Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - LMNO

Pages: 1 ... 1661 1662 1663 [1664] 1665 1666 1667 ... 2110
24946
Good start, indeed.

I "societal convention" sort of like what clique you are in?  Yuppie, Slacker, Junkie, etc.

24947
He's a hack fantasy author, if it helps.

It figures, he's from Leominster, MA.

24948
Interesting.  I'm gonna have to google R A Salvatore.

to RWHN: this may be a cruical, if overlooked, aspect to the original purpose of O:M -- That something happens that is completely outside anything expected by the target.  The trick, of course, is finding out how the target "chunks" their expectations.

24949
Principia Discussion / Re: STRIFE or CHAOS?????
« on: March 20, 2008, 12:56:09 pm »
My replies have been completely consistent with the current page (starting with the "repeat the question" riff from 000).

24950
Been re-reading GEB, and had some thoughts about it.  I’m in the section about chunking, levels, grouping, and chess. 

First thought:  Hofstadter says that when chess masters look at a chess board, they have trained themselves to look only at possible moves.  Further than that, they look only at beneficial possible moves.  I was considering this, and came up with an alternate chess rule:

-After every seven pieces taken from your opponent, you may move one piece any way you wish, only once, with the exception that you can’t checkmate the king.  You may do that at any time after collecting the seven pieces

That way you do have to play by the rules, but up to a point: There is always the possibility of a random action.  This way, you are forced to think about all the impossible moves, as well as the possible ones.

That was more of a side thought, though.  The idea I wanted to bring up was from the section on “The Trade off between Chunking and Determinism” (pp 306 of the 1980 edition):

Quote
There is, however, perhaps one significant negative feature of a chunked model: it usually does not have exact predictive power. That is, we save ourselves from the impossible task of seeing people as a collection of quarks (or whatever is the lowest level) by using chunked models; but of course such models only give us probabilistic estimates of how other people feel, will react to what we say and do, and so on. In short, in using chunked high-level models, we sacrifice determinism for simplicity. Despite not being sure how people will react to a joke, we tell it with the expectation that they will do something such as laugh, or not laugh – rather than, say, climb the nearest flagpole (Zen masters might well do the latter!).  A chunked model defines a “space” within which behavior is expected to fall, and specifies probabilities of its falling in different parts of that space.

What I was thinking is that it works both ways... That is, in a certain situation, we have “chunked” the possible behavior of others, eliminating the “impossible” or the “highly improbable”.  In some instances, we may even eliminate the “unlikely” or the “probably not”!  In most cases, this happens unconsciously, the lower levels of experience and expectation simply taking over.  Unless we really pay attention, we don’t even see it happening.

But this same “chunking” also lurks in our own behavior in situations.  We have unconsciously eliminated certain behaviors and reactions from our possible choices, without even noticing.     Through whatever ways our mind sets up (call it 8-Circuit, or Monkey Mind, or Jungian, or Dianetics, et al), we have radically limited our behavior in how we react to certain situations, the limitations becoming less and less obvious the older the structures of our mind get.  It takes a lot of effort to notice these “chunks,” and to act outside of them.  Some people never do.

Please keep in mind that “outlandish” behavior can be chunked, too!  That’s why some of these pinealists are so predictable, because even though their behavior might be outside the standard observer’s expectations, they are often fairly consistent in their outlandishness.

I’m sure you can easily see the BIP looming on the horizon, so I’ll leave that to y’all to draw connections.  I would like to say, however, that in light of the above, one of the things that has drawn me to Erisianism is the way it attempts to avoid high-level chunking of models, if even just in a minor way.  It seems to not only teach us to accept experiences that occur outside our “chunks” of others’ expected behavior (thus expanding the possibilities in our brain), but it also can teach us to examine our own behaviors, and how we have automatically eliminated certain responses... Which again expands possibilities in our brain.

24951
Principia Discussion / Re: STRIFE or CHAOS?????
« on: March 20, 2008, 11:51:43 am »
Cool, I'll try that.  MiHD is being a pain for me, as well.

You can stream the track at http://earfatigue.multiply.com/music/item/185/MC_Untzalot

24952
Principia Discussion / Re: The PD.com soundtrack (working title)
« on: March 20, 2008, 11:49:38 am »
For some reason, I can't get the third bundle to upload.  I'll keep trying, though.

24953
Bring and Brag / Re: MC Untzalot strikes again!
« on: March 20, 2008, 11:48:16 am »
WOOT!

24954
Which is why they made a republic, not a democracy.

Also, I think HBO added a little spin, like Jefferson calling slavery "an abomination".

Except when he's got an urge for Brown Sugar, of course.

24955
Or Kill Me / Re: Cain contra Robert Anton Wilson
« on: March 20, 2008, 11:41:41 am »
In almost-related news, the bassist for the empties expressed surprise I never heard of, and started babbling on about, the Illuminatus! card game.  I immediately thought of this thread.

Then, I thought: Wait a second.  RAW wrote the I3!, and may have had a hand in PD but the rest of his stuff doesn't always name-check Discordia.  It's more of the "Guerilla Ontology" shite he's always on about.

The person who grabbed Discordia, packaged it, and pushed it into the mainstream is STEVE JACKSON.  He's the one who decided to make a buck off it, he's the one who keeps publishing crap copies of the PD, and the one who comes up with new ways to exploit the memes.

Anyway, I doubt that addresses the point of the OP, so I apologize.  Just wanted to get that off my chest.

24956
Or Kill Me / Re: Cain contra Robert Anton Wilson
« on: March 19, 2008, 06:41:17 pm »
I didn't really want to post a response if you were gonna do the "incidental" thing again.



Oh well.

24957
Or Kill Me / Re: Cain contra Robert Anton Wilson
« on: March 19, 2008, 06:33:03 pm »
Is this your main point?

Quote
But the reason I really dislike RAW is he took something that was meant to be, to a degree, indefinable and went and created a whole damn subculture based around it.

24958
Or Kill Me / Re: Cain contra Robert Anton Wilson
« on: March 19, 2008, 06:15:05 pm »
despite popular opinion there isn't really any Joycean text in Illuminatus.


NO— because I'd be a fool to think miracles can occur in this world before somebody pays the rent and the taxes and shows that their papers are in order and the people who are running it can always tell you your papers are not in order No because there are no magicians and even Hagbard is mostly a fraud and a con man even if he means well No because I'm not Pope Joan if there ever was a Pope Joan No because like the song says I'm not a queen I'm a woman and the wrong color woman to boot No because there will be rivers of blood and the earth will be shaken before we can overturn Boss Charlie because it isn't a simple one-night symbolic Armageddon like Hagbard fooled them all into thinking No because Hagbard is some kind of magician and put us all on his own trip for a while but the real world isn't a trip it's a bummer No because the lovers don't live happily ever after what happens is that they get married and get into debt and live in slavery ever after and I've got to find something better than that No because none of us are driving the car it's the car that's driving us No because it's like that old joke "Balls" said the queen "if I had them I'd be king" and "Nuts" said the prince "I've got them and I'm not king" and "Crap" said the king and thirty thousand royal subjects squatted and strained for in those days the king's word was law Hagbard would call it anality and sexism and ageism but it just comes down to the women and children getting all the crap right in the face and a few males owning everything the truth is all in the old jokes especially the bad jokes I'm still tripping but this is true they can always say your papers are not in order No because sometimes you've got to be a hermit and then come back later when you're together No because the wheel keeps spinning and doesn't give a fuck if there's going to be any change it's got to be that some human being somewhere does give a fuck No because I've never found a way to shut Simon's mouth and make him listen No because Jesus Christ was a black man and they've even lied about that he was another black man they killed and they won't admit it No because death is the currency in every empire Roman or American or any other all empires are the same Death is always the argument they use No because the whole world can go to the Devil and I'm taking care of Mary Lou No because look at that professor they killed at the UN building and none of them arrested yet No because there's a perpetual motion machine inside me and I'm learning to let it run No because I'll put a curse on all of them I'll burn them I'll condemn them I'll have the world No because look what happened to Daddy and Mommy.

CF:

"...I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes. "

24959
Or Kill Me / Re: Cain contra Robert Anton Wilson
« on: March 19, 2008, 05:40:59 pm »
Well, as far as I know, RAW himself continually said that he didn't want to be a guru.  What more could he have done?

Hell, Crowley did his best to be reviled so no one would hold him up as a guru*, and still people created a cult around him.













*I'm guessing he also did it because he thought it was funny.

24960
Or Kill Me / Re: Cain contra Robert Anton Wilson
« on: March 19, 2008, 05:32:50 pm »
Heh.


I done been Zanged.

Pages: 1 ... 1661 1662 1663 [1664] 1665 1666 1667 ... 2110