Re: [geodesic 00096] Are communications being jammed?
Bob Burkhardt
is). Wikipedia seems to think so, but there is no discussion of the
relative merits that I see. In any case, a Wikipedia page devoted to
Fuller's notion of Synergetics is missing, or at least the page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller doesn't know about it --
it is still linking to the page explaining Haken's notion of
Synergetics. Perhaps a page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller/Synergetics could be
created and devoted to Fuller's notion of this term, and as a historical
note talking a little about who originally developed the term for those
of us who dwell on such topics. But in any case the links on Fuller's
page should be fixed to point to this new page. Cutting and pasting
from copyrighted work without permission probably won't do it for us,
but perhaps BFI or someone would consent to the reproduction of some of
their material.
Bob
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 22:20:32 -0700 Clifford Nelson
<cjne...@verizon.net> writes:
> It's time to post again.
>
> Russian Synergetics is Orwellian.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Synergetics
>
> George Orwell's book "1984", published in 1948, had a plot with a
> top
> heavy government monopoly system in England and English was the
> official language. That meant the government had to define the
> language with the official dictionary. They wanted to write a
> dictionary that would make it impossible to say politically verboten
>
> (forbidden) things. Many of the facts of Bucky Fuller's experience
> and
> his conclusions in his books are politically incorrect (verboten)
> now.
> So, the meaning of the word "Synergetics" had to be changed (for the
>
> public good, they say. They always say that.).
>
> I'm trying to explain:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergetics
>
> There's got to be a reason for that web page.
>
> The word "Synergetics" still means books written by Bucky Fuller,
> published in 1975 and 1979, commissioned in 1960, no matter what
> wikipedia says.
>
>
http://library.wolfram.com/infocenter/search/?search_results=1;search_per
son_id=607
>
> I saved one of the Mathematica NoteBooks as web pages at:
> http://mysite.verizon.net/cjnelson9/index.htm
>
> Cliff Nelson
>
>
>
--
Bob Burkhardt
http://www.freewebtown.com/bobwb/ts/synergetics/photos/
Bob Burkhardt
it is good to double check. I've had more good experiences than bad
with WP. There was the matter of Rouget de Lisle. I was looking into a
text note for an old German reader that said de Lisle got the melody for
the Marseillaise from somewhere else, an obscure German composer. I
headed for WP to get more information: The French site suggested the
melody was similar to an earlier tune of Mozart's. The English site had
some suggestions of precedents which I think included "Variations on the
Marseillaise" by an Italian composer (hard to decipher exactly -- my
Italian is not too good -- but I think that was the gist) and the German
site had its theories. On referring to Britannica and the Grove
encyclopaedia (print versions) I found neither of them had any hint of
this idea of the tune coming from elsewhere besides de Lisle's fertile
mind, but there seemed to be echos of the rumors in the emphasis in
these texts on the number of tunes he had written (though of course none
with the success of the Marseillaise). So for my use, I decided to
discard the theory and go with the idea that he composed both the tune
and lyrics. I find WP is a very good place to start, but for a citation
I prefer something more established that WP might point to. WP has an
amazing amount of depth. I heard there was a plan to print it out and
sell a snap shot. It might lose something in that sort of translation.
It could be there is more rumor mongering in WP, but I've been
surprised to find this in Britannica as well.
It seems to me at one point we discussed the Haken-Fuller Synergetics
issue in some length on Geodesic. In my own mind, it resolved as two
alternate definitions, pertaining to somewhat different situations
(though certainly with some similarities), and the best way to proceed
was to recognize them as distinct definitions as one might find in a
dictionary for a particular word. So that is why I suggested going with
a new page for Fuller's definition. This would help get through the
"jamming" which is sometimes due to Fuller himself. And I can't see
anything malicious here, though perhaps some frustration on the part of
both proponents that someone else dared to redefine "their" word.
Bob
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:49:21 -0700 Clifford Nelson
<cjne...@verizon.net> writes:
> I didn't read it all. I didn't see anything about malicious general
>
> subtle communications jamming.
>
> Cliff Nelson
>
> On Oct 21, 2008, at 7:00 PM, Doug Milliken wrote:
>
> > Here is a thoughtful piece about Wikipedia and the "hive mind" in
>
> > general, from a couple of years ago. The author also has a
> problem
> > with Wikipedia getting something wrong!
> > DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism
> [5.30.06]
> > By Jaron Lanier
> > http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html
> > ----
> > This web based email is sponsored by Synacor, Inc. (http://
> > synacor.com) Proud Sponsor of the Buffalo Free-Net
> (http://bfn.org)