Re: Theory of beliefs, belief fields

(see post above)
That telepaths cannot meet is what they call their rule. So I write my own
rule and openly! They have to meet and speak to avoid conflict. There is a
conflict of tendencies in whether to tell or not to tell the contents of
what comes in mind when hearing the voices of other people. Essentially,
psychoanalysis encourages the person to speak his mind, the analyst acting
to establish points of contact with reality and keep ideas next to the
ground, instead of going into difficult to corroborate realities; it tries
to understand the ideology of what the schizophrenic **thinks** to then
explain how viable or unviable it is to the schizophrenic s own survival.
So the analyst brings the schizo-phrenic back to schizo and breaks
internal and external clasps whenever possible. This mixed communication
takes place in a private context, ideally on the same level of privacy as
that of confession secrets (not considering right now possible leaks of
the analyst and the patient and ulterior motives in their interaction
affecting third parties). If those communications are further communicated
to other schizos, they will have a guide to the full content of messages
exchanged during some period. A picture would emerge to give _meaning_ to
the schizo experience of others, though this meaning does not necessarily
has to have a truth value equal to true. If the writings of several
schizos can be matched and interlaced a more objective picture would
emerge, but in any case the nature of the channel does not necessarily
affect the contents of it, the reality behind the conversation will have
the same structure as that of any other eality formed by the comments and
interaction of other people. As an example, if the event of interest is a
couple s life, to them it will have full meaning even if somebody else
hears it as a phone conversation and others farther off as gossip. What
will be essentially different is that written interactions will give
others a possibility to find out if their messages are arriving or not.
There is no guarantee that somebody s efforts generate a discernible out
transmission or that a known speaking technique actually reaches a
particular target. Here the concept of kernel is most important, as those
points, people, in the kernel will get the most messages, most
interactions will take place among the people in the kernel, other people
bing commentators or spectators, overhearers, who will give their own
meaning to the contents they perceoved, which not necesarily corresponds
to that acauire by teh people in the kernel. The kernel will enter into an
alternate reality the more they trust each other s words and the more
those words are presented as fact without being so. The farther from the
kernel the more chances that any particular piece of conversation will get
a different, own meaning out of the original context or become totally
meaningless, as in the picking up of occasional thoughts or words. If the
kernel s interactions are written, those in the perifery with access to
the document will deviate little from the **true** meaning of the
conversation, though unless they engage in real life research, their truth
value will be at most tentative, as the ability to lie and to fantasize
will color the truth content of kernel conversations. Mind that special
techniques are needed to transcribe meaningfully a multiparty
conversation; a loose group will end up with different documents,
documents that would reflect not the conversation as it took place but the
interest of the writer. Others can guide themselves by those writings or
arrive at a more suitable interpretation, true or not. Entropy rules, so
no matter how much effort there is, a group of individuals can reach very
different conclusions. some takingonly a few concepts out of context as
THE meaning of the conversation, while others will have more material,
antecedents, discussion, context, epilogues, to fully explain the purpose
of the conversation and if important turn this set of beliefs into real,
verified, knowledge, a task that may be expensive or even useless. No
writings will mean a lot of entropy and confusion unless some message is
reapeated once an again to fix its meaning. This would be the case of
religious texts being implicitly or explicitly transmitted through this
channel...

Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [patch 1/4] cpufreq_conservative: update and align of codebase
    ... *NEW* patches, for kernel 2.6.16 ... Something I had been meaning to do for a while. ... The codebases between ... ondemand and conservative have strayed and as Venkatesh has far more Clue ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Stable distro
    ... but also meaning no security updates. ... Not upgrading your kernel can lead to security issues. ... >> configuration files with the package maintainer's version. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • [OT] Argument with an OS professor over profile=3
    ... how big is the allocated profile buffer. ... seems to think that there is pointer arithmetic taking place. ... matters worse, our textbook "Linux Core Kernel Commentary, 2nd ... or does it have a separate meaning to ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [PATCH 1/2] avoid OPEN_MAX in SCM_MAX_FD
    ... But PATH_MAX is a real constant that has some meaning in the ... It's perfectly correct to use PATH_MAX as a constant on a system ... has no useful relationship with anything the kernel is doing at all. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: DOND America
    ... and the interactions between them meaning when they come to ... be constentants for real they are already well known. ... Here's it's all about the almighty dollar and the women. ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)