Why we don't need art anymore
stevemur
clear that we could all admit to feeling it. Then, with the emotions
out on the table, something might be done collectively. The world
might be changed.
But it's been out on the table now for decades, and still nothing is
done. The belief is that it's become so vast that even acting
collectively, we can't make it change course. "There is no
alternative". So much for the artists.
Anton Vredegoor
> Artists were supposed to express what everyone was feeling in a way so
> clear that we could all admit to feeling it. Then, with the emotions
> out on the table, something might be done collectively. The world
> might be changed.
I'm feeling lonely. Basically I'm sitting here all day by myself sucking
up large amounts of information from the Internet. Then, when I go out
for a walk to stretch my legs or buy some food, I only meet people who
are completely fed up with all the customers they have to speak to, day
in day out. I myself am filled to the rim with fresh conversational
energy. When I manage to get a conversation going at all with someone, I
notice that they are almost completely uninformed about everything in
the world because they're not spending all their time browsing the net.
Their brains move at a snails pace after a 40 KM marathon of meeting
other snails. Interfacing with people IRL needs some major upgrade!
> But it's been out on the table now for decades, and still nothing is
> done. The belief is that it's become so vast that even acting
> collectively, we can't make it change course. "There is no
> alternative". So much for the artists.
Look, these artists painted themselves out of society the moment they
started to fall in love with abstract art none seems able to understand,
while refusing to give explanations about what it is they're producing.
After all, that's the interpreters job isn't it? Not any more, dear
fish, we're now entering the age of aquarius and want to see female lion
paintings.
A
'oversharing my ass'
stevemur
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
> stevemur wrote:
> > Artists were supposed to express what everyone was feeling in a way so
> > clear that we could all admit to feeling it. Then, with the emotions
> > out on the table, something might be done collectively. The world
> > might be changed.
>
> I'm feeling lonely.
That's normal. High GDP practically requires it.
> When I manage to get a conversation going at all with someone, I
> notice that they are almost completely uninformed about everything in
> the world because they're not spending all their time browsing the net.
Some kinds of information aren't on the net, they say. I wouldn't
know. But I did download the movie Good Will Hunting a few days back,
as a sort of nostalgia, and Robin Williams told me you can't find out
what it smells like inside the Sistine Chapel from a book. Until
virtual reality finally gets here, I guess that's true of the net.
> Their brains move at a snails pace after a 40 KM marathon of meeting
> other snails. Interfacing with people IRL needs some major upgrade!
I once knew a geek who complained that reality is too much bandwidth.
Tonight I bought dinner for my housemates. (Xmas, exams, etc...) I
might remember something about that dinner in ten years.
I can't remember what I posted to alt.angst last week. Worse, I don't
want to know.
> Look, these artists painted themselves out of society the moment they
> started to fall in love with abstract art none seems able to understand,
> while refusing to give explanations about what it is they're producing.
gkDr217sKGMNLPsrtqeiczxyqqqqq.
All the abstract art means "It's too late! It's wayyy too late!"
David bin Bedlam
> I can't remember what I posted to alt.angst last week. Worse, I don't
> want to know.
Maybe you might drink more tea, or more whiskey, or pour whiskey in tea.
I'd recommend laudanum or paregoric but that would only treat the symptom,
besides those things being harder to find than aspirin these days.
D.
--
"I'm near the end and I just ain't got the time."
...................................................................
(C) 2006 TheDavid^TM | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
Anton Vredegoor
> Anton Vredegoor wrote:
>> I'm feeling lonely.
>
> That's normal. High GDP practically requires it.
You mean it's only because some government Uebergeek likes their numbers
better this way, instead of concentrating on global happiness? I knew
these statisticians were bad, but you make them look like postmodernists
now, be reasonable.
>> Their brains move at a snails pace after a 40 KM marathon of meeting
>> other snails. Interfacing with people IRL needs some major upgrade!
>
> I once knew a geek who complained that reality is too much bandwidth.
RL bandwidth is OK. The problem is with neutrality. If one wants to
party with a few friends it's much more likely one ends up at a
commercial venue in someones basement --paying for refreshments--
instead of someone throwing a Dutch party in a magical clearing in the
woods, dancing naked around the campfire, wine and vegetarian hotdogs
for free. Probably this is because we're now in the enantiodromia of the
sixties and no one cares about rearranging and recalibrating the ley
lines anymore.
> Tonight I bought dinner for my housemates. (Xmas, exams, etc...) I
> might remember something about that dinner in ten years.
>
> I can't remember what I posted to alt.angst last week. Worse, I don't
> want to know.
Sure, but you won't forget what mAX posted. Nobody forgets mAX.
>> Look, these artists painted themselves out of society the moment they
>> started to fall in love with abstract art none seems able to understand,
>> while refusing to give explanations about what it is they're producing.
>
> gkDr217sKGMNLPsrtqeiczxyqqqqq.
The problem is one can only do this once. The term
'gkDr217sKGMNLPsrtqeiczxyqqqqq' is now known on Usenet. In a few years
it will probably be a hotly contested domain name, meaning something
like 'oh, if I only could forget about that stuff I posted last week'.
> All the abstract art means "It's too late! It's wayyy too late!"
You mean someones biological clock is trying to get noticed?
A.
foamyseasquirl
"Anton Vredegoor" <anton.v...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eleea8$bha$1...@news6.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
> stevemur wrote:
>> Anton Vredegoor wrote:
>>> Their brains move at a snails pace after a 40 KM marathon of meeting
>>> other snails. Interfacing with people IRL needs some major upgrade!
>>
>> I once knew a geek who complained that reality is too much bandwidth.
>
> RL bandwidth is OK. The problem is with neutrality. If one wants to party
> with a few friends it's much more likely one ends up at a commercial venue
> in someones basement --paying for refreshments--
> instead of someone throwing a Dutch party in a magical clearing in the
> woods, dancing naked around the campfire, wine and vegetarian hotdogs for
> free.
Do they have to be vegetarian?
Do they have to invite the fat chicks and children?
I like everything about a full moon except for most of the things ruled by
the moon that don't come from the sea, namely feminist fat chicks and
children. Also "the public" sucks, it's okay to admit that *that's* how you
feel, but god help you if you don't much care for fat chicks, or children,
which I don't. Or Disneyland. I'm not really into animatronic bears
playing banjos, does this indicate a personality disorder? But I like a
good shellfish; crying at old movies; comfortable couches with stupid little
cushions in the corners; and romance novels about men with "angst" annoying
virgins.
So in my fantasy of being with the people in a magical clearing we'd all be
in our 20's, too stupid to realize that life is disappointment,
unimpregnable and uninfectable, and then aliens would land. But I never get
my way.
> Probably this is because we're now in the enantiodromia of the sixties and
> no one cares about rearranging and recalibrating the ley lines anymore.
Nobody's too stupid to realize that life is disappointment anymore. You
think all this smartness would at least lead to The Revolution, but now we
all know it would just be disappointing.
Guys wonder how many guys they'd have to kill and women wonder how many guys
they'd have to blow to achieve their objectives, and at the end of the day,
without ~friends~ what have you got?
Friends you guys! You know what is my most valuable possession? Friends.
Money can't buy you love - well that's not true. And people who love you
will give you money. Now that we know this, the 60's are dead.
>> Tonight I bought dinner for my housemates. (Xmas, exams, etc...) I
>> might remember something about that dinner in ten years.
>>
>> I can't remember what I posted to alt.angst last week. Worse, I don't
>> want to know.
>
> Sure, but you won't forget what mAX posted. Nobody forgets mAX.
Ha ha ha!
You never forget the first time someone breaks your nose.
>> All the abstract art means "It's too late! It's wayyy too late!"
>
> You mean someones biological clock is trying to get noticed?
Maybe it's just self-loathing. Maybe I am trying to turn into a fat chick
with a kid to avoid becoming the shellfish I know I was born to be. What an
ultra-dark shadow is mine, but it's time I looked my inner breeder in the
eye, embraced her and the implied bitchy discontented waddling mediocrity,
and told her to stop sending fanmail to those fucking Nietzschean supermen,
they're GAY, nothing is more embarrassing than being a breedy fag hag
dammit! No straight guy knows how to dress and has a butt that nice. Come
on. And *prissy*? On the other hand "sadist" may be its own category and
transcend mere gender, it's fuckless and everything so that's what I
suspect.
Oh my god. Horrible. Ack. Proper witches use babies as a source of
*candle tallow*, what the hell is happening to me??? Is it Jesus? Did
Jesus do this to me?
L
'a hormonal lobotomy - noooo!'
stevemur
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
> stevemur wrote:
>
> > Anton Vredegoor wrote:
> >> I'm feeling lonely.
> >
> > That's normal. High GDP practically requires it.
>
> You mean it's only because some government Uebergeek likes their numbers
> better this way, instead of concentrating on global happiness? I knew
> these statisticians were bad, but you make them look like postmodernists
The statisticians just measure things. They're like a speedometer.
Or they're not really so innocuous.
Statistician: statist [Ultimately from New Latin statisticus, of
statecraft] + -ician [To do, as an occupation]
Never mind.
stevemur
David bin Bedlam wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2006, stevemur wrote:
>
>
> > I can't remember what I posted to alt.angst last week. Worse, I don't
> > want to know.
>
> Maybe you might drink more tea, or more whiskey, or pour whiskey in tea.
I did a little thought experiment, in which I had enough money not to
worry about money. I would call up the interesting girl from Social
Movements class and say "Look, I know you're busy. I know we have
exams. But you have to eat.
"Let me come get you in a cab; we'll go somewhere nice; in an hour
you'll be home."
Figure this costs about $100 altogether. It might cheer me up, or not.
Even though I do have to worry somewhat about money, it's probably
worth it.
The only problem with the plan is that I have her email, not her phone
number. Much more stressful this way. But shit, there's always
whiskey as a backup plan.
Anton Vredegoor
> The statisticians just measure things. They're like a speedometer.
That's what I thought at first too. There I was, studying social
psychology, inter- and intra-group interactions and stuff like that,
when I noticed a colleague and friend of mine was completely exhausted
because of a session with a group of depressive housewives. The problem
is that depressed persons generally don't want advise, they just want to
be understood and listened to. It is a natural human instinct to want to
help and thus give advise. But that's no good for a therapist. Instead
one has to listen and not offer advise unless asked, one shouldn't even
try to name the clients' story a 'problem' unless the client voluntarily
starts calling it that.
So either one is a human being and therefore filled with empathy, which
makes one unfit to be an effective therapist, or else one is a
psychopath without empathy, which makes one an effective therapist and rich.
I wrestled with this 'advice giving' problem for quite some time during
my study, because I didn't like the Freudian and even the Jungian
approach of framing the clients situation in some fixed, given
reference. After all, who am I to tell someone what is right and what is
wrong? The problem is not only with Freud --for example he had
reasonably enlightened ideas of the client explaining their dreams in
their own way-- but also with institutionalized forms of treatment which
tend to 'fix' the original thinkers ideas in place, often completely
against the will of the founder, be it Jesus, Mohamed, Freud or Jung.
The result is a church like structure with the 'you are all individuals'
quote from Monty Python's 'life of Brian' motion picture looming
dangerously above it.
So I thought: "Let's escape this advice giving all together" (I didn't
realize yet one has to give up humanity for that) and I became quite
fascinated with Rogerian therapy for a while, until I finally couldn't
imagine myself becoming a lizard anymore. Nowadays I know why that is so
but at the time I just had an intuitive understanding about it. The
reason is that people who stay silent and yet have some knowledge that
could help clear things up almost always do it solely to protect their
own interest, however corrupt that might be. Of course once one has
given advise and people don't want to listen I feel free now to shut up :-)
So what were the options? I was halfway on my course becoming a social
scientist and now trying to change it. Then something unexpected
happened. Our professor and head of the department left. Strange as it
might seem, the social psychology department was a pit filled with
snakes who couldn't think of something better than to fight each other.
They needed some external person to avoid any faction to gain influence,
and so it was decided to invite some American, well respected scientist.
Soon it became clear that there was no agreed upon idea of what social
science was! This guy didn't do social science in dark cellars with
people performing guided fantasy experiments. Instead he thought social
science was about drawing triangular diagrams with pluses and minuses
next to the edges indicating who was a friend of whom. Was that social
science? Anyway, this guy was not very well integrated in the great
social warfare and trenches system at that department so he quickly
vanished into oblivion, whatever the credentials he started with were.
So there was a kind of impasse --or a vacuum even if one would go that
far-- in my study of the social sciences. But since I was interested in
a lot of things, I didn't mind the lack of directions and started
following computer courses and also every other kind of course from the
other curricula. It turned out that statistics had very high status
among psychologists (hard facts don't lie, and measuring things is
better than hand waving, and such ideas) and since I was good with
computers it was natural for me to start writing data analyzing programs
for several people. Meanwhile I also learned what kind of assumptions
were made in order to prove the conclusions with the data and also what
kind of effect framing questions in a certain way had on the outcomes.
Since I was still trying to avoid giving advice to people, the distance
from reality one has in doing statistical analysis seemed like the way
out of the empathy conflict.
I soon learned that it was completely impossible to avoid giving advice
when creating statistical data out of a dataset. The first problem is
that to create any statistic at all there has to be some assumption
about the data to begin with. There is no other way. Then it seems
possible to rotate a factor analysis in a million ways. Next, one can't
tell from a correlation what caused what. Then there seem to be people
making a lot of money out of testing other people. Also, the more
mathematical a test looks,the less people understand it and the more
respect the test seems to generate.
Later on, when I was working as a research assistant at a mathematical
department, I realized that mathematicians want to abstract from reality
as soon as possible in order to get on safe territory where they can
wield their mathematical tools. It's like looking for your contact lens
not at the place where one lost it but rather at the nearest source of
light.
So don't tell me statisticians are like speedometers, they're well payed
distorters of reality, leveraging the credentials of ivory towers'
inhabitants in order to inflict great misunderstanding onto society only
to fill their purses.
> Or they're not really so innocuous.
> Statistician: statist [Ultimately from New Latin statisticus, of
> statecraft] + -ician [To do, as an occupation]
>
> Never mind.
OK. But what if I am ~worried~?
A.
'about Bukvich for example'
J Thomas
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
> The problem
> is that depressed persons generally don't want advise, they just want to
> be understood and listened to. It is a natural human instinct to want to
> help and thus give advise. But that's no good for a therapist. Instead
> one has to listen and not offer advise unless asked, one shouldn't even
> try to name the clients' story a 'problem' unless the client voluntarily
> starts calling it that.
>
> So either one is a human being and therefore filled with empathy, which
> makes one unfit to be an effective therapist, or else one is a
> psychopath without empathy, which makes one an effective therapist and rich.
in theory you'd be doing something that helps the client recover. The
first obvious way to help them recover is to give them advice they can
follow and their lives will improve when they do what you want instead
of what they want. I can see that this is likely not to work well. The
second approach is not to give them advice but just listen. Everybody
likes to be listened to, and if you have a client whose fundamental
problem is just that nobody ever listens to her, the sense that she can
pay somebody to listen and not say anything might be quite helpful. It
sounds like usually it would be mildly palliative. Soothing to be
listened to and have the idea that somebody can hear it and not judge
you, not decide you are a horrible person. Probably not particularly
effective at any particular result beyond being mildly soothing.
If you want to do something effective, it ought to be something other
than either of those approaches. But should you want that? People don't
actually do psychotherapy expecting results. They do it hoping somebody
will listen to them. Why change a winning formula?
So my first thought about advice would be to run a psychotherapy office
in pairs. The two of you listen to clients for awhile and then you have
a time scheduled when you're both off, and you tell each other all the
advice you wanted to tell the clients. And you can give each other
advice about it too. Then when you're all adviced out you go back to
work.
> After all, who am I to tell someone what is right and what is wrong?
Their therapist. Likely even more than they want to be listened to,
they want an authority figure to tell them that they're right and their
critics are wrong.
> Soon it became clear that there was no agreed upon idea of what social
> science was! This guy didn't do social science in dark cellars with
> people performing guided fantasy experiments. Instead he thought social
> science was about drawing triangular diagrams with pluses and minuses
> next to the edges indicating who was a friend of whom. Was that social
> science? Anyway, this guy was not very well integrated in the great
> social warfare and trenches system at that department so he quickly
> vanished into oblivion, whatever the credentials he started with were.
If he was really good at applied social science he could have drawn his
triangles and noticed who was a friend of whom and used it to win at
department politics. You don't have to agree on what it is, if it
works. But I notice there's a lot of that kind of thing. I read about
somebody who helped start a research company. They had brilliant human
resources, a bunch of great researchers who knew how to find out almost
anything and make mathematical models and do simulations and solve all
sorts of problems. But they quickly went bankrupt for lack of clients.
It was obvious from the first that they lacked clients. But somehow
none of the great thinkers thought to use their resources to solve the
problem of getting clients. They could have researched who had money,
and what sort of problems the guys with money had, and how the team
could impress them and get them to pay money for something the team
could provide. But somehow for all of them that was somebody else's
problem.
> It turned out that statistics had very high status
> among psychologists (hard facts don't lie, and measuring things is
> better than hand waving, and such ideas) and since I was good with
> computers it was natural for me to start writing data analyzing programs
> for several people. Meanwhile I also learned what kind of assumptions
> were made in order to prove the conclusions with the data and also what
> kind of effect framing questions in a certain way had on the outcomes.
Yes. That's a big deal.
> I soon learned that it was completely impossible to avoid giving advice
> when creating statistical data out of a dataset. The first problem is
> that to create any statistic at all there has to be some assumption
> about the data to begin with. There is no other way.
Yes. A pile of numbers is just a pile of numbers. Even if you just try
to display it so people can eyeball it there are lots of choices in
presentation.
And if you try to account for error, you have to make assumptions about
the kind of error you're accounting for. Things like jack-knife and
bootstrap methods minimise that, but they also give you minimal
conclusions.
> Then it seems
> possible to rotate a factor analysis in a million ways. Next, one can't
> tell from a correlation what caused what. Then there seem to be people
> making a lot of money out of testing other people. Also, the more
> mathematical a test looks,the less people understand it and the more
> respect the test seems to generate.
People are usually willing to look like they respect stuff when they
don't understand it. But when the guy who's paying for it doesn't
understand it, at some point he's going to ask the guy who understands
stuff for him, "Is this stuff worth what we're paying for it?". And
when that guy doesn't understand it either, he might say yes because he
likes you, or he might say yes because the respect the test gets rubs
off on him. But pretty likely he'll say "No, it isn't worth it".
> Later on, when I was working as a research assistant at a mathematical
> department, I realized that mathematicians want to abstract from reality
> as soon as possible in order to get on safe territory where they can
> wield their mathematical tools. It's like looking for your contact lens
> not at the place where one lost it but rather at the nearest source of
> light.
Sure. Where I was, they didn't do it that way. They tried to get into
the project at the very beginning and tell people how to design their
experiments. They tried to look at all the details of the completed
experiments and tell people where they messed up. They liked to show
researchers that 60-hertz cycle in their data, and then go to the lab
and find where the experimental wiring was insufficiently shielded from
the house current.
Everybody hated them. Several teams at the med school hired their own
statisticians just to avoid these guys. At least if you're the one
paying his salary you can tell him to shut up and he'll shut up. The
med school talked about starting their own statistics department. They
tried to get the biostat department shut down, and were well on their
way when I left. They *did not want* mathematicians telling them how to
do their experiments. And then when they got their results and their
analyst started announcing the prognosis, they'd look for a second
opinion, and then a third....
> So don't tell me statisticians are like speedometers, they're well payed
> distorters of reality, leveraging the credentials of ivory towers'
> inhabitants in order to inflict great misunderstanding onto society only
> to fill their purses.
It's possible to do that work honestly and reasonably competently. The
trouble is, just like psychotherapy, there's no reward whatsoever for
doing so. The economic system is driven by providing what the customer
wants, dammit! And if you want to get paid for doing honest statistics
based on the best clearly-stated assumptions you can make, you need to
start out with customers who want accurate numbers more than they want
"good" numbers.
Bug-Eyed Churl
Hash: SHA1
J Thomas <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> Likely even more than they want to be listened to, they want an
> authority figure to tell them that they're right and their critics
> are wrong.
You're absolutely corect Mr. Thomas, and anyone who disagrees is just
pointlessly being a poopyhead!
But then what I like most best about you is that you understand stuff
for me *for FREE*.
[...]
> But somehow none of the great thinkers thought to use their
> resources to solve the problem of getting clients. They could have
> researched who had money, and what sort of problems the guys with
> money had, and how the team could impress them and get them to pay
> money for something the team could provide.
This has been my problem. Eventually I had to go to my rich uncle, the
one who picks everybody's pockets to give me a penny or two. Then too,
with everything else I tend to get too nitpickingly perfectionist if
I'm interested at all, which produces a flurry of small details to no
profitable result, whereas being a PATHETIC LOSER for a living kind of
rules out that type of compulsiveness. I jus' do what come natchurly.
D.
- --
"Criminals are made, not born." - Andrew Kehoe
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) 2006 by 'TheDavid^TM' | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFFfecfuPgknNTf4OQRAuPiAKCmXnl2ZAstEsFDf3Sbri9wSBkspQCcDfLQ
VvDM3SRnPJoeiqHPqEHq75U=
=p5uk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
J Thomas
Bug-Eyed Churl wrote:
> J Thomas <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Likely even more than they want to be listened to, they want an
> > authority figure to tell them that they're right and their critics
> > are wrong.
>
> You're absolutely corect Mr. Thomas, and anyone who disagrees is just
> pointlessly being a poopyhead!
Thank you, Dr. Churl! I will treasure this moment.
stevemur
J Thomas wrote:
> It's possible to do that work honestly and reasonably competently. The
> trouble is, just like psychotherapy, there's no reward whatsoever for
> doing so. The economic system is driven by providing what the customer
> wants, dammit! And if you want to get paid for doing honest statistics
> based on the best clearly-stated assumptions you can make, you need to
> start out with customers who want accurate numbers more than they want
> "good" numbers.
Which shouldn't be very difficult, I imagine. As long as you're
willing to sign non-disclosure agreements.
J Thomas
Good thought!
Where I see that happening most is with insurance. insurance companies
want good statistics, very carefully done. They live and die by their
statistics.
Why isn't that more common? One thing, I think a lot of people believe
strongly in their ability to eyeball data and see trends. A lot of
people believe in their gut instinct. And if they think something is
true, but the data says that by reasonable assumptions there's only a
3/4 chance that their idea is true, that's good enough for them. They
want to run with it. So if it's a hypothesis-testing question, and the
question is to test for p=.33, why bother? The factor analysis that
Anton pointed out is even worse. Done well, you get a big table of
numbers. What does it mean? You need some statistics to understand what
it's supposed to say, much less understand the judgements that went
into it. There are forms of cluster analysis that are easier to follow,
but of course as they get clearer the room for bias gets clearer too.
Get two executives who disagree, and they can distort the same cluster
analysis to support both positions. Why bother?
QA programs run on statistics, but they set up brittle tests to judge
people's performance by, and then the people learn quick to work to the
test, and eventually somebody points out how that's distorting their
behavior and creating inefficiency.
I dunno. It's worth looking for customers who want honest analysis. On
the other hand, maybe there are jobs available for dishonest
statisticians too. I remember a story about a man who'd gone to jail
for accounting fraud. He got out and he was complaining to a friend
about how he couldn't possibly get a job in his field. His friend
suggested otherwise and told him what to do. He put up a want ad saying
he was an accountant who'd been convicted of fraud, and he got 6 job
offers very fast.
Anton Vredegoor
> Where I see that happening most is with insurance. insurance companies
> want good statistics, very carefully done. They live and die by their
> statistics.
To have insurance means to be credible. I one has credibility one can
borrow money. If one has money one can use it to speculate and make more
money. Money improves credibility. So we have a circle or a self
fulfilling prophecy. One might ask: "What is the problem with that? It's
just the way the world *is*."
Imagine if one had a very good military defense system, the enemy cannot
attack effectively so one can feel safe. But the moment one is safe
there is the possibility of making unreasonable demands to the other
party and to threaten it with attacks if it doesn't comply because it
cannot retaliate anyway, so it would have nothing to gain from
resisting. Obviously this would lead to further and further subjection
of the victim until it dies or finds a way out.
Now imagine an insurance company that does research about the risk
certain behaviors have. As we stated before it starts doing nothing but
fixing existing tendencies in place without creating any new
correlations itself: It just reinforces the things that are already
there in society. This could be likened to a pure 'defensive' insurance
strategy. However, all the insurance companies together wield a lot of
money and at some time they can't help but notice that if certain
companies get more credit they also make more profit even if they have
little capital to begin with, especially if they have good mass media
backup.
The seduction to buy into certain companies when they are cheap and then
make each share worth twice the money by credit manipulations and then
make profit out it can become irresistible. Sometimes it is just the
*information* about which things are going to be made big which is used
to make friends. If one is kept outside of the loop one perishes. Now it
is all about *information* and we have cut ourselves loose from the
actual value of the goods or behaviors. To keep saying that this is just
the way the world is becomes *making* the world as it is and *denying*
the world is like this becomes like trying to change it. So if one
doesn't like the world to be like FOX news, just start watching other
sources. Obviously this works only as far as the really 'real' world
underneath will permit but to me it is not entirely clear how much of
the really real world disappeared how long ago in human history.
Did it disappear only yesterday when youtube was sold for a billion, or
was it already gone the moment females started hiding menstruation and
kept the feeding shape of breasts even when they weren't pregnant or
hadn't even *been* pregnant ever before?
A.
'pedophile brains just never got used to the new situation'
stevemur
J Thomas wrote:
> stevemur wrote:
> > Which shouldn't be very difficult, I imagine. As long as you're
> > willing to sign non-disclosure agreements.
>
> Good thought!
>
> Where I see that happening most is with insurance. insurance companies
> want good statistics, very carefully done. They live and die by their
> statistics.
>
> Why isn't that more common? One thing, I think a lot of people believe
> strongly in their ability to eyeball data and see trends.
Hmm.
Canada has an enormous government agency to collect statistics.
(Called "Statistics Canada," logically enough.) The main office of it
is close to where I live.
The Stats Can web site will generate spreadsheets, graphs, etc... for
free. You enter a postal code, and it gives back lots of demographic
data on that neighbourhood. So if you're setting up a tattoo parlour
somewhere and you want to know what percentage of the area is under 18,
you can find out.
If you want very up-to-date information you can use one of Stats Can's
pay services. Or you can hire them to do a report for you, or to run a
workshop on some statistical subject.
So you might call this government interpherence in the 'information
market'. They take away some of the edge that a big business could
have if they were able to buy much better information than their
competition. (Of course that information would be used to eliminate
competitors.) I wonder if the US has a similar government agency?
I imagine most big companies do market research quite often. Maybe
they out-source it instead of havingstatisticians on staff. But if
you're some guy who wants to open a tattoo parlour/restaurant/etc...
you're probably better off going with your gut than hiring some firm to
research it for you.
Since the information here is free anyone might as wel use it. But the
Stats Can web site looks like a typical government web site. I.E.,
it's sort of a disorganized mess. It seems like everyone wanted to be
included, and nobody wanted to say "No, your project is secondary, and
doesn't need to be on the main page!" So it's cluttered.
The only reason I know the information is there is that I took a
demography course at a Canadian university.
> I remember a story about a man who'd gone to jail
> for accounting fraud. He got out and he was complaining to a friend
> about how he couldn't possibly get a job in his field. His friend
> suggested otherwise and told him what to do. He put up a want ad saying
> he was an accountant who'd been convicted of fraud, and he got 6 job
> offers very fast.
I'll tell my accounting-student friend. He'll probably be excited.
stevemur
Anton Vredegoor wrote:
> The seduction to buy into certain companies when they are cheap and then
> make each share worth twice the money by credit manipulations and then
> make profit out it can become irresistible. Sometimes it is just the
> *information* about which things are going to be made big which is used
> to make friends. If one is kept outside of the loop one perishes. Now it
> is all about *information* and we have cut ourselves loose from the
> actual value of the goods or behaviors. To keep saying that this is just
> the way the world is becomes *making* the world as it is and *denying*
> the world is like this becomes like trying to change it. So if one
> doesn't like the world to be like FOX news, just start watching other
> sources. Obviously this works only as far as the really 'real' world
> underneath will permit but to me it is not entirely clear how much of
> the really real world disappeared how long ago in human history.
But the Fox news people are pretty discredited right now, precisely
because their project to manufacture reality isn't working out. Iraq
had a script. Afghanistan had a script. But even the craziest Fox
zealot has to admit that things are behind schedule.
If you remember, the US successfully liberated Iraq in about 2 weeks.
There was a bit of drama: "They haven't faced Saddam's *elite
republican guard* yet. Are they ready for that?" "Might chemical
weapons be used against them?" It was a good story. It had a
beginning (the invasion), a tense middle part, a happy ending. The
ending was Iraqis waving US flags,and pulling down a statue of Saddam.
That's when it was supposed to be over.
So I think you can use your analogy of business to war in the other
direction also. What happens when these smart companies start to
believe their own marketing.
Somebody lobbied the US government to make sure Americans would stay
dependent on oil. That was very clever. Look how many SUVs got sold.
There was no need to develop that silly hybrid technology while they
had the politicians in their pockets.
foamyseasquirl
>
[everything is just Wikieality]
> Obviously this works only as far as the really 'real' world underneath
> will permit but to me it is not entirely clear how much of the really real
> world disappeared how long ago in human history.
>
> Did it disappear only yesterday when youtube was sold for a billion, or
> was it already gone the moment females started hiding menstruation and
> kept the feeding shape of breasts even when they weren't pregnant or
> hadn't even *been* pregnant ever before?
That's when reality disappeared for men, but it won't disappear for women
until we ACTUALLY STOP menstruating and getting pregnant (and getting old
and dying). I can't stand you people, you even weenie out when you die,
just keeling over from a heart attack like cowards, and when you get
irritated waiting for that to happen you drink a lot and do something
dangerous until that works. Have you ever met a guy who did chemotherapy
and lived? Like this one dude, right? But you can't swing a cat without
whacking some chick with one tit or a colostomy bag.
Of course, I've never given birth and am constantly criticized for being out
of touch with the reality-based community. Go bleed out your ass for a
week, take a big fat cock up there and then carry a coconut around in there
for several months and tell me what I'm missing. Is it *excellent*?
If it's so *excellent* to be in touch with this then why do single women
with children live disproportionately below the poverty line? You can't
convince me that they're not in touch with the underbullshit facts of life,
except the ones who go crazy staring into the abyss. Because really real
reality SUCKS, that's why. My whole project is to bypass it completely -
sure it takes discipline to perpetually hover, but I don't see any real
reason I have to land. I'm certainly not going to take reality up the ass
so you people can get me to report back and then, 'facts' in hand, feel like
you know. Fuck you! If you want reality you have to go get max to lie to
you and read between the lines, but the catch is that soon you will be
experiencing it up-close, and you wouldn't like that.
> 'pedophile brains just never got used to the new situation'
Well, adult women are cranky from all the reality - some dudes want no part
of it at all.
Say, I bet a could git me a man if I hid reality from him a lot. Oh wait.
L
'that works on everyone'
Anton Vredegoor
> So I think you can use your analogy of business to war in the other
> direction also. What happens when these smart companies start to
> believe their own marketing.
Yes I think you are right, there is a limit to what business or
government can get away with, even with cooperative mass media. Possibly
it was the Internet that had decisive influence, it seemed to be able to
do what the artists couldn't? Unless it was the cartoons backfiring.
However in proving your point you opened the door for commercial art
again, because in commercial art (and possibly in the music, film,
fashion and games industry too) reality checks are much less likely.
A.
"let's demassmedize art too"
buk...@my-deja.com
> That's when reality disappeared for men, but it won't disappear for women
> until we ACTUALLY STOP menstruating and getting pregnant (and getting old
> and dying).
You joke but your existential dilemma is fundamental. On the one hand
how you perceive what goes down is largely in your control, but too far
and you achieve spook-in-the-wizard-of-id delusion la la la la land.
Would you rather be smart and miserable or stupid and happy? Please
choose wisely.
> I can't stand you people, you even weenie out when you die,
> just keeling over from a heart attack like cowards, and when you get
> irritated waiting for that to happen you drink a lot and do something
> dangerous until that works. Have you ever met a guy who did chemotherapy
> and lived? Like this one dude, right? But you can't swing a cat without
> whacking some chick with one tit or a colostomy bag.
The survivor statistics may be a little bit slanted but the public face
appears as you describe because guys don't talk about their cancer.
Except to their doctor. It's like blood into the water for all the
sharks we have to be dealing with.
> Of course, I've never given birth and am constantly criticized for being out
> of touch with the reality-based community.
Who criticizes you for being out of touch with our reality-based
community?
This morning this woman was telling me about her son who is screwing up
his education. If I had pulled what he is pulling I would have had hell
beat out of me, but we don't do that in 2006. See? Progress!
She seemed rather disappointed that I put it like that, but the point
is men do not complain about their children screwing up their
education. They just seethe when the co-workers children's scholarships
are posted on the company bulletin board and pretend publically their
own children hardly exist.
There are very few fully engaged in this reality-based community is
what I am saying.
> Go bleed out your ass for a
> week, take a big fat cock up there and then carry a coconut around in there
> for several months and tell me what I'm missing. Is it *excellent*?
It certainly seems to be popular. Apparently you have a minority
viewpoint on the details.
> If it's so *excellent* to be in touch with this then why do single women
> with children live disproportionately below the poverty line?
Apples. Oranges. What I want to know is why so many of these poverty
striken people got satellite television antennae for their big screen
plasma.
> You can't
> convince me that they're not in touch with the underbullshit facts of life,
> except the ones who go crazy staring into the abyss. Because really real
> reality SUCKS, that's why.
Hang on. Soon we have the patented chill pill medication which makes
really real reality perfectly endurable. You'll be just like the
energizer bunny on television this your brain on the new drugs.
SSSssssZZZZszsz.
> My whole project is to bypass it completely -
> sure it takes discipline to perpetually hover, but I don't see any real
> reason I have to land. I'm certainly not going to take reality up the ass
> so you people can get me to report back and then, 'facts' in hand, feel like
> you know.
We watched "Forrest Gump". You wouldn't be adding anything to the
culture.
Bukvich
['you never know']
William Blake Jr.
It's not the purpose of the artist to express, but to create beauty and
to inspire people.
That, is very much needed.
buk...@my-deja.com
> Thats just stupid.
>
> It's not the purpose of the artist to express, but to create beauty and
> to inspire people.
>
> That, is very much needed.
Want to buy my brillo box? I will sell it to very cheap.
Also, see:
Bukvich
['I am a perFORMance artist']
William Blake Jr.
it is fundamentally downward-pulling and leads to fascism.
Without people taking risks, the place turns into a swamp full of
alligators and rabid dogs.
"The people who will give up liberty for security are not worthy of
either." - Ben Franklin
foamyseasquirl
<buk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1165956534.4...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> foamyseasquirl wrote:
>
>> That's when reality disappeared for men, but it won't disappear for women
>> until we ACTUALLY STOP menstruating and getting pregnant (and getting old
>> and dying).
>
> You joke but your existential dilemma is fundamental. On the one hand
> how you perceive what goes down is largely in your control, but too far
> and you achieve spook-in-the-wizard-of-id delusion la la la la land.
So it might be good that my powers of denial are minimal. And anyway much
like Jonah frequently says, once I notice reality *I* get to decide what it
_means_. That fact that reality doesn't care about me also means that it
doesn't think I suck and it isn't out to get me, because, this is the best
part, reality is not a person (thank god something isn't), although unlike
what new agers claim that means it also never has my back (even if I pray
really hard and hand-knit it scarves). Oh wonderfully indifferent universe,
you are so whatever random value judgment I say you are. Today you are . .
. awesome. You were sunny for a whole two hours this afternoon, please
accept this universe biscuit in approval form. Good universe!
I'm almost not an atheist. Something like a Buddhist. I just have a hard
time believing that the universe started rolling up bits of god into
hairless monkeys like so many cocktail weenies of divinity and then expected
to be congratulated, *by the sausages*. But I'm sure somebody not only
thinks that it did but is congratulating it right now.
I'd flunk a philosophy class wouldn't I. Why or why not I should or
shouldn't commit suicide, by the Layo the sausage. You see, the divine is
*imminent in* the sausage. The great work is to unite god with the sausage
until it becomes an immortal, perfected sausage and suddenly realizes that
it, a sausage, was god all along!
I think my philosophy will appeal more to men.
> Would you rather be smart and miserable or stupid and happy? Please
> choose wisely.
Happy but only if I also get to be healthy, sane, free, and, as a bonus,
longevity wouldn't suck, given those.
And don't forget *friends*. Otherwise, at the end of the day, what is it
all worth? Without friends? Stupidity makes *this* kind of thing more
successful, too. I love you man. No no, I love *you* man. Seriously
though, I wish you were a real person: your imitation is so great that I'm
sad it's just a character. And I wish this character was really my friend
and not just a looming malevolent monster thingy. You make my heart yearn.
>> I can't stand you people, you even weenie out when you die,
>> just keeling over from a heart attack like cowards, and when you get
>> irritated waiting for that to happen you drink a lot and do something
>> dangerous until that works. Have you ever met a guy who did chemotherapy
>> and lived? Like this one dude, right? But you can't swing a cat without
>> whacking some chick with one tit or a colostomy bag.
>
> The survivor statistics may be a little bit slanted but the public face
> appears as you describe because guys don't talk about their cancer.
> Except to their doctor. It's like blood into the water for all the
> sharks we have to be dealing with.
Why do women get away with showing weakness? It's not like men don't
totally hate us. Cancer is a way to get dumped by your husband, I
understand.
>> Of course, I've never given birth and am constantly criticized for being
>> out
>> of touch with the reality-based community.
>
> Who criticizes you for being out of touch with our reality-based
> community?
People with jobs.
> This morning this woman was telling me about her son who is screwing up
> his education. If I had pulled what he is pulling I would have had hell
> beat out of me, but we don't do that in 2006. See? Progress!
I might have actually gotten some approval when I did something right if I'd
usually been a fuckup.
> She seemed rather disappointed that I put it like that, but the point
> is men do not complain about their children screwing up their
> education. They just seethe when the co-workers children's scholarships
> are posted on the company bulletin board and pretend publically their
> own children hardly exist.
Don't look at me, I don't "share" either.
> There are very few fully engaged in this reality-based community is
> what I am saying.
What do you think such full engagement looks like?
>> Go bleed out your ass for a
>> week, take a big fat cock up there and then carry a coconut around in
>> there
>> for several months and tell me what I'm missing. Is it *excellent*?
>
> It certainly seems to be popular. Apparently you have a minority
> viewpoint on the details.
I lack sentiment. I am very emotional but I don't assign intense meanings
to very many human milestone type events. The exception would be death.
Being female and lacking sentiment makes it easy to know that this gender
gets screwed and passing laws can't fix it, either. Of course, being a man
basically means walking around dead inside, scanning for nice-looking asses
as consolation and only feeling good after successfully dominating stuff, so
that sort of blows too; it's just not as acutely painful except during
fights. On the other hand, at least guys might win the fights they get in.
sentiment + submission = martyrdom, or as you people put it, sklavmoral.
And like I said, I'm feeling Uber, thanks for asking!
In general I wish I got to successfully dominate stuff, but I think being
dead inside would make it not worth it, even with the lapdances. From blond
crewcut guys. Hmm. Well . . . maybe it would be worth it a little, but
it's still not going to happen. Oh why can't this uberality be more than
just a feeling?
>> If it's so *excellent* to be in touch with this then why do single women
>> with children live disproportionately below the poverty line?
>
> Apples. Oranges. What I want to know is why so many of these poverty
> striken people got satellite television antennae for their big screen
> plasma.
The shadow economy, as if you didn't know. You can get money out of the
underworld for all sorts of behaviors, or so I hear.
>> You can't
>> convince me that they're not in touch with the underbullshit facts of
>> life,
>> except the ones who go crazy staring into the abyss. Because really real
>> reality SUCKS, that's why.
>
> Hang on. Soon we have the patented chill pill medication which makes
> really real reality perfectly endurable. You'll be just like the
> energizer bunny on television this your brain on the new drugs.
> SSSssssZZZZszsz.
I feel fine, actually. That's because I am hovering.
>> My whole project is to bypass it completely -
>> sure it takes discipline to perpetually hover, but I don't see any real
>> reason I have to land. I'm certainly not going to take reality up the
>> ass
>> so you people can get me to report back and then, 'facts' in hand, feel
>> like
>> you know.
>
> We watched "Forrest Gump". You wouldn't be adding anything to the
> culture.
College was a confusing time.
> ['you never know']
What?
L
buk...@my-deja.com
William Blake Jr. wrote:
> Dude, this cynical Gen-X tripe may feel smart or secure at first, but
> it is fundamentally downward-pulling and leads to fascism.
Danto was born in '24. He's old enough to be our friggin grandpa.
B.
David bin Bedlam
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, buk...@my-deja.com wrote: [...]
> Soon we have the patented chill pill medication which makes really
> real reality perfectly endurable.
Define "really real reality" please. Are you getting Platonic here? I
myself prefer my pseudo-Foucaultian take on the subject: "reality" is
defined and enforced by those with power or who want power to further
the ends of their lust for power. So I'm much more dangerous to
Society -- i.e. The Power -- on antidepressants and typing away at the
Internet than I was when I was hiding in bed feeling weepy and
worried. Of course I could be more *effective*, but at least so far
I've avoided mortaging my soul to a multinational corporation from
hell. Or Academia. Or marriage-&-kids. Or Scientology. Or quite a few
of the multifarious other traps lots of people can't live without
getting themselves into.
What do I win?
Triumphantly,
TheDavid(TM)
--
"I'm near the end and I just ain't got the time."
...................................................................
(C) 2006 TheDavid^TM | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
foamyseasquirl
"David bin Bedlam" <thed...@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.58.06...@troll.weezl.org...
>
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, buk...@my-deja.com wrote: [...]
>
>> Soon we have the patented chill pill medication which makes really
>> real reality perfectly endurable.
>
> Define "really real reality" please. Are you getting Platonic here? I
> myself prefer my pseudo-Foucaultian take on the subject: "reality" is
> defined and enforced by those with power or who want power to further
> the ends of their lust for power. So I'm much more dangerous to
> Society -- i.e. The Power -- on antidepressants and typing away at the
> Internet than I was when I was hiding in bed feeling weepy and
> worried. Of course I could be more *effective*, but at least so far
> I've avoided mortaging my soul to a multinational corporation from
> hell. Or Academia. Or marriage-&-kids. Or Scientology. Or quite a few
> of the multifarious other traps lots of people can't live without
> getting themselves into.
>
> What do I win?
Oh yeah? Well *I* taunted the whole Illuminati! And I only had to take the
occasional Vicodin to make it perfectly endurable. In fact I may taunt them
a second time.
L
'I don't think I won anything either'
stevemur
William Blake Jr. wrote:
> Thats just stupid.
I was wondering whether you were going to pay attention.
> It's not the purpose of the artist to express, but to create beauty and
> to inspire people.
Inspire: [Latin inspirare : in-, into + spirare, to breathe.] (I'm
very into etymology this month.)
Okay, to breathe [life] into. Making the soil come alive. Making the
rib come alive.
How to do that -- whether it's even possible anymore -- has been
tormenting people for a few hundred years now. Pundits can dismiss it
as a gen-X fad, but it cuts deep, and it's getting worse. The culture
is atheistic, as Nietzsche pointed out a hundred years ago. The
catholic church has been fighting it for centuries, and losing ground
for centuries. The US government isn't half as well equipped.
So I said art can let us feel something collectively. Not elevate us;
not "justify the ways of God to men". That seems way too ambitious, at
least to me, in 2006.
But even collective emotion seems useless if we have no power. If we
can't change anything fundamental, even by acting together, then it
might be better not to feel. Feelings might only interphere with doing
our jobs, and there might be no alternative to doing our jobs.
I guess I was premature. Probably it isn't that hopeless yet.
But don't let them put weapons in space, damn it!
Buzzard
> (snip)
> I'm almost not an atheist. Something like a Buddhist. I just have a hard
> time believing that the universe started rolling up bits of god into
> hairless monkeys like so many cocktail weenies of divinity and then expected
> to be congratulated, *by the sausages*. But I'm sure somebody not only
> thinks that it did but is congratulating it right now.
> I'd flunk a philosophy class wouldn't I. Why or why not I should or
> shouldn't commit suicide, by the Layo the sausage. You see, the divine is
> *imminent in* the sausage. The great work is to unite god with the sausage
> until it becomes an immortal, perfected sausage and suddenly realizes that
> it, a sausage, was god all along!
> I think my philosophy will appeal more to men.
If you did take a philosophy class, the professor
just might start following you around.
> Being female and lacking sentiment makes it easy to know that this gender
> gets screwed and passing laws can't fix it, either. Of course, being a man
> basically means walking around dead inside, scanning for nice-looking asses
> as consolation and only feeling good after successfully dominating stuff, so
Not always dead inside, though usually dying,
because to show that there is anything inside
that isn't stereotypically macho is to be
labelled a geek (or worse), and given hell.
--
Buzzard
(the feathers are for insulation)