My Mindfulness Practice Led Me to Meltdown
6 points • 0 comments
Recent @mudita Activity
My Mindfulness Practice Led Me to Meltdown
6 points • 0 comments
Here they call the number in the British television show QI: https://youtu.be/zUrYRdIxYp8
"WarVOX spent 60 seconds on every call, whether it was answered or not. This resulted in a wardialing speed of 1 call/minute. For 56874 calls, this means roughly 40 days calling day and night."
Seems like he did actually call at night times.
I discovered a similar thought the first time in the amazing science fiction novel Schismatrix by Bruce Sterling:
"Lindsay glanced at one wall and was paralyzed at the sight of his own clan's founder, Malcolm Lindsay. As a child, the dead pioneer's face, leering in ancestral wisdom from the tops of dressers and bookshelves, had filled him with dread. Now he realized with a painful leap of insight how young the man had been. Dead at seventy. The whole habitat had been slammed up in frantic haste by people scarcely more than children. He began laughing hysterically.
'It's a joke!' he shouted. The laughter was melting his head, breaking up a logjam of thought in little stabbing pangs.
'It's a joke,' Lindsay said. His tongue was loose now and the words gushed free. 'This is unbelievable. These poor fools had no idea. How could they? They were dead before they had a chance to see! What's five years to us, what's ten, a hundred—' "
Maybe I am mistaken about this, but I think the "browser locale" shows the preferred languages, not where the user lives. As such it would be the wrong information to use for this. For example, I am German and live in Germany, but my browser locale is en-US.
Like suicide bombers?
One of the central characteristics of art, is that it is trying to break out of boxes. As such it resists any attempt to define it and I personally think that’s is actually a really good example of Wittgenstein’s family resemblance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance).
But, in my opinion, even if a definition could capture what’s art, it won’t be a lazy definition like "Art" is "better than I can do”. Art cannot be limited like that and there are many things people do “better than I can do”, which are not art.
Art has a long and complex history of grappling and negotiating with the role of skill, perspectives range from equating art with skill, over seeing skill as a tool for carrying out a vision to a conscious rejection of virtuosity. Even the rejection of virtuosity can create great art.
For example in dance, my profession, there are whole fields like postmodern dance or non-dance, which reject traditional dance skills, and non-dance artists like Jerome Bel create amazing, touching art, by authentically showing people failing to do “better than I can do”.
(Although you could maybe argue that in this case the artistry is just shifted to another level, the level of composition and ideas instead of the dance itself.)
To see one example of how an artist reflects on the importance of skill/virtuosity in art, here’s an excerpt from Jonathan Burrows “A choregrapher’s handbook”:
“Virtuosity is just another way to help the audience to care what happens next.
Virtuosity raises the stakes to a place where the audience knows something may go wrong. They enjoy watching this negotiation with disaster. Will the performer fall, or forget what they’re doing, or will they get through it?
The resulting anticipation, poised on the brink of success or failure, suspends time in a moment of in-breath. This slowed-down time, in the midst of risk, is as much of a pleasure for the performer as for the audience.
However, if everything is virtuosic then there’s nothing against which to read the virtuosity: it has to be in balance with other modes of engagement.”
I quickly googled the saying - which was familiar to me - to check and it is indeed etymologically correct.
The origin is the proto-germanic word kunnan, which means “to recognise, to know (how to be able)”.
According to Wikipedia, the first known usage of the phrase by the German poet Johann Gottfried Herder is actually a bit more complex and references both the knowing and the being able to:
“Kunst kommt von Können oder Kennen her (nosse aut posse), vielleicht von beiden, wenigstens muß sie beides in gehörigem Grad verbinden. Wer kennt, ohne zu können, ist ein Theorist, dem man in Sachen des Könnens kaum trauet; wer kann ohne zu kennen, ist ein bloßer Praktiker oder Handwerker; der echte Künstler verbindet beides.”
Quick and dirty translation:
“Art is derived from being able to do and knowing, maybe from both, at least art must combine both in proper measure. Who knows, without being able, is a theorist, whom one cannot trust with regards to being able to do; Who can without knowing, is a mere practician or craftsman; the real artist connects both.”
By the way, I don’t know you, I don’t want to offend you and the very little info I have from your comment is evidence that you’re a intelligent, well educated, open-minded and complex person…. but to be honest, when I see the phrase “Kunst kommt von Können” my first association is of a narrow-minded square, who doesn’t like anything they are not familiar with. Again, this is not directed at you, I just wanted to share what kind of associations this phrase creates in me in general from my personal, limited experience with people, who used it.
When you're learning latin, it's usually not mainly about the practical application, anyway, and aesthetically it feels somehow so much more pleasing to use the “correct” pronunciation - to me at least.
Furthermore it can help to understand historic and linguistic relationships in unexpected ways:
For example the German word for emperor “Kaiser” looks very different to the Latin “Caesar” and the relationship between those words remains obscured by the way most Germans pronounce Caesar. But it was a revelation to me, when I learned that “c” and “ae”are actually pronounced the same way as the “k” and “ai” in the German “Kaiser”. We literally still call emperors Caesar in German!
I am very much not interested in what Cade Metz has to say after the way he treated Scott Alexander from Slate Star Codex. (see, e.g. https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-framers-and-...)
From the way you're writing about dance, I assume that you mean couple dances like tango or waltz?
This study is not about a couple dance, where one has physical contact with one dance partner, but about synchronised movement to music in a group.
See also the goldilocks effect in developmental psychology: "Human Infants Allocate Attention to Visual Sequences That Are Neither Too Simple Nor Too Complex".
So, as a bonus, the ones who were not lying about being good at chess were probably really happy about the chance to play a grandmaster! :)
It is pretty well established in psychology that women score higher in agreeableness (in the sense of the Big 5 trait). This difference is pretty small, the distributions overlap a lot, but I think, the fact, that women are more agreeable in general is pretty indisputable.
As far as I know, whether the difference has biological or cultural reasons is not equally well established. But it seems somewhat stable across cultures, which seems to me to suggest that it’s indeed biological, see e.g. Costa et al (2001), Gender Differences in Personality Traits Across Cultures: Robust and Surprising Findings: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11825676_Gender_Dif...
“In brief, gender differences are modest in magnitude, consistent with gender stereotypes, and replicable across cultures. Substantively, most of the gender differences we found can be grouped in four categories: Women tend to be higher in negative affect, submissiveness, and nurturance, and more concerned with feelings than with ideas.“
For me, the experience with friends is similar. If I want to mostly hear their voice and feel close to them, voice messages are great, but if I want or need some information then please, just send me a text.
If that's true, then it's a real shame. I strongly prefer written text to podcasts.
Maybe that's just my own taste, but to be honest, I believe, that it's just a much, much better medium for conveying ideas. With text I can process the content non-linearly. I can skim to get an overview. I can go back to previous passages and find them again easily even days later. I can take more time to reflect on difficult parts and less time for stuff I know already. I can quote sentences easily to share insights with friends...
I was poor for some time after deciding to quit my computer science phd for a career in art. I guess I still am compared to others, but it does not feel that way any more. When I was really poor, worrying about money and how to pay the next rent was a regular source of stress for me, which took quite a lot of emotional energy.
Now I still have much lower income than people, who have regular well-paying jobs, but I do not feel poor. I have no savings and there are some things, which feel totally out of reach like owning a car or house, but I do not have to worry about money and I can afford a lot of luxuries like visiting theatres very often and eating out.
Regarding housing: I remember living in a tiny room in a shared flat in the worst part of town, above a brothel, a shady car dealer and a Hookah lounge (which was often very loud, very late into the night). Sometimes I had problems paying rent, but there just was no cheaper less-quality alternative.
Regarding transportation: I am so glad, that I live in a place, where you can live very comfortably without a car.
Similarly with health care. I think the US is just an especially bad place to be poor in compared to Europe.
Financially switching from computer science to art has been a very bad decision, but overall it was the best decision in my life. It really helped me deal with my tendencies for depressions, because it allows me to feel more meaning in my life and suits me better. I do not think that I would have dared this switch in the US. I don’t know what would have happened if I had lived in the states, if I would have found other ways to cope with depression or if I would have slipped into deeper and deeper depressive episodes without a way out, but I am glad that I did not have to find out.
“He conclude the book by saying that when you don't know what you're talking about, it would be better for you to not speak about it”
That’s NOT what he wrote. The quote is:
“whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent.” (or “What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.” in this translation)
Proposition 7 is about the limits of language, not about dissing idiots.
In principle, I really like the legal situation in Germany, where I live: There’s a fundamental right to “informational self-determination”, but this right is not absolute. Journalists have the duty to weigh the freedom of the press and especially the "interests of the public to be informed" against this “personality right”.
In the end, a person like Scott would be able to sue the newspaper, if he thinks that in their case the interests of the public did not outweigh his personality rights and a court would decide.
(Sorry, this post contains a lot of ad hoc translations of German legal terms, I hope it's still understandable and more or less correct English)
"lots of people would like to remain anonymous. would you like to live in a world where the New York times lets powerful people who are doing awful, unethical things remain anonymous as they would like to?"
That's a false dichotomy. You can respect a wish for anonymity in cases like Scott's without giving up the possibility of making the names of other people public, when there's a good reason for it.