Tramp test dummies – Serre Chevalier

ta for that link, Ally. It's amazing. . these musical legends can weather so many decades of societal change and keep on tickin'. . . he's one of the 'big ones', legendarily speaking.

CRASH TEST DUMMIES met 'MMM MMM MMM' #cityfm #classicrock #nowplaying

Someone in Serre Che is thinking about importing tuktuks to take his guests to the ski lifts in the morning. I'd rather walk and keep warm.

So glad you caught Edwyn Collins' gig. I've seen him play twice here in Manchester in the last 18 months and was also lucky enough to talk to his wife Grace last time.
As far as I'm concerned, he's one of our musical legends. You wouldn't wish his problems on anybody but for him still to be where he is today – that's amazing.

The musical world would be a poorer place without people like him in it.

Artist fries eggs on Kiev eternal flame war memorial –

If I may, please allow me to attempt a reply to the comments by JoshOnPC of Oct. 28, 2010 at 7:20, 7:21, and 11:12 pm…

I am familiar with the views of the sources you cited, and they do not accomplish in any way or manner any valid “answer” to what I meant to ask. Why do I believe that? Because the sources cited all contain, as internal premises, variations of the fallacy of assuming the consequent. All of those cited sources are, as I observe, written from within the belief which my work “challenges.”

Let me restate my concern, if I may do so with reasonable consent… If no consent, please observe that I have never commanded anyone to read anything I have written, and I command no one to read this.

Not so long ago, “everyone” knew that the earth was the fixed, motionless firmament, and Galileo Galilei was subjected to house arrest for his heretical views. Much more recently, long after Galileo's death, the successor(s) to those who so arrested Galileo apologized to his memory (and his soul? [is the notion of soul valid?]).

I note that sincerity is not truthfulness, even though “sincere” is derived from the Latin “sine” (without) and “cero” (to wax) and sincerely (without wax) originally meant something like, without deception, because wax, in ancient times, was used to fill space so an object might appear to be more valuable than it was, ergo, Archmedes and the bathtub.

Okay, so quantum mechanics appears to allow something which happens in the future to affect what is happening now. That does not change my observation, which is about what is actually observable and what is actually observably achievable. For such a time interval as the future has not changed the past, the past will be what it was, and a decision made will be the decision made; when the future changes the past, so the decision made in the past is no longer the decision made in the past, that does not change that the past changed.

Is the universe, or the universe of the set of all universes, large or small, smaller than a dimensionless point or larger than an infinitude of infinities? Tell me how you can get outside the universe of the set of all sets of universes to make the measurement…

Consider the wave-particle duality… An electron may be observed to be like a wave (try some multiple slit experiments) or like a particle (as in Einstein's photoelectric effect work that helped him to earn the Nobel Prize); however, an electron itself is never a wave and is never a particle, yet, in certain conditions is observed to be usefully modeled as a particle and is observed to be usefully modeled as a wave in other conditions. So, given the above, what is an electron? It is a probability pattern which may be observed under some differing conditions, and the conditions of the observation process affect the nature of the observations which occur.

Probability patterns may be modeled as of being of three classes; one being the class of all possibilities, which class includes all impossibilities as a proper subset; another being the class of all probabilities which are possibilities in the process of becoming actualized; and the third class is the probabilities which have already been actualized. Within one religious tradition with which I have some familiarity, it is my understanding that the first above-mentioned class has sometimes been named “Holy Spirit or “Holy Ghost,” the second class has been named “Father” (or sometimes “Mother” or “Father/Mother” or “Mother/Father”), and the third class has been named “Son.” Existence is existence itself, and is not divided into possibilities, probabilities, and actualities; that dividing is of the mental modeling of the encounter of existence in the form of people with existence in the form of people and everything else. The language seems to get really messy, even if existence itself is not messy, and even if all the observations of existence, which can only occur within existence, are also really messy.
I have worked very hard to make even a little personally-intelligible sense of the ramifications of recent (the past 100 years or so) work in the philosophy of science, including such philosophers as Werkmeister, Kuhn, Popper, Lakatos, and Feyerabend. The philosophical relationship between the religious notion of the trinity and the quantum-mechanical notion of the trinity was, as I have so far learned, first described in serious detail by Carleton College philosophy professor, Karl Schmidt, in his book, “From Science to God: Prolegomena to a Future Theology,” Harper & Brothers, New York, 1944. My dad majored in philosophy at Carleton, Schmidt was on the faculty at that time. I am hardly the first serious scientist to inquire into the nature of nature, including the nature of the human experience of religious beliefs being an aspect of nature that is worthy of serious scientific scrutiny.
Why do I not regard the observations that “time travel” may be possible as a refutation? Suppose something happened in the past, and, in the future, I go back and change it. Once I have changed it, that becomes the actual past, and what actually happened was changed not before it happened, but from the future, after it first happened. Even if we allow the (nearly infinite?) cycles of Hindu tradition to be the real reality, the same argument I just gave remains, for each cycle will be what it was, no matter how it is later modeled.
The view of Einstein's work that I often hear from those who have not studied the theories of relativity in sufficient depth and detail, to wit, that “everything is relative” is a view that contradicts itself, because, “if everything is relative,” then “everything is relative” is itself relative, and cannot be an absolute, and therefore everything is not necessarily relative. On the other hand, if there are absolutely no absolutes, then “there are no absolutely no absolutes” is an absolute, and there cannot not be absolutes even if it absolutely impossible to ever know what they are.
The trap of idolatry, in whatever for it takes, is that idolatry makes the symbol equal to the symbolized, the word equal to its meaning, the model equal to what it models; idolatry in whatever form it takes, always violates the law of non-contradiction by claiming that something is what it isn't.
Regardless of time-travel, at any given location in space-time, what happens is what is possible, and what does not happen is what is impossible, and one learns of which is which as one observes what happens.
The late psychiatrist, Boris Astrachan, who was a member of my thesis committee, when I began to describe the sort of things I have attempted to over-simply describe here, regularly said to me, “Save it for your book.” I am taking his advice, only, I have yet to learn how to use words well enough to begin to write the book Astrachan thought I might eventually write. I share with other people what I am able to share, without judgment of any sort on my part, yet using a language which I find has embedded within it the expectation that judgment is utterly inescapable; the only language structure I can find to use to share what I may have learned is as though made to preclude my sharing what I may have learned.
So, for those willing to read this…
The observation is neither the observer nor the observed, yet, without the observer and the observed, the observation is not. In the same sense of trinity of the probability patterns of the nature of observable existence, the observed corresponds to the realm of possibility, the observer to the realm of probability, and the observation to the realm of actuality after it has happened (and not before it has happened). For those who prefer Latin jargon, one might name what I have called “probability” “a-prori probability and name what I have called “actuality” “a-posteriori probability. My stumbling into wondering about the philosophy of philosophy seems to be hard to describe in words.

Consider the following, found on page 250 of my copy of Black's Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, Thomson Reuters, St. Paul, 2009:
” ” 'Proximate cause' — in itself an unfortunate term — is merely the limitation which the courts have placed upon the actor’s responsibility for the consequences of the actor’s conduct. In a philosophical sense, the consequences of an act go forward to eternity, and the causes of an event go back to the dawn of human events, and beyond. But any attempt to impose responsibility on such a basis would result in infinite liability for all wrongful acts, and would ‘set society on edge and fill the courts with endless litigation.’ [North v. Johnson, 58 Minn. 242, 59 N.W. 1012 (1894).] As a practical matter, legal responsibility must be limited to those causes which are so closely connected with the result and of such significance that the law is justified in imposing liability. Some boundary must be set to liability for the consequences of any act, upon some social idea of justice or policy.” W. Page Keeton, et. al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 41, at 264, (5th ed. 1984).”

Please pardon the nested double quotes… I live in a world in which the traditional notion of “responsibility” (which imposes liabilty for wrongful acts) is purely a delusion grounded in errors of attribution, especially the fundamental attribution error. The Wikipedia page on the “Fundamental Attribution Error” seems like a rather decent explanation for anyone not already well versed in said error.

Instead of “responsibilities,” I observe that I have “response abilities” and I am only able to learn what my response abilities were in any given situation after I have used my response abilities in response to the given situation. People fail to “meet their responsibilities” when there response abilities prevent meeting their responsibilities. Response abilities are real, responsibilities are imaginary. Yet, people tend to define the imaginary responsibilities in such ways that people's response abilities often allow the actual response abilities to permit the person to meet the imaginary responsibilities. When a person's actual response abilities prevent the person from meeting the imaginary responsibilities, the effect, given time-corrupted learning trauma, is to assign fault to the person and not to the imagined nature of the responsibilities.

So, I have written what my situation has allowed me to write, and thus my response abilities have surfaced in the manner of these words. I do not have different response abilities than the ones I have, and so cannot have responded in the way someone not me, who has response abilities different than mine, might have responded.

The effort of writing this leads me to be profoundly grateful for the gift of being unable to think in pictures or words. To the limit of my practical ability, I find being unable to think in words prevents me from being willing to actually fight anyone, myself included.

Freebass To Split –

Source: gawker.com – Thursday, April 07, 2011
# recaps Last night’s episode of America’s greatest shining whirligig took us on a tour of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, a ghost-filled place where musical legends will spend eternity in our greatest approximation of hell, the city of Cleveland. More »
All Related

fast pistesloads of off pistetree runsdecent parkgood nightlife if you look for itHaving done all 4 you mentioned over the last 3 years, I'd go for Serre Chevalier or Chamonix.]]>

Classic Music Videos: Soundies & Musical Legends of the 1940?s

Christie’s to offer Memorabilia of Rock and Pop Musical Legends in June –

fast pistesloads of off pistetree runsdecent parkgood nightlife if you look for itHaving done all 4 you mentioned over the last 3 years, I'd go for Serre Chevalier or Chamonix.]]>

Kat Stoeffel’s story in the New York Observer covers the declining fortunes of New York’s alt-weeklies. She exhaustively details the troubles of New York Press, Time Out New York, and the Village Voice. Tony Ortega, the Voice’s editor-in-chief, didn’t take kindly to the story. He took to Twitter to express his objections: Funny how a pub that’s gone through 4 editors recently yet again brings up that we went through several — five YEARS ago. Sigh. So the Press is about to close, Time Out was slashed and sold, and the Voice still making money. Funny how the story didn’t read that way. The Observer has been whiplashed by change and is hanging by a thread, so I know it’s therapeutic to dump on us. Really, I don’t mind. Most embarrassing thing? Someone actually called Time Out New York an "alt-weekly." Gawker’s John Cook also joined the fun with some tweets, noting that there was a certain paper missing from the story: There’s a sizable salmon elephant stomping around unheralded in this…

fast pistesloads of off pistetree runsdecent parkgood nightlife if you look for itHaving done all 4 you mentioned over the last 3 years, I'd go for Serre Chevalier or Chamonix.]]>

Two and a Half Men Season 8 Episode 6 Twanging Your Magic Clanger s08e06 part 1 –