XviD codec for W98 and Media Player Classic.

"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

I don't know of the philosopher "Jagger". He doesn't ring a bell.


He wrote a heavyweight tractatus on the subject of need.

Tracatus??? You mean treatise?
I couldn't find anything on any philosopher "Jagger" with a cursory
search. (I assume you're not kidding around here and talking about
Mick Jagger, who certainly is no philosopher, despite the words from
his famous song of the 1960's. :-) (He's a rock artist, yes. But
not a philosopher).


I thought tractatus sounded better, it delivers with more scholastic
topspin... Watch the first episode of House (MD), and all will be
explained.
Just googling 'philosopher jagger' will serve well enough. My whole
take on
this stuff is the more seriously it is phrased, the funnier it is.

I thought I had done that with the Googling. I was expecting a
result like Nietsche or Kant or Plato to show up (some examples of
true philosophers), but didn't see anything - just a lot of Mick
Jagger.
:-). What's his first name?




Mick!
He IS 'the philosopher Jagger'. That's why it's funny.

OK, I didn't originally catch it as a joke. (I had thought I might
find a real philosopher there, who might be worth checking out. :-)


I bet philospophers are like composers. When I was about four I thought there
were four of them. By the time I was ten I knew there were over 100. At 20 I
competed with a guy to write a list of names, and he beat mine fivefold, and
by now I know there are so many that I could spend an hour listening to each
and die before getting close to finishing. Better to spend the time finding
the best of music and philosophy in ourselves. After all, the best of them
did exactly that, no?

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

I don't know of the philosopher "Jagger". He doesn't ring a bell.


He wrote a heavyweight tractatus on the subject of need.

Tracatus??? You mean treatise?
I couldn't find anything on any philosopher "Jagger" with a cursory
search. (I assume you're not kidding around here and talking about
Mick Jagger, who certainly is no philosopher, despite the words from
his famous song of the 1960's. :-) (He's a rock artist, yes. But
not a philosopher).


I thought tractatus sounded better, it delivers with more scholastic
topspin... Watch the first episode of House (MD), and all will be
explained.
Just googling 'philosopher jagger' will serve well enough. My whole
take on
this stuff is the more seriously it is phrased, the funnier it is.

I thought I had done that with the Googling. I was expecting a
result like Nietsche or Kant or Plato to show up (some examples of
true philosophers), but didn't see anything - just a lot of Mick
Jagger.
:-). What's his first name?




Mick!
He IS 'the philosopher Jagger'. That's why it's funny.

OK, I didn't originally catch it as a joke. (I had thought I might
find a real philosopher there, who might be worth checking out. :-)


I bet philospophers are like composers. When I was about four I thought
there
were four of them. By the time I was ten I knew there were over 100. At 20
I competed with a guy to write a list of names, and he beat mine
fivefold, and
by now I know there are so many that I could spend an hour listening to
each
and die before getting close to finishing. Better to spend the time
finding
the best of music and philosophy in ourselves. After all, the best of them
did exactly that, no?

I just found it interesting having read some various philosopher's
perspectives over time. (that doesn't mean we don't need to find our own.
:-)

"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

I don't know of the philosopher "Jagger". He doesn't ring a
bell.


He wrote a heavyweight tractatus on the subject of need.

Tracatus??? You mean treatise?
I couldn't find anything on any philosopher "Jagger" with a
cursory search. (I assume you're not kidding around here and
talking about Mick Jagger, who certainly is no philosopher,
despite the words from his famous song of the 1960's. :-) (He's
a rock artist, yes. But not a philosopher).


I thought tractatus sounded better, it delivers with more
scholastic topspin... Watch the first episode of House (MD), and
all will be explained.
Just googling 'philosopher jagger' will serve well enough. My whole
take on
this stuff is the more seriously it is phrased, the funnier it is.

I thought I had done that with the Googling. I was expecting a
result like Nietsche or Kant or Plato to show up (some examples of
true philosophers), but didn't see anything - just a lot of Mick
Jagger.
:-). What's his first name?




Mick!
He IS 'the philosopher Jagger'. That's why it's funny.

OK, I didn't originally catch it as a joke. (I had thought I might
find a real philosopher there, who might be worth checking out. :-)


I bet philospophers are like composers. When I was about four I thought
there
were four of them. By the time I was ten I knew there were over 100. At
20
I competed with a guy to write a list of names, and he beat mine
fivefold, and
by now I know there are so many that I could spend an hour listening to
each
and die before getting close to finishing. Better to spend the time
finding
the best of music and philosophy in ourselves. After all, the best of
them did exactly that, no?

I just found it interesting having read some various philosopher's
perspectives over time. (that doesn't mean we don't need to find our
own.
:-)


I think it's like coding, best not to forget the past, or we repeat big
mistakes. But how many os us need to look at the past to get its important
lessons to the rest? Clearly not all. I never read much philosophy, but I
do pay attention to those who tell of having done so, especially when
paralleling it with things in our time. Our capacity to recognise good
philosophy is based on our capcity to trust our own judgement and observation
anyway, which is why I place that foremost. A stone has no philosophy so far
as I know, and Descartes could have prated at one all his life for all the
good it would have done him, or the stone, so any stone that gets any kind of
pattern in itself, that transcends that of other stones, starts to make
itself useful.

When I get lost and disacciated from all around me, it's hard to care about
anything, but wonder and knowing I have the capacity to explore something,
and make somethign new with it, gets me though. it does it when nothign else
can, because it's the one thing that depeds least of all on support from
others. This is what drove things that barely had legs to look beyond a blur
of light, and resolve their awareness of stars. Compared to that effort, the
written works of philosophers have lasted about an eyeblink in an eon. They
show that it is possible, but if we need them to prove it, then we're
neglecting something far more important.

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

I don't know of the philosopher "Jagger". He doesn't ring a
bell.


He wrote a heavyweight tractatus on the subject of need.

Tracatus??? You mean treatise?
I couldn't find anything on any philosopher "Jagger" with a
cursory search. (I assume you're not kidding around here and
talking about Mick Jagger, who certainly is no philosopher,
despite the words from his famous song of the 1960's. :-) (He's
a rock artist, yes. But not a philosopher).


I thought tractatus sounded better, it delivers with more
scholastic topspin... Watch the first episode of House (MD), and
all will be explained.
Just googling 'philosopher jagger' will serve well enough. My whole
take on
this stuff is the more seriously it is phrased, the funnier it is.

I thought I had done that with the Googling. I was expecting a
result like Nietsche or Kant or Plato to show up (some examples of
true philosophers), but didn't see anything - just a lot of Mick
Jagger. :-). What's his first name?




Mick!
He IS 'the philosopher Jagger'. That's why it's funny.

OK, I didn't originally catch it as a joke. (I had thought I might
find a real philosopher there, who might be worth checking out. :-)


I bet philospophers are like composers. When I was about four I thought
there
were four of them. By the time I was ten I knew there were over 100. At
20
I competed with a guy to write a list of names, and he beat mine
fivefold, and
by now I know there are so many that I could spend an hour listening to
each and die before getting close to finishing. Better to spend the time
finding
the best of music and philosophy in ourselves. After all, the best of
them did exactly that, no?

I just found it interesting having read some various philosopher's
perspectives over time. (that doesn't mean we don't need to find our
own.
:-)


I think it's like coding, best not to forget the past, or we repeat big
mistakes. But how many of us need to look at the past to get its important
lessons to the rest? Clearly not all.

Unfortunately a lot of us should look at the past, and learn from it, but we
don't.

I never read much philosophy, but I
do pay attention to those who tell of having done so, especially when
paralleling it with things in our time.

It can be fascinating (and sometimes eye-opening), to read some of it.

Our capacity to recognise good
philosophy is based on our capcity to trust our own judgement and
observation
anyway, which is why I place that foremost. A stone has no philosophy so
far
as I know, and Descartes could have prated at one all his life for all the
good it would have done him, or the stone, so any stone that gets any kind
of
pattern in itself, that transcends that of other stones, starts to make
itself useful.

When I get lost and disassociated from all around me, it's hard to care
about
anything,

And I know that feeling...

but wonder and knowing I have the capacity to explore something,
and make somethign new with it, gets me though. it does it when nothing
else
can, because it's the one thing that depends least of all on support from
others. This is what drove things that barely had legs to look beyond a
blur
of light, and resolve their awareness of stars. Compared to that effort,
the
written works of philosophers have lasted about an eyeblink in an eon.
They
show that it is possible, but if we need them to prove it, then we're
neglecting something far more important.

"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

I think it's like coding, best not to forget the past, or we repeat big
mistakes. But how many of us need to look at the past to get its
important lessons to the rest? Clearly not all.

Unfortunately a lot of us should look at the past, and learn from it,
but we don't.

I never read much philosophy, but I
do pay attention to those who tell of having done so, especially when
paralleling it with things in our time.

It can be fascinating (and sometimes eye-opening), to read some of it.


Ok, I'll bite, for a while, this is an interesting debate, never mind the
purpose of this group...

I haven't read much of old philosophy, btu I have read some that comes out of
newer discoveries like those of quantum physics. This makes sense to me, as
it's of our times, and cannot be drawn directly from previous work, only
paralleled by it, hence my mention of looking carefully for such parallels.
They hint at deeper truth.

That aside, we all have ideas, and are all capable of good ones. Likewise we
all have some sort of music in us, if we are willing to explore it and give
it any kind of a voice. What really fascinates me is the lengths that some
past people went to, to explore and express this. Bach walking hundreds of
miles to hear some choral meister do his stuff. Or Socrates taking a
hideously poscribed route to his own death given the choices he made that
meant he could not change that course without denying what he chose to be, of
found himself to be. Same goes for Galileo. But how much of these people is
remarkable for being some kind of genius? And how much for sheer persistence,
a willingness to put up with significant deprivations of some kind while
persuing what mattered to them? Arguabvly Moxart might not have become a
proficient pianist at a very early age if he had not been pushed. Allegedly
he wasn't too great to listen to at first, as applies to most of us, but he
stuck at it for whatever reason, put in so many hours, so early, that he got
fluent enough to expres his own developing thoughts while he was still young
and growing fast.

So there's thwe thing, if we want to really follow up some strange new idea
and make it count for something, it will demand a lot of us. So the question
become stark and simple: do we study the works of others, or do we spend that
time working to make our own work matter to others beyond us, because of the
proficiency we manage to get in it? The only easy way to solve that
contradictory demand on our time and effort is to know that we can be
inspired by great works, even without studying them. In fact, if I'd studied
Mozart, I might have understood less than I do now, having attempted to play
a couple of his pieces, figuring out how to make my own hands make the motion
required to do it well. Same applies to Bach, which I like even more. Same
applies to coding, where trying to use the API to make my own ideas work in
practise leads to something grown rather than planned. Especially in the case
of coding, I go beyond the inspiration, it's not enough to take heart from
knowing what may be possible, like Jean-Luc Picard, I order myself to make it
so. There may be several ways to do it too, and I often find that mine is
better, even if just for me, in context, than the offerings I had to examine.
So I examine them only so far as it takes to see something important I need
to isolate, refine, etc. And THAT is very important, because the only way I
can know what IS important there is to be able to interface it with what I
have already done. This isn't hubris, it's just the way ice crystals spread
across a pond, threading where they will, where they can.

For me, philosophy isn't in the reading, but the doing. I also think thwe
best writing is done by those who note it as they do stuff, not by those who
imagine they have already done it, known it, and merely need to write a book
to teach it. This means I do respect those phiosophers who have done this,
and lived solely to do it, but even then, I know I have to decide how to use
my own time. Reading is very timeconsuming, and with dodgy eyesight, I find
that coding, wanting to develop some MIDI performance system ideas that are
rare to the point of non-existence in either hardware or software because
they may never exist if I don't have at it myself, that and a few other
projects involving laser metering and diode drive circuits, and some ideas
for beam scan control, etc... I can't find enough time or strength or focus
to manage all of these, and if I stopped to read a lot, I know it might not
happen.

Maybe I shouldn't have written all this, but the time seemed right, so I did.
I can't go on at this length though. Most unwise, for so many reasons...

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

I think it's like coding, best not to forget the past, or we repeat big
mistakes. But how many of us need to look at the past to get its
important lessons to the rest? Clearly not all.

Unfortunately a lot of us should look at the past, and learn from it,
but we don't.

I never read much philosophy, but I
do pay attention to those who tell of having done so, especially when
paralleling it with things in our time.

It can be fascinating (and sometimes eye-opening), to read some of it.


Ok, I'll bite, for a while, this is an interesting debate, never mind the
purpose of this group...

I haven't read much of old philosophy, btu I have read some that comes out
of
newer discoveries like those of quantum physics. This makes sense to me,
as
it's of our times, and cannot be drawn directly from previous work, only
paralleled by it, hence my mention of looking carefully for such
parallels.
They hint at deeper truth.

One of the deepest truths may come from "looking within" (ourselves and all
of humanity), and to that end, it's interesting to see what others have
discovered in their "journeys", too.

That aside, we all have ideas, and are all capable of good ones.

And it's fascinating (and sometimes illuminating) to be aware of some of
them.

Likewise we
all have some sort of music in us, if we are willing to explore it and
give
it any kind of a voice.

I also think a course in Music Appreciation is beneficial, too. I sure
learned something from it; it opened some doors that I wasn't even aware
existed. :-)

More awareness of things around you (and the past, btw) is a good thing.
:-)

What really fascinates me is the lengths that some
past people went to, to explore and express this. Bach walking hundreds of
miles to hear some choral meister do his stuff. Or Socrates taking a
hideously poscribed route to his own death given the choices he made that
meant he could not change that course without denying what he chose to be,
of
found himself to be. Same goes for Galileo. But how much of these people
is
remarkable for being some kind of genius?

Some of it.

And how much for sheer persistence,
a willingness to put up with significant deprivations of some kind while
persuing what mattered to them?

Some more of it.

Arguably Moxart might not have become a
proficient pianist at a very early age if he had not been pushed.

I think so. :-) And if he weren't aware of others in that field and what
they had contributed, too.

Allegedly
he wasn't too great to listen to at first, as applies to most of us, but
he
stuck at it for whatever reason, put in so many hours, so early, that he
got
fluent enough to expres his own developing thoughts while he was still
young
and growing fast.

So there's thwe thing, if we want to really follow up some strange new
idea
and make it count for something, it will demand a lot of us. So the
question
become stark and simple: do we study the works of others, or do we spend
that
time working to make our own work matter to others beyond us, because of
the proficiency we manage to get in it?

We do both. :-)
People make time for the things that are important to them.

The only easy way to solve that
contradictory demand on our time and effort is to know that we can be
inspired by great works, even without studying them.

And some even more so, by discovering what others have done.

In fact, if I'd studied
Mozart, I might have understood less than I do now, having attempted to
play
a couple of his pieces, figuring out how to make my own hands make the
motion
required to do it well. Same applies to Bach, which I like even more. Same
applies to coding, where trying to use the API to make my own ideas work
in
practise leads to something grown rather than planned. Especially in the
case
of coding, I go beyond the inspiration, it's not enough to take heart from
knowing what may be possible, like Jean-Luc Picard, I order myself to make
it so. There may be several ways to do it too, and I often find that
mine is
better, even if just for me, in context, than the offerings I had to
examine.
So I examine them only so far as it takes to see something important I
need
to isolate, refine, etc. And THAT is very important, because the only way
I
can know what IS important there is to be able to interface it with what I
have already done. This isn't hubris, it's just the way ice crystals
spread
across a pond, threading where they will, where they can.

For me, philosophy isn't in the reading, but the doing.

Well, from what I gather, you tend to see things primarily in pragmatic
terms, and don't care much if it doesn't produce a measureable result, for
example. Which is fine if you're happy with that philosophy. I don't mind
the abstract or theoretical side of things too. I find the journey and
learning interesting in its own right. :-)

snip

"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Well, from what I gather, you tend to see things primarily in pragmatic
terms, and don't care much if it doesn't produce a measureable result,
for example. Which is fine if you're happy with that philosophy. I
don't mind the abstract or theoretical side of things too. I find the
journey and learning interesting in its own right. :-)


I turn that whole 'abstract' notion on its head. To me, the 'real'
'practical' things of everyday life are the abstractionsm, the things drawn
from deeper, more general patterns of life. To look at those deeper things,
not so specifically applied and measured, is NOT abstraction to me, instead
it is cutting to the chase,t he real stuff of existence. It is the
'philosopher's stone', the only means by which one REAL abstraction can be
easilt translated into another. it is the way we make real tools, instead of
widgets whose swift destiny is useless obsolescence. So sure, I'll neglect
quantity if the gain is in quality.

Another interesting reversal of usual interpretaions is that of whim, and
will. people say 'be free', 'live a little', as if just going with the flowl
or some urge, is what breaks us free of indolent conditioning. I turn that on
its head too, because to me it looks and smells like crap. By going with such
whim, all we do is surrender to our conditioning, and where's the freedom in
that?! Real persistent deliberation, conviction, courage to continue in some
quest, is what gets us free. Not a lot else can. Without that, what is there
but be born, be hungry, eat, ****, and eventually die... When I read of
thoughtful people, I know I'm not the only one with a brain, but that's as
far as it goes. I don't need to know they exist to know that I am not an
island isolated from all. On rare occasions I hear of a mind that thinks like
mine, an d that IS interesting, because that mind likely knows nothing of
mine, and I only encountered it by chance. But those moments that mean most,
are not found in study, but in change hearings of something on a radio, or in
passing conversation, or some other momentary thing. It isn't the mass of
living that makes the connection, I can't live for them, and they can't do my
living for me. But what we DO share is that moment of resonance that gives
some combined meaning to all of it.

Two philosophers I can name, because they relate specifically to this. (Not
entirely sure if you'd think of them as philosophers, perhaps)... Rupert
Sheldrake, and James Lovelock. And there's always Jagger.

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Well, from what I gather, you tend to see things primarily in pragmatic
terms, and don't care much if it doesn't produce a measureable result,
for example. Which is fine if you're happy with that philosophy. I
don't mind the abstract or theoretical side of things too. I find the
journey and learning interesting in its own right. :-)


I turn that whole 'abstract' notion on its head. To me, the 'real'
'practical' things of everyday life are the abstractionsm, the things
drawn
from deeper, more general patterns of life. To look at those deeper
things,
not so specifically applied and measured, is NOT abstraction to me,
instead
it is cutting to the chase, the real stuff of existence. It is the
'philosopher's stone', the only means by which one REAL abstraction can be
easilt translated into another. it is the way we make real tools, instead
of
widgets whose swift destiny is useless obsolescence. So sure, I'll neglect
quantity if the gain is in quality.

Another interesting reversal of usual interpretations is that of whim, and
will. people say 'be free', 'live a little', as if just going with the
flow
or some urge, is what breaks us free of indolent conditioning. I turn that
on
its head too, because to me it looks and smells like crap. By going with
such
whim, all we do is surrender to our conditioning, and where's the freedom
in
that?!

I can find it there. Sometimes just drifting down the river with the river
currents, like perhaps in a canoe, can be very freeing, at least for me.

Real persistent deliberation, conviction, courage to continue in some
quest, is what gets us free.

Well, maybe for you, but not so much for me. :-) We may have different
definitions of freedom, however. I find surrendering myself to be freeing.
Pursing things, not so much, at least by my definition of being free.

Not a lot else can. Without that, what is there
but be born, be hungry, eat, ****, and eventually die...

But in the Final Analysis, and from the point of view of the Universe, all
we really are is ... dust in the wind. :-)

When I read of
thoughtful people, I know I'm not the only one with a brain, but that's as
far as it goes. I don't need to know they exist to know that I am not an
island isolated from all. On rare occasions I hear of a mind that thinks
like
mine, an d that IS interesting, because that mind likely knows nothing of
mine, and I only encountered it by chance. But those moments that mean
most,
are not found in study, but in change hearings of something on a radio, or
in
passing conversation, or some other momentary thing.

I find them all interesting.

It isn't the mass of
living that makes the connection, I can't live for them, and they can't do
my
living for me. But what we DO share is that moment of resonance that gives
some combined meaning to all of it.

Two philosophers I can name, because they relate specifically to this.
(Not
entirely sure if you'd think of them as philosophers, perhaps)... Rupert
Sheldrake, and James Lovelock. And there's always Jagger.