virus: Participation waves...
« on: 2005-03-06 22:39:06 »
...what is it that's at the root of our ups and downs in participation? e.g....i havent posted much of anything for several months. is this somehow justified? do others react similarly? do discussion topics greatly affect participation? are we more apt to write when we feel things are going well in our lives? or the opposite? is it apathy? ...or merely changes to our time management schedule?
where is hermit? where is casey? where art thou zloduska? and where is the senor bill?
Oh! yes CoV language! Right. That's fun stuff. More interesting than "scientific language". I would however reckon my CoV language to not violate scientific understandings, not call on skyhooks, supernaturalisms, etc. Certainly leaves a lot of leeway for interesting usage, as this remains a somewhat uncharted canvas. Perhaps even more participatory experimentation. The language of memetics paints on the canvas of the embodied mind immersed in the medium of cyberspace creating a meme-otype, which then manifests into real world behavior and other phemotypical manifestations --- then of course creating a feedback loop in which memetic selection reshapes the meme-type for more effective replication. Got it?
So how is this working out for you? And realistically how can we improve our situation through this mechanism? Even though we have been here for a while, we are only just begining, at a sort of incubating/larval stage. Perhaps a cocoon or chrysalis? Yes I do like biological language if that is what you mean by scientific, but I think it should cling as closely to an experiential level as possible, making the message sound more fundamental and basic, for us (until nanotech comes of course) biology=basic. Not necessary clinical (and no more than necessary), and we definitely need to leave that academic sounding stuff behind. Perhaps that's my point about language.
oops, a woman calls me away for now my loins respond, and I gotta run!
-Jake
> [Original Message] > From: global_hijack <global_hijack@speakeasy.net> > To: <virus@lucifer.com> > Date: 03/05/2005 12:39:47 PM > Subject: Re: virus: Peanut Butter > > I'm not certain which person I am, in this story: Am I Dr. O'Neill or > the bank robber? I tend to think the former. You may think the latter! > > > I hear you say that the frame is too small - I agree, it has been. > Therefore I am hoping we can begin a discussion about broadening that > framework. > > > > One thing that I believe will be important will be to 'keep track' of > our conversation - it is a complex conversation already, and we've > hardly said anything! > > > Here's a short version: > > Ben says - "let's put it in CoV language" > Jake says - "What do you mean by language?" > Ben says - "Here, let me explain what I mean by language, and then I > will send a long complicated email." > Keith says - "I interpret you as a slightly off-the-rails overzealous > memetics freak" > > Ben - "I haven't even gotten started yet!" > > > > So I've got this huge email I have been working on, in five sections. > Whenever I get the green light that we are done discussing the basic > concept of 'local language' - which I'm not sure we have, I will dump > the email. > > The email has currently five sections: > > a) Weird self-reflective intro piece > b) An example of a meme that scales in and out > c) Examples of in-and-out scales > d) Why are we having this conversation? > e) Freeman Dyson's Unit's of Survival > > > > So far we have defined a local usage for the word 'language' - yes, or > no? > > -b > > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 2005, at 6:10 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > > > I am reminded of the intensity of the very early days of the L5 > > Society/space colony meme. > > > > There was a guy who was so taken with the space colony idea and Dr. > > O'Neill's casual statement that he needed funding to complete his book > > that he *robbed a bank*! > > > > He got caught of course. I think the judge went fairly light on him, > > but at this distance I don't remember the details of the aftermath. > > > > Anyway . . . . When you are intensely caught up in a meme, people who > > are even more caught up have to be appreciated even if they do go off > > the rails. > > > > The problem is that memetics is much like epidemiology. It goes a > > long ways to explain how people spread all over the earth with the > > aide of "culture," that collection of memes or replicating information > > patterns. > > > > But the frame is too small to explain why *this* meme and not *that* > > meme became ascendant. For that you have to look other places, like > > physics or chemistry to understand why a meme of using dry stuff to > > make fires will do better than a meme of making fires with damp stuff. > > > > To understand the hold cult memes like scientology get on people you > > really need to understand evolutionary psychology and the environment > > of small tribes in which our ancestors were reproductively successful > > while our non-ancestors failed. > > > > And if you want to understand the partly memetic mechanisms that lead > > to wars, you need to understand that a meme that does poorly in an > > unstressed population may become the dominate meme in a population > > under stress. > > > > Most of you on this list are up on these subjects. For those who are > > not I can provide pointers if they are wanted. > > > > Keith Henson > > > > > > --- > > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
sorry but you use a neme <virus@lucifer.com> that i do not like, change if you wanto to mail conmigo a really gto name as a pasiflora or that ever ok ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dr Sebby" <drsebby@hotmail.com> To: <virus@lucifer.com> Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 10:39 PM Subject: virus: Participation waves...
> > ...what is it that's at the root of our ups and downs in participation? > e.g....i havent posted much of anything for several months. is this > somehow justified? do others react similarly? do discussion topics > greatly affect participation? are we more apt to write when we feel > things are going well in our lives? or the opposite? is it apathy? ...or > merely changes to our time management schedule? > > where is hermit? where is casey? where art thou zloduska? and where is > the senor bill? > > i need to know these things. > > > DrSebby. > "Courage...and shuffle the cards". > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: "Jake Sapiens" <every1hz@earthlink.net> > Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com > To: virus@lucifer.com > Subject: Re: virus: Peanut Butter > Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 15:59:37 -0800 > > Oh! yes CoV language! Right. That's fun stuff. More interesting than > "scientific language". I would however reckon my CoV language to not > violate scientific understandings, not call on skyhooks, supernaturalisms, > etc. Certainly leaves a lot of leeway for interesting usage, as this > remains a somewhat uncharted canvas. Perhaps even more participatory > experimentation. The language of memetics paints on the canvas of the > embodied mind immersed in the medium of cyberspace creating a meme-otype, > which then manifests into real world behavior and other phemotypical > manifestations --- then of course creating a feedback loop in which > memetic > selection reshapes the meme-type for more effective replication. Got it? > > So how is this working out for you? And realistically how can we improve > our situation through this mechanism? Even though we have been here for a > while, we are only just begining, at a sort of incubating/larval stage. > Perhaps a cocoon or chrysalis? Yes I do like biological language if that > is what you mean by scientific, but I think it should cling as closely to > an experiential level as possible, making the message sound more > fundamental and basic, for us (until nanotech comes of course) > biology=basic. Not necessary clinical (and no more than necessary), and > we > definitely need to leave that academic sounding stuff behind. Perhaps > that's my point about language. > > oops, a woman calls me away for now my loins respond, and I gotta run! > > -Jake > > > [Original Message] > > From: global_hijack <global_hijack@speakeasy.net> > > To: <virus@lucifer.com> > > Date: 03/05/2005 12:39:47 PM > > Subject: Re: virus: Peanut Butter > > > > I'm not certain which person I am, in this story: Am I Dr. O'Neill or > > the bank robber? I tend to think the former. You may think the latter! > > > > > > I hear you say that the frame is too small - I agree, it has been. > > Therefore I am hoping we can begin a discussion about broadening that > > framework. > > > > > > > > One thing that I believe will be important will be to 'keep track' of > > our conversation - it is a complex conversation already, and we've > > hardly said anything! > > > > > > Here's a short version: > > > > Ben says - "let's put it in CoV language" > > Jake says - "What do you mean by language?" > > Ben says - "Here, let me explain what I mean by language, and then I > > will send a long complicated email." > > Keith says - "I interpret you as a slightly off-the-rails overzealous > > memetics freak" > > > > Ben - "I haven't even gotten started yet!" > > > > > > > > So I've got this huge email I have been working on, in five sections. > > Whenever I get the green light that we are done discussing the basic > > concept of 'local language' - which I'm not sure we have, I will dump > > the email. > > > > The email has currently five sections: > > > > a) Weird self-reflective intro piece > > b) An example of a meme that scales in and out > > c) Examples of in-and-out scales > > d) Why are we having this conversation? > > e) Freeman Dyson's Unit's of Survival > > > > > > > > So far we have defined a local usage for the word 'language' - yes, or > > no? > > > > -b > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 2005, at 6:10 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > > > > > I am reminded of the intensity of the very early days of the L5 > > > Society/space colony meme. > > > > > > There was a guy who was so taken with the space colony idea and Dr. > > > O'Neill's casual statement that he needed funding to complete his book > > > that he *robbed a bank*! > > > > > > He got caught of course. I think the judge went fairly light on him, > > > but at this distance I don't remember the details of the aftermath. > > > > > > Anyway . . . . When you are intensely caught up in a meme, people who > > > are even more caught up have to be appreciated even if they do go off > > > the rails. > > > > > > The problem is that memetics is much like epidemiology. It goes a > > > long ways to explain how people spread all over the earth with the > > > aide of "culture," that collection of memes or replicating information > > > patterns. > > > > > > But the frame is too small to explain why *this* meme and not *that* > > > meme became ascendant. For that you have to look other places, like > > > physics or chemistry to understand why a meme of using dry stuff to > > > make fires will do better than a meme of making fires with damp stuff. > > > > > > To understand the hold cult memes like scientology get on people you > > > really need to understand evolutionary psychology and the environment > > > of small tribes in which our ancestors were reproductively successful > > > while our non-ancestors failed. > > > > > > And if you want to understand the partly memetic mechanisms that lead > > > to wars, you need to understand that a meme that does poorly in an > > > unstressed population may become the dominate meme in a population > > > under stress. > > > > > > Most of you on this list are up on these subjects. For those who are > > > not I can provide pointers if they are wanted. > > > > > > Keith Henson > > > > > > > > > --- > > > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > > > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > > --- > > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 04/03/2005 >
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 04/03/2005
--------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- ..:: GoalsNet ISP ::.. Sistema de Deteccion de Virus y Spam http://www.goalsnet.com.pe --------------------------------------------------- --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Re:virus: Participation waves...
« Reply #2 on: 2005-03-07 10:13:16 »
Hi Sebby,
Love you, miss you, miss you everyday. Hope all is well in rain-soaked California. Life is good in the northeast. I'm just counting the days until Spring has sprung!
Re:virus: Participation waves...
« Reply #3 on: 2005-03-07 13:58:24 »
....when spring will spring, twill' surely bring, that which spring should bring. but if it's sprung before its time to come, the cold won't miss a thing.
i hope you are well =) the mysterious life of the nor'easter...such the enigma to us west coasters. i will likely be in NYC as of the 15th-19th...a old friend of mine seems desperate for a good time...his wife will be out of town for 4 days, and he want's to fly me out to rabble rouse i can only imagine. is the east coast one big city yet? arent you like a metro ride away? and please tell me of Bill and his whereabouts.
Love you, miss you, miss you everyday. Hope all is well in rain-soaked California. Life is good in the northeast. I'm just counting the days until Spring has sprung!
1) When the first posts began to come up from this list again, from me, from some others, it 'exposed' you to a certain amount of noise.
2) The noise grew in volume and complexity as threads increased, and certain things in them may have caught your eye. Connections formed between either what was said and your outside life, or between what was said previously and what was discussed now.
3) Out of what was said, something 'clicked' with you so strongly that you were motivated to kick out a contribution - action, reaction.
4) Now we're in the analysis phase - a conversation. What decision to make of this conversation, what to "DO" about it, will come as the direction of this conversation is going.
5) Summary:
a) Dr. Sebby received information in the form of increased number of posts. This attracted his (dormant) interest. Priming the pump, as it were. b) Dr. Sebby, at the level of 'active listening' - reading the current emails, vaguely following along, sees something worth adding to. This kicks him up a level to: c) Dr. Sebby 'geeks out' his own components, parseable to "Hey! I'm here too." d) Bored with that, and yet interested in more conversation, Dr. Sebby goes up a level to: Query for Info. He asked a root structure question. Brings up a new topic, as it were.
I posit that if his interest can be maintained - I can get my words to cycle him towards laughter, rather than anger, or ignoring - that he will begin to cycle towards action.
Any dissatisfaction that Dr. Sebby feels will reinforce in others how they decide to interpret participation in this conversation.
One way to describe human information flow is:
Sensitization to Noise - (my initial bombardment sensitized, or 'irritated' the organism). Examination of Noise - (when we begin noticing the tender spot on our foot as week hike) Reaction to Noise - (there is something fundamentally exclamatory about our first reactions and, because of the 'irritation' factor, we often exclaim in the negative) Query for Information - (this represents a new phase in our participation in a conversation) Resolution of the Decision-Making Node - as our sensitivity to the noise of another person's opinions goes down - we decide we 'know' what they are saying, our conversation begins to wind up, often leading to a new conversation.
A slightly different angle to frame my opinion of the answer to your question might be:
"By the time you answered, there was lots of potential conversational energy. That there is a confusing conversation going on leads to unresolved potential energy. Thus, there is a differential that can be triggered by easier, more comprehensible, threads. If the CoV 10 year thread was THE MOST COMPLEX THREAD, it would receive even less attention."
Please tell me, for I crave feedback: Did I make sense in my opinion?
Ben
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dr Sebby [mailto:drsebby@hotmail.com] > Sent: Monday, March 7, 2005 03:39 AM > To: virus@lucifer.com > Subject: virus: Participation waves... > > > ...what is it that's at the root of our ups and downs in participation? > e.g....i havent posted much of anything for several months. is this somehow > justified? do others react similarly? do discussion topics greatly affect > participation? are we more apt to write when we feel things are going well > in our lives? or the opposite? is it apathy? ...or merely changes to our > time management schedule? > > where is hermit? where is casey? where art thou zloduska? and where is > the senor bill? > > i need to know these things. > > > DrSebby. > "Courage...and shuffle the cards". > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: "Jake Sapiens" <every1hz@earthlink.net> > Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com > To: virus@lucifer.com > Subject: Re: virus: Peanut Butter > Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 15:59:37 -0800 > > Oh! yes CoV language! Right. That's fun stuff. More interesting than > "scientific language". I would however reckon my CoV language to not > violate scientific understandings, not call on skyhooks, supernaturalisms, > etc. Certainly leaves a lot of leeway for interesting usage, as this > remains a somewhat uncharted canvas. Perhaps even more participatory > experimentation. The language of memetics paints on the canvas of the > embodied mind immersed in the medium of cyberspace creating a meme-otype, > which then manifests into real world behavior and other phemotypical > manifestations --- then of course creating a feedback loop in which memetic > selection reshapes the meme-type for more effective replication. Got it? > > So how is this working out for you? And realistically how can we improve > our situation through this mechanism? Even though we have been here for a > while, we are only just begining, at a sort of incubating/larval stage. > Perhaps a cocoon or chrysalis? Yes I do like biological language if that > is what you mean by scientific, but I think it should cling as closely to > an experiential level as possible, making the message sound more > fundamental and basic, for us (until nanotech comes of course) > biology=basic. Not necessary clinical (and no more than necessary), and we > definitely need to leave that academic sounding stuff behind. Perhaps > that's my point about language. > > oops, a woman calls me away for now my loins respond, and I gotta run! > > -Jake > > > [Original Message] > > From: global_hijack <global_hijack@speakeasy.net> > > To: <virus@lucifer.com> > > Date: 03/05/2005 12:39:47 PM > > Subject: Re: virus: Peanut Butter > > > > I'm not certain which person I am, in this story: Am I Dr. O'Neill or > > the bank robber? I tend to think the former. You may think the latter! > > > > > > I hear you say that the frame is too small - I agree, it has been. > > Therefore I am hoping we can begin a discussion about broadening that > > framework. > > > > > > > > One thing that I believe will be important will be to 'keep track' of > > our conversation - it is a complex conversation already, and we've > > hardly said anything! > > > > > > Here's a short version: > > > > Ben says - "let's put it in CoV language" > > Jake says - "What do you mean by language?" > > Ben says - "Here, let me explain what I mean by language, and then I > > will send a long complicated email." > > Keith says - "I interpret you as a slightly off-the-rails overzealous > > memetics freak" > > > > Ben - "I haven't even gotten started yet!" > > > > > > > > So I've got this huge email I have been working on, in five sections. > > Whenever I get the green light that we are done discussing the basic > > concept of 'local language' - which I'm not sure we have, I will dump > > the email. > > > > The email has currently five sections: > > > > a) Weird self-reflective intro piece > > b) An example of a meme that scales in and out > > c) Examples of in-and-out scales > > d) Why are we having this conversation? > > e) Freeman Dyson's Unit's of Survival > > > > > > > > So far we have defined a local usage for the word 'language' - yes, or > > no? > > > > -b > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 2005, at 6:10 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > > > > > I am reminded of the intensity of the very early days of the L5 > > > Society/space colony meme. > > > > > > There was a guy who was so taken with the space colony idea and Dr. > > > O'Neill's casual statement that he needed funding to complete his book > > > that he *robbed a bank*! > > > > > > He got caught of course. I think the judge went fairly light on him, > > > but at this distance I don't remember the details of the aftermath. > > > > > > Anyway . . . . When you are intensely caught up in a meme, people who > > > are even more caught up have to be appreciated even if they do go off > > > the rails. > > > > > > The problem is that memetics is much like epidemiology. It goes a > > > long ways to explain how people spread all over the earth with the > > > aide of "culture," that collection of memes or replicating information > > > patterns. > > > > > > But the frame is too small to explain why *this* meme and not *that* > > > meme became ascendant. For that you have to look other places, like > > > physics or chemistry to understand why a meme of using dry stuff to > > > make fires will do better than a meme of making fires with damp stuff. > > > > > > To understand the hold cult memes like scientology get on people you > > > really need to understand evolutionary psychology and the environment > > > of small tribes in which our ancestors were reproductively successful > > > while our non-ancestors failed. > > > > > > And if you want to understand the partly memetic mechanisms that lead > > > to wars, you need to understand that a meme that does poorly in an > > > unstressed population may become the dominate meme in a population > > > under stress. > > > > > > Most of you on this list are up on these subjects. For those who are > > > not I can provide pointers if they are wanted. > > > > > > Keith Henson > > > > > > > > > --- > > > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > > > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > > --- > > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> >
...well i see the logic in your guesswork, but i must clarify: i have never been a lurker, the first time i ever logged on, i posted an infamous document to our beloved Zloduska. the present case is one whereby i have often seen occasion to comment or spew out a thought or two...but i felt i had not alotted enough time to do so properly. i decided that silence might be better than a half-thought out idea etc... forcing the CoV to abide unrefined ramblings would make me feel as though i were wasting everyone's time, as well as watering down the overall quality of the Virian environment. through some adjustments in time management, hopefully i will start to warm up my engines once again.
1) When the first posts began to come up from this list again, from me, from some others, it 'exposed' you to a certain amount of noise.
2) The noise grew in volume and complexity as threads increased, and certain things in them may have caught your eye. Connections formed between either what was said and your outside life, or between what was said previously and what was discussed now.
3) Out of what was said, something 'clicked' with you so strongly that you were motivated to kick out a contribution - action, reaction.
4) Now we're in the analysis phase - a conversation. What decision to make of this conversation, what to "DO" about it, will come as the direction of this conversation is going.
5) Summary:
a) Dr. Sebby received information in the form of increased number of posts. This attracted his (dormant) interest. Priming the pump, as it were. b) Dr. Sebby, at the level of 'active listening' - reading the current emails, vaguely following along, sees something worth adding to. This kicks him up a level to: c) Dr. Sebby 'geeks out' his own components, parseable to "Hey! I'm here too." d) Bored with that, and yet interested in more conversation, Dr. Sebby goes up a level to: Query for Info. He asked a root structure question. Brings up a new topic, as it were.
I posit that if his interest can be maintained - I can get my words to cycle him towards laughter, rather than anger, or ignoring - that he will begin to cycle towards action.
Any dissatisfaction that Dr. Sebby feels will reinforce in others how they decide to interpret participation in this conversation.
One way to describe human information flow is:
Sensitization to Noise - (my initial bombardment sensitized, or 'irritated' the organism). Examination of Noise - (when we begin noticing the tender spot on our foot as week hike) Reaction to Noise - (there is something fundamentally exclamatory about our first reactions and, because of the 'irritation' factor, we often exclaim in the negative) Query for Information - (this represents a new phase in our participation in a conversation) Resolution of the Decision-Making Node - as our sensitivity to the noise of another person's opinions goes down - we decide we 'know' what they are saying, our conversation begins to wind up, often leading to a new conversation.
A slightly different angle to frame my opinion of the answer to your question might be:
"By the time you answered, there was lots of potential conversational energy. That there is a confusing conversation going on leads to unresolved potential energy. Thus, there is a differential that can be triggered by easier, more comprehensible, threads. If the CoV 10 year thread was THE MOST COMPLEX THREAD, it would receive even less attention."
Please tell me, for I crave feedback: Did I make sense in my opinion?
Ben
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dr Sebby [mailto:drsebby@hotmail.com] > Sent: Monday, March 7, 2005 03:39 AM > To: virus@lucifer.com > Subject: virus: Participation waves... > > > ...what is it that's at the root of our ups and downs in participation? > e.g....i havent posted much of anything for several months. is this somehow > justified? do others react similarly? do discussion topics greatly affect > participation? are we more apt to write when we feel things are going well > in our lives? or the opposite? is it apathy? ...or merely changes to our > time management schedule? > > where is hermit? where is casey? where art thou zloduska? and where is > the senor bill? > > i need to know these things. > > > DrSebby. > "Courage...and shuffle the cards". > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: "Jake Sapiens" <every1hz@earthlink.net> > Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com > To: virus@lucifer.com > Subject: Re: virus: Peanut Butter > Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 15:59:37 -0800 > > Oh! yes CoV language! Right. That's fun stuff. More interesting than > "scientific language". I would however reckon my CoV language to not > violate scientific understandings, not call on skyhooks, supernaturalisms, > etc. Certainly leaves a lot of leeway for interesting usage, as this > remains a somewhat uncharted canvas. Perhaps even more participatory > experimentation. The language of memetics paints on the canvas of the > embodied mind immersed in the medium of cyberspace creating a meme-otype, > which then manifests into real world behavior and other phemotypical > manifestations --- then of course creating a feedback loop in which memetic > selection reshapes the meme-type for more effective replication. Got it? > > So how is this working out for you? And realistically how can we improve > our situation through this mechanism? Even though we have been here for a > while, we are only just begining, at a sort of incubating/larval stage. > Perhaps a cocoon or chrysalis? Yes I do like biological language if that > is what you mean by scientific, but I think it should cling as closely to > an experiential level as possible, making the message sound more > fundamental and basic, for us (until nanotech comes of course) > biology=basic. Not necessary clinical (and no more than necessary), and we > definitely need to leave that academic sounding stuff behind. Perhaps > that's my point about language. > > oops, a woman calls me away for now my loins respond, and I gotta run! > > -Jake > > > [Original Message] > > From: global_hijack <global_hijack@speakeasy.net> > > To: <virus@lucifer.com> > > Date: 03/05/2005 12:39:47 PM > > Subject: Re: virus: Peanut Butter > > > > I'm not certain which person I am, in this story: Am I Dr. O'Neill or > > the bank robber? I tend to think the former. You may think the latter! > > > > > > I hear you say that the frame is too small - I agree, it has been. > > Therefore I am hoping we can begin a discussion about broadening that > > framework. > > > > > > > > One thing that I believe will be important will be to 'keep track' of > > our conversation - it is a complex conversation already, and we've > > hardly said anything! > > > > > > Here's a short version: > > > > Ben says - "let's put it in CoV language" > > Jake says - "What do you mean by language?" > > Ben says - "Here, let me explain what I mean by language, and then I > > will send a long complicated email." > > Keith says - "I interpret you as a slightly off-the-rails overzealous > > memetics freak" > > > > Ben - "I haven't even gotten started yet!" > > > > > > > > So I've got this huge email I have been working on, in five sections. > > Whenever I get the green light that we are done discussing the basic > > concept of 'local language' - which I'm not sure we have, I will dump > > the email. > > > > The email has currently five sections: > > > > a) Weird self-reflective intro piece > > b) An example of a meme that scales in and out > > c) Examples of in-and-out scales > > d) Why are we having this conversation? > > e) Freeman Dyson's Unit's of Survival > > > > > > > > So far we have defined a local usage for the word 'language' - yes, or > > no? > > > > -b > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 2005, at 6:10 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > > > > > I am reminded of the intensity of the very early days of the L5 > > > Society/space colony meme. > > > > > > There was a guy who was so taken with the space colony idea and Dr. > > > O'Neill's casual statement that he needed funding to complete his book > > > that he *robbed a bank*! > > > > > > He got caught of course. I think the judge went fairly light on him, > > > but at this distance I don't remember the details of the aftermath. > > > > > > Anyway . . . . When you are intensely caught up in a meme, people who > > > are even more caught up have to be appreciated even if they do go off > > > the rails. > > > > > > The problem is that memetics is much like epidemiology. It goes a > > > long ways to explain how people spread all over the earth with the > > > aide of "culture," that collection of memes or replicating information > > > patterns. > > > > > > But the frame is too small to explain why *this* meme and not *that* > > > meme became ascendant. For that you have to look other places, like > > > physics or chemistry to understand why a meme of using dry stuff to > > > make fires will do better than a meme of making fires with damp stuff. > > > > > > To understand the hold cult memes like scientology get on people you > > > really need to understand evolutionary psychology and the environment > > > of small tribes in which our ancestors were reproductively successful > > > while our non-ancestors failed. > > > > > > And if you want to understand the partly memetic mechanisms that lead > > > to wars, you need to understand that a meme that does poorly in an > > > unstressed population may become the dominate meme in a population > > > under stress. > > > > > > Most of you on this list are up on these subjects. For those who are > > > not I can provide pointers if they are wanted. > > > > > > Keith Henson > > > > > > > > > --- > > > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > > > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > > --- > > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> >
I see that you used the word 'lurker'. I interpret that to mean that something in my post implied a negative - and I wish to reply, "whups! far from it!" I mean Dr. Sebby, Ben, Jake, anyone, _as_ a participator in a list or community, we fall away, we get distracted, we begin other projects, and what was once a principal focus becomes 'part of the background noise' - something we are used to. I am describing a pattern in our re-acclimation to such noise, which is relevant to a greater discussion about memetics. Looking for local metaphor, as it were.
Have you ever thought that things must change merely to stay the same?
If the set of data that we are scanning changes its set of interrelations, we react predictably;
first, it attracts our attention - aberration! One gypsy midget with green hair walks down the street.
second, it connects - either through repetition - a second green-haired gypsy midget! or through connecting with existing symbols in our brain - "Hey! didn't Tara (my midget friend) say that she was planning to dye her hair green and become a gypsy?"
third, we respond - we kick out some response. "Hey! That was Tara!"
fourth, we query for info - "Did you see her?"
Then we go around the I/O loop for awhile, and eventually, we know everything we _want_ to know locally.
This brings us back to the root decision making node - what do we want to _do_ about it?
So, I apologize profusely if I, at any time, made it seem that I downplayed your contributions - far from it! I could tell by your tone/content that you were a deep and abiding part of this community.
I'm zooming in regards to a root structure in the Input/Output system between humans. I interpret the word 'lurker' coming from you to mean that I created a certain sense of alarm in relation to social standing - that I implied that you were a 'new' poster as opposed to an established member of the community. Making an error that excites the beginnings of an autoimmune response on the part of a community frightens me into deep systems language, straight machine metaphor. I literally begin interpreting I/O flow as machine interactions, visually, symbolically, emotionally.
Closing in a dating metaphor:
Boyfriend and Girlfriend are fighting. She says, "Okay, here's an example of what I mean..."
she then proceeds to go into a long example involving the sink, the dishes, the counters, and their varying states of cleanliness in the last two weeks.
he responds to the example with a set of justifications involving that particular example, and why he had cause to leave the dishes unclean, yada yada.
Now, if his intent is to avoid talking about the root issue, he can (and will) push for specifics and then debate her on the specifics. If she's savvy to this ploy, she can say, "I will give you several examples of what I perceive to be a key issue between us, in that it makes me _feel_ a certain way." All the way through, she can remind him that the idea is not the examples themselves, it is the cloudy set of interconnections _between_ the examples.
Now, if his intent is to 'come out on top', he can object that her framing of the examples sets up a particular outcome - whoever frames the conversation, frames the outcome!
On the other hand, if his intent is actually to listen, heal, help, patch up, listen, listen, listen - then he can listen to her examples and have a conversation about what idea is central to the examples. He can help her, without taking blame onto himself, frame just what, exactly, it is in those examples that is bothering her. It may be that the issue _is_ hers, and that he won't be taking action. He can help communication flow, by listening for intent, and helping articulate it.
In true closing:
One way to describe what I was saying in the last email is that, faced with many complex conversations, we enter and re-enter through the lowest levels of complexity. If the social thread was the only thread of discussion, I would predict that you would enter into a little 'hi there' response, if that, for the CoV Decade post. With several conversations going on at once, the entire virus list suddenly seems that more attractive - thus, my own unwillingness to chatter until several other threads got going - it allows different people entry at different levels of complexity!
What does that imply for global strategy?
Intensely complexify human interactions - the first time is wickedly confusing. The second time is comprehensible. The third time is clearly what it is. The fourth time is time for the fundamental conversation to be addressed. The fifth time is time to do something about it.
On a scale of one to five - with one being 'psychopathic gibberish' and five being 'crystal clear', am I communicating?
thanks!
-b
On Mar 7, 2005, at 1:28 PM, Dr Sebby wrote:
> > ...well i see the logic in your guesswork, but i must clarify: i have > never been a lurker, the first time i ever logged on, i posted an > infamous document to our beloved Zloduska. the present case is one > whereby i have often seen occasion to comment or spew out a thought or > two...but i felt i had not alotted enough time to do so properly. i > decided that silence might be better than a half-thought out idea > etc... forcing the CoV to abide unrefined ramblings would make me > feel as though i were wasting everyone's time, as well as watering > down the overall quality of the Virian environment. through some > adjustments in time management, hopefully i will start to warm up my > engines once again. > > > DrSebby. > "Courage...and shuffle the cards". > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: "Ben Grad - Dead Letter B" <global_hijack@speakeasy.net> > Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com > To: virus@lucifer.com > Subject: Re: virus: Participation waves... > Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:37:58 +0000 > > Here is a hypothesis: > > 1) When the first posts began to come up from this list again, from > me, from some others, it 'exposed' you to a certain amount of noise. > > 2) The noise grew in volume and complexity as threads increased, and > certain things in them may have caught your eye. Connections formed > between either what was said and your outside life, or between what > was said previously and what was discussed now. > > 3) Out of what was said, something 'clicked' with you so strongly that > you were motivated to kick out a contribution - action, reaction. > > 4) Now we're in the analysis phase - a conversation. What decision to > make of this conversation, what to "DO" about it, will come as the > direction of this conversation is going. > > 5) Summary: > > a) Dr. Sebby received information in the form of increased number of > posts. This attracted his (dormant) interest. Priming the pump, as it > were. > b) Dr. Sebby, at the level of 'active listening' - reading the current > emails, vaguely following along, sees something worth adding to. This > kicks him up a level to: > c) Dr. Sebby 'geeks out' his own components, parseable to "Hey! I'm > here too." > d) Bored with that, and yet interested in more conversation, Dr. Sebby > goes up a level to: Query for Info. He asked a root structure > question. Brings up a new topic, as it were. > > I posit that if his interest can be maintained - I can get my words to > cycle him towards laughter, rather than anger, or ignoring - that he > will begin to cycle towards action. > > Any dissatisfaction that Dr. Sebby feels will reinforce in others how > they decide to interpret participation in this conversation. > > One way to describe human information flow is: > > Sensitization to Noise - (my initial bombardment sensitized, or > 'irritated' the organism). > Examination of Noise - (when we begin noticing the tender spot on our > foot as week hike) > Reaction to Noise - (there is something fundamentally exclamatory > about our first reactions and, because of the 'irritation' factor, we > often exclaim in the negative) > Query for Information - (this represents a new phase in our > participation in a conversation) > Resolution of the Decision-Making Node - as our sensitivity to the > noise of another person's opinions goes down - we decide we 'know' > what they are saying, our conversation begins to wind up, often > leading to a new conversation. > > > A slightly different angle to frame my opinion of the answer to your > question might be: > > "By the time you answered, there was lots of potential conversational > energy. That there is a confusing conversation going on leads to > unresolved potential energy. Thus, there is a differential that can be > triggered by easier, more comprehensible, threads. If the CoV 10 year > thread was THE MOST COMPLEX THREAD, it would receive even less > attention." > > > Please tell me, for I crave feedback: Did I make sense in my opinion? > > Ben > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dr Sebby [mailto:drsebby@hotmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, March 7, 2005 03:39 AM > > To: virus@lucifer.com > > Subject: virus: Participation waves... > > > > > > ...what is it that's at the root of our ups and downs in > participation? > > e.g....i havent posted much of anything for several months. is this > somehow > > justified? do others react similarly? do discussion topics greatly > affect > > participation? are we more apt to write when we feel things are > going well > > in our lives? or the opposite? is it apathy? ...or merely changes > to our > > time management schedule? > > > > where is hermit? where is casey? where art thou zloduska? and > where is > > the senor bill? > > > > i need to know these things. > > > > > > DrSebby. > > "Courage...and shuffle the cards". > > > > > > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > > From: "Jake Sapiens" <every1hz@earthlink.net> > > Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com > > To: virus@lucifer.com > > Subject: Re: virus: Peanut Butter > > Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 15:59:37 -0800 > > > > Oh! yes CoV language! Right. That's fun stuff. More interesting > than > > "scientific language". I would however reckon my CoV language to not > > violate scientific understandings, not call on skyhooks, > supernaturalisms, > > etc. Certainly leaves a lot of leeway for interesting usage, as this > > remains a somewhat uncharted canvas. Perhaps even more participatory > > experimentation. The language of memetics paints on the canvas of > the > > embodied mind immersed in the medium of cyberspace creating a > meme-otype, > > which then manifests into real world behavior and other phemotypical > > manifestations --- then of course creating a feedback loop in which > memetic > > selection reshapes the meme-type for more effective replication. > Got it? > > > > So how is this working out for you? And realistically how can we > improve > > our situation through this mechanism? Even though we have been here > for a > > while, we are only just begining, at a sort of incubating/larval > stage. > > Perhaps a cocoon or chrysalis? Yes I do like biological language if > that > > is what you mean by scientific, but I think it should cling as > closely to > > an experiential level as possible, making the message sound more > > fundamental and basic, for us (until nanotech comes of course) > > biology=basic. Not necessary clinical (and no more than necessary), > and we > > definitely need to leave that academic sounding stuff behind. > Perhaps > > that's my point about language. > > > > oops, a woman calls me away for now my loins respond, and I gotta > run! > > > > -Jake > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: global_hijack <global_hijack@speakeasy.net> > > > To: <virus@lucifer.com> > > > Date: 03/05/2005 12:39:47 PM > > > Subject: Re: virus: Peanut Butter > > > > > > I'm not certain which person I am, in this story: Am I Dr. > O'Neill or > > > the bank robber? I tend to think the former. You may think the > latter! > > > > > > > > > I hear you say that the frame is too small - I agree, it has been. > > > Therefore I am hoping we can begin a discussion about broadening > that > > > framework. > > > > > > > > > > > > One thing that I believe will be important will be to 'keep > track' of > > > our conversation - it is a complex conversation already, and we've > > > hardly said anything! > > > > > > > > > Here's a short version: > > > > > > Ben says - "let's put it in CoV language" > > > Jake says - "What do you mean by language?" > > > Ben says - "Here, let me explain what I mean by language, and > then I > > > will send a long complicated email." > > > Keith says - "I interpret you as a slightly off-the-rails > overzealous > > > memetics freak" > > > > > > Ben - "I haven't even gotten started yet!" > > > > > > > > > > > > So I've got this huge email I have been working on, in five > sections. > > > Whenever I get the green light that we are done discussing the > basic > > > concept of 'local language' - which I'm not sure we have, I will > dump > > > the email. > > > > > > The email has currently five sections: > > > > > > a) Weird self-reflective intro piece > > > b) An example of a meme that scales in and out > > > c) Examples of in-and-out scales > > > d) Why are we having this conversation? > > > e) Freeman Dyson's Unit's of Survival > > > > > > > > > > > > So far we have defined a local usage for the word 'language' - > yes, or > > > no? > > > > > > -b > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 2005, at 6:10 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > > > > > > > I am reminded of the intensity of the very early days of the L5 > > > > Society/space colony meme. > > > > > > > > There was a guy who was so taken with the space colony idea and > Dr. > > > > O'Neill's casual statement that he needed funding to complete > his book > > > > that he *robbed a bank*! > > > > > > > > He got caught of course. I think the judge went fairly light > on him, > > > > but at this distance I don't remember the details of the > aftermath. > > > > > > > > Anyway . . . . When you are intensely caught up in a meme, > people who > > > > are even more caught up have to be appreciated even if they do > go off > > > > the rails. > > > > > > > > The problem is that memetics is much like epidemiology. It > goes a > > > > long ways to explain how people spread all over the earth with > the > > > > aide of "culture," that collection of memes or replicating > information > > > > patterns. > > > > > > > > But the frame is too small to explain why *this* meme and not > *that* > > > > meme became ascendant. For that you have to look other places, > like > > > > physics or chemistry to understand why a meme of using dry > stuff to > > > > make fires will do better than a meme of making fires with damp > stuff. > > > > > > > > To understand the hold cult memes like scientology get on > people you > > > > really need to understand evolutionary psychology and the > environment > > > > of small tribes in which our ancestors were reproductively > successful > > > > while our non-ancestors failed. > > > > > > > > And if you want to understand the partly memetic mechanisms > that lead > > > > to wars, you need to understand that a meme that does poorly in > an > > > > unstressed population may become the dominate meme in a > population > > > > under stress. > > > > > > > > Most of you on this list are up on these subjects. For those > who are > > > > not I can provide pointers if they are wanted. > > > > > > > > Keith Henson > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > > > > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > > > > --- > > > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > > > > --- > > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > > > > --- > > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > --- > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
....WOW! i certainly hope that my use of the word 'lurker' alone did not compell you to spend so much time trying to make me feel better =) thankyou for the kind concern, but a 'lurker' here is quite a good person...there are many among us. reading, listening, and paying attention until such a time that they happen to voice a position or idea. the more lurkers, the better in some ways...they usually respond only when something interests them immensely...unlike some of us, who babble on about just about anything ---> this would be me=) my useless posts far outnumber those of content. anyhow, whenever i play the lurker my world becomes that much less interesting...so i am pleased to say hi to all my friends here once again. which brings me to my final note.....hello!=) nice to meet you, and welcome.
I see that you used the word 'lurker'. I interpret that to mean that something in my post implied a negative - and I wish to reply, "whups! far from it!" I mean Dr. Sebby, Ben, Jake, anyone, _as_ a participator in a list or community, we fall away, we get distracted, we begin other projects, and what was once a principal focus becomes 'part of the background noise' - something we are used to. I am describing a pattern in our re-acclimation to such noise, which is relevant to a greater discussion about memetics. Looking for local metaphor, as it were.
Have you ever thought that things must change merely to stay the same?
If the set of data that we are scanning changes its set of interrelations, we react predictably;
first, it attracts our attention - aberration! One gypsy midget with green hair walks down the street.
second, it connects - either through repetition - a second green-haired gypsy midget! or through connecting with existing symbols in our brain - "Hey! didn't Tara (my midget friend) say that she was planning to dye her hair green and become a gypsy?"
third, we respond - we kick out some response. "Hey! That was Tara!"
fourth, we query for info - "Did you see her?"
Then we go around the I/O loop for awhile, and eventually, we know everything we _want_ to know locally.
This brings us back to the root decision making node - what do we want to _do_ about it?
So, I apologize profusely if I, at any time, made it seem that I downplayed your contributions - far from it! I could tell by your tone/content that you were a deep and abiding part of this community.
I'm zooming in regards to a root structure in the Input/Output system between humans. I interpret the word 'lurker' coming from you to mean that I created a certain sense of alarm in relation to social standing - that I implied that you were a 'new' poster as opposed to an established member of the community. Making an error that excites the beginnings of an autoimmune response on the part of a community frightens me into deep systems language, straight machine metaphor. I literally begin interpreting I/O flow as machine interactions, visually, symbolically, emotionally.
Closing in a dating metaphor:
Boyfriend and Girlfriend are fighting. She says, "Okay, here's an example of what I mean..."
she then proceeds to go into a long example involving the sink, the dishes, the counters, and their varying states of cleanliness in the last two weeks.
he responds to the example with a set of justifications involving that particular example, and why he had cause to leave the dishes unclean, yada yada.
Now, if his intent is to avoid talking about the root issue, he can (and will) push for specifics and then debate her on the specifics. If she's savvy to this ploy, she can say, "I will give you several examples of what I perceive to be a key issue between us, in that it makes me _feel_ a certain way." All the way through, she can remind him that the idea is not the examples themselves, it is the cloudy set of interconnections _between_ the examples.
Now, if his intent is to 'come out on top', he can object that her framing of the examples sets up a particular outcome - whoever frames the conversation, frames the outcome!
On the other hand, if his intent is actually to listen, heal, help, patch up, listen, listen, listen - then he can listen to her examples and have a conversation about what idea is central to the examples. He can help her, without taking blame onto himself, frame just what, exactly, it is in those examples that is bothering her. It may be that the issue _is_ hers, and that he won't be taking action. He can help communication flow, by listening for intent, and helping articulate it.
In true closing:
One way to describe what I was saying in the last email is that, faced with many complex conversations, we enter and re-enter through the lowest levels of complexity. If the social thread was the only thread of discussion, I would predict that you would enter into a little 'hi there' response, if that, for the CoV Decade post. With several conversations going on at once, the entire virus list suddenly seems that more attractive - thus, my own unwillingness to chatter until several other threads got going - it allows different people entry at different levels of complexity!
What does that imply for global strategy?
Intensely complexify human interactions - the first time is wickedly confusing. The second time is comprehensible. The third time is clearly what it is. The fourth time is time for the fundamental conversation to be addressed. The fifth time is time to do something about it.
On a scale of one to five - with one being 'psychopathic gibberish' and five being 'crystal clear', am I communicating?
thanks!
-b
On Mar 7, 2005, at 1:28 PM, Dr Sebby wrote:
> >...well i see the logic in your guesswork, but i must clarify: i have >never been a lurker, the first time i ever logged on, i posted an infamous >document to our beloved Zloduska. the present case is one whereby i have >often seen occasion to comment or spew out a thought or two...but i felt i >had not alotted enough time to do so properly. i decided that silence >might be better than a half-thought out idea etc... forcing the CoV to >abide unrefined ramblings would make me feel as though i were wasting >everyone's time, as well as watering down the overall quality of the Virian >environment. through some adjustments in time management, hopefully i will >start to warm up my engines once again. > > >DrSebby. >"Courage...and shuffle the cards". > > > > >----Original Message Follows---- >From: "Ben Grad - Dead Letter B" <global_hijack@speakeasy.net> >Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com >To: virus@lucifer.com >Subject: Re: virus: Participation waves... >Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:37:58 +0000 > >Here is a hypothesis: > >1) When the first posts began to come up from this list again, from me, >from some others, it 'exposed' you to a certain amount of noise. > >2) The noise grew in volume and complexity as threads increased, and >certain things in them may have caught your eye. Connections formed between >either what was said and your outside life, or between what was said >previously and what was discussed now. > >3) Out of what was said, something 'clicked' with you so strongly that you >were motivated to kick out a contribution - action, reaction. > >4) Now we're in the analysis phase - a conversation. What decision to make >of this conversation, what to "DO" about it, will come as the direction of >this conversation is going. > >5) Summary: > >a) Dr. Sebby received information in the form of increased number of posts. >This attracted his (dormant) interest. Priming the pump, as it were. >b) Dr. Sebby, at the level of 'active listening' - reading the current >emails, vaguely following along, sees something worth adding to. This >kicks him up a level to: >c) Dr. Sebby 'geeks out' his own components, parseable to "Hey! I'm here >too." >d) Bored with that, and yet interested in more conversation, Dr. Sebby goes >up a level to: Query for Info. He asked a root structure question. Brings >up a new topic, as it were. > >I posit that if his interest can be maintained - I can get my words to >cycle him towards laughter, rather than anger, or ignoring - that he will >begin to cycle towards action. > >Any dissatisfaction that Dr. Sebby feels will reinforce in others how they >decide to interpret participation in this conversation. > >One way to describe human information flow is: > >Sensitization to Noise - (my initial bombardment sensitized, or 'irritated' >the organism). >Examination of Noise - (when we begin noticing the tender spot on our foot >as week hike) >Reaction to Noise - (there is something fundamentally exclamatory about our >first reactions and, because of the 'irritation' factor, we often exclaim >in the negative) >Query for Information - (this represents a new phase in our participation >in a conversation) >Resolution of the Decision-Making Node - as our sensitivity to the noise of >another person's opinions goes down - we decide we 'know' what they are >saying, our conversation begins to wind up, often leading to a new >conversation. > > >A slightly different angle to frame my opinion of the answer to your >question might be: > >"By the time you answered, there was lots of potential conversational >energy. That there is a confusing conversation going on leads to unresolved >potential energy. Thus, there is a differential that can be triggered by >easier, more comprehensible, threads. If the CoV 10 year thread was THE >MOST COMPLEX THREAD, it would receive even less attention." > > >Please tell me, for I crave feedback: Did I make sense in my opinion? > >Ben > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dr Sebby [mailto:drsebby@hotmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, March 7, 2005 03:39 AM > > To: virus@lucifer.com > > Subject: virus: Participation waves... > > > > > > ...what is it that's at the root of our ups and downs in participation? > > e.g....i havent posted much of anything for several months. is this >somehow > > justified? do others react similarly? do discussion topics greatly >affect > > participation? are we more apt to write when we feel things are going >well > > in our lives? or the opposite? is it apathy? ...or merely changes to >our > > time management schedule? > > > > where is hermit? where is casey? where art thou zloduska? and where >is > > the senor bill? > > > > i need to know these things. > > > > > > DrSebby. > > "Courage...and shuffle the cards". > > > > > > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > > From: "Jake Sapiens" <every1hz@earthlink.net> > > Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com > > To: virus@lucifer.com > > Subject: Re: virus: Peanut Butter > > Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 15:59:37 -0800 > > > > Oh! yes CoV language! Right. That's fun stuff. More interesting than > > "scientific language". I would however reckon my CoV language to not > > violate scientific understandings, not call on skyhooks, >supernaturalisms, > > etc. Certainly leaves a lot of leeway for interesting usage, as this > > remains a somewhat uncharted canvas. Perhaps even more participatory > > experimentation. The language of memetics paints on the canvas of the > > embodied mind immersed in the medium of cyberspace creating a >meme-otype, > > which then manifests into real world behavior and other phemotypical > > manifestations --- then of course creating a feedback loop in which >memetic > > selection reshapes the meme-type for more effective replication. Got >it? > > > > So how is this working out for you? And realistically how can we >improve > > our situation through this mechanism? Even though we have been here for >a > > while, we are only just begining, at a sort of incubating/larval stage. > > Perhaps a cocoon or chrysalis? Yes I do like biological language if >that > > is what you mean by scientific, but I think it should cling as closely >to > > an experiential level as possible, making the message sound more > > fundamental and basic, for us (until nanotech comes of course) > > biology=basic. Not necessary clinical (and no more than necessary), and >we > > definitely need to leave that academic sounding stuff behind. Perhaps > > that's my point about language. > > > > oops, a woman calls me away for now my loins respond, and I gotta >run! > > > > -Jake > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: global_hijack <global_hijack@speakeasy.net> > > > To: <virus@lucifer.com> > > > Date: 03/05/2005 12:39:47 PM > > > Subject: Re: virus: Peanut Butter > > > > > > I'm not certain which person I am, in this story: Am I Dr. O'Neill or > > > the bank robber? I tend to think the former. You may think the >latter! > > > > > > > > > I hear you say that the frame is too small - I agree, it has been. > > > Therefore I am hoping we can begin a discussion about broadening that > > > framework. > > > > > > > > > > > > One thing that I believe will be important will be to 'keep track' of > > > our conversation - it is a complex conversation already, and we've > > > hardly said anything! > > > > > > > > > Here's a short version: > > > > > > Ben says - "let's put it in CoV language" > > > Jake says - "What do you mean by language?" > > > Ben says - "Here, let me explain what I mean by language, and then I > > > will send a long complicated email." > > > Keith says - "I interpret you as a slightly off-the-rails overzealous > > > memetics freak" > > > > > > Ben - "I haven't even gotten started yet!" > > > > > > > > > > > > So I've got this huge email I have been working on, in five sections. > > > Whenever I get the green light that we are done discussing the basic > > > concept of 'local language' - which I'm not sure we have, I will dump > > > the email. > > > > > > The email has currently five sections: > > > > > > a) Weird self-reflective intro piece > > > b) An example of a meme that scales in and out > > > c) Examples of in-and-out scales > > > d) Why are we having this conversation? > > > e) Freeman Dyson's Unit's of Survival > > > > > > > > > > > > So far we have defined a local usage for the word 'language' - yes, >or > > > no? > > > > > > -b > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 2005, at 6:10 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > > > > > > > I am reminded of the intensity of the very early days of the L5 > > > > Society/space colony meme. > > > > > > > > There was a guy who was so taken with the space colony idea and Dr. > > > > O'Neill's casual statement that he needed funding to complete his >book > > > > that he *robbed a bank*! > > > > > > > > He got caught of course. I think the judge went fairly light on >him, > > > > but at this distance I don't remember the details of the aftermath. > > > > > > > > Anyway . . . . When you are intensely caught up in a meme, people >who > > > > are even more caught up have to be appreciated even if they do go >off > > > > the rails. > > > > > > > > The problem is that memetics is much like epidemiology. It goes a > > > > long ways to explain how people spread all over the earth with the > > > > aide of "culture," that collection of memes or replicating >information > > > > patterns. > > > > > > > > But the frame is too small to explain why *this* meme and not >*that* > > > > meme became ascendant. For that you have to look other places, >like > > > > physics or chemistry to understand why a meme of using dry stuff to > > > > make fires will do better than a meme of making fires with damp >stuff. > > > > > > > > To understand the hold cult memes like scientology get on people >you > > > > really need to understand evolutionary psychology and the >environment > > > > of small tribes in which our ancestors were reproductively >successful > > > > while our non-ancestors failed. > > > > > > > > And if you want to understand the partly memetic mechanisms that >lead > > > > to wars, you need to understand that a meme that does poorly in an > > > > unstressed population may become the dominate meme in a population > > > > under stress. > > > > > > > > Most of you on this list are up on these subjects. For those who >are > > > > not I can provide pointers if they are wanted. > > > > > > > > Keith Henson > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > > > > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > > > > --- > > > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > > > > --- > > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > > > > --- > > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to ><http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > > > >--- >To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to ><http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > >--- >To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to ><http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Perhaps participation waves are caused by posters who quote entire threads in each message, causing potential participants to become annoyed and to stop reading. (hint, hint)
Building it is fun and has been been chewing up my spare time time. I've got 700 unread emails.
It's rather hard to make custom webmin-like programs secure enough. Got cgiwrap to work for user cgi, working on mrtg logs, etc. --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
global_hijack@speakeasy.net asks, "On a scale of one to five - with one being 'psychopathic gibberish' and five being 'crystal clear', am I communicating?"
About three. individual ideas seem to hold together, but bear questionable relation to central thesis, . . . not entirely clear on central thesis. Long and winding roads leading to where?
Re:virus: Participation waves...
« Reply #11 on: 2005-03-11 02:38:35 »
Thought provoking posts, and discussion is what I initially joined the CoV for. Still, that is the main reason I visit this site. I've been lurking for awhile, and although things have been quiet, it seems there is an oppertunity here to get things rolling again. I really enjoy you people, and I enjoy the community. We should get things going again for better or worse.
Safe from the pain and truth and choice and other poison devils See.. they don't give a fuck about you, like i do. Just stay with me, safe and ignorant, Go back to sleep Go Back to sleep
Re:virus: Participation waves...
« Reply #12 on: 2005-03-15 18:46:23 »
I go through lurking phases as well. I think that my cycles are mainly a function of how much work I have to do for my clients and for school. That said, it is not a direct co-relation; there is a "momentum" factor as well which can keep me active even when the work picks-up (and likewize inactive even when I have small periods of work downtime).
All that being said, I value the CoV for the many thought-provoking and challenging ideas and debates that are found on its BBS and in its chat rooms. This reminds me that it might be a good idea for me to express that value by supporting (http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/support.html) the CoV once in a while.
Author
my loins respond, and I gotta run!
Logged
