Pema Pera: As you may know, we now have a Google email group: Storm Nordwind has switched on the ON AIR sign. Touch it for information Pema Pera: http://groups.google.com/group/kira-phenomenology-workshop Pema Pera: which is openly readable by the whole world Pema Pera: but only writeable by the members of the group -- if you like to be added, send me an IM or write me an email at
Pema Pera: We will record our conversations, and publish them on the Kira web site: Pema Pera: http://www.kira.org/ Pema Pera: so by being here during this hour, you give us your consent to be quoted in our public transcript Pema Pera: Storm, can you describe our new sign system? Gilles Kuhn: hello all Storm Nordwind: Yes Fefonz Quan: hi tarmel, gilles Alfred Kelberry: hi, gilles (he's back! :) Transcriptionist Writer: hi Storm Nordwind: When the ON AIR signs are on, we are recording Storm Nordwind: If you touch any sign you will get a note n English and Japanese Gilles Kuhn jump to check if hiks mic is unplug.....;-) Storm Nordwind: By staying present when the signs are on, you are consenting... Alfred Kelberry: nice sign, storm. makes me feel in a studio a bit :) Storm Nordwind: to your avatar name being mentioned Storm Nordwind: and your chat being published Gilles Kuhn: gosh storm i was not suspecting you had a law degree.... Storm Nordwind: That's basically what the notecard says Pema Pera: Hi Gilles, glad you are joining us too! Storm Nordwind: No. Gilles. I just work in an LL sim! Gilles Kuhn: yes pema as an empiricist i wanted to see pheno at work if possible... Pema Pera: This is the second time that we have our Kira Phenomenology Workshop. We started a week ago, and we will continue this once a week, as long as there is interest Alfred Kelberry: gilles, only see it? how about participating! :) Gilles Kuhn: (sorry last week i cannot come rl...) Pema Pera: To attend this series there is no need for you to join any group, SL or Google, but if you like to join the Google group, you're welcome; just let me know Pema Pera: We have 16 members now, and to my delight, 10 of them sent us their report of the experiment we decided upon a week ago Pema Pera: http://groups.google.com/group/kira-phenomenology-workshop Storm Nordwind applauds Gilles Kuhn: (alfred observation impeach participation at a certain degree well its a old anthropology and physic problem...;-) ) Pema Pera: Does anyone want to pick up where we left off, either a way ago, or in the email discussion? Alfred Kelberry: gilles, you did promise to give it a try Gilles Kuhn: to observe it alfred to obsere it Wester Kiranov: I thought the way the experiments was conducted was very creative - maybe a bit much Alfred Kelberry: gilles, what kind of empiricist you are then? :) Wester Kiranov: *were Pema Pera: how so, Wester? Wester Kiranov: there were a lot of experiments that were imagining how the object would feel, which i thought was not our point Gilles Kuhn: (thats another debate alfred but when you wish out of these session at your serveice) ) Wester Kiranov: and some others were also very interesting, but I think it's better to try a simple version first Pema Pera: yes, and it was interesting to notice that -- and my description was not unique Wester Kiranov: then eleaborate Pema Pera: yes, I agree stevenaia Michinaga: unfortunately I must catch a bus, thanks Pema Pera: perhaps we can all agree on a very simple and more specific version, for the coming week? Wester Kiranov: I would like that Alfred Kelberry: enjoy the ride, steve :) Pema Pera: do you have a suggestion? Pema Pera: bye Steve! Maxine Walden: bye Steve Wester Kiranov: bye steve Wester Kiranov: I would like to know a bit more about why people chose to do the experiment as they did Alfred Kelberry: pema, i think it'd be good if you explain in a few worlds distinction that occured during the experiments as in "be an object" and "let an object be active", to give the audience a context. Pema Pera: yes, that's an important distinction Pema Pera: There are two main ways to reserve the roles of subject and object Fefonz Quan: reverse? Pema Pera: if I look at a cup, first I can really feel clearly what it is like to be me-as-subject and cup-as-object Pema Pera: and then I can try to switch roles Storm Nordwind gave you Catchup pheno transcript for gen!. Pema Pera: letting me be more passive, more object like Pema Pera: and letting the cup be more active, more subject like Pema Pera: letting the cup look at me, while I remain me, associated with my bodily present Pema Pera: that is how I did it Pema Pera: but an alternative is to try to shift your own awareness to the cup Pema Pera: as many of you did Pema Pera: trying to image what it would be like to be the cup, and watch your own bodily presence from that vantage point Pema Pera: I realize that both are compatible with the original suggestion, made by Caledonia, and the phrased more specifically by me Storm Nordwind: Shifting your own awareness to the cup - That's good for practising being a novelist or a sympathetic person! Pila Mulligan accepted your inventory offer. Pila Mulligan: excuse me, avi out of contorl Alfred Kelberry: storm, i do feel sympathy for my object now :) Wester Kiranov: Thank you Pema, that clarifies a lot for me Pema Pera: Wester suggested to concentrate on a most simple version, for the exploration next week Pema Pera: do you have an example, Wester? Pema Pera: (there is a lot to say for keeping it very simple first and then branch out) Maxine Walden: sorry I missed getting on the email list this last week, but part of my experience was like an SL camera shifting around and then seeing me as part of the whole landscape, not as the subject...and this was interesting as well Alfred Kelberry: pema, i think the second approach is a good beginning. and it let us distinctly see it and experience. then farther on we can compare them and be more aware of this reversal process as a whole. Lia Rikugun: the second where we try to see what the object sees? Wester Kiranov: I would actually prefer the first one. or we can do both and see what the difference is. Alfred Kelberry: where we try to be an object Lia Rikugun: i somehow experienced both Alfred Kelberry: wes, the first is the goal, yes Lia Rikugun: maybe Alfred Kelberry: it's just not that easy for everyone :) Pema Pera: What I like about the first one is that it is more radical . . . surprisingly so Wester Kiranov: would it help to choose a specific object, so we don't get all creative with that? Tarmel Udimo: perhaps it would be good to choose simliar types of 'objects' Pema Pera: in the sense that in the second one, trying to imagine being a cup, you don't let loose of being the active dominating subject! Alfred Kelberry: wes, let's try it this time Pema Pera: fine, Wester and Tarmel! Tarmel Udimo: there's a great deal of difference doing the exercise with a tree than with a pen Pema Pera: from the reports, it seems to be easier to switch your bodily present than to give up playing the subject role -- fascinating observation! Pema Pera: yes Pema Pera: shall we pick a single object then? Alfred Kelberry: although, i did enjoy the diversity, it was very interesting :) Pema Pera: we could have both -- one experiment with our "standard" object; one with free-for-all Lia Rikugun: :) Pema Pera: but at least having everyone doing also teh standard one Pema Pera: which one shall we pick? Lia Rikugun: the cup? Alfred Kelberry: a bit more original maybe? :) Fefonz Quan: a book? Aurora Kitaj accepted your inventory offer. Wester Kiranov: let's keep it simple - a cup, a pencil, or a white sheet of paper Maxine Walden: a keyring or something we use a lot? Tarmel Udimo: man made or nature made :-) Alfred Kelberry: a book is good. then later we could share stories about the content :) Fefonz Quan: a closed book :) Wester Kiranov: We should choose something of which we all have a similar one Aurora Kitaj: Sorry I'm so late Alfred Kelberry: hi, aurora :) Wester Kiranov: hi aurora Pema Pera: welcome, Aurora! Storm Nordwind: A keyboard? Alfred Kelberry: we're picking up an object for the next experiment- join us :) Lia Rikugun: everybody has one of those Wester Kiranov: a key on the keyboard? Alfred Kelberry: wester is a radical reductionist :) Aurora Kitaj: ok Wester Kiranov: i just try to keep things simple :) Lia Rikugun: the "enter" key Alfred Kelberry: i know, wes, just kidding :) Pema Pera: it may be important to really keep it simple Pema Pera: a cup may be the most ordinary Pema Pera: our exploration is an exploration of the ordinary . . . which is extraordinary enough already :-) Alfred Kelberry: oh! let's pick a keyboard and let everyone choose their own key? Tarmel Udimo: a shoe Alfred Kelberry: i think it'd be interesting to see selected keys distribution as well :) Wester Kiranov: don't make me say "shoestring" :) Alfred Kelberry: haha Tarmel Udimo: hehehehe Storm Nordwind laughs Alfred Kelberry: wes, you're just a few steps from the string theory :) Wester Kiranov: :) Wester Kiranov: a spoon Pema Pera: how many objects do you want, Wester :-) ? Fefonz Quan: so there is one? :) Lia Rikugun: wonderful Fefonz Quan: (spoon) Lia Rikugun: spoon Alfred Kelberry: well.. i liked a keyboard key (collective mind) Alfred Kelberry: so, spoon? Maxine Walden: Pema, would it be interesting to pick something which we relate to rather intensely, such as a personal cup or article of clothing, because we would have a lot of thoughts etc toward that object which then we could try to become free of when roles are reversed; it is possible that would be too complex for early experiementation, but might be worth a thought at some point Fefonz Quan: one more for the spoon Pema Pera: How about letting everybody do two kinds of experiments: one with a standard object, and one with whatever however you like Alfred Kelberry: maxine, yes.. this association clutter may be an obstacle. but a good idea. Pema Pera: and since Wester had the idea, why don't you choose our standard object, at least for this coming week, Wester? Alfred Kelberry: i like pema's "open source" nature :) Pema Pera: and yes, Maxine, that would be for the second experiment Pema Pera: I think it is essential to go slow, and not rush into too many new variations, much as that would be interesting too Alfred Kelberry: go ahead, wes Wester Kiranov: I actually think the spoon would be OK. It's simple, we all have them, it's not too emotionally charged Alfred Kelberry: alright Pema Pera: but for me the main interest of all this is to see more and more depth in what we normally consider the most ordinary . . . . Pema Pera: Okay, spoon it is! Alfred Kelberry writes down: spoon Pema Pera: and free from too Pema Pera: so now we have double home work, this week! Pema Pera: I wanted to bring up one more question: Fefonz Quan: and we go with the "not being the spoon" version, are we? Pema Pera: ah, good point, Fefonz, yes, let's do the first version, with the spoon at least Alfred Kelberry: yes, fef Pema Pera: remaining where we are, bodily Pema Pera: and mentally Pema Pera: as objects Storm Nordwind would like clarification which version is which please! Pema Pera: let ourselves be seen by the spoon Pema Pera: I just gave, Storm, is that clear? Storm Nordwind: Yes Pema Pera: sorry for numbering confusion :) Pema Pera: shall we pick names? Pema Pera: for the two? Wester Kiranov: Got any suggestions, pema? Pema Pera: body-centered vs object-centered? Pema Pera: (but that will not cover everything) Wester Kiranov: not immediately clear. Fefonz Quan: kopernican vs. ptolmey? Pema Pera: becoming the object versus becoming a different subject? Wester Kiranov: that's better Alfred Kelberry: one word, please :) Fefonz Quan: egocentric, other Pema Pera: objectifying :-) -- nonono Pila Mulligan: seeing -- seen? Storm Nordwind: nice Tarmel Udimo: like that Pema Pera: yes Alfred Kelberry: good one, pila Transcriptionist Writer: just wearing it. And I'm not sure I understand what is going on, however I don't want to be rude and just up and leave so just sitting in. lol Pema Pera: so we will do the "seen" experiment with the spoon then, right, and a free form besides that Storm Nordwind nods Pema Pera: sorry Trans, this is part of an ongoing conversation :) Transcriptionist Writer: excuse me, Wester Kiranov: just to sure: seen = 1, seeing = 2? Fefonz Quan: so "seen by the spoon"? Alfred Kelberry: trans, go through our logs and group posts - it should help :) Pema Pera: yes Fefonz Quan: but from our point of view Pema Pera: seen by the spoon, letting the spoon take the subject role, and me taking a more passive object role Pema Pera: that is "seen" Pema Pera: as in "me being seen" Pema Pera: One question I wanted to raise: Gilles IMed me, asking whether he could be in the google group, which means writing emails to us (reading emails anyone can, also outside the group) Alfred Kelberry: although, the ordering should be different :) by difficulty :) Pema Pera: but unlike the rest of us, Gilles prefers to observe not participate Pema Pera: I don't want to decide yes or now Alfred Kelberry: sadly.. Pema Pera: yes or no Pema Pera: we should decide as a group Pema Pera: how do we feel about that? Fefonz Quan: so are we "seen" by Gilles? Fefonz Quan: :) Pema Pera: (Gilles agreed with me to bring the question from IM to the group, before I did so) Pila Mulligan: I'd be happy for Giles to particpate however he wishes Storm Nordwind: Anyone can observe without participating. Group membership is not required for that surely? Pema Pera: correct Alfred Kelberry: it's an open group, i think :) Wester Kiranov: I don't have a problem with that. Fefonz Quan: no problem too Pema Pera: open for being seen, yes, not open for writing Maxine Walden: but there is some symmetry about participating as well as observing Storm Nordwind: "Not participate" = "not writing" doesn't it? Maxine Walden: I would be happy to give it a try, but if some tension arose to revisit the 'agreement' Pema Pera: that's the question, Storm Maxine Walden: ah, he would just read and not write? Gilles Kuhn: the point is that anybody can observe at the end of the debate with pema sme wanted me to participate in the pema proposition to try pheno as a external critical observer so my request Pema Pera: no, Maxine, for that he does not have to become a group member, he wants to write Aurora Kitaj: I'm happy to participate, but usually prefer to wait until I know a little more what I'm talking about before wading in. The spoons have it. Alfred Kelberry: i'd be really glad to see gilles experiment some time (no pressure, just curious) Gilles Kuhn: as i said during the pema/me debate i have done epoche long ago : result were nihil Pema Pera: So to be a fly on the wall, anyone can do that -- Gilles wants to be a talking fly on the wall :) Alfred Kelberry: i've seen one from pema, and since you had a long debate, it'd be interesting to compare the two Alfred Kelberry: haha Alfred Kelberry: cal's example :) Pila Mulligan: being examined and critiqued by an external critical observer is fine with me Lia Rikugun: for me it is ok too for gilles to write to the group Maxine Walden: I have some reservations, based on group dynamics as I understand them, but will go along with the group and speak up if I become concerned Alfred Kelberry: gilles, are there any experiment notes i could read online? Pema Pera: if there are no definite objections, I am happy to add Gilles to the group, is that the general feeling? Lia Rikugun: yes Storm Nordwind: I am not convinced, but am happy to go with the majority Pema Pera: I feel the same as Maxine and Storm, and happy to give it a try Aurora Kitaj: i'm happy Pema Pera: like inviting Galileo's cardinal into a lab or observatory, an interesting move :-) Pema Pera: (the one who refused to look through the telescope) Storm Nordwind: What I do not want is for anyone to have to explain themselves to anyone else. Pila Mulligan: so be nice Gileles Tarmel Udimo: I'm confused I'm not sure what Giles wants to do - sorry? Pema Pera: write to us Tarmel Udimo: about what we're doing and saying? Scathach Rhiadra: critiquing our experiments? Alfred Kelberry: i should grep the logs for the gilles promise to participate in the experiment and torture him :) Tarmel Udimo: hummmmmm Gilles Kuhn: to be not Bellarmino but Socrates the electrical fish..... Storm Nordwind: I do not feel critique is helpful at this stage Tarmel Udimo: and to be honest not sure why? Wester Kiranov: storm has got a point there Pema Pera: perhaps Gilles can say more about why he wants to write to us? Storm Nordwind reminds everyone that the hour is up Pema Pera: but let's finish this discussion Gilles Kuhn: well i dont see why its a problem to have the possibility to read me..... Pema Pera: about participation, Storm Pema Pera: we can't leave this dangling Pema Pera: that is not an answer, Gilles Pema Pera: what do you want to write to us? Gilles Kuhn: i have already stated the answer i was offering that because asked to be in a critical position at the end of our debate Pema Pera: many expressed being comfortable being critiqued in the email group, but also some stated that they don't feel the group is for that goal, so we have two kinds of opinions Pema Pera: it would be great if we can find a way to accommodate everyone Pema Pera: if possible Gilles Kuhn: so it was an offering to me to help your endeavour by a external critical point of view Pema Pera: perhaps when you say more about what you intend to do, everybody may be comfortable -- or not? Tarmel Udimo: okay that's a litle clearer Maxine Walden: can we consider these options on the email list this week and perhaps come to a consensus by next week? Pema Pera: to clarify, I mean TR Amat: Put the critiques on a web page that people don't have to look at? :) Gilles Kuhn: and as anyway the reading is public i dont see where is the problem but its yours call evidently Pema Pera: that is a good idea, Maxine Storm Nordwind: I like that TR Pema Pera: not to rush to a conclusion Maxine Walden: right, not to rush Wester Kiranov: i like maxines idea too Tarmel Udimo: me too Pema Pera: Perhaps, Gilles, you can write me an email with a description of the role you would like to play genesis Zhangsun: I think your critique would be welcomed in this forum Gilles here, in the workshop time Pema Pera: I can forward that to the group, we can discuss it (and you can read that discussion, and respond to the group via me), and a week from now we can decide Gaya Ethaniel is Online Gilles Kuhn: i have done it already and eventually i can alway make public my criticism in a blog for me it was not a priori any problem and i quite dont understand why that can be one Alfred Kelberry: maybe we as a group should mature a bit, before the high profile critic steps in? :) Pema Pera: thank you all for joining us here! TR Amat: An expanded critique might be interesting, too. In particular if people could post responses to it. Alfred Kelberry: but an alternative opinion is always welcomed Maxine Walden: nice discussion and interestingly with a possible twist of 'being seen' in unanticipated ways Tarmel Udimo: everyone's opinion is always welcomed genesis Zhangsun: perhaps this is the forum here for opinions and the google group for lab reports Pema Pera: we'll continue our discussion on the email group, and gather again a week from now! Maxine Walden: difficult for us to leave...I will go and join others in the email exchange durieng the week Alfred Kelberry: oh, pema.. Pema Pera: and we'll discuss this last point in the email group. Alfred Kelberry: one more question Pema Pera: yes, Alf? Gilles Kuhn: well i will not have this chance maxine apparently Pema Pera: you do, Giles Pema Pera: I just wrote above Wester Kiranov: Is the experiment clear to everyone? Pema Pera: you can write me and I will convey that to the group Pema Pera: for this week Alfred Kelberry: you said "no spam" about the group. what exactly do you mean by that? Pema Pera: when did I say that? TR Amat: No viagra adverts? :) Pema Pera: in what context (if I did)? Alfred Kelberry: is discussion on the matter allowed? Pema Pera: Wester, good question! Alfred Kelberry: in the "going public" post Pema Pera: everybody clear about the experiment? Maxine Walden: yes Lia Rikugun: yes Alfred Kelberry: yes Pema Pera: you have to say more, Alf Tarmel Udimo: yes Storm Nordwind nods Alfred Kelberry: spoon and one free object Pema Pera: yes, those two Aurora Kitaj: yes Lia Rikugun: spoon seen and then free Fefonz Quan: as clear as it can be (quite) Alfred Kelberry: pema, http://groups.google.com/group/kira-phenomenology-workshop/browse_thread/thread/c2a35b9274d9d3c5?hl=en Pema Pera: :) TR Amat: Mind bending, not spoon bending? :)