Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:16, 24 March 2011

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page and joking/chidingly added the edit comment okie dokie, as I've seen you do at times. Was not meant to deride, just in case it comes across that way. Though I happen to disagree with your approach in this particular case. Ocaasi (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

lol - that's the first time I've been okie-dokied by someone else. I'm horribly offended you would say such a thing! .

Just so you know, I really do understand what you're saying, and in an ideal sense I'd be inclined to agree with you - focusing on specific issues independently is the preferred approach so long as the big picture is kept in context. Unfortunately, the other people in the discussion who are advocating for a split are doing it to obscure the big picture - a split would mean that (a) the dreadstar/sandstein issue reduces to a pure pro-forma exercise in arbcom legalism, and (b) all issues involving me and QG disappears as 'unripe'. That may happen anyway, mind you, but I'm not inclined to let it slide away that easily. --Ludwigs2 15:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The Monkey and the Inkpot

Other editors had been letting me edit witohut interruption until I had finished adding content, tied the content together with 5 Phase C. alchemy and astrology, organized it, then examined its content and pared it down, then reworded it all for NPOV. My construction tag must have been accidentally removed while I was working. So there is no reason I should do the same to you as might have been done to me in error, not anticipating how the content might ultimately be used, what would be kept in a semi-finished context, or how it would all be tied together and presented, once all of the easily available cotent was in with RS. I was in the middle of reading The Moneky and the Inkpot when you started in at TCM. I had read parts of it before, not as a TCM book, but as a taxonomy, metaphysics, and history of Natural history science book, such as regarding "energy" and the soul. I might not be the version of "radical skeptic" you know. I am an ardent Singularitarian, coming from the Schroedinger What is Life school of thought, said to be very "oriental" in style, although I think that is wishful thinking by some. In particular, I was interested in the metaphysics of alternative views of transformation, and in the "soul of the hanged criminal", and "life force". Most skeptics dismiss the "soul" and "life force"... until they are about to die, whence they all instantly convert into agnosticism. "Commonly found or used" differs greatly from being "easy to get", such as human placents, or "rare but highly valued", such as gold and jewlry regarding wealth, or in TCM, deer and tiger penis and ox bezoar. And unfortunately "ex" does not mean "friend" as you just called her- :( PPdd (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Errrr... I happen to like Wittgenstein and Beethoven (Ludwigs-2). One of my favorite quotes from Wittgenstein is "Do not be afraid of speaking nonsense, just pay attention to the nonsense you speak." With that sentiment in mind... hunh? --Ludwigs2 21:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you didn't say what the "2" in your name is, so with my nonAGF, I assume you are holding back something terrible... lying by ommission, of the "2", perhaps?

Not having really read Wittgenstein (I can fake it, a little), and being no expert on German music before Schoenberg's Transfigured Night (I can play all of it on a wood saw with a cello bow... really. But I never could get a straight answer to "What does 'Verklärte' mean?", or "transfigured", for that matter, but maybe you can answer that. Actually, I can kind of play pre-Schoen Brahms' Violin Concero on the saw... barely.), I went ahead and put Wittgenstein in an article I wrote, but barely understand, absurdity. In it, I cite Wittgenstein drawing a distinction betwen "absurdity" and "nonsense", so he perhaps may not have "meant" to say, "Do not be afraid of speaking absurdities, just pay attention to the absurdities you speak." Maybe you can help that article section out a little bit. I certainly would not object to a rewrite there! And maybe you can help fill out the subsections of that "there". I put a call out for help at WikiProject Philosophy and got no bites (no one is that much of a masochist there). :) PPdd (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwig Wittgenstein; Ludwig Beethoven; Ludwigs2. So deep you almost hit bottom before you hit the top.

All LW means by the distinction between absurdity and nonsense is that nonsense is not intelligibly parsable - e.g. "I quaff my cadaver extemporaneously" - where as the absurd is parsable but not meaningful - e.g. "I think what I might not think if I thought at all" (or in more Wittgensteinian terms, nonsense is an obviously unusable utterance, whereas absurdity has the appearance of a useful utterance, but fails to actually be useful). It's not really a major theme in Wittgenstein so far as I know; his main interest in that kind of thing would have been as a special form of language failure. --Ludwigs2 04:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I agree (and not sure I disagree, hedging my bets). Here's how I drew the distinction between nonsense (an article that pre-existed me), absurdity, and ridiculousness. Nonsense lacks sense (Frege - "sinn" - meaning, related to "concept". Note, despite its condemning itself to meaninglessness, as do any philosophical systems, I most closely identify with logical positivists - from BJAODN - "Logical positivism vanished in a puff of logic".) Ansurdity has to do with errors in reasoning. Ridiculousness has to do with feelings of superiority (ridicule), incongruity, laughter, and deformity. I wrote the last two articles, and would not object to any suggestions, alterations, or other improvements (I find that change, itself, for better or worse, is a kind of improvement.) Wittgensein's citation I put in that article fit with the articles as they were, so I interpreted it in that light, not in Wittgensteinian terms.

• Here]'s what I think of all the bickering at WP. So do you think you could ignore all the fighting all over WP and read the Nappi that I suggested re TCM. Here's a "teaser" to get your interest, from Carla Nappi's 2006 doctoral thesis at Princeton (she also worked with Stanford folks) about TCM -

“What kind of violence might be done to a system of knowledge when met and deconstructed by another? Is it possible to understand an epistemological world vastly removed from one’s own either in time or space? This question, which lies at the heart of any attempt to understand local epistemologies… (footnote: By “local epistemology” I mean a way of understanding the study of knowledge-making that acknowledges that there are different forms of epistemology, i.e., equally justifiable systems of knowledge that operate on different principles or in different contexts… See Ian Hacking “Historical Epistemology”… and in “styles of reasoning” – “Historical Ontology”… These and related approaches acknowledge a phenomenon that I also explore here: there are a plurality of justifiable systems of gathering knowledge about the world. /footnote)"

(Note - I was Hacking's student, but in phil of prob/stats stuff, not this intersting stuff she just mentioned. I cited his book organization style to II regarding TCM, at II's talk page.)

• I'll bet you didn't expect writing a TCM article would get deeply into all that kind of fun stuff, did you? That's the mindset I had in making my edits, quite different than "radical skepticism". I was just dumping in RS content left and right to have stuff to work with when I really wrote the article later on, after there was enough paint supply to make the painting. So its possible to turn the TCM article into something really interesting, yet still be true to what TCM is, and look like a standard, conventional, good encyclopia article... and have fun, all at the same time! PPdd (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, yeah, I almost forgot to notice. (1) You didn't tell me what "2" means, nor, more imprtant, (2) define "Verklärte" as used by Schoenberg in his 1899 Romantic masterpiece. How about "Verklärte" as might apply to 5 Phase TCM alchemy? PPdd (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Dude. Ludwig Wittgenstein. Ludwig von Beethoven. How many Ludwigs is that? And I don't know anything about Schoenberg, never heard the term 'Verklärte' before, and frankly think it sounds like the noise one makes when being given the Heimlich maneuver. Perhaps Schoenberg choked on a pea while composing?

as far as the rest goes - too late this evening for philosophy. perhaps tomorrow. --Ludwigs2 06:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

P.s. I just listened to the sound-bite of Schoenberg's music on his article page, and I have to say that if that is typical of his work... It sounds like that entire string quartet needs the Heimlich. I have no doubts that it is intellectually brilliant, but I'm too much of a traditionalist. Give me Barber or Mahler or heck, Etta James: something that moves one spiritually rather than <cough>intestinally</cough>. Call me irredeemable philistine and presumptuous, peasant-footed cad, fine, but God have Mercy that stuff was awful. --Ludwigs2 07:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Your comments about Mathsci

 Clerk note: Your comments here were both unnecessary and unhelpful. Mathsci had not even been mentioned on the talk page prior to your bringing him up. When you brought him up, you did so only to make a snide remark about him ("I don't think Mathsci made a single post in that entire mess that didn't involve accusing someone of being a fringe advocate") that did not contribute meaningfully to any discussion. Your other comments in that thread were reasonable, but that reference to Mathsci could have been avoided easily without detracting from your points. NW (Talk) 03:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If was an offhand comment that wasn't meant to be inflaming, but is just a reflection of the way I see that old dispute historically. I mean you're right, but it didn't occur to me that it would cause a problem when I wrote it. bad juju. Anything you need me to do aside from just drop it? --Ludwigs2 03:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That's really about it. Thanks for being so understanding :) NW (Talk) 04:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Muhammed stuff

That rule doesn't apply to moving comments that are put in the wrong place. Go ahead and report me if it makes you feel better.—Chowbok ☠ 23:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if you insist. I'll probably hit you for edit-warring, first, though.

unfortunately for you, you don't get to decide what the right and wrong place to post something is. see you an ANI. --Ludwigs2 23:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning

I'm going by the book here. You are edit warring, and you know it. Cross the 3RR line, and you will be blocked.—Kww(talk) 21:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

@Kww, it is common to actually reference where you think the 3RR occurred. Also, your comments sounds like a threat, rather than an attempt to resolve a situation. Please refer to your own actions. GoetheFromm (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 has removed the same image from the same article 3 times in 17 hours. He knows precisely what I am talking about.—Kww(talk) 22:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Kww - threatening to block me when you were the one who reverted me first is not where you want to be going with this; don't try to enforce your content position using your sysop bit. I know I can be a pushy editor, but I also know and respect the limits of the project. My revert was a wp:POINTy to your wp:POINTy revert, but it wasn't edit warring. I suggest you take a step back and relax, because this is going to be a looong, tumultuous debate, whichever way it comes out. No sense getting yourself amped up at this point.

Also, please note that I may have removed the image three times, but the first time was a perfectly reasonable editing action. Not my fault if other editors are pushy too. --Ludwigs2 22:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)