[What Came Before]

As in Vox Day. What VD were you thinking of?  :lol:

Yeah, I want to raise this undead carcass and try and get a lesson from me. To me, it seemed to come down to what I call 'the sole interpretor'. It's a bit like playing sport against another team - yet finding the other team is also the referee, and the referee's word is final.

Any ambiguity in english wording (and heck, past technical writing, would most people agree english can be embiguous?) and this type of person snatches up the referee/judgement hat and keeps it for themselves, making them the sole interpretor of whatever they saw. And they start building all sorts of elaborate ideas off an interpretation which is only their own (often putting words in the other parties mouth in doing so, since they are so sure what X or Y means).

The simple test is whether they would hand you sole interpretor rights - like hell they would! You can just ask for it, but are they going to sit and just accept your interpretation absolutely? Not at all. Are they happy to hand over the jugement hat to you even just to hear your interpretation? No. The person who does say "Well, okay, so what do you see when you read it?/what do you think it says?/what are you trying to say?", they are not a sole interpretor. Indeed, if they ask any questions at all (rather than just telling you over and over what any text means), it's a indication they are unlikely to be a sole interpretor. One of the keys here is actually using some sort of external metric as referee, to determine if they are not (the quoted questions above and similar are a fairly emperical test) - otherwise you'd end up being sole interpretor as well!   :shock:  

Just an identification I'm putting out there if it's of use. Just seems a very simple verbal parlour trick on the part of some to keep dropping interpretations as if they were objective, over and over.

[What Came Before]

For a long time I've made a game of applying cognitive biases to everyday life, my own mostly but also the others I see around me when I can get out of my head and pay that attention. Be warned, that list is a great collection but again, by no means entire nor even are each definition necessarily in and of themselves finished completely - there are after all multiple theories of just about everything humans have decided to "know."

Otherwise, in order to learn from someone effectively, I'd wager you have understand them. I don't think Vox has actually said very much about himself in the comments on TPB in this latest salvo, despite the prodigious word count.

In my experiences with Vox, I've learned that he's not nearly as dogmatic as he's been framed by many, many posters. He actually understands his version of the Truth to be a version. He understands things like social systems theory and game theory. He's a student of history and takes great pride in the pedigree of his social conceptual structure, even the utility - something which might seem at odds with his religious leanings.

He even has a good theoretical question. How long does your social conceptual organization take to devolve during disaster scenarios of a certain threshold - in this case, "End of the World" circumstances.

Between the two of us, in the few instances I've tried to engage him, his argument seems to have been that his structure of moral certitude will stave off the degredation of apocalyptic collapse - he draws by extension that this also somehow better equips him for everyday life, however, I agree with neither contention.

So in Vox's mind, we're all just a couple thoughts from barbarism, because as soon as the *weak* foundations of our philosophic (secular or otherwise) moralities break down, we'll simply be zombies that him and his survivors then have to deal with.

It actually seemed to offend him that I held views that I might act on morally, for entirely philosophic reasons. You know, without the whip.

Lastly, I'd take in to account Bakker's words. He's often mentioned that he's not engaging these people to argue with them. He's engaging these people to figure out how to most effectively engage them. I don't think he's convinced himself of actually accomplishing either proposition. Bakker's sharpening his swords. And though that might seem like an strange way to frame the Vox/ACM clashes, its an interesting lens to see through.

[What Came Before]

I have so little interest in either of the blogger wars Bakker started.  I didn't even read these posts.  I realize it flatters Bakker's ego and gets him off to do it, but who the fuck cares?  It's just a big wank.

[What Came Before]

I like the sole interpreter concept.

I think Vox is an interesting case study, but some of his followers are laughably beyond the pale.

I think it's this desire to believe that the changes in society that you dislike will be the ones that end civilization. So naturally people who don't like feminism, multiculturalism, and so on will cling to this morbid desire to say "I told you so!".

Meanwhile, the Singularity draws ever closer. ;-)

[What Came Before]

Madness, I think there isn't much way of investigating what he actually means when he plays sole interpreter. Every time he doesn't try to align (to any degree) what he means with what you mean by something. Personally I'm thinking that is the method these guys use to draw people in - they remain masked, but invoke words that others, when they hear them, think of their own meaning for that word (ie, actually the inverse of Scott's issues with readers taking their own reading as canonical - here the effect is leveraged for profit). Like a preditory animal that pretends to be something else; like one of them deep sea fishes that has a little light on a stalk hanging just before it's many toothed mouth. I mean, in Batman: the dark knight, I think the thing the joker said about everyones okay with a soldier under threat, or a ganger under threat, but put a mayor under threat and everyone goes crazy. I think that's an interesting point - but I don't think the joker finds it interesting in the same way as I do. The point I see in it really has nothing to do with the jokers point.

In my experiences with Vox, I've learned that he's not nearly as dogmatic as he's been framed by many, many posters. He actually understands his version of the Truth to be a version. He understands things like social systems theory and game theory. He's a student of history and takes great pride in the pedigree of his social conceptual structure, even the utility - something which might seem at odds with his religious leanings.

What is the behaviour of someone who understands their version of truth to be 'a version'? He doesn't seem to show such behaviour, unless it's of the 'my version is right, absolutely' kind. And to be honest, given his dodge of summerising Roger's position on skeptcism and other instances, I think he has real trouble (or is incapable) of forming theory of mind and seeing anything from anyone elses shoes. When has he summerised anyone elses views (someone who argues against him) in a way the other person would agree is a relatively apt summery?

I don't think he understands any of the things you mention, unless in some way he can interpret parts of them to his end. Then he's all over it.

He even has a good theoretical question. How long does your social conceptual organization take to devolve during disaster scenarios of a certain threshold - in this case, "End of the World" circumstances.

Yeah, but his end of the world includes if everyone listens to music that decent white folk don't listen to, and everyone has names that decent white folk don't have. It doesn't take much for it to be the end of the world for him. The lack of tolerance is pretty amazing.

lokesnow,

but who the fuck cares? It's just a big wank.

Hopefully. But I just imagine this sort of person wheedling their way into the political infrastructure that provides my life support and wheedling their way into the police system that decides it can apply martial force to me when it wishes (and it has a great deal of martial support in any resistance to their claim). How about the next protest you go on, where you just walked along peacefully but then a policeman version of VD comes along? Along with the word games which let him bullshit long enough to get deeds (his kind of deeds) done, because people will act before they finish sifting through BS?

Saajan,

I think Vox is an interesting case study, but some of his followers are laughably beyond the pale.

There's kind of a rainbow of types there. Most of them, I'd guess, weren't set up by their mad dad with a job in a company the dad had shares in, so they can't all trumpet their inner rage without fucking their life up/losing their jobs. And so VD is the outlet they latch onto.

[What Came Before]

Let me try and break this down in my perspective.

Madness, I think there isn't much way of investigating what he actually means when he plays sole interpreter. Every time he doesn't try to align (to any degree) what he means with what you mean by something.

I'm no expert but there are certainly ways of "investigating" what a person means. Engage relentlessly and honestly. This throws people off balance and they show more of themselves in their actions and words. Actions aren't necessarily a big part of internet communication - *who* and *what* Vox responds to will certainly reveal things about himself and his orientation - but the words people use to communicate are clear indications of how people frame the world, their explanatory style, and much how they process their experiences.

If you think about it, everything I just wrote communicates volumes more about me then it transmits anything about my experience of understanding *What Madness thinks Vox is like* and your experience of understanding *What Madness thinks Vox is like.*

Personally I'm thinking that is the method these guys use to draw people in - they remain masked, but invoke words that others, when they hear them, think of their own meaning for that word (ie, actually the inverse of Scott's issues with readers taking their own reading as canonical - here the effect is leveraged for profit) ... The point I see in it really has nothing to do with the jokers point.

I think a lot of your questions would be best answered by reading Vox's peak involvement on TPB - I'd direct you to more comments on Vox Popoli but he clears house on the comments after a point. All you have to do is pay attention. You get to strengthen your attentive muscles and you'll not be able to help but to learn from your experience of others.

Also, I believe, you're writing of connotations, which each of us hold and process by cognitive biases like representative and availability heuristics.

It's interesting that you'd like to suggest that Vox might use words to affect those around him - something he seems to give very little thought to - whereas Bakker has admitted to telling a *Fantasy* story to invoke classical connotations of that genre and then subvert them to his own ends. He says himself that he's manipulating us through his narrative.

I'd like to hear how you meant to connect this to the Joker. I think the ideas he evokes in the monologue about the mayor and socially embodied connotations are very interesting.

Meanwhile, the Singularity draws ever closer. ;-)

There are a couple theoretical singularities, sci. There is the original moniker denoting the Singularity of Technological Intelligence. The Semantic Apocalypse might be another. Then there's what I like to call the Academic Singularity: something like when the knowledge of the few outdistances the knowledge of the many by a certain magnitude. They already control most of the bridges to "practical" - in sofar as Science has created workable hypothesis - knowledge economically. This measure might be all that separates us from Brave New World or 1984. Excepting, of course, now the future contains neuroscience.

I have so little interest in either of the blogger wars Bakker started. I didn't even read these posts. I realize it flatters Bakker's ego and gets him off to do it, but who the fuck cares? It's just a big wank.

I direct you to my thoughts on Callan's post. I'm not saying that you are actually going to gain self-insight, this instance, by reading Bakker's interaction with Vox/ACM. However, maybe you'd learn more about why Bakker wants to engage them - beyond the supposed ego trip.

They're real people, man. Real people shape your reality without your consent all the time. And there's Vox's about .

[What Came Before]

"This measure might be all that separates us from Brave New World or 1984."

What is "this measure"?

[What Came Before]

I knew that line would cause ambiguity. I simply meant if we had the resources, we could actually quantify the Academic Singularity and figure out where we fall on the gradient between the current Academic Knowledge vs. Common Knowledge Digit - obviously, using the word knowledge brings in all kinds of associations and connotations I'm not actually looking to invoke here - and the threshold that marks the Academic Singularity. But essentially, we could theoretical give some kind of measurement to the fulcrum I'm trying to describe and distinguish for ourselves some kind of timeline.

[What Came Before]

I'm no expert but there are certainly ways of "investigating" what a person means. Engage relentlessly and honestly. This throws people off balance and they show more of themselves in their actions and words. Actions aren't necessarily a big part of internet communication - *who* and *what* Vox responds to will certainly reveal things about himself and his orientation - but the words people use to communicate are clear indications of how people frame the world, their explanatory style, and much how they process their experiences.

I'm refering to actual cooperative discussion. You can't force cooperation, as far as I'm aware. I mean, I've looked at him like a specimen on a petri dish already, probing with words. But I don't think of that as human engagement - and my sole interpretor problem is in regards to if someone just tries to engage as a human (which is the sort of reflexive default method, of course).

It's interesting that you'd like to suggest that Vox might use words to affect those around him - something he seems to give very little thought to - whereas Bakker has admitted to telling a *Fantasy* story to invoke classical connotations of that genre and then subvert them to his own ends. He says himself that he's manipulating us through his narrative.

Well, that's the fun thing between, say, a holy scripture and a fantasy novel. The author splats 'fantasy novel' on the front. Just gives the game away. He or she has given you a heads up. In a way, this primes you to reject all of the contents, at a certain level. And yet while you can reject it and do, it can also move your emotions. You can make a choice about adopting (parts of) this stuff (usually adopting ones own interpretation/spin).

I mean, there are plenty of conmen around who use words to manipulate? Are you going to say they do the same thing as a fantasy author? The conmen say it's a con/a fantasy? I mean, don't let ones biases towards thinking one could never be conned, to think that yes indeed the conmen always do give away some telltale sign (that is then always detected). Inside the con, it's truth. Inside the fantasy, it feels like truth, but we know it's fake. Seems very different.

I'd like to hear how you meant to connect this to the Joker. I think the ideas he evokes in the monologue about the mayor and socially embodied connotations are very interesting.

Yeah, but does it embody social connotations, or is that just your reading? Why did he invoke those words in the scene with Harvey Dent?

Because he likes to watch things burn.

In a way, you (and myself) come away with a 'living' interpretation. The jokers interpretation is a dead one. Unless you start seeing your living interpretation as his.

[What Came Before]

Apologies, Callan, for the delay.

I realize that we've missed mark from the beginning but I am curious about where we've come.

Essentially, you were asking for opinion/criticism of your "sole interpreter" experiment, yes?

I, personally, can think of a couple ways to provide validity within a research scenario, as well as, bracket and constraint it with a couple controls. However, research is so, so selective, it really comes down to how much you can build upon this.

I mean, I think we could probably determine someone's implicit "sole interpreter" status fairly easily. Really all you will likely highlight is that the majority of people are sole interpreters. What then?

As to our other thread of communication here, much of which might have been resolved by my shift in perspective.

Sole interpreters don't have, what we'd probably define as something like, "Cooperative Communication." Once you realize that they are sole interpreters then - automatically - it should click that a "sole interpreter," as you'd define it, is a amalgamation of cognitive biases.

I think I should say that I feel all people, all brains are intrinsically worthwhile and many people are not ignorant by choice, which is forgivable to me - as much as that makes them agents of the Matrix.

I would agree with you on the priming - excepting that cognitive biases are trickier than snakes. Yes, it might prime you on a conscious level to innately "reject" what affects you as narrative but I could easily argue that that priming offers you up to far more devious and historical pathways to get at you and change you. Bakker's metaphor in the Sareotic Library is, again, nearly perfect. Reading is so profound because of the changes wrought in the reader, as you are processing and manifesting, the projector and the screen, an experience of Bakker's code, mind - or soul as the metaphor goes.

Lol, thanks, Dad. But yes, I could easily argue that conmen and fantasy authors are the same thing. They both want your money and go to great lengths to get your money in their pocket with nothing more than fanciful stories.

I know I could be conned. You are everyday by a thousand different sources. I like this phrase by the way:

Inside the con, it's truth. Inside the fantasy, it feels like truth, but we know it's fake. Seems very different.

Just knowing its fake is actually worse than processing it all normally - its like you're priming yourself into lowering your, as it is, few shields. Bakker's got some mean kidney shots.

You really like the focus of an individual's interpretation. Well, I've tried for many years to have my communication reflect my understanding of that.

If you're interested:

Joker talks about people trying to control their lives and "the Plan". So any action that isn't just enacting our momentary whims - like any social obligation, for instance - is an action of "Planning," of trying to establish some sort of control in your environment. Like the Dunyain metaphor of owning a circle. "The Plan," in my reading, is just our embodied social connotations. In Bakker's words, we believe, and we act accordingly, as a society. We have bus drivers. If they stopped being bus drivers, even for a day, we'd have some measure of anarchy.

So back to task. Joker believes that following "the Plan" involves satisfying all these horrific norms, say, watching villages across the world get bombed and starve day after day but yet, for some reason, "the Plan" seems to actually collapses whenever a "horrific norm" hits within some number of degrees of separation.

Now while his character and the argument he embodies with Batman is the "killing vs. letting someone die" morality argument, something with a long philosophic pedigree, I'm not sure that Joker cares necessarily.

He simply wants to be himself and has at least one long term goal - to prove everyone else is just like him at heart.

Explaining this all to Harvey Dent and getting him to toss his first coin is like winning the argument for Joker. Especially as Dent was Gotham's White Knight.

The filmmakers were alive only so recently, Callan, and many of them still are. They have living interpretations too. So while their communication comes to me, almost entirely through my lens of understanding, it's their code. There's intent to communicate something, after all.

[What Came Before]

I mean, I think we could probably determine someone's implicit "sole interpreter" status fairly easily. Really all you will likely highlight is that the majority of people are sole interpreters. What then?

Not as far as I evaluate. I see people write "I didn't mean that, I meant" and someone writes "Oh, right" or doesn't argue with it. Granted, it tends to be when they are pally with each other. The further away you get from pally, or the more tired/out of patience the person gets, the closer they get to sole interpretor status it seems. Some people it takes a short while, some it takes a long while (and I can understand getting there in either case - atleast there was some amount of time before it occurs). But I'm gob smacked by VD - he seems perpetually locked inside sole interpretor status. Maybe he opens up with his friends (were blasphemers, after all), so who knows.

Sole interpreters don't have, what we'd probably define as something like, "Cooperative Communication." Once you realize that they are sole interpreters then - automatically - it should click that a "sole interpreter," as you'd define it, is a amalgamation of cognitive biases.

I think I should say that I feel all people, all brains are intrinsically worthwhile and many people are not ignorant by choice, which is forgivable to me - as much as that makes them agents of the Matrix.

I'm not sure what you're saying, so I'll work off a guess: I don't know what you mean by worthwhile. Like some old data storing format no one has the translation anymore to retrieve and show the data, how is that worthwhile? You can't say 'well, I'll find the translation method'. No, with this data storer, it decides if it will hand out the method to you. And it wont. Unless you're talking about brain scanning the person, to read them, which is kinda scary.

Otherwise I'm not sure I understand what you're saying?

But yes, I could easily argue that conmen and fantasy authors are the same thing. They both want your money and go to great lengths to get your money in their pocket with nothing more than fanciful stories.

Mmm, sorry, I have to say this is a theory of mind error. It's like the errors where a subject knows what's hidden under a container and then thinks that someone else who walks in knows what's under it as well. You can see under the container, you know what's hidden there - and you're describing the person dealing with the conman/fantasy author as if in both cases they know what's under the container as well.

Just knowing its fake is actually worse than processing it all normally - its like you're priming yourself into lowering your, as it is, few shields.

Alternative perspective: You are aware you are lowering those shields. Rather than doing so unknowingly. Knowing your shield status is actually creating a new shield.

"The Plan," in my reading, is just our embodied social connotations. In Bakker's words, we believe, and we act accordingly, as a society. We have bus drivers. If they stopped being bus drivers, even for a day, we'd have some measure of anarchy.

*snip*

He simply wants to be himself and has at least one long term goal - to prove everyone else is just like him at heart.

I'm thinking this is you projecting your living interpretation. Bus drivers keeping on driving is part of a survival plan. It's not the same as as a watch 'em burn plan. It's not the same as a murder suicide plan. I mean, don't pitch that there'd be anarchy if bus drivers stopped, as if to draw a parralel. What would happen if the jokers plan stopped? Well, a somewhat less exciting movie, I guess. Less anarchy. I mean, you say joker has a long term goal - which I'm reading as 'plan', which I'm reading you as comparing one plan to the other and trying to osmotically transfer legitimacy from one to the other (I say osmotic transfer as a charitable reading, because otherwise it's a plain old apples and oranges comparison that doesn't work? May as well compare a surgeon and a psycho killers intent on a target - they both want to use knives on the target, "so surely one has some of the credibility of the other?" Or it's apples and oranges).

Otherwise so what if he wants to be himself and has a goal? Just saying that doesn't contradict the notion he's just out to watch things burn. Nor trying to line him up with bus drivers keepin' on bussin' somehow transfers credibility from one to the other.

Edit:

Essentially, you were asking for opinion/criticism of your "sole interpreter" experiment, yes?

I should probably have said before 'not really'. It's like I put a tool down on the table, like a wrench or hammer. Others can use it or not, or they can ask how it's supposed to be used. If they think they get what it's for, they can even ask about ways it might be improved for that use. So a fairly particular offering, rather than a general opinion request, just to let it be known more explicitly.

[What Came Before]

I have so little interest in either of the blogger wars Bakker started.  I didn't even read these posts.  I realize it flatters Bakker's ego and gets him off to do it, but who the fuck cares?  It's just a big wank.

This.
Come to think of it though, if I really didn't care why did I click on this link? Maybe it was just to prove to myself that, yep I still dont like it. Oh well. My fault for clicking the link I suppose. Carry on.