Re: Mind's Eye Re: Good and bad

Funny. I was just musing that social media is related to the thumbs up/
down of the Colosseum of ancient Rome! :-)

On Mar 29, 6:28 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, the credits for pointing out the possibility/likelihood of being the
> subject/object of distortions go to Rigs! Omitting the predicate might have
> evoked the feeling you could have missed something, but no, you're right,
> there was no point.
>
> The "Oh shit!" pedagogic method is called "black pedagogy", not to be
> mistaken with "black humor", or with the connections to the past that Rigs
> draws.
>
> Hey Neil, how about "New Shades Of Black" as a book title for the book I
> have pre-ordered from you? Ok, I admit, I'm not really waiting, I have
> already started reading. :)
>
> 2013/3/28 James <ashkas...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> > One approach that I've rarely caught in a class is a teacher taking a no
> > BS approach to the material. It seems useful to have a frank historical
> > perspective on what motivates the theories or breaches the old paradigms,
> > perhaps a creative excursion into cultural universals. Maybe picking a few
> > wacky examples of applied economics and let them get a good laugh, then
> > show parallels with their culture to get them thinking.
>
> > One example is ancient civilizations using up natural resources, then
> > looking over the forecasted impact of the US aquifers bottoming out.
> > Suddenly the conservationists don't sound as alarmist, is there a word for
> > the "Oh shit!" pedagogic method? No offense but economics sounds boring in
> > itself, but your thoughts here make it sound interesting. Are you allowed
> > to hint to the class when you think something is little more than an
> > academic publishing circle jerk?
>
> > Hmm, what you've said about 'distorting filters' has me wondering if I
> > missed gabby's point. You lost a book and I was born.. :D
>
> > On 3/27/2013 7:28 PM, archytas wrote:
>
> >> I've just read a book that says neo-classical economics is just an
> >> ideology forced down our throats by the vile rich - actually the whole
> >> book probably says less than that as the authors won't call a spade a
> >> spade.  Gabby seems to have read he book too.  It came 30 years too
> >> late.  I could have missed all those research methods classes and
> >> worried less about feeling economics was a load of junk that could
> >> only make sense to Monty Python's dead Norwegian Blue parrot.  Perhaps
> >> economists have just discovered the archive of my lecture notes, lost
> >> on a bus in Lancaster in 1983?  I seem to remember they advocated
> >> swapping one set of distorting filters for another and mentioning the
> >> term paradigm a lot.  Big data was barred as positivist - a term I
> >> loosely translated as 'guileless scientist like you Neil'. You had to
> >> call data 'capta' to be in with the crowd that mistakenly thought it
> >> was the in crowd, socially constructed facts from thin air I
> >> interpreted as a source for green hydrocarbon production and taught me
> >> to spell phenomenological.
>
> >> On Mar 25, 10:02 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> The Big Picture via distorting filters onto Big Data?
>
> >>> 2013/3/24 andrew vecsey <andrewvec...@gmail.com>
>
> >>>  I do not think that we lie to our self so much as that we only see/hear
> >>>> what we want to see/hear. Also we tend to say what we think the other
> >>>> persons wants to hear or say things to hurt other people.
> >>>> On Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:46:03 AM UTC+1, rigs wrote:
>
> >>>>> I am more interested in why we lie to ourselves, suppress reality and
> >>>>> snarl logic in our brains. There are life and death moments of
> >>>>> survival, I suppose, but much of our potential is engineered by family
> >>>>> and culture in order to achieve some sort of control and order. Even
> >>>>> rebels are often little more than a reaction. Pretense and etiquette
> >>>>> are often the same thing.//I must have "lost" my thought re "big
> >>>>> data"/"Big Daddy? as an organizer of human knowledge versus the
> >>>>> present scatterings and specialties.// Yes- I agree most have a gut
> >>>>> reaction- but so do other life forms- it's a survival mechanism. But
> >>>>> it can be distorted.
> >>>>> On Mar 24, 4:12 am, andrew vecsey <andrewvec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Faked enthusiasm is as easy to spot as fake love. It is like a built
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>> like a lie detector that god created us with. Sounds like a good way
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> detect lying on the internet. You can call it "god" instead of "big
> >>>>>> brother".
> >>>>>> On Saturday, March 23, 2013 6:08:39 PM UTC+1, archytas wrote:
> >>>>>> .....................
>
> >>>>>>> Quite what junk DNA is has raised a big recent controversy - gist at
> >>>>>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/****science/2013/feb/24/**<http://www.guardian.co.uk/**science/2013/feb/24/**>
>
> >>>>>> scientists-attacked-ove.<http:**//www.guardian.co.uk/science/**
> >>>>> 2013/feb/24/scientists-**attacked-ove<http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/feb/24/scientists-attacked-ove>
> >>>>> .>..
>
> >>>>>> I agree with rigs that the term is unfortunate.
> >>>>>>> ........but I could feign 'enthusiasm' ..
> >>>>>>> ........' to detect resistance!  Even this
> >>>>>>> .....no employees dumb enough to support
> >>>>>>> excellence, ......
> >>>>>>> if we spent out time pointing such devices at
> >>>>>>> each other though rigs!  Watch out for the first one minute dating
> >>>>>>> agency providing such!  Arghh" .
> >>>>>>> On Mar 22, 1:06 pm, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Junk is an unfortunate adjective- it sounds too random. My guess is
> >>>>>>>> that further selection takes place in this area which selects the
> >>>>>>>> strongest marker- or whatever it's called- such in the color of
>
> >>>>>>> eyes,
>
> >>>>>> hair, and other characteristics. There are also generational skips
>
> >>>>>>> in
>
> >>>>>> play. I have noted other strange echoes of a missing parent such as
> >>>>>>>> the style of laughter which is a surprise and so many other
> >>>>>>>> recognitions. At any rate, we are just beginning to sort through
>
> >>>>>>> the
>
> >>>>>> data in this one area as in others- I think it is called "big data"
> >>>>>>>> which will overcome the religious notion of "sins of the father"
>
> >>>>>>> stuff
>
> >>>>>> as well as curses and fate and will hopefully allow a more rational
> >>>>>>>> and postive approach/life choices for each unique individual. But
>
> >>>>>>> it
>
> >>>>>> will also cause mischief.
> >>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 5:16 am, andrew vecsey <andrewvec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Not all DNA code for protein. We have non coding DNA called "junk
>
> >>>>>>>> DNA"
>
> >>>>>> that
>
> >>>>>>>> ensure we are all unique. While normal DNA codes for protein to
>
> >>>>>>>> make,
>
> >>>>>> for
>
> >>>>>>>> example a "nose", junk DNA ensures that we grow a nose that
>
> >>>>>>>> "looks"
>
> >>>>>> like a
>
> >>>>>>>> mixture of our father`s and our mother`s nose.
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 22, 2013 12:36:39 AM UTC+1, Ash wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> My thoughts didn't include "junk DNA", my thinking on such
>
> >>>>>>>>> terms are
>
> >>>>>> mixed in that some genes may not be useful or represent just
>
> >>>>>>>>> another
>
> >>>>>> failure point, but also that the supposed junk in one set of
> >>>>>>>>>> circumstances may prove quite beneficial in others like a
>
> >>>>>>>>> backup, an
>
> >>>>>> alternate development chain or complex interdependencies we
>
> >>>>>>>>> haven't
>
> >>>>>> observed yet. You may have a connection in mind I haven't
>
> >>>>>>>>> gleaned.
>
> >>>>>> Developing the market sounds similar but I am trying to root
>
> >>>>>>>>> out an
>
> >>>>>> aspect of this that doesn't require jumping to a premature
>
> >>>>>>>>> conclusion,
>
> >>>>>>>> such as in 'intelligent design', materialism, rigid ontologies
>
> >>>>>>>>> or
>
> >>>>>> realism. Thanks for helping me explore here gabby, lets hope
>
> >>>>>>>>> some
>
> >>>>>> form
>
> >>>>>>>> emerges in expression. :)
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2013 3:57 AM, gabbydott wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Now that sounds more like you. :)
> >>>>>>>>>>> What you are describing or asking I now
>
> >>>>>>>>>> understand/interpret/hear
>
> >>>>>> in
>
> >>>>>>>> terms of what I know about what they are trying to find out
>
> >>>>>>>>>> about
>
> >>>>>> "junk DNA". Its purpose/function/added value. As for what you
>
> >>>>>>>>>> describe
>
> >>>>>>>> as another way, I know/experience/see this in what the
>
> >>>>>>>>>> companies
>
> >>>>>> describe as "developing the market". We are still on topic,
>
> >>>>>>>>>> aren't
>
> >>>>>> we?
>
> >>>>>>>> 2013/3/21 James <ashk...@gmail.com <javascript:> <mailto:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> ashk...@gmail.com <javascript:>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>      I have a feeling you are being charitable with me gabby
>
> >>>>>>>>>> (cringe).
>
> >>>>>>>>      What you say makes sense, and should add that the intent
>
> >>>>>>>>>> I
>
> >>>>>> refer
>
> >>>>>>>>      to is in excess of that needed for mere gene survival
>
> >>>>>>>>>> fitness.
>
> >>>>>> In
>
> >>>>>>>>      that sense I consider the adaptations as simulations and
>
> >>>>>>>>>> the
>
> >>>>>>      excess as breaking the barriers of meta-simulation, or in
>
> >>>>>>>>>> another
>
> >>>>>>>>      way, not just running within time but operating on it by
>
> >>>>>>>>>> taking
>
> >>>>>>>>      advantage of the rules and finding ways to bend them. Now
>
> >>>>>>>>>> it
>
> >>>>>> is my
>
> >>>>>>>>      turn to ask, does that make sense [to anyone]?
> >>>>>>>>>>>      On 3/20/2013 3:01 AM, gabbydott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>          I don't know if this is good or bad, but i hear
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.