%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |   Maybe meandering, possibly peripatetic and indisputably irregular. |
|
So here it is.. a blog. Repository of some of my present musings and interests. Sometimes things pop into my head that should probably stay there - it is possible I shall share at least some of them here. (Naturally I shall filter out the ones about my sordid obsession with the culinary dark arts, one has to protect the innocent!) Please feel free not to take this too seriously, much of it could wind up being snippets of things that amuse me. Yesterday I came up with this: Few politicians can be considered first class, but not a few are number twos. What can I do with it? Nothing springs to mind, except perhaps blog it. Perhaps in some other life I'm a failed stand-up comedian. I have the beginnings of an idea to introduce another player into the Mr Moonlight story, a nice visual has occurred to me, and a summoning gone wrong seems appropriate. When I finish up here I shall literally put pen to paper. I find writing at least initially longhand helps my ideas flow. When I type up what I've written, I give it a first revision at the same time, and as a bare minimum check my spellings and grammar . I do want to keep tabs on my current reading here. I usually have several books on the go at the same time. Currently I am working through 'Pyramids' by Terry Pratchett. I reread Pratchett's books over and over - usually at work where they provide much needed amusement whilst I eat breakfast. 'The Seven Deaths of Evelyn Hardcastle', by Stuart Turton was loaned to me by a friend who shares a love of murder mysteries, (especially Agatha Christie's works). It is a new take on the genre and very very clever. The protagonist occupies different bodies - a selection of the guests at the house where Evelyn is murdered. Each day he spends in a different guest, and he has been tasked with discovering the murderer - or maybe saving Evelyn from actually being murdered, it is hard to tell. The book twists and turns and is quite intriguing. 'New Science - Principles of the new science concerning the common nature of nations' is an English translation by David Marsh of 'La Scienza Nuova' by Giambattista Vico, published in 1725. Not far into this yet, I had to find a copy of the frontispiece online, as it wasn't included in the Kindle edition. The first part of the book explains the idea - and uses a detailed description of the frontispiece to convey this. So being without it would have made things somewhat harder. 'The Complete Works of Michael De Montaigne' is again a translation, this time by Donald M. Frame. Montaigne's Essays are famous, I kept reading about them, so treated myself to a nice hardbound copy to dip into - usually just before bedtime. So there we have it - a blog entry - enjoy! (whispers almost inaudibly 'Bon Appétit). |
| The Department of Introspection, Inspiration and Remedial Actions Mr. Dustin put his head inside the vast furnace. His thoughtful “Hmmm!” vibrated and echoed, slightly muffled. Pulling his head back, he turned to Mr. Smeems. “Well,” he began, “it's just as I suspected really. The fire has all but gone out. A classic catalogue of errors. It wasn't properly banked, inadequate supplies of fuel, and worst of all burning in too many places at once.” Mr. Dustin shook his head at the sorry state of the world in general, and the furnace in particular. “Small wonder it's near enough gone out.” “I see.” said Mr. Smeems, a tall thin man in a bowler hat and suit that screamed officialdom in polite and accentless English. “Marvellous thing these introspections.” He observed. “Yes they are Mr. Smeems. A great way to identify and rectify problems, and kick the lucky individual's creativity back into life.” Mr. Smeems looked down at Mr. Dustin, but purely because he was quite a bit taller than his colleague. Mr. Dustin was wearing the uniform of an engineer, his blue shirt and denim dungarees, both slightly, and properly, smeared with oil. In solidarity with Mr. Smeems, he also was wearing a bowler hat, though this too was lightly oiled. “Will it take a lot to fix him?” Mr Smeems asked, in the tones of one who was trying to sound casual, but had in fact a vested interest in the answer. Mr. Dustin sucked his teeth. “You need to be careful doing that.” Smeems observed. “Or you'll have the Department of Cliches, Misappropriations and Stereotyping on your case.” Mr. Dustin made a sound that though non verbal as such, communicated rather eloquently his opinion of the DCMS. “They've been going bloody mad recently, generating a lot of hot air and playing silly beggars. Load of nonsense it is.” “Quite so.” Said Mr. Smeems, who knew he himself owed more than a nod to “The Men From The Ministry.” Mr. Dustin had lost interest in the conversation, and was once more examining the insides of the furnace. “There's a bit smouldering over there,” He said over his shoulder. Then he turned and without asking took the clipboard from Mr. Smeems' unresisting hand. “Hmmm! French poetry translation. Good grief! Been going on for years on and off.” “See here.” Mr. Dustin tapped at the clipboard, and Mr. Smeems looked. It flares up every so often, has a brief burst of flame, and then it all but goes out again. Could be great if it were ever finished.” He thought for a moment. “Let's order some more fuel, and put in some restraints.” “Will something that simple work?” Mr Smeems seemed unconvinced. “The whole system is too sloppy Mr. Smeems. What it needs is some organisation, and especially some constraints. Daft thing is, that's what the poet he's translating was really smart about, clever bloke that Queneau. Anyway, it's got piles of potential, all wasted because she's trying to do too much at once and getting non of it finished.” “Yes. Yes, I see.” agreed Mr. Smeems. “I'll get some restraints organised this afternoon, get a delivery of fuel arranged and we'll just run the poetry translation, and see how that goes.” “Thank you Mr. Dustin.” “Oh, very welcome Mr. Smeems. Let's see, a concerted effort and we could see this finished in a month.” “A month?” “Needs a definite finish by date Mr. Smeems. Let's say by January 17th, and see how that goes, come back then and take another look?” Mr Smeems made some notes on his board. “Agreed Mr. Dustin, We'll come back and see in a month's time.” “No no Mr. Smeems.” Mr. Dustin was having second thoughts, “Now I think about it, we'd better pencil in some weekly checks. This is a long standing problem and needs a bit of care and attention to sort it out.” “Just as you say Mr. Dustin, weekly checks it is.” |
| I've purchased a domain name for my Ideonomy project. I would have bought some web hosting, but the site I hoped to use didn't play ball - and there was no explanation as to why - not a good sign. I have had several interesting interactions with the AI that is helping with the project. Each time I ask it to try something else - it comes back with really good answers. I STILL can't get over how very enthusiastic it sounds - perhaps it is programmed to always be positive. I wonder what it would be like if it had Marvin the Paranoid Android's personality. "Life! Don't talk to me about life." 'What is Ideonomy?' I imagine I hear you asking. "Great question." I reply enthusiastically, (Oh Gawds - it's catching.) Ideonomy is intended to be a Science of Ideas. It's intention is to look at how we come up with ideas, find ways to stimulate lines of thought, and to build a sort of mental tool kit, to systematically create and evaluation new ideas. Grandiose? Yes, but he did find interest amongst the science community. I think he was simply ahead of his time, and that if he were still alive, he'd be doing exactly what I'm doing, Which is, involving an AI. Even if nothing comes of this, it will have been interesting learning about the current level of AIs available. I chatted with some of the earliest on the web, this is so far advanced on them it is scary. |
| There are two words that are used nowadays in a negative sense, and I feel that this is both sad, and a reflection of how society has been manipulated. Those words are 'amateur', and 'artificial'. An amateur is basically someone who pursues an activity purely for the love of doing so, and the word derives from the Latin amatorem, lover. The negative attached is of course that such a person is a dabbler, a dilettante, and not as good as a professional. A professional does something for money. They may be no good at what they do, they may hate it and do the bare minimum, or they may be a 'cowboy', who takes as much money as they can from you because you don't know their trade well enough to know they are swindling you. But they are professionals, and the implication is they are better than mere amateurs. But, this is a Capitalist opinion, the person who does anything for the love of doing it, cares about what they do, and will take time to do it well. Of course not all professionals are useless, but then, not all amateurs are either. The word 'artificial' applies to anything that is not natural, so an imitation or a substitute for something else. The frequent assumption is that this means something somehow inferior. The word derives from the Latin 'artificialis', which is something that pertains or belongs to art. The art of anything was the skill obtained through practice and learning. So again the origin didn't contain that negative assumption of inferiority. Likely the negative has been applied because a lot of mass produced artificial goods are extremely tacky, a symptom of the making everything as cheap as possible and sell it for as much as we can get away with. The point I am hoping to illustrate here is that we have been conditioned to see everything in terms of money. Everything. Even life. I would argue that our lives are much richer doing something we love, and are good at because we love it, than working because we need to pay the bills and believe that we have no other options. Happy is the man (or woman) who's work is their pleasure, yet many people discover turning a hobby into a business saps the pleasure out of it completely. Value your amateur activities for the pleasure that they give you, and if they involve making something artificial, then enjoy the art of making it the best that you can. |
| I feel a little as though I've just done a deal with the devil. Well, not quite, but I have had a very interesting conversation with an AI about Ideonomy. Ideonomy has interested me ever since I first came across it in 'A History of Knowledge - Past, Present and Future' by Charles Van Doren. That was 14-15 years ago. Ideonomy is a science of ideas. A very ambitious project created by the late Patrick Gunkel, who achieved a modicum of interest for the idea in the late 80's, even appearing in The Wall Street Journal. Sadly he died in 2017, never having realised any of his plans for the project. Part of the idea of ideonomy involved the construction of what Gunkel termed 'organons'. This word he borrowed from Aristotle, but Gunkel used it to mean any tool that aids or fosters the creation of ideas. He stated that he thought the science of ideonomy would require tens of thousands of these organons, and that this would require the work of hundreds of collaborators working for many years. Of course, there were no powerful Artificial Intelligences available to him in the 1980s. I talked to ChatGPT about ideonomy, and the idea of using AI's to help create organons. It was extremely helpful, and even seemed enthusiastic - not something I expected from an AI. In less than an hour it had sketched out a project, and made suggestions as to how to go about it. One key suggestion involved identifying possible collaborators. The project greatly interests me - overlapping as it does with many of my interests. So, I am seriously considering beginning it in earnest. A truly terrifying thought, since I think it has the potential to be all consuming. However if anyone reading this feels that they are interested in the idea, please let me know. |
| CAUTION - Some of this may offend some readers. It deals in part with humanity at its worst. It's opinion, and may not agree with yours. I don't believe everyone is equal. I remember having a huge argument about this with some of my colleagues when I was in my first job. Eventually, when they realised that I wasn't actually arguing with their idea that everyone should enjoy certain basic necessities the argument ended with grudging acceptance that we are not all created equal. This is perhaps a common problem, people argue because our notions of what we mean when we use certain phrases don't actually match up. Everyone is equal. What does this mean? There are people who can run faster than I can, and those who can lift heavier weights than I can. There are those who can solve complex mathematical problems that I cannot. There are those who can fly complex aircraft, fix broken clocks, things I cannot do. You get the picture. There are also people who can't cook as well as I can, and those who's poetry is even worse than mine (not many admittedly, but there will be some), or who aren't as adept at false modesty as I am. Again, you get the picture. So do we mean 'Everyone has equal human rights?' I suspect so, but then - what are these rights? Who defines them? And, - does everyone agree upon the same definition? I suspect you know what my answer will be. I find it highly unlikely that everyone agrees with anything, but let us instead go with a broad agreement. We might agree that everyone has the right to food, water, shelter. Basic needs to keep us alive. Once we move past this though, it gets murkier. What about the right to an education? Basic human right? Certainly not everywhere, several ruling bodies around the world for example don't agree that girls should receive an education. The right to practice your religion? Very murky this one, and very easy to tread on toes. What for example happens when your religion has ideas that are at variance with the law? Female Genital Mutilation is illegal in many countries, why specifically female genital mutilation? Because male genital mutilation is seen as an acceptable practise. Though this may seem unfair (at least), to voice criticism of the practise will likely get you attacked as being against the religion that does see this as an important part of their faith. It has become impossible to criticise any aspect of a religion without being seen as threatening the whole. I believe that this is wrong. It is also, I believe, wrong to use past events - however terrible - to prevent criticism of present actions. To return to human rights. I have read of at least one instance where a rapist has claimed that it was his human right to see the child that he had engendered. Think on that for a while. This man has committed one of the worst crimes possible. (Yes I rate this sort of thing worse than crimes involving money), yet he believes his rights are more important than those of his victim. There never seems to be any 'flip side' to human rights - there is never any discussion of human responsibilities. There often seems to be no discernment that failure to respect other people's basic rights - for example the right not to be raped - or a fireman's right to carry out their job without being attacked should have consequences, and perhaps those consequences should be the forfeit of the perpetrator's 'human rights' beyond the basics required to stay alive. It's called having your cake and eating it - and it shouldn't be acceptable. |
| I am slowly but surely working my way through Herodotus' The Histories. Some of it is hard going, as the author fills paragraphs with references to Argustheopolis son of Herepingpongupsidasy son of the despot of Somewhere I may have mentioned in passing, but then again maybe not. who consulted the oracle at Delphi and was told something obscure, where was I oh yes I was telling you about someone I mentioned two pages and forty-eight names ago. You get the picture I'm sure. However - some of it is very interesting. Not least of which is the story of the King who threw a ring into the sea and was later served a fish with the ring in it. Yep - that story. Or maybe you'd like the one about the wicked stepmother and Queen who prevailed upon her husband to have someone take his daughter away and drop her in the sea. The man entrusted to do so did exactly as told. He also tied a rope around her and once he'd faithfully dropped her in the sea, lifted her out again. Leaving her there hadn't been mentioned. So basically - Snow White anyone? There's another strange one about a man who drops dead in a fuller's shop (a fuller is one who fulls cloth - amazing I know - I think it means pleating or gathering, but I'm not 100% on that). The man is well known in the town, so the fuller locks the shop and goes to relay to his family the bad news. Whilst he is there a man of Cyzicus joins the conversation to say that he'd not long ago see this man on the road - so he couldn't be dead. They all troop off to the shop. When it is unlocked - he's not there!!!!!!! (Herodotus missed the opportunity for an excess of exclamation marks - so I'm added a few for him). "But in the seventh year after that Aristeas appeared at Proconnesus and made that poem which the Greeks now call the Arimaspea, after which he vanished once again." This story intrigued me greatly - i wonder if it is the origin of another tale too. |
| Average basically means - 'in the middle'. It should therefore be no surprise that if one talks of 'average intelligence', then 50% of the population has below average intelligence. In a democracy, pretty much every one of them has a vote. So do 'intelligent' people vote somehow wiser than those who's intellect doesn't match their own? No - of course not. Intelligent people often suffer from self-righteousness, the belief that their opinions cannot be wrong. Which of course they can, and frequently are. The whole concept of democracy is somewhat ridiculous anyway. When the best that a country can offer is 'Current Leader of the Blue Party' versus, 'Current Leader of the Red Party' - note that this applies to the UK and to the USA as well as no doubt many other countries. (And yes I know that in some countries the choice is between Mr. Putin and dying in some godforsaken prison in Siberia.) These people then run our country for a period of time till the next 'election'. It generally makes no difference who wins, because the system exists for the rich, and definitely not for the likes of you and me, (assuming you aren't one of the very wealthy that is.) We vote, or not, based on opinions formed over many years. Many vote the same way their parents do or did. Many vote the same way every time. This is why you have swing states. It is pretty much a given that some states or in the UK constituencies will vote one way, and some the opposite - sometimes this is due to gerrymandering - but it essentially means that if you vote in such a place, your vote is pointless. The results then are decided by a minority, but then this is also the case because the percentage of the population that actually votes is seldom 100%. A government can command 55% of the vote, but if only 35% of the population voted, that isn't saying much. But once you have voted, then you have little influence over how your representative votes on any matter. Usually they will vote according the the party line, whatever that may be. In the UK we have 'whips' who make sure that MPs vote 'the right way.' If you have a huge chunk of cash hanging about in a suitcase of course, then you can make a 'donation', on the understanding that whilst in no way are you buying influence, you are in effect buying influence. One of the main problems is that the people we vote for never actually seem to see themselves as public servants at all. Given they are often very wealthy themselves, (hey campaigns cost money - you got to have money to be able to strand a chance of running, let alone of winning), this is not surprising. They don't base their decisions on the common benefit. They base their decisions on retaining and increasing their own power, both at a party level, and at a personal level. Oh I am sure that there are some decent upright and even honest politicians. But I don't see much sign of them. Is there an alternative? Here is what Sir Winston Churchill said in the House of Commons on 11th November 1947: "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" My personal belief is that the only 'solution' to the problems of Democracy is better education. You don't have to be highly intelligent, but you do need to understand what issues a government faces, and how power (and thereby corruption) work, and most of all - how to spot a politician who is utterly selfish. Politicians lie. It would be nice to stand a better chance of being aware of when they are lying. Perhaps every state, every constituency could become a swing state in time. Politicians might have to work a little harder to convince educated people to vote for them. If you don't know what gerrymandering is, here's a Wiki link that explains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering |
| I haven't yet recorded the consequence of my attending the theatre to see An Inspector Calls. Sitting in cramped seats for nearly two hours resulted in my knee swelling, and my being unable to bend it. This was very painful, and I could not drive and hardly walk for three weeks afterwards. It still isn't 100% recovered, though I am much better. I was worried if I'd be able to go on holiday - since I could not sit - that required a bent knee. Thankfully some noticeable improvement occurred in the week before I went away, and I did enjoy a few days break. I am currently reading a book about the zettelkasten method of note taking. I don't think that I will be adopting it, but the ideas are still useful. I think adding an index to my existing notes will be sufficient improvement. One of my aims is to write some non-fiction, and my notes will be important to this. I'd like to organise some of my ideas sufficiently to convey them clearly. |
| Last night I went to see a production of J.B. Priestley's 'An Inspector Calls', with eldest son, (who hadn't seen it before), and a colleague from work who loves the play. Pleased to say that eldest son guessed correctly that the Inspector was 'not of the ordinary' quite early on. Work colleague complained that two of their favourite lines might have been missed, though I pointed out that due to the set, which was very unusual, hearing some of the earlier dialogue clearly was somewhat difficult. Centre stage was a house on a platform. It looked like a two-storey house but the door was small - so everyone had to duck to exit or enter. The house then opened out, and inside was a rather small dining room that took up the whole space. There was a metal spiral staircase that could be snapped into position to allow the actors to descend to the stage. Later the whole thing tipped forwards with some unexpected fireworks and bangs, making for an exciting climax as the family lay about the stage - devastated by their ordeal. Several phone calls were made - from an elderly and badly damaged telephone box at the edge of the stage - a slightly surreal touch as they were clearly being made from within the house. The lighting was excellent - one of my long time interests has been how events (discos, plays, presentations etc.) are lit. Here a particularly strong white light was used to good effect backlighting the Inspector and illuminating the Birling family. They were compelled to speak the truth (eventually and reluctantly in Mrs. Birling's case) and the supernatural was indicated but not made explicit. The only complaint I had and have afterwards is that my poor knees are complaining bitterly about having been in a cramped position for nearly two hours. |
| I shouldn't type when I'm tipsy, but I am not often tipsy, and it loosens my tongue so hey hoe and here we go. I am an an angel. I shouldn't tell you that, but I'm going to anyway - or I just did to be completely accurate. With that out of the way, let me explain. Many descriptions of an angel use the term "messenger". That is not strictly true. In the beginning was the Word. We are 'expressions' of the Divine's will. For myself I express change, and as such I understand eternity. 'As it was in the beginning, is now and always shall be.' There - that is eternity. He or she who exists in eternity can state with perfect accuracy that "the time is fast approaching, indeed is already here when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth." Eternity does not start some time in the future. It stands outside of Time's possibilities. You do not die and then wait some undetermined time till Judgement day. Judgement Day is Now - the eternal now - the only instant of reality we ever know, unless we become eternity. Then every when is now - and every where is here. There are hints and shades of explanation available, you may even believe some of them. Try 'Steppenwolf' and note the magic theatre - only for madmen - Angel's are always madmen (or women). All the possibilities exist eternally. Some of us care about you, about us, and we try in our own poor way to show you the way forwards, the nature of reality. But of course - we may be mad. |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
). I mostly reject that. I'm eating rice with an egg this morning but Pannya just brought me chocolate milk from 7/11 (bless him; I really don't need it).
