« first day (998 days earlier)      last day (4219 days later) » 

00:01
@tchrist *rebelling. FTFY
00:19
@Robusto I see you’ve been reading my wiki refs from today.
00:30
many new stars, I spent the night serial failing on something that I think is easy
do you like Javascript?
hasn't it gotten much more interesting today? with node, coffee, etc
Hello!
Node?
I got home at a Christian hour, didn't I?
I could have kissed, but I didn't.
And now I'm still slightly drunk.
But all I see here is a pipette.
Can't you think up more fun stuff to entertain me?
um
well you see there is no pipette
@JohanLarsson Which night serial did you fall on?
But it's too small for a pipe.
Besides, what does "see" mean?
00:37
and a content that is too big for it's form... :)
Do we suddenly trust our senses, now?
@JosephWeissman Is that even possible?
What happens when it's "too big"?
Isn't it just "bigger than"?
well, it's the secret, right? a black box, hidden to prevent formal relations
@JosephWeissman Few and far between are the occasions on which a programmer uses the word interesting to mean something pleasantly intriguing or even exciting, at least in comparison to the overwhelming frequency with which it they use it to mean something that is annoying, difficult, or both.
@JosephWeissman But there are ways to penetrate a black box...like intersubjectivity.
00:41
yay!
I can''t know an Other mind in any other way, right?
I just love it when he talks dirty septasyllabically.
well, how can you know it at all? isn't it rather learning about limits to composition of bodies? ultimately maybe about our endurance?
If I assume you behave like a subject, just like me, and the impulses I get from you across the great grey void are in accordance with this assumption...
sure, this is one way our bodies resonate with one another :)
00:44
Hey, get a room!
No sexting in this chat.
Save that for vespers.
but i wonder if this resonance, superficially at least somewhat redundant and so on, really amounts to an understanding
It’s recognition.
Which is itself an interesting word.
yes :)
i wonder if we're usually "fit" for understanding one another
00:51
Wow, actually there are quite a lot of virgins in the world than you expect
there's so much that language, consciousness, perception can capture only the tiniest fragments
we're not prepared for the intensity of it, right? i think of dancing for some reason as well as sex. all the perils of love and death in the question of understanding another's desire.
@JosephWeissman probably, I have not tried them
@tchrist you never stop trying :)
2 days ago, by tchrist
> “If at first you don’t succeed, give up and go home: no use being a damned fool about it.”
but you succeed every time no?
@JosephWeissman Do you think the intuition/sensation/insight, "hey, I get how this person thinks!" amounts to anything?
00:58
sure!
And do you get that when you're in a (satisfying) discussion with someone, sometimes?
@JohanLarsson That seems a very personal question, don’t you think?
well, i think what you said about internal models is really interesting, right?
@tchrist but we are friends or is it simplex?
@JosephWeissman I can't know how you think! So...
But, yes, I personally use that as a...as Ariadne's thread.
01:00
@JohanLarsson Very well then, but only if they’re watermelon seeds.
Whenever I get the feeling what the other person says is just what I might say in a certain train of thought, I feel a connection.
And not just when I'm drunk.
Maybe it's fake, maybe it is an illusion.
well, not entirely, right?
not a tromp l'oeil anyway
i just think these crystallize very rigidly, very quickly
they're semiotic, conscious; blended with a massively vision-configured anthropoid perceptual system
Ok, I’m fibbing. Sunflower seeds, too, but not those horrible ones with the chile–limón seasoning.
big words, huge sentence. Would have to google that one for a while.
01:03
Where?
well, i think i'm probably just trying to say understanding other people is hard :)
tied up with our whole pre-existing general system of knowledge and power, etc
Power?
comes after money
sleepy now, night friends
well, right -- knowledge of others is often colored and obstructed by economic, legal, political boundaries
night :)
@JosephWeissman But...if I'm trying to understand a fellow human being, isn't an anthropoid perceptual system the best way to do so?
[It would make sense to assume / I assume] that we're wired to understand the behaviour of other agents from the inside out, as subjects.
@JohanLarsson Good night!!
3 AM is not bad for a Sunday night.
Slash Monday morning.
I'm making Indian lentil soup. I suddenly got a craving.
01:10
yay!
With tomatoes, onions, and all sorts of spices.
Fresh garlic, ginger...
I hope it will be as good as my mind things it will be!
I grated the onion. Take that, stupid eyes! Cry all you want, but I was wearing my contacts, hah!
Should I also add lemon zest and/or juice?
Or...basil?
I have those.
Those lentils take forever to cook!
I'm hungry, okay?
0
Q: How come nobody likes being wanted or unwanted?

FatimaHow come both "being wanted" and "being unwanted" are both bad words. Yet, being "needed" and "unneeded" are antonyms? Nobody wants to feel wanted, yet they all want to feel needed. Compare these four sentences. "As Nimdok was strolling though the New Brazilian Airport, he felt wanted." "As a ...

communication is the problem :)
our social relations are tissues of quotation; we don't relate, we mix flows from innumerable centers of culture -- barthes says something like this about "the text" but i think it's probably also the case for social and psychic scripts
i don't know, i don't want to go to the utter limit and say we don't know; maybe it's enough here to say that people and events put our own perceptions and identities into question
anyway -- sorry for this interruption, please resume regular language and cooking-related discussion :)
@JosephWeissman Are you really, on a piratical level, uncertain whether we humans understand each other at all?
@JosephWeissman Cooking, c'est l'autre chambre!
01:26
Well, that depends on understanding. --Which I think I'm trying to show our image of which is part of the problem here :)
I don't know. It's a rich question and there's a lot here, for sure -- I'm just trying to discuss and not necessarily decide on things...
I might suggest there are several principles, right? One of resonance, another of redundancy, perhaps another of resistance.
Redundancy?
Redundancy.
Part of our communication is redundant, to be sure...
Well, right -- like part of our thinking is unthinkable. Part of ourselves is incommunicable without approximation or abstraction.
Is redundant analogous to unthinkable?
01:30
Maybe, perhaps -- when it comes to love, or when it comes to the desires of others...
Are those unthinkable? Or redundant?
I mean, the unthinkable is the outside, or a thought without image. And the redundant is an artifact of repetition.
They're not the same, but they remain; artifacts in a communication stream. (We're already oscillating over to a principle of resonance, perhaps.)
Ah OK, unthinkable in that way.
I mean, what if understanding one another was rare, exceptional, infrequent and without many equivalents in life? --This is maybe a peak or maximum of understanding, at the limit of our endurance
The intensities are too much for us to bear; beyond our limits
Do you think that is the case?
01:37
At any rate it seems possible total perception is beyond us; that others become-imperceptible at various points, disappear in different ways and so on
Sure, total perception is impossible.
> There is in every madman a misunderstood genius whose idea, shining in his head, frightened people, and for whom delirium was the only solution to the strangulation that life had prepared for him.
(Artaud)
I’m definitely not sober enough for this conversation.
However, I haven’t had a drop, which is a bad sign.
Heh
I think I'm really just trying to get at how infinitely easy it is to be misunderstood
To prevent great artists and writers from doing their work
For the experiment to be botched
One comes to understand the other through shared common experience, not through words alone.
01:47
Yes
@JosephWeissman Possibly...
If I can predict what you will say, is that a symptom of understanding?
Can you really predict the course of a conversation in advance?
Sometimes.
Not this one, though.
I mean, in principle, I think it's impossible. There's another ego; a face that questions me. A conversation opens up onto a world and future I cannot predict.
What if your minds work in parallel?
In a limited way, of course.
01:54
Sure, but to some degree I think we're back at signifying and consciousness. Redundant resonance. Not that this is better or worse, necessarily.
Redundant resonance?
Sure -- between several consciousnesses, or repeated signifiers, etc.
The face-to-face involves openness to another sentient creature to which I'm ethically responsible; a face that demands justice, etc.
Is there a face in an on-line chat room?
Hmm, I would think there are all kinds of facialities...
But the face is another kind of black hole or white wall of its own. The white face, Christ-face. Already a kind of majoritarian language: is the face male or female? Black or white? All kinds of binary face-processing machines
That the chat space overflows I would think in a positive way, though of course it subtracts a physical dimension
I present three faces...
02:03
\ooo/
There are risks, dangers to deconstructing the face, of course; to escaping the territory guarded by Cerberus. --And they are madness and inevitable death.
Si l'Enfer, c'est les autres...le ciel, qu'est-ce qu'il est?
Ou où?
Soi-même?
Quel égoïsme!
Well, right :)
Cela n'est pas très...celeste!
Sarte, n'imagina-t-il aucun ciel?
Est-ce qu'il ya seulement l'enfer et le rien?
C'est prèsque ce qu'imaginaient les Anciens.
I think part of the loss of a dimension is that it becomes hard to imagine the person at the other end.
Imagine, in what way?
His face?
His soul?
02:17
Hmm, sure. But just their materiality I think is hard to envision. Or easily overlooked at any rate.
Absolutely.
And I think that makes it harder to do "friends" stuff in the real world with someone you met on-line. Or "love" stuff, for that matter. But still...
02:32
This is worthy of an upvote or five:
3
A: Participial clause?

John LawlerMcCawley doesn't say much about it, as far as I can see, but it appears to be a variety of the complex of serial verb constructions around motion verbs and their inchoatives and causatives, like the various serial verb constructions mentioned in this freshman grammar exam question (#4, restricted...

He didn’t mention keep telling me.
He kept telling me to stop calling her. :-)
Interestingly, you can’t keep stopping calling her, or stop keeping calling her.
Tell me about it
@tchrist Uhh...
No offence, but...
What did I do now?! :)
02:39
What is so remarkable about that answer?
Note that this is traditionally called a participle, not a gerund. — Cerberus 33 secs ago
I don't see what's special about that construction. It's just a predicative adjective/participle.
What are you doing? I’m running the store.
If you go swimming, isn’t swimming what you’re doing?
Right?
I would think that if you go boating, or go bowling, or go slumming, that in all those cases, it is acting more like a noun, a thing to do, not a way of going.
But I’m not real hung-up on what label to apply to an -ing word. It changes nothing. It is still an -ing word either way.
Right?
What are your favorite things to do? Boating and bowling.
Not slumming though.
@tchrist Yes, it modifies the subject.
It does?
I am a bowling me?
You don’t say!
02:43
Why a noun? I am swimming, I go swimming. The latter is predicative.
I go swimming, I go first.
But I am not a swimming.
If I go bowling, that does not make me a bowling does it?
It is a participle, which is a adjectival.
Why?
I like swimming.
Because swimming describes what you will be.
How is liking swimming any different from going swimming?
02:45
You will be swimming.
Very strange.
You will be a swimming.
When you "like swimming" you won't be swimming.
@JosephWeissman Or a-swimming?
How can liking swimming be different from going swimming or stopping swimming?
@tchrist I'm hung up about it.
02:46
If I stop swimming, does that mean I am still a swimming?
@tchrist I already explained that.
I have a problem with that.
Stop swimming is iffy.
If you stop eating, how does eating apply to you?
But go swimming is not.
02:47
Like drinking, go drinking, stop drinking, fall down.
You can stop an action. You can stop a fight. So you can perhaps stop swimming. You cannot go an activity.
Go fish.
Go a fish.
What kind of fish are Goa fisheses?
The infinitive can include a finality.
That's different.
02:48
I want to go fish.
I want to go fishing.
The gerund has no such finality, normally.
It does for the fish.
I don’t understand the finality bit.
It is better analysed as a participle, because then you don't have the problem of finality.
Huh?
What problem of finality?
An infinitive can be used to express a purpose.
02:50
So an adjective doesn’t quit and a noun does?
With or without to.
A gerund cannot normally express a purpose.
This is very complicate. Wouldn’t it be easier to just have -ing words?
If you look at other languages it is more than clear that the -ing form correponds to a participle in send spinning etc.
Right, it gets muddled in English a bit.
Yeah, English has very few endings or suffixes...
02:53
I can’t see anything gained by calling an -ing a “participle” here and a “gerund” there. If you want to call it a noun or a verb or an adjective or an adverb, then fine. But why introduce those other things?
Because they're different words, or rather the same "word" in a different grammatical context
I don't know, Cerbie can probably explain it better than me :)
Well, a participle is basically an adjective that can have verbal arguments. A gerund is a noun that can have verbal arguments (just like an infinitive).
But it’s the same word.
Well, they happen to have the same orthography :)
The same form, and only in English.
Not the same word.
02:55
Yes, same word.
@JosephWeissman Yeah.
And I’m pretty sure we’re speaking English here.
So that is all that matters.
It is not.
Of course you can use any model you like.
Lawler clearly prefers some Chomsky-inspired model.
Which is fine.
Prove it. The burden of proof lies with the affirmative.
@Cerberus -ish, -ings, -es in three out of eight words.
02:57
Running shoes. Running water. Running scared.
Running drugs.
Running hot. Running cold. Running in the pot, nine days old.
I'm just saying this construction is not very special or hard to explain in a traditional model, or one revolving around dependencies rather than constituents.
You have a problem with constituents?
@Robusto That is a lot?
Is this because you don’t even vote for people in your country?
It’s good to know your constituents.
02:58
@Cerberus I dunno. Seems like 37.5% is a sizable amount.
It keeps you honest.
@tchrist All three very different.
And running drugs?
@Robusto I rather meant to question your statistics.
Is that a “gerund” or a “participle”?
02:59
I see none of those endings/suffixes in my sentence!
@tchrist It can be either, depending on the sentence.
Why does it have to be “either”? Can’t it just be an -ing word?

« first day (998 days earlier)      last day (4219 days later) »