Zompist Bboard Again

Pabappa wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 5:15 am I like it.

Thanks.

Pabappa wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 5:15 am I like how you started the list with 0.

Each element is a variable. The result is a truth table. Not starting with 0 would have confused me halfway through.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:40 am I have lately not been sure of what to refer to my political views as.

Oh, same here. I'm more or less a Green and in favor of dismantling a good deal of the trappings of technology though not anti-science by any means, I'm for free markets but in favors of high tariffs, high tax levels and a strong welfare system no matter the cost, I think the justice system is too lax, and we're neglecting law and order, but I'm in favour of pretty much unrestricted immigration. I think the pharmaceutical industry is evil and doctors aren't nearly as competent as they think they are, but I'm not anti-vaccine nor into any conspiracy theories.
I don't think any of these views are particularly wacky on their own, there's just no one on the political market offering that particular combination

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 6:45 am ...
Questions?

I really like this. It reminds me of Laban efforts. As a thought experiment, an aid for introspection, and a way to sort of check and model authenticity and depth in fictional characters I think it has potential.

From what you've said this is a lot about establishing expectations of how characters behave or how their essence is composed, which can be subverted to create drama. It's a neat concept and could be a useful tool.

I like Communion and Assault more than Heaven and Hell.

I really liked that 12 was rationalised as 'Nature'.

'Mother' and 'Father' make sense as is. The quartet gaze/eye, voice/mouth, breast and stain feels ever so slightly unbalanced to me. 'Stain' could be more physically embodied, perhaps, to more strongly match the others? 'Blush'? Or even 'Shame', given that that is something felt in one's body?

Like Yalensky, what I was most unsure about was 15 and its relationship to 0, and to the table in general. What do you mean by separating 'Person' and 'Self'? Your explanation didn't quite clear this up for me either (though maybe some more googling will). Is the idea that 15 is some sort of archetypal potential being? Is the dichotomy 'self' and 'other'? Something else?

sasasha wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:43 pm I really like this. It reminds me of Laban efforts. As a thought experiment, an aid for introspection, and a way to sort of check and model authenticity and depth in fictional characters I think it has potential.

...

I like Communion and Assault more than Heaven and Hell.

I really liked that 12 was rationalised as 'Nature'.

'Mother' and 'Father' make sense as is.

Thanks. I didn't know about Laban efforts.

sasasha wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:43 pm From what you've said this is a lot about establishing expectations of how characters behave or how their essence is composed, which can be subverted to create drama. It's a neat concept and could be a useful tool.

Surprise is a subset of the consequences of existential tension. More on that below.

Figures in the table should probably be thought of as aspects of the objects the interact in the narrative. For example, interacting with a given object (including people) in a given way is expected to produce a given result. There are 16 figures in the table. If each type of surprise is an unexpected metamorphosis of one figure into another, then this table can account for ¹⁶P₂ = 240 types of surprise. Some metamorphoses are probably more useful than others in a narrative context.

sasasha wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:43 pm Like Yalensky, what I was most unsure about was 15 and its relationship to 0, and to the table in general. What do you mean by separating 'Person' and 'Self'? Your explanation didn't quite clear this up for me either (though maybe some more googling will). Is the idea that 15 is some sort of archetypal potential being? Is the dichotomy 'self' and 'other'? Something else?

15 is a person like you or me. 0 is just the "I am." The "I am" is the absolute essence of being, which is conceived of differently in different traditions. The bible says Yahweh is "I am that I am." In Indian philosophy, the absolute is usually said to be satcitananda or truth-knowledge-joy. One interpretation is "joy in knowledge of the truth". That is supposedly the absolute idea that cannot be negated. In Western rationalism, Descartes famously said, "I think, therefore I am."

The argument of the Ljubljana school would go something like this: Say the essence of being is truth-knowledge-joy. But someone can negate that through Descartes' universal doubt and say that the absolute is lies-oblivion-pain. That can again be negated back to truth-knowledge-joy. Who is right? Today, the usual answer is that this whole research program lacks objectivity. But perhaps we should consider the absolute to be existential tension itself. For example, the tension between truth-knowledge-joy and lies-oblivion-pain. This tension should be interpreted as the "I think" in cogito ergo sum, and it takes the form of the hysteric's question, "What do you want from me?"

Say you are sitting in a room. The curtain next to the window moves and you feel the gaze of an unseen Other. That is a figure of the absolute essence of being, the dimension of universality. Rather than just surprise, this existential tension can be better captured if the expectation depicted in the narrative is an ambiguous one. In other words, a character doesn't expect an outcome for sure, but is hoping for good news.

The ideologically correct move would be to change Self to Tension. However, notice that the one thing remaining constant throughout this discussion is that satcitananda, "I think" and existential tension are all figures of the Self.

sasasha wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:43 pm The quartet gaze/eye, voice/mouth, breast and stain feels ever so slightly unbalanced to me.

Feel free to suggest changes to the list. The functions I used are the objects of the four drives in Lacanian psychoanalysis: scopic, aural, oral and anal. I chose them because they are "partial objects" that stand for the desire of another. Desire emanating from another disturbs the equanimity of a mind that seeks to maintain an emotional distance from experience. The Ljubljana school interprets this disturbance as the Cartesian cogito.

sasasha wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:43 pm 'Stain' could be more physically embodied, perhaps, to more strongly match the others? 'Blush'? Or even 'Shame', given that that is something felt in one's body?

The original interpretation is that the Stain is embodied in faeces. You know, anal retentive, anal expulsive, angry pooping in public, chimps slinging shit at their enemies; that kind of thing. The hyper-elevated interpretation is a Fall from grace. I chose a path of compromise.

Ask me to expand on anything that seems confusing.

https://abw.blue/index_en.php

history modification game that somebody linked on the chat. haven't played it yet, but saw screenshots. looks interesting and i thought people here might like it.

and i love the font.

edit: okay i only changed one thing: http://pabappa.com/pics/ohwow.png

I dont think Im going to top that but I'll keep playing

hmm ... I think Im missing the point of the game since I keep picking dead end paths and ending up with a negative score ... http://pabappa.com/pics/ohwow2.png for example ... but the scorepad suggests its possible, and encouraged, to actually do GOOD things instead of messing around by making the whole world a series of Soviet communes where all men are enslaved by their wives.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... s-say.html

i use both styles depending on where I am, ... e.g. here I always end every setence with a period, even the last one. But in chat rooms I always leave off the last period on a line and sometimes i type sentences each on their own line so that none of them have periods at the end.

the article d oesnt mention that emojis are themselves punctuation and that it is unusual to see a sentence end with both. typically especially on modern social networks it is almost as easy to type a smiley face, even given that there are dozens to choose from now, as it is to type a period at the end of the sentence. so period can come to be seen as an emoji og its own.

i have personally associated the periods with overly formal speaking, e.g. as if someone showed up to an employee after work party dressed in the company uniform whil everyone else was in casual wear. i dont think it is intimidating in all circumstances but can be in some circumstances. e.g. the last time i saw someone typing like that it sounded like he was trying to flirt with one of the other chatters ... intidimating perhaps, but not just because he was using periods.

Is Zompist ok? He hasn't posted here since August 15th, and hasn't tweeted since August 19th. Then again, his member page lists him as having been active today, so I guess he is ok.

Pabappa wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 12:16 pm https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... s-say.html

i use both styles depending on where I am, ... e.g. here I always end every setence with a period, even the last one. But in chat rooms I always leave off the last period on a line and sometimes i type sentences each on their own line so that none of them have periods at the end.

the article d oesnt mention that emojis are themselves punctuation and that it is unusual to see a sentence end with both. typically especially on modern social networks it is almost as easy to type a smiley face, even given that there are dozens to choose from now, as it is to type a period at the end of the sentence. so period can come to be seen as an emoji og its own.

i have personally associated the periods with overly formal speaking, e.g. as if someone showed up to an employee after work party dressed in the company uniform whil everyone else was in casual wear. i dont think it is intimidating in all circumstances but can be in some circumstances. e.g. the last time i saw someone typing like that it sounded like he was trying to flirt with one of the other chatters ... intidimating perhaps, but not just because he was using periods.

I make a clear distinction between chatting and writing posts or emails. When chatting I frequently dispense with periods at the ends of lines, and do, yes, notice them when people do write them, but when posting or writing emails I normally use periods at the ends of paragraphs (as it seems inappropriate to omit them in such contexts).

Pabappa wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 12:16 pm https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... s-say.html

This article had basically every paragraph be one sentence. What does that mean?

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 1:51 pm Is Zompist ok? He hasn't posted here since August 15th, and hasn't tweeted since August 19th. Then again, his member page lists him as having been active today, so I guess he is ok.

I did both today, so you can relax.

Major Wikipedia drama: it's been discovered that most of the Scots version of Wikipedia--tens of thousands of articles!--is written in a gibberishy cartoon version of Scottish English by an American teenager, not in the actual language Scots. It's pretty wild.

Yalensky: Wow. I'm trying to think of some witty or insightful comment on this, but I can't think of anything, so I just say "wow".

zompist wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 11:27 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2020 1:51 pm Is Zompist ok? He hasn't posted here since August 15th, and hasn't tweeted since August 19th. Then again, his member page lists him as having been active today, so I guess he is ok.

I did both today, so you can relax.

Thank you!

Yalensky wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 3:30 am Major Wikipedia drama: it's been discovered that most of the Scots version of Wikipedia--tens of thousands of articles!--is written in a gibberishy cartoon version of Scottish English by an American teenager, not in the actual language Scots. It's pretty wild.

The wee scunner!

Well, having looked at this breifly, i think its worth pointing out that the person in question, AmaryllisGardener, never claimed to be Scottish or to be fluent in Scots. His userpage going back to 2013 clearly states that he only speaks Scots with level 2 ability, which currently is described as "This uiser can contreebute wi ae middlin level o Scots."

Also I doubt that this person is a teenager given that he has been editing for more than seven years, though perhaps what they mean is that much of what he wrote as a teenager is still there. He says he was 12 then so he could be 19 now.

Anyway, my point is, don't blame AmaryllisGardener, since he never pretended to be anything he wasn't.

Based on the reactions of those more familiar with Scots than myself, I'd say his level was not even "middlin"...

The relevant criterion in assigning blame would be intentional wrongdoing, and it seems that on Wikipedia talk pages there's a consensus that the young editor had no bad intent and earnestly thought he was improving the wiki with his word-by-word, dictionary-fueled "translations". It's probably good to reiterate that often, since he probably feels pretty terrible at the moment. What's astounding is how widespread and for how long this went on without a native Scots speaker catching on.

Besides the whole issue of how to correct the Scots Wikipedia, this casts great doubt on the quality of all minor wikipedias.

Yalensky wrote: ↑Wed Aug 26, 2020 1:49 pm Besides the whole issue of how to correct the Scots Wikipedia, this casts great doubt on the quality of all minor wikipedias.

Actually, more on the worth than on the quality. If the translated articles remain intelligible to an actual speaker of Scots, then as conveyors of knowledge they will remain as good as the original. But I don't see why one should go to the Scots Wikipedia in preference to the English Wikipedia. Are not those who can use the Scots wikipedia better off using the English Wikipedia? Such translation is not of the same utility as translating an English article to say, Thai, or, in some cases, German to English. As a translation of the English wikipedia, I think a Scots wikipedia is worthless.

Now where a Scots wikipedia might have worth is if the notability threshold for matters Scottish were lower than for English, on the basis that Scottish matters are more notable to Scots.

Thats a big issue, yes. A few of the minor Wikipedias are playgrounds for people who are all fluent in some other language but want a private space where they can write things that wouldnt pass the standards of their primary language. Another example was the Siberian Wikipedia some ten or fifteen years ago, written by Russians who convinced the Wikimedia Foundation that they all spoke a language distinct from Russian and then filled their new site with articles that had been rejected by the Russian Wikipedia. (The project is long since gone and I can't find out exactly what those articles were about.) But these projects don't tend to attract much traffic. I think for the most part, the minor Wikipedias are well-intended and comparable in usefulness to web forums for speakers of such languages.... a place to meet up, almost a social network.

For what it's worth, I remember making fun of Scots Wikipedia back in 2009, *before* this guy found his way there, so another part of the issue may be that the rest of us can't tell the difference between real Scots and AmaryllisGardener's version of it. At the time, the Wikimedia Foundation was pushing https://simple.wikipedia.org/ as being for children and for English language learners, but most people didnt take it seriously and pointed out some particularly badly written articles such as https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph ... id=6979853 (which I made an audio recording of in a dramatic voice). But then I found the Scots Wikipedia and told people that it was much sillier than the so-called children's Wikipedia coudl ever be.

Pabappa wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 3:35 pmcoudl

This word infuriates me. The middle finger of the left hand presses a key. Then its next action is the simplest thing in the world: just return to the resting position and press downward. But no! Before completing this simple task the left hand must wait for the right hand to tap dance across half the keyboard like a cat chasing a laser pointer. It's no surprise that the left hand, waiting for its companion to finish typing its retinue of idiotic silent letters, gets impatient and hits the final key a split second too early. And then left brain complains "Oh that's not right! Oh that's a typo!" as if he wasn't the same son of a bitch in charge of that ludicrous display a second ago. I got no time for your shit, left brain! No time!

I am a Scottish Wikipedian and have been most active on the English, Scots and French versions.

I had already noticed that AmaryllisGardner was American and the main contributer to the Scots Wikipedia. I did notice that his contributions often included English words, even when the Scots equivalents I would consider as very basic (like 'burn' for 'stream' or 'mair' for 'more') and corrected some pages, mostly the language of them. At least he was contributing, while most of the original contributers had abandonned it. I did try contacting one or two former administrators at the time was most active on the Scots Wikipedia (maybe 2015 IIRC?), but to no avail. Now that this has become news, I do think it may have been an idea to contact others in the Scots Facebook groups to solicit help there.

I think having a Wikipedia (or many other things for that matter) in any language (either natlang or well-developped, well-used and well-attested conlang) is a good idea in and of itself, whether for the language or for the diffusion of the knowledge. Of course, it is better to actually focus at bit more on what the speakers of the language are interested in. And that was a double frustration with AmaryllisGardner: he often added pages about American things that, I would wager, most Scots do not much attention to. This reminds me of my disappointment reading Asterix chez les Pictes: It was supposed to be based in Scotland, but the song the character sang were not even remotely Scottish, or even a song from another country particularly popular in Scotland.

I do recall the Scots Wikipedia being shared on here at one point, with someone pointing out the sort of sentence that would never be accepted on the English version. I had then pointed that the example (taken from the page about the Scots Language) was also present in the English version of the page.

Pabappa wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 3:35 pmhttps://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph ... id=6979853

OMG I can't even. Is your recording available somewhere?