Now that was a wierd feeling: I was both a member and a non-member of the reading group, and only by observing my membership did it's wave-state collapse.
Somewhere Werner Heisenberg may or may not be spinning in his grave at an unknown speed.
V. Botkin demomonstrates a basic Unfogged dilemma: the joke or the nitpicking comment that undermines the joke. They both are so appealing in their own way.
That's a very nice characterization of the Unfogged duality. We might want to go further, and say that jokes are universal, while nitpicks are existential—rooted, as they are, in the particular. The categorical structure of the comments section should thus include the null joke as its initial object, and as its terminal object, the unit nitpick.
But that neglects the joke/witticism divide, and the fact that several so-called "jokes" here are actually witticisms. A witticism is particular and contingent.
Each blogcrush of a given creepiness corresponds to an angel of corresponding rank. Likewise with blogloathes and devils. Our doings on this blog are merely ripples in the celestial ether, emanating from the deeds of immortal combatants.
Re 24 and 26: if every blogcrush corresponds to an equal blogloathe, can we infer that angels and demons are evenly matched? We have then reduced a tricky theological problem to an empirically accessible one (ascertaining relative numbers of blogcrushes and blogloathes). I think this constitutes major progress. Is it time to resurrect Manichaeanism?
We haven't enough blogloathes. The angels will surely rout the devils -- this seems to be a good thing, and no problem at all, but when the angels announce victory with showers of light and resounding trumpets, all strife and struggle will cease, time will end; we shall exist suspended in pastel stasis, a magnificent one, no doubt, but boring.
Unfogged is if nothing flux and fancy, boisterous voices, cacophony. We must find a hatefull commenter to restore the balance -- JE?
Are there any documented blogloathes? Or do we not want to go there? Since we all seem to coexist pretty well, by text's axiom there is a vast, untapped pool of loathing welling up somewhere nearby. The problem vanishes if we stipulate that the loci of the blogcrushes and their counterpart loathes need not coincide. Our trove of luv could then be offset by any number of sites in hatespace.
Here's what I think. I think the overall amounts of blogcrush and blogloathe are equal, for as the Beatles sang, "in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make". I interpret the "you" here as a plural addressed to the world, and "taking love" as being the creation of an absence of love (for what is loathing if not the privation of loving?). Thus the total mass, if you will, of loathing and crushing (for lack of a better term) is equal. But individually not every blogcrush is answered by an equal blogloathe. Thus strategy enters into the equation, for one mighty blogcrush may be able to neutralize large numbers of footsoldierly blogloathes (especially if it has trample).
I disagree, Wolfson; I think the blogloathe/blogcrush symmetry was present in the early universe but badly broken by some as-yet-unknown mechanism. (I smell a Witten index computation.) In any case, I will apply for millions in grant-money for a blog collider to study this phenomenon.
But it is also the case that John of the Bealtes wrote, "Hey, you've got to hide your love away." The manifestation of the side of the Cherubim in the form of blogcrushes seems opposed to this sage advice.
the split occurred when ogged hurled abc123 -- issuer of hate for all purposes and pleasures -- from this unfogged paradise. Until that time there was adequate hate pulsating from mr. alphanumerical to offset all the love each other commenter represented.
That hate still exists -- hence the battle wages on -- but is exiled in some foreign land.
Plus, the Delgados "Hate is all you need" is a good song leading to the question of whether Love/Hate symmetry is intrinsic or extrinsic to the Beatles.
I read the URL as "bedtime.unfogged.com".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 8:17 AM
we can comment even if we're not members of the group, right?
Posted by mike d | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 8:23 AM
"bedtime.unfogged.com"...said Florence.
Hardly was the reading group in being, came the fall to the "magic roundabout"
Looking forward to this.
Posted by Austro | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 8:34 AM
we can comment even if we're not members of the group, right?
But I have you down as a participant. Anyway, yes, anyone can comment, though I'd hope for a little humility if they haven't done the reading.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 8:58 AM
Was there an e-mail that went about with login information and whatnot? If so, I didn't receive it.
I'm also excited. Love book clubs.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 9:18 AM
And: Am I doomed from the get-go if it took me several minutes to decode the "SZ" in the icon? Maybe you had better change my password.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 9:21 AM
You're even more doomed than that.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 9:22 AM
You're not just doomed from the get-go, you're always already doomed.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 9:26 AM
Doomed! Back to fear and trembling.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 9:38 AM
I'm a participant? I haven't been getting the emails, and I don't want to be (I can't promise to do the reading).
I want to get my philosophy on the cheap!
Posted by mike d | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 9:57 AM
There haven't been any emails (right?).
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 10:00 AM
Oops, I must have misunderstood something along the line. (And there haven't been any emails.)
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 10:00 AM
Now that was a wierd feeling: I was both a member and a non-member of the reading group, and only by observing my membership did it's wave-state collapse.
Somewhere Werner Heisenberg may or may not be spinning in his grave at an unknown speed.
Posted by mike d | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 10:06 AM
I can tell you exactly how fast Werner Heisenberg is spinning. Unfortunately, his body could be anywhere. Eww.
Posted by V. Botkin | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 12:03 PM
Also, wave function collapse is a bizarre hypothesis tacked onto an otherwise beautiful and well-tested theory. I'm all about unitarity.
Posted by V. Botkin | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 12:04 PM
V. Botkin demomonstrates a basic Unfogged dilemma: the joke or the nitpicking comment that undermines the joke. They both are so appealing in their own way.
Posted by Joe 0 | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 12:15 PM
That's a very nice characterization of the Unfogged duality. We might want to go further, and say that jokes are universal, while nitpicks are existential—rooted, as they are, in the particular. The categorical structure of the comments section should thus include the null joke as its initial object, and as its terminal object, the unit nitpick.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 12:29 PM
But that neglects the joke/witticism divide, and the fact that several so-called "jokes" here are actually witticisms. A witticism is particular and contingent.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 12:33 PM
By symmetry there ought to be a companion to the nitpick that has the same polarity but a more universal scope. We could call it, is banned!
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 12:42 PM
17-19: I love this blog!
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 1:14 PM
SCMTim raises an important point, namely, how to account for blogcrushes of various creepiness in the calculus commentorum.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 1:27 PM
Me.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 1:28 PM
Style will out, Bridgeplate.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 1:39 PM
each level of blogcrush must correspond to a blogloathe of equal weight in creepiness.
I have only blogcrushes, so someone else must supply the blogloathes.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 1:48 PM
Style will out, Bridgeplate.
Perhaps in this case, "Ye shall know the lion by his pawprint."
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 1:52 PM
Each blogcrush of a given creepiness corresponds to an angel of corresponding rank. Likewise with blogloathes and devils. Our doings on this blog are merely ripples in the celestial ether, emanating from the deeds of immortal combatants.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:01 PM
26 should be construed as extending, not contradicting, text in 24.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:03 PM
Is it the doings of Thrones and Powers that coördinate our blogcrushes, or do our passing fancies make the law for the seraphic choir?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:04 PM
Strange time to assert authorial intent, SB.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:04 PM
Excellent question. I was just about to reverse myself, to be consistent with your second alternative.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:05 PM
Do I reverse myself? Very well then, I reverse myself. I am abelian, I contain commutatudes.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:09 PM
Re 24 and 26: if every blogcrush corresponds to an equal blogloathe, can we infer that angels and demons are evenly matched? We have then reduced a tricky theological problem to an empirically accessible one (ascertaining relative numbers of blogcrushes and blogloathes). I think this constitutes major progress. Is it time to resurrect Manichaeanism?
Posted by V. Botkin | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:19 PM
We haven't enough blogloathes. The angels will surely rout the devils -- this seems to be a good thing, and no problem at all, but when the angels announce victory with showers of light and resounding trumpets, all strife and struggle will cease, time will end; we shall exist suspended in pastel stasis, a magnificent one, no doubt, but boring.
Unfogged is if nothing flux and fancy, boisterous voices, cacophony. We must find a hatefull commenter to restore the balance -- JE?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:22 PM
Are there any documented blogloathes? Or do we not want to go there? Since we all seem to coexist pretty well, by text's axiom there is a vast, untapped pool of loathing welling up somewhere nearby. The problem vanishes if we stipulate that the loci of the blogcrushes and their counterpart loathes need not coincide. Our trove of luv could then be offset by any number of sites in hatespace.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:22 PM
Here's what I think. I think the overall amounts of blogcrush and blogloathe are equal, for as the Beatles sang, "in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make". I interpret the "you" here as a plural addressed to the world, and "taking love" as being the creation of an absence of love (for what is loathing if not the privation of loving?). Thus the total mass, if you will, of loathing and crushing (for lack of a better term) is equal. But individually not every blogcrush is answered by an equal blogloathe. Thus strategy enters into the equation, for one mighty blogcrush may be able to neutralize large numbers of footsoldierly blogloathes (especially if it has trample).
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:23 PM
I disagree, Wolfson; I think the blogloathe/blogcrush symmetry was present in the early universe but badly broken by some as-yet-unknown mechanism. (I smell a Witten index computation.) In any case, I will apply for millions in grant-money for a blog collider to study this phenomenon.
Posted by V. Botkin | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:25 PM
We must find a hatefull commenter to restore the balance
That could be as easy as a b c 1 2 3.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:30 PM
Hey, look, crackheads.
You can't disagree about physics with a guy named V. Botkin. I urge you to find the mechanism of disruption.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:30 PM
But we can disagree about some other bullshit, right?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:32 PM
Oh sure.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:33 PM
But it is also the case that John of the Bealtes wrote, "Hey, you've got to hide your love away." The manifestation of the side of the Cherubim in the form of blogcrushes seems opposed to this sage advice.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:35 PM
On the other hand, who am I to disagree with the Beatles? As for the physics, I'm just fakin' it.
Posted by V. Botkin | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:37 PM
Also, I now retract my "how the hell do you people comment so much" of a couple of weeks ago. Working is really overrated.
Posted by V. Botkin | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:39 PM
As for the physics, I'm just fakin' it.
Oh, well then, I suppose we'll go with Wolfson's authoritative theory of Global Blogfeeling Symmetry.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:39 PM
the split occurred when ogged hurled abc123 -- issuer of hate for all purposes and pleasures -- from this unfogged paradise. Until that time there was adequate hate pulsating from mr. alphanumerical to offset all the love each other commenter represented.
That hate still exists -- hence the battle wages on -- but is exiled in some foreign land.
The mechanism of harmony-destruction is found.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:39 PM
Aren't the childfree people a sort of perpetual loathing machine, since they loathe everyone and generate loathing in all whom they encounter?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:43 PM
that is a good point. we need not worry over thinning of the demons' ranks.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:46 PM
It's not like the childfree reproduce, though.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:47 PM
Maybe Austro shouldn't read the book on the train.
Plus, the Delgados "Hate is all you need" is a good song leading to the question of whether Love/Hate symmetry is intrinsic or extrinsic to the Beatles.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:50 PM
Not genetically, but memetically.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:58 PM
You people had a recent Pale Fire discussion and I missed it? How incompetent of me.
Posted by V. Botkin | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 2:59 PM
Delgados songs have a strange way of making me feel that I've heard them before when I hear them for the first time. It disturbs me.
Posted by V. Botkin | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 3:03 PM
EVEN YOUR BRANE
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-28-05 9:46 PM
I've decided to drop out of the reading group. I'll probably lurk, but then again, I might not.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-29-05 1:36 AM