From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V4 #108 Reply-To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org Sender: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk chakram-refugees-digest Saturday, April 17 2004 Volume 04 : Number 108 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle's Hope [IfeRae@aol.com] Relativity (Was Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons) [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle's Hope [cr ] Re: Relativity (Was Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons) [cr ] [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question - special effects? [Lilli Sprintz Oooo, I'd forgotten about Ephiny. When did Gabs pick up on Dead Callisto, > but Xena didn't? > > -- Ife > > > Now this is a bit of a stretch - Ides when G and X are being "escorted" to > the crosses. But of course, Callisto is "only" dead for a short time before > she gets immortalised. So to speak. After that then the goddess can appear > to one or all at whim. > >Ahem> I'd say that's a BIG stretch. X sees Cally in the jail and when being put on the cross. X is a bit occupied --being dragged and all -- when G sees Cally in the yard, so that doesn't mean she wasn't aware of Cally then. - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:22:03 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle's Hope In a message dated 4/16/2004 2:38:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > It seems to me that TPTB could hardly have made it more obvious that Hope > was > the daughter of Dahak. There was virtually no clue omitted. Short of > giving Hope horns and a tail, I don't see how much more explicit they could > > have been. > Um, maybe that's why she was given the name "Hope"? And Gabs as mommy? Imagine running into Xena during her Slaughter The Amazons phase. Talk about a candidate for skewering on the spot. And she wasn't even as cute or presumably "innocent" and helpless as Baby Hope. - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:22:02 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Relativity (Was Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons) In a message dated 4/16/2004 2:38:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > Okay, (and I'm sure Lynn will correct me if I get this too much wrong :) - > what was 'relative' in the Special Theory of Relativity, was the relative > motions of two different frames of reference - or rather, the motion of one > point relative to two different frames of reference. >> Okay, I'm with you so far. > > For example, take the motion of a 747 about to take off as seen by you > (standing at the end of the runway) and by me (in a high speed train which > happens to be on a track parallel to the runway). Relative to you, the 747 > > is stationary to start with, and gradually moves away from you at ever > increasing speed. Relative to me, I see the 747 moving 'backwards' at > 160mph like all the things around it, then as it accelerates down the > runway, > its 'backward' motion slows down, until it reaches takeoff speed and goes > 'straight up' alongside the train. >> Wow, that is exactly what I'm trying to communicate about why what's "true" or "real" for one person can be so different for someone else. I won't go into that. Suffice it to say that I find it very meaningful as a more concrete way of looking at what is often very abstract, yet "absolute," when discussing concepts. > Both relative motions (relative to you, and to me) can be presiely defined > mathematically and in fact the motion (as seen by me) could be translated by > > a computer into the exact motion as seen by you (so this is why I say > personal opinion doesn't come into it). In fact such motions are so > translated all the time, by anti-aircraft missile radars, or by the graphics > > programs used so much in sci-fi movies and TV (though they sometimes > exaggerate the relative motions for the sake of effect). >> Yes, I understand the mathematical precision. What's meaningful to me is also that it still depends on where something was when the calculations are being made. I'm assuming the formula is the same, but the outcomes might be different depending on the variables? If so, I think you're focusing on the mathematical process (precise and unchanged, independent of opinion), whereas I was focusing on the variables that might go into and come out of that process, and personal opinions about that. E.g., with missiles, interpretations of "safe" or "effective" distances, of "acceptable" damage. I guess I'm looking at how the data are selected, evaluated and used, rather than the calculations. I can understand now why you're saying the calculation process doesn't change and has been proven "true." In that sense, I can also understand "neutral" as applying to the process itself. Is that accurate? > << From > >what I gather, these "well-known" theories may only be "well known" within > >particular fields. If the rest of us try to apply them in ways that are > >meaningful (oy) to our lives, we're likely to go astray. That would be too > >bad, as there are a lot of terms that borrow quite relevantly from science > >-- like "feedback," which I believe engineers coined for the process > >whereby rockets corrected their paths when they went astray. Anyway, I > >appreciate your efforts to 'splain all that. > > > >-- Ife > > Well, when I said 'well-known' I didn't mean known in specific detail, I > meant known by reputation - that is, everyone's heard of relativity and > evolution, even though most people don't know the details. >> Yes, what you've said above about relativity does reflect my very broad understanding, though I couldn't tell you one wit about the calculations. > > I admit there are common 'everyday' meanings of many of these words, but I > think they shouldn't be confused with the precisely defined scientific > meanings. Sometimes, such terms are used with the intention of deriving > some borrowed authority from their 'scientific' connections, I regard that > as > the equivalent of 'name-dropping' ('Rob Tapert told me...') and that > irritates me because I think it devalues the precision of their original > meaning. >> Huh. That kind of assumes that the user assigns more "authority" to these scientific terms than to others. In my case, they're just another reference point, like terms from music or art or psychology. I do give credibility to theories based on research or experiences that show common patterns or fairly predictable outcomes -- e.g., sounds that generally produce feelings of calmness, archetypal characteristics that tend to show up in cultures all over the world. In the old days, "liberal arts" education gave folks a smattering of many fields, which helped them understand the interconnectedness and to converse "meaningfully" with others who might eventually focus on a different area. Things have gotten so specialized today, that "numbers" people, "info management" people, "human resources" people, "technical" people, "operations" people, "marketing" people, etc. often speak entirely different languages. I find there are far fewer analogies people can use that might be familiar enough to help these groups understand one another. Of course, if they did, I might not have any clients. > > Btw, I'm not sure about 'feedback' in relation to rocketry, its most common > use (in technical usage at least) is in electrical circuitry, negative > feedback is a widely used and extremely valuable technique for compensating > for errors arising in amplifiers and similar circuits. >> Yes, this is what I read about that. The material was explaining how that circuitry was used in rockets. The point was that, absent such "feedback," errors could occur. This is probably a > > good illustration of the inadvisability of mixing technical and everyday > meanings - in circuitry, positive feedback tends to lead to instability and > is to be avoided, negative feedback is usually considered desirable. I > doubt whether the same applies in market research. ;)>> Actually, I think the application is quite sound, if the focus is on the role feedback can play. I grant you that the judgements we make in human dynamics about what's "positive" vs. "negative" feeback is the problem. I see a lot of people go "down the tubes" because their manager is afraid to discuss problem areas with them, instead saying, "Everything's all right." I see people sending themselves "down the tubes" by ignoring criticisms because they distrust the giver's motivations. Just as a mathematical process can be "neutral," I tend to see "feedback" as a "neutral" process in my work. It's information one can use -- or not use -- to alter one's course more toward the desired target. Without it, one can proceed blindly along without a clue as to how effective one is. The personal opinion comes in when we start assessing the information in light of where it came from, why it might've been given, how it fits with our own opinions or needs or goals, what to do with it, and the possible consequences of using or not using it. At any rate, I see a lot of interconnectedness between the *principles* of many fields, even if the details aren't entirely understood. The field of human dynamics has been enriched greatly by all kinds of scientists who've established parallels between their work and how humans behave -- like predictions of the "critical mass" of people usually needed to make change occur in groups. I've said before that one of the single biggest challenges people have is understanding that the "reality" (in this case what people are aware of or experience vs. what "is" independent of that) of a person watching a 747 from the runway is different than the "reality" of someone watching the 747 from hi-speed train on a parallel track. Even if everyone understands the scientific principle, people on the runway may argue that their perspective is "right" or more important, if it seems like the 747 is gonna hit them. Depending on their knowledge/experience of planes, the runway people may have a heightened sense of danger which could make them seem "deluded" to the people on the train. Again, I truly do appreciate your 'splaining this stuff. I see it as a compliment to science to "borrow" from its principles -- not to sound more authoritative, but to help explain other mysteries, to make it more relevant to how we as humans operate on a daily basis. I guess there will always be that tug between the "purity" of what something is about vs. its applications (or misapplications). As I said before, I'm very impressed by how great thinkers (many of them "scientists") excel at or are fascinated by such areas as the arts, spirituality, the connection between all living (and even nonliving) things. I believe it is a source of their "inspiration" -- their ability to find meaning in unexpected places. For me, that's what these hair-splitting, rambling, polar opposite, teeth-gnashing discussions are all about. Yes, I said, "for me." - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:22:05 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question In a message dated 4/16/2004 2:38:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > >>There ya go--tryna drag me into another epic semantic battle again. NO. > >>>> > > > >Nuh uh. I save those for cr. Well, mostly. > > Wish ya wouldn't. > > cr > ... I must not get into nit-picky arguments with Ife. I must not get > into...... > Sorry, that doesn't work. Been there, done that. My brain keeps churning despite what I tell it. I've actually found that it's better for my mental health to go ahead and respond, as opposed to muttering to myself at inopportune times. - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:33:16 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 17:21, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/16/2004 9:18:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > sojourner@paradise.net.nz writes: > > Oooo, I'd forgotten about Ephiny. When did Gabs pick up on Dead > > Callisto, but Xena didn't? > > > > -- Ife > > > > > > Now this is a bit of a stretch - Ides when G and X are being "escorted" > > to the crosses. But of course, Callisto is "only" dead for a short time > > before she gets immortalised. So to speak. After that then the goddess > > can appear to one or all at whim. > > > > > Ahem> I'd say that's a BIG stretch. X sees Cally in the jail and when > being put on the cross. X is a bit occupied --being dragged and all -- > when G sees Cally in the yard, so that doesn't mean she wasn't aware of > Cally then. > > -- Ife Yes, considering how closely 'in tune' Xena and Callisto were, it would be extraordinary if Gabs could 'see' Callisto and Xena couldn't. I can't remember the exact moment (since I was naturally focussing on Xena and Callisto :) but I assume it was put there as an indication that this was the first time (in the ep) that Gabrielle had become aware of Callisto, the lack of a reaction from Xena just indicating that she'd been seeing Callisto all the time and still was. Besides, why would Gabs be able to see Callisto then, and not Xena? Gabrielle was never of any consequence to Callisto (other than as a possible lever on Xena). cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:40:54 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle's Hope On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 17:22, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/16/2004 2:38:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > It seems to me that TPTB could hardly have made it more obvious that Hope > > was > > the daughter of Dahak. There was virtually no clue omitted. Short of > > giving Hope horns and a tail, I don't see how much more explicit they > > could have been. > > Um, maybe that's why she was given the name "Hope"? And Gabs as mommy? > Imagine running into Xena during her Slaughter The Amazons phase. Talk > about a candidate for skewering on the spot. And she wasn't even as cute > or presumably "innocent" and helpless as Baby Hope. > > -- Ife Oh, probably 'Hope' was just prompted by their sense of black humour Or, maybe, irony. And anyway, if someone had killed Evil Xena, I would not have argued that they were wrong to do so. As it was, she survived. TPTB's sense of right and wrong and justice was always subservient to Principle #1 of the Xenaverse: "Shit happens". cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:50:24 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: Relativity (Was Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons) On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 17:22, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > > For example, take the motion of a 747 about to take off as seen by you > > (standing at the end of the runway) and by me (in a high speed train > > which happens to be on a track parallel to the runway). Relative to > > you, the 747 > > is stationary to start with, and gradually moves away from you at ever > > increasing speed. Relative to me, I see the 747 moving 'backwards' at > > 160mph like all the things around it, then as it accelerates down the > > runway, > > its 'backward' motion slows down, until it reaches takeoff speed and goes > > 'straight up' alongside the train. >> > > Wow, that is exactly what I'm trying to communicate about why what's "true" > or "real" for one person can be so different for someone else. I won't go > into that. Suffice it to say that I find it very meaningful as a more > concrete way of looking at what is often very abstract, yet "absolute," > when discussing concepts. Umm, no. I think I know what you're trying to communicate - which is that different people's perceptions (or the way they see things) are influenced by their opinions, their world view, whatever. But any connection between that, and the relative motions I was describing, is only metaphorical. > > Both relative motions (relative to you, and to me) can be presiely > > defined mathematically and in fact the motion (as seen by me) could be > > translated by > > > > a computer into the exact motion as seen by you (so this is why I say > > personal opinion doesn't come into it). In fact such motions are so > > translated all the time, by anti-aircraft missile radars, or by the > > graphics > > > > programs used so much in sci-fi movies and TV (though they sometimes > > exaggerate the relative motions for the sake of effect). >> > > Yes, I understand the mathematical precision. What's meaningful to me is > also that it still depends on where something was when the calculations are > being made. I'm assuming the formula is the same, but the outcomes might > be different depending on the variables? If so, I think you're focusing on > the mathematical process (precise and unchanged, independent of opinion), > whereas I was focusing on the variables that might go into and come out of > that process, and personal opinions about that. E.g., with missiles, > interpretations of "safe" or "effective" distances, of "acceptable" damage. Well, no. Special relativity has to do with locations and distances in space and time. 'Safety', 'effective' and 'acceptable' (and any other value judgement) have nothing to do with it. > I guess I'm looking at how the data are selected, evaluated and used, > rather than the calculations. I can understand now why you're saying the > calculation process doesn't change and has been proven "true." In that > sense, I can also understand "neutral" as applying to the process itself. > Is that accurate? Yes, certainly the mathematical process is 'neutral'. So are the formulae involved in nuclear fission. They're either mathematically correct or not, but not 'good' or 'bad'. An H-bomb is 'evil' but the equations aren't, any more than gravity is 'bad' if you fall off a cliff. > > << From > > > > >what I gather, these "well-known" theories may only be "well known" > > > within particular fields. If the rest of us try to apply them in ways > > > that are meaningful (oy) to our lives, we're likely to go astray. That > > > would be too bad, as there are a lot of terms that borrow quite > > > relevantly from science -- like "feedback," which I believe engineers > > > coined for the process whereby rockets corrected their paths when they > > > went astray. Anyway, I appreciate your efforts to 'splain all that. > > > > > >-- Ife > > > > Well, when I said 'well-known' I didn't mean known in specific detail, I > > meant known by reputation - that is, everyone's heard of relativity and > > evolution, even though most people don't know the details. >> > > Yes, what you've said above about relativity does reflect my very broad > understanding, though I couldn't tell you one wit about the calculations. I actually left out (for simplicity) the time and distance distortion effects as you approach the speed of light. Besides, I'd need diagrams to explain it, even if I could remember it correctly ;) > > I admit there are common 'everyday' meanings of many of these words, but > > I think they shouldn't be confused with the precisely defined scientific > > meanings. Sometimes, such terms are used with the intention of deriving > > some borrowed authority from their 'scientific' connections, I regard > > that as > > the equivalent of 'name-dropping' ('Rob Tapert told me...') and that > > irritates me because I think it devalues the precision of their original > > meaning. >> > > Huh. That kind of assumes that the user assigns more "authority" to these > scientific terms than to others. In my case, they're just another > reference point, like terms from music or art or psychology. Nevertheless - and this is a sociological phenomenon, not a scientific one - every prestigious field of endeavour has parasites hanging on its coat-tails trying to garner some reflected glory. I expect it applied to religion in the Middle Ages, it sure as heck applies to science now. Just think of all the TV ads that use pseudo-scientific terms to try and sound 'high-tech' or authoritative - "Research shows that Gloop with Cyclohexamide cleans teeth 57% whiter" yadda yadda..... > I do give > credibility to theories based on research or experiences that show common > patterns or fairly predictable outcomes -- e.g., sounds that generally > produce feelings of calmness, archetypal characteristics that tend to show > up in cultures all over the world. Now you're talking about psychological and sociological theories. These are really in a different class from the physical theories we've been discussing. The physical theories deal with far simpler phenomena, but more universal ones, they are more fundamental, and are generally more precise. That is, a physical theory can usually be precisely stated mathematically, and will usually apply anywhere in the universe. It is however usually limited to simple circumstances - it will still apply in complex (i.e. real-life) situations, but the application of it becomes impossibly complex. Your theories are what I might call empirical/statistical theories - based on observations. The circumstances are always so complex that no rigorous mathematical formulation is possible (other than a statistical one). And also, they are probaly limited to human (or at least mammalian) life forms as evolved on this planet. ;) Many engineering theories are the same, by the way - fluid mechanics, for example, used empirical formulae derived from experiment for a century. It's only recently that computers have advanced far enough for 'finite element analysis' to start to model the actual flows involved. In principle, one could start with the physics of the interatomic forces in every molecule of the fluid (or every cell in the brains of your calm-sound-loving person) and work ones way up from there to explain why a water pump works or why I like Dire Straits (and hate rap :) but in practice, no way could this be achieved. > In the old days, "liberal arts" education gave folks a smattering of many > fields, which helped them understand the interconnectedness and to converse > "meaningfully" with others who might eventually focus on a different area. > Things have gotten so specialized today, that "numbers" people, "info > management" people, "human resources" people, "technical" people, > "operations" people, "marketing" people, etc. often speak entirely > different languages. I find there are far fewer analogies people can use > that might be familiar enough to help these groups understand one another. > Of course, if they did, I might not have any clients. And the technical people, while they may respect other technical specialties even though they don't understand them, usually have little respect for management and nothing but thinly veiled contempt for the 'marketing' side who they regard as con artists. :) > > Btw, I'm not sure about 'feedback' in relation to rocketry, its most > > common use (in technical usage at least) is in electrical circuitry, > > negative feedback is a widely used and extremely valuable technique for > > compensating for errors arising in amplifiers and similar circuits. >> > > Yes, this is what I read about that. The material was explaining how that > circuitry was used in rockets. The point was that, absent such "feedback," > errors could occur. > > > This is probably a > > good illustration of the inadvisability of mixing technical and everyday > > meanings - in circuitry, positive feedback tends to lead to instability > > and is to be avoided, negative feedback is usually considered desirable. > > I doubt whether the same applies in market research. ;)>> > > Actually, I think the application is quite sound, if the focus is on the > role feedback can play. I grant you that the judgements we make in human > dynamics about what's "positive" vs. "negative" feeback is the problem. I > see a lot of people go "down the tubes" because their manager is afraid to > discuss problem areas with them, instead saying, "Everything's all right." > I see people sending themselves "down the tubes" by ignoring criticisms > because they distrust the giver's motivations. > > Just as a mathematical process can be "neutral," I tend to see "feedback" > as a "neutral" process in my work. It's information one can use -- or not > use -- to alter one's course more toward the desired target. If you choose to regard it that way, then that's to your advantage. Most people take it as either praise or criticism. > I've said before that one of the single biggest challenges people have is > understanding that the "reality" (in this case what people are aware of or > experience vs. what "is" independent of that) of a person watching a 747 > from the runway is different than the "reality" of someone watching the 747 > from hi-speed train on a parallel track. Even if everyone understands the > scientific principle, people on the runway may argue that their perspective > is "right" or more important, if it seems like the 747 is gonna hit them. > Depending on their knowledge/experience of planes, the runway people may > have a heightened sense of danger which could make them seem "deluded" to > the people on the train. Well, relativity (Einstein's version) doesn't care about that. It just predicts what they'll see, not what they'll think about it. ;) > Again, I truly do appreciate your 'splaining this stuff. I see it as a > compliment to science to "borrow" from its principles -- not to sound more > authoritative, but to help explain other mysteries, to make it more > relevant to how we as humans operate on a daily basis. I guess there will > always be that tug between the "purity" of what something is about vs. its > applications (or misapplications). As I said before, I'm very impressed > by how great thinkers (many of them "scientists") excel at or are > fascinated by such areas as the arts, spirituality, the connection between > all living (and even nonliving) things. I believe it is a source of their > "inspiration" -- their ability to find meaning in unexpected places. For > me, that's what these hair-splitting, rambling, polar opposite, > teeth-gnashing discussions are all about. Yes, I said, "for me." > > -- Ife Hmmm. I think many engineers and scientists are perfectly happy with the creative / artistic side of things, and even science fiction so long as it is recognised as fiction. But they tend to draw a line between 'fact' and 'fiction'. They hate 'pseudoscience' which deliberately tries to blur the distinction - fiction masquerading as 'fact'. cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 05:09:19 -0500 From: Lilli Sprintz Subject: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question IfeRae asked, "Was it "God Fearing Child" where X&G bump into Solan, Gabs fights with Hades and disappears when she puts his helmet on? I thought they were in Tartarus. No? Was it some different "underworld"?" Yes, exactly. Gabrielle was in Tartarus. It was a fun scene, and I still wish someone would publish the special effects description of that scene, with the timing, when Gabrielle put on Hades' helmet of invisibility, and gabrielle disappears right as...was it Hades or one of the prodsydiky?..slash at her? Lilli ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 05:16:27 -0500 From: Lilli Sprintz Subject: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question - special effects? I said, Yes, exactly. Gabrielle was in Tartarus. It was a fun scene, and I still wish someone would publish the special effects description of that scene, with the timing, when Gabrielle put on Hades' helmet of invisibility, and gabrielle disappears right as...was it Hades or one of the prodsydiky?..slash at her? Which brings up a point.... Sharon, if you are out there listening?.....could anyone do an expose' of some kind on some of the special effects? along with the one i mention above, i would LOVE to see/hear an explanation of the scene in The Ring, when Gabrielle moves through the circle of flames, and the clothing she is wearing changes, but body movement stays the same. It is so neat! Lilli ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:07:18 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle's Hope In a message dated 4/17/2004 1:28:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > TPTB's sense of right and wrong and justice was always subservient to > Principle #1 of the Xenaverse: "Shit happens". > And the all-important corollary: "But you don't have to leave it there." - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:07:25 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: Relativity (Was Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons) In a message dated 4/17/2004 1:28:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > Umm, no. I think I know what you're trying to communicate - which is that > different people's perceptions (or the way they see things) are influenced > by > their opinions, their world view, whatever. But any connection between > that, and the relative motions I was describing, is only metaphorical. >> LOL! Yes, of course. That's what metaphors do -- relate different ways of describing things. I'm comparing one's "position" in the world as similar to the position of folks looking at the 747. I'm saying that "where they sit" influences their opinions, world view, perceptions, etc. I'm making the connection from where I sit, not implying one exists out there in space or by some law apart from me. You may not see any connection from where you sit, which is fine. I was trying to express the metaphorical/philosophical "relativity" in a way that might be more meaningful in therms of your mathematical one. I didn't work. We can move on. :-) > >Yes, I understand the mathematical precision. What's meaningful to me is > >also that it still depends on where something was when the calculations are > >being made. I'm assuming the formula is the same, but the outcomes might > >be different depending on the variables? If so, I think you're focusing on > >the mathematical process (precise and unchanged, independent of opinion), > >whereas I was focusing on the variables that might go into and come out of > >that process, and personal opinions about that. E.g., with missiles, > >interpretations of "safe" or "effective" distances, of "acceptable" damage. > > Well, no. Special relativity has to do with locations and distances in > space and time. 'Safety', 'effective' and 'acceptable' (and any other > value > judgement) have nothing to do with it. >> > Okay, so the theory should be seen as separate from the application? The latter involves personal aspects that are irrelevant to the actual process used to arrive at various applications? If so, I can see that. Where we seem to differ is that the theory is more meaningful to me in its applications than as some standalone thing that simply "is." I suppose if I were a mathematician, I could admire its "pure" beauty. :-) Yes, certainly the mathematical process is 'neutral'. So are the formulae > > > involved in nuclear fission. They're either mathematically correct or not, > > but not 'good' or 'bad'. An H-bomb is 'evil' but the equations aren't, any > > more than gravity is 'bad' if you fall off a cliff. >> Yes, I understand this. I do see a difference between your examples, however. There are human dimensions (e.g., choice, expertise, perseverance) iinvolved in coming up with calculations to produce an H-bomb, even if the forces are out there whether we harness them or not. Gravity seems more "neutral," a more "pure" force that has nothing to do with human intervention. > I actually left out (for simplicity) the time and distance distortion > effects > as you approach the speed of light. Besides, I'd need diagrams to explain > it, even if I could remember it correctly ;) >> LOL! That's okay. I wanted to understand the basic principle better, which I do now. > > >>I admit there are common 'everyday' meanings of many of these words, but > >>I think they shouldn't be confused with the precisely defined scientific > >>meanings. Sometimes, such terms are used with the intention of deriving > >>some borrowed authority from their 'scientific' connections, I regard > >>that as > >>the equivalent of 'name-dropping' ('Rob Tapert told me...') and that > >>irritates me because I think it devalues the precision of their original > >>meaning. >> > > > >Huh. That kind of assumes that the user assigns more "authority" to these > >scientific terms than to others. In my case, they're just another > >reference point, like terms from music or art or psychology. > > Nevertheless - and this is a sociological phenomenon, not a scientific one - > > every prestigious field of endeavour has parasites hanging on its coat-tails > > trying to garner some reflected glory. >> Agreed. I simply meant that I (and possibly Jackie) was not attempting to do that. I can see where you'd get frustrated with how we're using scientific principles. That's different to me than why. > >I do give > >credibility to theories based on research or experiences that show common > >patterns or fairly predictable outcomes -- e.g., sounds that generally > >produce feelings of calmness, archetypal characteristics that tend to show > >up in cultures all over the world. > > Now you're talking about psychological and sociological theories. These > are > really in a different class from the physical theories we've been > discussing. >> My point was that such distinctions may matter to you, but that they don't to me. As far as I'm concerned, they all have their uses and misuses and can be helpful to me in figuring out the world I live in. That's why I objected to the suggestion that Jackie and I felt the need to use mathematically based theories as some "superior" way to add credence to our comments. > Your theories are what I might call empirical/statistical theories - based > on > observations. The circumstances are always so complex that no rigorous > mathematical formulation is possible (other than a statistical one). And > also, they are probaly limited to human (or at least mammalian) life forms > as > evolved on this planet. ;) >> And yet they underly much of our discussions about what is meaningful to us about XWP. We find them intriguing and *worth* arguing about as they relate to the human condition. I asked you about relativity becasue I was trying to understand what you and Jackie were saying, not because I had a sudden yen to find out about relativity for it's own sake. I'd be on a list about scientific principles if that was my focus. On C-R, folks may use all sorts of comparions, analogies, principles, etc. to explore a topic. So, we're off-base sometimes. That doesn't minimize the value of the input in my mind, especially if it stimulates me to think in new ways. > In principle, one could start with the physics of the interatomic forces > in > every molecule of the fluid (or every cell in the brains of your > calm-sound-loving person) and work ones way up from there to explain why a > water pump works or why I like Dire Straits (and hate rap :) but in > practice, no way could this be achieved. >> Maybe not. No doubt people thought that once about some of the othe r explanations folks have come up with. It's the attempt to understand, however we do it, that interests me. > > >In the old days, "liberal arts" education gave folks a smattering of many > >fields, which helped them understand the interconnectedness and to converse > >"meaningfully" with others who might eventually focus on a different area. > >Things have gotten so specialized today, that "numbers" people, "info > >management" people, "human resources" people, "technical" people, > >"operations" people, "marketing" people, etc. often speak entirely > >different languages. I find there are far fewer analogies people can use > >that might be familiar enough to help these groups understand one another. > >Of course, if they did, I might not have any clients. > > And the technical people, while they may respect other technical specialties > > even though they don't understand them, usually have little respect for > management and nothing but thinly veiled contempt for the 'marketing' side > who they regard as con artists. :) >> Heh. The technical specialties folks can be as competitive among themselves as anybody. Meanwhile, the other folks are saying, "What good is the technical stuff, if there's not somebody out there selling it, making sure there's money to support your projects?" Of course, most of the roles play a part, so the bad relations between areas can border on the ridiculous. Everybody can be out of a job if one part is working right. > >Just as a mathematical process can be "neutral," I tend to see "feedback" > >as a "neutral" process in my work. It's information one can use -- or not > >use -- to alter one's course more toward the desired target. > > If you choose to regard it that way, then that's to your advantage. Most > people take it as either praise or criticism. >> Agreed. I suppose I get as frustrated about that as you do about scientific principles. > Hmmm. I think many engineers and scientists are perfectly happy with the > creative / artistic side of things, and even science fiction so long as it > is > recognised as fiction. But they tend to draw a line between 'fact' and > 'fiction'. They hate 'pseudoscience' which deliberately tries to blur the > distinction - fiction masquerading as 'fact'. > I said "great thinkers." Maybe it's my bias, but I'd say most don't seem that preoccupied with drawing lines, but in pushing boundaries, revealing lines where nobody saw them before, erasing ones that seemed hard and "true," moving beyond ones they've drawn to explore new ones ---making "fiction" fact or "fact" fiction. I believe it's the rest of us who argue about where to draw lines around where the great minds have already been. - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V4 #108 **************************************