who really built
>> the foundations of the current prosperity.
> I think it always will be those kind of people who build the prosperity
> for the coming generations, we should just be grateful that those kind
> of people excist.
> What prosperity are the current crop in Africa going to leave for
> the coming generations, what legacy or ethics will they leave or
> inspire in the future.
Yes, I wonder. Of course it's not possible to tell. Anything can happen. On
the positive side you do have those words of Thabo Mbeki's urging
moderation in corruption, for instance (although with 10 years of inaction
in actual practice, those who think actions speak louder than words would
probably sneer and say that the truth is the lights are still green for the
"liberation" that means "grabbing the goodies".)
If things remain the same, the legacy of ethics will probably be that
someone else is to blame. Always. And therefore one is entitled to pass the
contract onto your retarded brother instead of that other oke there who
knows how to build the new monument the Provincial parliament has
commissioned.
Slow Eddy
That's very strange, because this particular abuse of the parts of the
language that should be held steady and defined is all the rage on BBC
World and CNN International. Maybe they second all the second-grade journos
to the international branches of the channels?