h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"nemesis";

i had hoped for a higher calibre of enemy, but as there's no wind.......


hoi

dear both,

stumbled by chance across this clip yesterday. it's yours truely, pissed, blagging through a song i last played in 1990 in Dubai. and for the record; then i was very pissed.....

(i'll continue the general disclaimer thankyouverymuch) it was also the 1st time i'd ever sat behind that kit (a "novel" setup), no sound check, had never played a single note with that bassist or guitarist on the right.........


there, now you are prepped for the shame to follow. so, erm, enjoy;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3kizfCUgG0


and if that doesn't curl y'r toes sufficiently, i suggest you click on the "Battleship chains" clip on the right hand side from the same evening last St Paddys day.

ttfn!

Hi Bx4,

"I'm still not getting it since your original was a conjunction of two primitives not a single primitive."

I think this arose from 'the pope climbed mt everest'. I think you were of the view that this [loosely speaking] is ontologically subjective because being pope is an institutional fact.

My point was that it could be interpreted as ontologically objective if the pope status was used only as a unique identifier.

In other words, if I'm /not/ saying something that is expressed as the conjunction 'X is the pope AND X climbed mt everest', then I'm just saying 'X climbed mt everest' which is ontologically objective, since X either did or didn't climb mt everest. The fact that X is the pope is incidental.

"Surely the institutional fact that Ratzinger /is/ the pope influences your choice of label."

Clearly to choose the label 'the pope' in order to refer to refer to, say, Mary Beard would be foolhardy.

"If it did not why use 'the Pope' rather than 'Joseph Ratzinger'"
It's shorter?

"'Joseph Ratzinger is the Pope AND Joseph Ratzinger climbed Mount Everest'"

But what if I just mean: 'Joseph Ratzinger climbed Mount Everest'?

ttfn

hi jank

'but as there's no wind......'

I think that of the 'shower' variety just doubled.

bs

hi jank

I have watched both. Clearly given the polished performances on other discs something was awry though it had not occurred that you were in fact sober on any of the latter.

Since you were invisible in the first and mostly obscured by kit and a large cymbally thing in second you could reasonably have claimed your being credited as timpanist was an error. Top marks for artistic and personal integrity, then!

In the second you seemed to be sporting long hair, a mustache and a possible beard. It could be the lighting.

Btw, Now that all is revealed I hope we can anticipate many amusing tales from your 'secret' life as a psychoanalyst.

I'm am sure you are too kind to overexert our bonces by the excessively 'scientific use of language'.

At this point, it is a convention that someone should say 'Ssssh! Little Ears! So I will and then desist.

bs

hi psi

I think this arose from 'the pope climbed mt everest'.

it arose from

'X is a paperweight AND X is in the sea'

and since in

'Joseph Ratzinger is the Pope AND Joseph Ratzinger climbed Mount Everest'

the first primitive is also made true by an institutional fact then presumably your

'then this is ontologically subjective since the first clause is an institutional fact.'

is still in force and I still don't see the significance, or relevance of your comment.

' I think you were of the view that this [loosely speaking] is ontologically subjective because being pope is an institutional fact.'

I think rather my initial concern was for the ontological status of 'Mounr Everest'

'My point was that it could be interpreted as ontologically objective if the pope status was used only as a unique identifier.

Suppose I am not aware of this 'pope status' so when you say 'The Pope climbed Mt. Everest' and I ask 'Who or what is The pope?'. What is your reply?

'The fact that X is the pope is incidental.

Fair enough so why say 'The pope climbed Mt. Everest? rather than 'X climbed Mt Everest'


'Clearly to choose the label 'the pope' in order to refer to refer to, say, Mary Beard would be foolhardy.'

Why?

'It's shorter?'

But not so short as Joe.

'But what if I just mean: 'Joseph Ratzinger climbed Mount Everest'?'

Then you do not mean 'The pope climbed Mt. Everest.'

bsy

Hi Bx4,

"it arose from

'X is a paperweight AND X is in the sea'"

Which in turn arose from 'the pope climbed mount everest'. So we are both right.

"and since in

'Joseph Ratzinger is the Pope AND Joseph Ratzinger climbed Mount Everest'

the first primitive is also made true by an institutional fact then presumably your

'then this is ontologically subjective since the first clause is an institutional fact.'

is still in force and I still don't see the significance, or relevance of your comment."

It is still in force and so if that were the meaning being conveyed, then my comment would be irrelevant. I can't think of another way of explaining that this is not the only meaning available, so maybe we should agree to differ on this one.

"I think rather my initial concern was for the ontological status of 'Mounr Everest'"

I don't think so, since it appears as something of an afterthought in a discussion of propositions involving the pope, in #954, in which you said:
"I don't see how any proposition involving the Pope could be ontologically objective since 'the Pope' is an institutional fact arising from the assignment of an agentive function by another institutional fact, a ballot of the Sacred College of Cardinals. Also there is the ontological status of 'Mount Everest'......."

Incidentally, I don't see a special problem with mt everest that cannot be overcome by say, contextualisation via a grid reference.

"Suppose I am not aware of this 'pope status' so when you say 'The Pope climbed Mt. Everest' and I ask 'Who or what is The pope?'. What is your reply?"

'I mean him over there.'

"Fair enough so why say 'The pope climbed Mt. Everest? rather than 'X climbed Mt Everest'"

You might not know who I meant if I said 'X'.


"Why?"
You might not guess that I meant her. It would be a bit like if I said 'Joe climbed mt everest' by which I intended you to understand that Mary Beard climbed mt everest. Labels and language are institutional facts, that's unavoidable. It doesn't follow that the propositions expressed using said labels refer to ontologically subjective facts.

"Then you do not mean 'The pope climbed Mt. Everest.'"
Maybe we should assign each human a unique ten digit ID number.

ttfn

Jank,

Interesting footage marred by your loveliness being obscured by the vocalist..

ttfn

hi gents,

psi; most kind, though am not too bothered for obvious reasons. don't think i'll use it for my cv....


Bored;
"sober on any of the latter"; as a judge! like so;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/3149386.stm


also i think you must have clicked on the wrong clip re me as a beardy. my bad, keep forgetting the fluid nature of Youtube. this is the right one, from the same night;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSKhtQl8ipg&feature=related

"So I will and then desist."; sounds like a plan.....


btw, what was that a few posts ago about your bike excursion being one of your last? surely you meant for this year? do tell.


hoi!

hi jank

'like so'
However this would require an alternative explanation of the poor drumming in that gig.

(Omigod that's a poke with a pointy stick. I'm turning into psi. Not musically obviously........

'wrong clip'
Nope that's the one. Pause at 0.24. I'm not saying luxuriant!

'a plan'

I think I should have said 'little eyes' It'll end in tears.

'do tell'

I am become old my padawan. A time there come may but yet not. Strong within me still is the Force.

' So we are both right.'

Not insofar as we are discussing a /conjoint/ proposition whic you assert is ontologically subjective because its first clause is made true by an institutional fact.

I am not disagreeing that the conjoint proposition /is/ observer-dependent only about what makes it so.

Searle argues 'Observer relative features are always created by the intrinsic mental phenomena of the users, observers, etc. Those mental phenomena are, like all mental phenomena, ontologically subjective
(The Social Construction of Reality. p.6)

Now propositions, are mental phenomena(even when made true by a brute fact) and are therefore, on the above argument, necessarily ontologically subjective simply because they are propositions.

'I can't think of another way of explaining that this is not the only meaning available'

Perhaps the simplest way is to give example of the different meanings.

'it appears as something of an afterthought'

Appearances can be deceptive.

'Incidentally, I don't see a special problem with mt everest that cannot be overcome by say, contextualisation via a grid reference.

My reference was to the name "Mt Everest" hence the quotation marks. The name is observer relative and hence is ontologically subjective.

'I mean him over there'

Where?

'You might not know who I meant if I said 'X'.'

I might not know who you meant if you said 'the Pope'

You might not guess that I meant her. It would be a bit like if I said 'Joe climbed mt everest' by which I intended you to understand that Mary Beard climbed mt everest.

Why would I need to guess? Any such referential opacity on your part could be simply avoided by

'Joe (aka Mary Beard) climbed Mount Everest (aka Qomolangma, Shèngmu Feng, Deodungha, Sagarmatha, Chajamlungma and Peak XV)'

'Labels and language are institutional facts,'

So a name is an ontologically subjective fact whose only function, according your direct reference model, is to identify some unique object.

' It doesn't follow that the propositions expressed using said labels refer to ontologically subjective facts.'

I have never claimed that it did only that propositions and referring names are institutional facts and hence ontologically subjective.

'Maybe we should assign each human a unique ten digit ID number.'

This would only allow 10^9 unique names and you would also need unique sames for objects. Still I suppose we could then say:

'1111111111 climbed 9999999999'

though of course what is actually being said is

'1111111111 is the unique name of an unique object AND 9999999999 is the unique name of an unique object AND the object named 1111111111 climbed the object named 9999999999

So no need to extract a name from a function,

bsy

The map is not the territory.

ttfn

'The map is not the territory'

and the institutional fact is not the brute fact

bs

Hi Bx4,

"Not insofar as we are discussing a /conjoint/ proposition whic you assert is ontologically subjective because its first clause is made true by an institutional fact."

Which arose from discussing the pope climbing mt everest.

"I am not disagreeing that the conjoint proposition /is/ observer-dependent only about what makes it so."

I'm rather puzzled by this because I think we agree on all the principles.

"Searle argues 'Observer relative features are always created by the intrinsic mental phenomena of the users, observers, etc. Those mental phenomena are, like all mental phenomena, ontologically subjective
(The Social Construction of Reality. p.6)"

I agree (it is on p.11 of my copy of The Construction of Social Reality).

"Now propositions, are mental phenomena(even when made true by a brute fact) and are therefore, on the above argument, necessarily ontologically subjective simply because they are propositions."

I agree. However, I think it would be a mistake to conclude from this that because the truth value of p AND q depends on the truth values of p and q, and since p and q are propositions and hence ontologically subjective, this means p AND q is ontologically subjective in any way that is different to the way p itself is.

"Perhaps the simplest way is to give example of the different meanings."

That didn't work though


"Appearances can be deceptive."

True.

"My reference was to the name "Mt Everest" hence the quotation marks. The name is observer relative and hence is ontologically subjective."

I agree. I don't see the relevance though. Propositions, whether primitive or conjoint are ontologically subjective, as are all the labels and logical constants and so on. What is at issue is whether 'the pope climbed mt everest' can or cannot be contextualised to give (an ontologically subjective) proposition which gets its truth value in reference to ontologically objective facts.

"So a name is an ontologically subjective fact whose only function, according your direct reference model, is to identify some unique object."

My argument all along has been that if 'the pope' is being used in this way, then the institutional fact of the individual being the pope is no more relevant to the issue than the institutional fact that he is called Ratzinger.

"I have never claimed that it did only that propositions and referring names are institutional facts and hence ontologically subjective."

We agree on that though.

"This would only allow 10^9 unique names and you would also need unique sames for objects."

I don't think that's right. A ten digit identifier allows 10^10 unique names. In this case, a grid reference would suffice rather than a name for everest. But I was joking

ttfn

hi Bored


"poor drumming";
simples. way pissed, wayyyy out of practice, no rehearsing, no sound check, the kit was set up for a dwarf with gigantically long arms.....
also for the sake of honesty i am not really very good at drumming whilst drunk. at my "peak" i would never ever touch a drop before i played or recorded, instead sticking to vast amounts of . them were the days....

"I'm turning into psi.";


"Pause at 0.24."
i see what you mean now. the secret's out, i only shave twice a week at best, so that was more stubble than beard. your previous poor lighting guess was hence spot on!


I am become old my padawan
ahum; horlicks!
that bloke singing in those clips is older than you.........


and despite this being the 2nd day in a row with sunshine and a lovely force 4 SW, i am stuck inside typing this. because? i have ing tonsillitis.....

what was that cure of yours again? something about lots of booze but easy on the demon lemon juice?


hoi!

his psi

'Which arose from discussing the pope climbing mt everest.'

Which arose because there was once a singularity which is also true but not necessarily relevant.

'I'm rather puzzled by this because I think we agree on all the principles.'

Except, if it is such, the principle that a conjoint proposition is made ontologically subjective because one of its primitives (clauses) has as a referent an ontologically subjective fact.

'I agree (it is on p.11 of my copy of The Construction of Social Reality)'

Despite decripitude I can still do small print.

'I think it would be a mistake to conclude from this that because the truth value of p AND q depends on the truth values of p and q, and since p and q are propositions and hence ontologically subjective, this means p AND q is ontologically subjective in any way that is different to the way p itself is. '

I am puzzled by this since I have already said that any proposition including p and q are, because they are observer relative, necessarily ontologically subjective. However that is not /precisely/ what you claimed.

'then this is ontologically subjective since the first clause is an institutional fact.'

The problem is with the /since/ and the reason for particularly selecting the /first/ primitive.

'That didn't work though'

Perhaps because your theory of reference was insufficient to carry a theory of meaning such as to allow me too distinguish the different meanings of your examples?

'What is at issue is whether 'the pope climbed mt everest' can or cannot be contextualised to give (an ontologically subjective) proposition which gets its truth value in reference to ontologically objective facts. '

Possibly, perhaps you could begin by contextualising the label 'the Pope' as example of how this would work.

'We agree on that though'

Though apparently for different reasons -that 'since' again.;**

'I don't think that's right. A ten digit identifier allows 10^10 unique names.'

Indeed. quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo et opere: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I ran the permutation on selecting ten from ten (with repeats) and then had a senior moment writing 10^9 instead of 10*10^9. Impressive that should you check. Where's that medal....

'In this case, a grid reference would suffice rather than a name for everest'

I'm not sure it would. There is firstly the fact that a grid reference is an institutional fact, not forgetting the issue of a thrid co-ordinate.

'I was joking'

Perhaps so but I could not take the risk that you might be trying to pre-empt some future argument of mine that sought to introduce the 'hot topic' (for so it apparently is) of 'vagueness' with reference to names.


**I will not claim a successful poke should you perhaps allow that the phrasing of the sentence in question was a just teensy-weensy bit infelicitous. I promise, honest.

bsy

Hi Bx4,

"Which arose because there was once a singularity which is also true but not necessarily relevant."

Hardly a fair comparison..

"Except, if it is such, the principle that a conjoint proposition is made ontologically subjective because one of its primitives (clauses) has as a referent an ontologically subjective fact."

Yes, true. I'm still not clear what your objection to this is.

"Despite decripitude I can still do small print."

I didn't mean to imply otherwise, just to add the info that we probably have different editions.

"I am puzzled by this since I have already said that any proposition including p and q are, because they are observer relative, necessarily ontologically subjective. However that is not /precisely/ what you claimed."

I think maybe the confusion arises from the ways in which a proposition p can be ontologically subjective. I think there are two distinct ways:

1) All propositions are themselves as entities ontologically subjective.

2) Some propositions are assigned a truth value with reference to ontologically subjective facts.

What I claim is that propositions of the form p AND q are ontologically subjective (in sense 2) if either p or q or both are assigned a truth value with reference to ontologically subjective facts. Hence my 'since'.

"Perhaps because your theory of reference was insufficient to carry a theory of meaning such as to allow me too distinguish the different meanings of your examples?"
Guilty as charged

"Possibly, perhaps you could begin by contextualising the label 'the Pope' as example of how this would work."
Person 2789625491

"Though apparently for different reasons -that 'since' again.;**"
I absolutely concede that it was infelicitous.

"Impressive that should you check. Where's that medal...."
Not so impressive I'm afraid, if you think about it all I needed was a few moments to check in my head, which ran thus: in base 10 a 1 didgit ID gives 0-9 = 10^1 unique IDs, a two digit one gives 0-99 or 10^2 unique IDs so generalising an n digit one gives 10^n. No need to invoke factorials or anything messy.

"I'm not sure it would. There is firstly the fact that a grid reference is an institutional fact, not forgetting the issue of a thrid co-ordinate."
Person 2789625491 climbed from grid reference (p,q) to (r,s). The labels and grid references and propositions are institutional facts. But as such this just restates that all propositions are ontologically subjective in sense 1). So long as (p,q) is the grid reference for a base camp and (r,s) is the grid reference of the summit of mt everest, I think that is sufficient.

"Perhaps so but I could not take the risk that you might be trying to pre-empt some future argument of mine that sought to introduce the 'hot topic' (for so it apparently is) of 'vagueness' with reference to names."
Ah so that's what you're plotting...

ttfn

hi jank

is best. Otherwise no blame attaches to you the unfortunate set up of the timpani though it does for the drunkeness and lack of practise. I am unclear whether the videos are from the Camden reunion gig.

Nice thought but I am not ready to become one of the first pair of virtual conjoint amateur filosofickals.

0:24: I have never gone for stubble designer or otherwise. It itches. I may have a sensitive skin. I did have a Zapata mustache once. It came out ginger. I also tried a chin beard. I fancied it would make me look like a European intellectual of the existentialist persuasion, In my defence I was young at the time and had never travelled further than Morpeth. It did not, the Man in Black strategy worked much better. You remain reticent about the length of your hair? Are you perhaps aiming for a Rick Wakeman look?

Tonsils: A shame. It used to be in the UK that, if when young, you ended up in hospital for anything at all they were whipped automatically. This was followed by ice cream. Strangely I have never ended up in hospital and so retain my tonsils but missed out on the ice cream Scarred for life.

Horlicks: I am a contemporary of Jagger. The lead singer seems younger. Mayhaps,that too is the lighting.

Toddy: My Islay Malt toddy is somewhat specialised. It is not only exceptionally easy on the lemon but lacks any other kind toddification at all. This is better known as a 'pure malt'.

I seem to recall that you are not a fan of malts. I suggest instead the purchase of an expensive ice cream (without bits) over which pour Morgan's Spiced, Rum, Oude Genever, Tequila Gold or your tipple of choice. I was thinking Southern Comfort but that might be a bit girly for a RAWK god.

Btw, thought my Aquinas comeback to BA was quite good but nobody noticed. Matt. 13:57. Yea, verily, yea


bsy

Hi psi

I foolishly allowed myself to get sucked into a marathon poke with a particularly weird and inept Christian WUM-troll. V. moreish. Buit I have been here way too long and I'm a bit sleepy.

So mostly I'll catch you late however:

'I didn't mean to imply otherwise, just to add the info that we probably have different editions'

I had not thought you did. It was a joke. I should have used a However since the Major described the WUM-troll's excessive use of smileys as like that of an inebriated buffoon I've been cutting back.

bsy

Hi Bx4,

Can be quite dry this medium I think

ttfn