\"Writing.Com
*Magnify*
    November    
SMTWTFS
     
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Archive RSS
SPONSORED LINKS
Printed from https://shop.writing.com/main/profile/blog/adherennium/day/11-21-2024
Image Protector
Rated: 18+ · Book · Biographical · #2253657
Maybe meandering, possibly peripatetic and indisputably irregular.
So here it is.. a blog. Repository of some of my present musings and interests.

Sometimes things pop into my head that should probably stay there - it is possible I shall share at least some of them here. (Naturally I shall filter out the ones about my sordid obsession with the culinary dark arts, one has to protect the innocent!) Please feel free not to take this too seriously, much of it could wind up being snippets of things that amuse me.

Yesterday I came up with this:

Few politicians can be considered first class, but not a few are number twos.

What can I do with it? Nothing springs to mind, except perhaps blog it. Perhaps in some other life I'm a failed stand-up comedian.

I have the beginnings of an idea to introduce another player into the Mr Moonlight story, a nice visual has occurred to me, and a summoning gone wrong seems appropriate. When I finish up here I shall literally put pen to paper. I find writing at least initially longhand helps my ideas flow. When I type up what I've written, I give it a first revision at the same time, and as a bare minimum check my spellings and grammar .

I do want to keep tabs on my current reading here. I usually have several books on the go at the same time. Currently I am working through 'Pyramids' by Terry Pratchett. I reread Pratchett's books over and over - usually at work where they provide much needed amusement whilst I eat breakfast.

'The Seven Deaths of Evelyn Hardcastle', by Stuart Turton was loaned to me by a friend who shares a love of murder mysteries, (especially Agatha Christie's works). It is a new take on the genre and very very clever. The protagonist occupies different bodies - a selection of the guests at the house where Evelyn is murdered. Each day he spends in a different guest, and he has been tasked with discovering the murderer - or maybe saving Evelyn from actually being murdered, it is hard to tell. The book twists and turns and is quite intriguing.

'New Science - Principles of the new science concerning the common nature of nations' is an English translation by David Marsh of 'La Scienza Nuova' by Giambattista Vico, published in 1725. Not far into this yet, I had to find a copy of the frontispiece online, as it wasn't included in the Kindle edition. The first part of the book explains the idea - and uses a detailed description of the frontispiece to convey this. So being without it would have made things somewhat harder.

'The Complete Works of Michael De Montaigne' is again a translation, this time by Donald M. Frame. Montaigne's Essays are famous, I kept reading about them, so treated myself to a nice hardbound copy to dip into - usually just before bedtime.

So there we have it - a blog entry - enjoy! (whispers almost inaudibly 'Bon Appétit).
November 21, 2024 at 3:40pm
November 21, 2024 at 3:40pm
#1080304
I feel a little as though I've just done a deal with the devil. Well, not quite, but I have had a very interesting conversation with an AI about Ideonomy.

Ideonomy has interested me ever since I first came across it in 'A History of Knowledge - Past, Present and Future' by Charles Van Doren. That was 14-15 years ago.

Ideonomy is a science of ideas. A very ambitious project created by the late Patrick Gunkel, who achieved a modicum of interest for the idea in the late 80's, even appearing in The Wall Street Journal. Sadly he died in 2017, never having realised any of his plans for the project.

Part of the idea of ideonomy involved the construction of what Gunkel termed 'organons'. This word he borrowed from Aristotle, but Gunkel used it to mean any tool that aids or fosters the creation of ideas. He stated that he thought the science of ideonomy would require tens of thousands of these organons, and that this would require the work of hundreds of collaborators working for many years.

Of course, there were no powerful Artificial Intelligences available to him in the 1980s.

I talked to ChatGPT about ideonomy, and the idea of using AI's to help create organons. It was extremely helpful, and even seemed enthusiastic - not something I expected from an AI. In less than an hour it had sketched out a project, and made suggestions as to how to go about it. One key suggestion involved identifying possible collaborators.

The project greatly interests me - overlapping as it does with many of my interests. So, I am seriously considering beginning it in earnest. A truly terrifying thought, since I think it has the potential to be all consuming. However if anyone reading this feels that they are interested in the idea, please let me know.
November 21, 2024 at 11:07am
November 21, 2024 at 11:07am
#1080289
CAUTION - Some of this may offend some readers. It deals in part with humanity at its worst. It's opinion, and may not agree with yours.


I don't believe everyone is equal. I remember having a huge argument about this with some of my colleagues when I was in my first job. Eventually, when they realised that I wasn't actually arguing with their idea that everyone should enjoy certain basic necessities the argument ended with grudging acceptance that we are not all created equal.

This is perhaps a common problem, people argue because our notions of what we mean when we use certain phrases don't actually match up.

Everyone is equal.

What does this mean?

There are people who can run faster than I can, and those who can lift heavier weights than I can. There are those who can solve complex mathematical problems that I cannot. There are those who can fly complex aircraft, fix broken clocks, things I cannot do. You get the picture.

There are also people who can't cook as well as I can, and those who's poetry is even worse than mine (not many admittedly, but there will be some), or who aren't as adept at false modesty as I am. Again, you get the picture.

So do we mean 'Everyone has equal human rights?'

I suspect so, but then - what are these rights? Who defines them? And, - does everyone agree upon the same definition?

I suspect you know what my answer will be. I find it highly unlikely that everyone agrees with anything, but let us instead go with a broad agreement.

We might agree that everyone has the right to food, water, shelter. Basic needs to keep us alive. Once we move past this though, it gets murkier.

What about the right to an education? Basic human right? Certainly not everywhere, several ruling bodies around the world for example don't agree that girls should receive an education.

The right to practice your religion? Very murky this one, and very easy to tread on toes. What for example happens when your religion has ideas that are at variance with the law? Female Genital Mutilation is illegal in many countries, why specifically female genital mutilation? Because male genital mutilation is seen as an acceptable practise. Though this may seem unfair (at least), to voice criticism of the practise will likely get you attacked as being against the religion that does see this as an important part of their faith.

It has become impossible to criticise any aspect of a religion without being seen as threatening the whole. I believe that this is wrong.

It is also, I believe, wrong to use past events - however terrible - to prevent criticism of present actions.

To return to human rights. I have read of at least one instance where a rapist has claimed that it was his human right to see the child that he had engendered. Think on that for a while. This man has committed one of the worst crimes possible. (Yes I rate this sort of thing worse than crimes involving money), yet he believes his rights are more important than those of his victim.

There never seems to be any 'flip side' to human rights - there is never any discussion of human responsibilities. There often seems to be no discernment that failure to respect other people's basic rights - for example the right not to be raped - or a fireman's right to carry out their job without being attacked should have consequences, and perhaps those consequences should be the forfeit of the perpetrator's 'human rights' beyond the basics required to stay alive.

It's called having your cake and eating it - and it shouldn't be acceptable.


© Copyright 2024 Adherennium - Maybe Writing? (UN: adherennium at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Adherennium - Maybe Writing? has granted Writing.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work.

Printed from https://shop.writing.com/main/profile/blog/adherennium/day/11-21-2024