If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
XviD codec for W98 and Media Player Classic.
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. :-) |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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: 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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
XviD codec for W98 and Media Player Classic.
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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
XviD codec for W98 and Media Player Classic.
"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... |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
XviD codec for W98 and Media Player Classic.
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
XviD codec for W98 and Media Player Classic.
"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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
XviD codec for W98 and Media Player Classic.
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
problem with mp3 player/windows media player | Mirey86 | General | 0 | June 3rd 08 09:13 AM |
Media Player Codec issue | Steve | Multimedia | 0 | October 11th 05 06:15 PM |
Mp3 player is not found in Windows MEdia player 8.0 | Banker | Multimedia | 1 | September 7th 05 01:09 AM |
Problem using Media Player and Zoom Player since screwing around with DivX | Mark | General | 3 | January 29th 05 03:35 PM |
Windows Media Player vs Real player | General | 1 | August 14th 04 03:01 PM |