blather_organisation_discussion . transported from: tirades_of_blather IGG on a righteous rant said: i just want to say, im not being pissy but considering this is the tirade page i just would like to point out, that if we put a word at the end of every blather that fit a certain theme just for easier reference, it would (in my opinion) ruin the magic of the go button, and it's awfully disappointing to look at an old blathe when its on the recent list and find 'meta' or 'tirade' or whatever on the end of it. I can see the idea behind it, but i dont think blather should have to be organised in that way. It makes me really sad, and it looks like the standard filing systems you getin every day working life. This is society's influence, this conventional filing. REBEL! Let blather be the tangly web and not a series of parallel links. Why don't you just let people stumble across them by themselves, i think there is so much more magic that way. Anyway, only one opinion from one skite, (but then again so are the metas and tirades.) 060119 ... dipperwell said: u24: "there's no way anyone can ensure that meta or any other blathe is arrived at by new skite any sooner than any other; the randomness is still just as much there as t'was before." I feel you, IGG, I feel you. 060119 ... u24 Personally, I agree with IGG, but I also would find it useful *in some cases* to have some organisation. this was the idea behind blatherlicious; using that system, no impact on blather itself is made - blathes, who, from, recent, etc are left completely untouched. For those that want some kind of categorisation, they could use blatherlicious, but for those that want the randomness, blather is still blather. I would be very interested to hear others' opinions. 060119 ... . references: marked tirades_of_blather meta no_meta dotmark 060119 ... z once again, it seems to me that finding meta in the list is fairly unobtrusive. it was intended to be a trail of breadcrumbs in the forest, insignificant unless you sense the pattern. the idea that one can use it to get a class of blathes is not necessarily apparent to everyone. witness the initial objection as evidenced in no_meta: "i don't like the meta thing. maybe because i don't really understand it, or the point of it. every time i get to the end of a blathe and then it just says meta, i get annoyed and slightly confused. there are too many. it was okay when only a few had meta, but now, there are several. it is no big deal, i guess, but i am still annoyed." Walrie once i explained how it worked and offered to stop (an offer that stands permanently for anyone who asks explicitly) wcw graciously declined while still describing it as annoying. if controversy continues i will stop anyway. i do not wish to become like he who is nameless. please let me know. order, ultimately, is in the eye of the beholder. 060119 ... u24 discussion!=controversy 060119 ... meta meta 060119 ... meta_meta at the risk of being in poor taste i will point out that this is meta_meta as is no_meta. (but i will refrain from starting that up for now). 060119 ... u24 excellent point :-) 060119 ... z discussion does not necessarily = controversy. it is clear that people are upset. that is not my intention. 060119 ... u24 there seems to be a line of thought (shared by me in some cases) that blather should be random, and that categorising it in any way spoils it. I don't know how to phrase this without risking misinterpretation or sounding judgemental, but anyway; i think that "what I like to think blather is" would be better if there were no names, no recent, just words. I think the magic is lost the more meta there is, and I don't just mean that which is listed in [meta], but anything sequential or linear. I recognise that "what blather actually is" is not like this, and I don't think the two ideas are really compatible. meh, just some random thoughts. 060119 ... z so knowing that a meta organization is there (or possible) is tempting and that ruins the illusion of unsullied randomness? or is it that the meta structure itself is obtrusive and causes distraction? i find beauty in the edifice of meta; creating connections that last is like adding a thought to blather. it is like an animation i used to see in the nyc subway system. the medium was multiple graffiti images on a wall in a dark tunnel viewed from and lit by a moving train through a series of vertical girders. the motion was akin to that of a kinescope. the frequency of the relative motion of the girders and each graffito created an apparent continuous scene. but what i found beautiful about it was that the relationships between the discrete elements was what created the whole. synergy, if you will. that is what i have tried to do (in a small way) here. clearly, someone else found some resonance in that edifice and created their own in blather_tirades. i enjoy that one too. 060119 ... that should be tirades_of_blather 060119 ... u24 don't get me wrong, i love meta (and i meta as i come across metable blathes) and would hate for you to stop. but inconsolable with that is a feeling i have (and possibly others) that meta-ing and marking and dotting and tirading etc do as you say ruin the illusion somewhat. but you are right, it *is* an illusion. 060120 ... Tirade Initiator I found myself empathizing with every sentiment posted thus far on the page. Accordingly I have stopped my own Tirade charting, though I cannot stop others; I only posted the first six blathes on the Tirades_of_Blather page. As it is, I have an ability to scout out tirades here with all the skill of a pig smelling for truffles, so I don't really need the tirades page. Interesting stuff. I like meta and have used meta, but I can also see why someone wouldn't like meta nor seeing "meta"s scattered about. I was inspired by meta, so my decision to refrain from further Tirade posts is in no way a reproachment of the meta-ists. Irrelevant Post Script: What makes empathy so trying a thing is the acquisition and management of paradoxic sentiments. But therein lies one of the greatest treasures of sentience, too .... 060120 ... z no one has requested an end to meta. is that a tacit licence to continue? please advise. 060120 ... z it just occurred to me that three_words (and all of it's variants) is very much like meta, as is today_yesterday, two_words etc. i have never heard of controversy surrounding those practices. is anyone aware of discussion about them? 060302 ... IGG i don't think it's fair to ever tell anyone to stop doing what they feel they want to do on blather, it's a freedom thing. however that's the idealist in me talking, and the practical side says 'of course you can. DO IT!' however, to be brave and get out there where people can attack me for what i'm going to say, i'd like to say that IN MY OPINION... i think that people are going to do this blather organising because it makes them happy. Who the fuck am i to say not to do that? but i hope that it doesnt go to the extreme. don't ask me to define the extreme because it's pointless and will always be debatable. just please don't organise everything. it saddens me that a place that i think of as filled with raw creativity is becoming too organised. i understand it may be beautiful to some people, but to me it's like the people who built greedy structures and roads and industry through what used to be natural forests and countryside. It was beautiful at the time, and useful, and a whole load of other shit, but now there are so many people who disagree, i would hate to see the same happen in this context. Once it's done it's done, we've established that blather isn't wiped of silly mistakes. Maybe in the future, but i'm dealing with the practicalities. Whatever anyone says here will only complicate this issue, i don't think it's easily rectified. [if you've read this far then you probably should get a fucking medal. i don't know what to say about this but either way it will resolve itself eventually, either through action or inaction.] just my input. (again) 060302 ... walrie i don't really think meta is that much of an organization. just because there is a meta page and a bunch of pages with meta on it does not mean anything is specifically organized. well actually, now that i have said that, maybe it is organized. but that is not my point, if it can be said that i even have a point. i have recently decided that (after reading why z finds meta appealing) meta is most likely found appealing to many and just because i am not one of the many means nothing. and the only reason i don't really like meta, i think, is because i don't really like the word meta. i would much prefer dinosaur, or robot, or star, or i don't know. what is it about the word meta that i dislike so much? i don't know. i was just thinking about all the posts that randomly have "today" on them by phil (if i remember correctly), i don't know if i can really relate "meta" to "today" because i don't think "today" was trying to organize anything, but the today doesn't bother me so i am trying to not let the meta bother me. this is a big muddle of thoughts i am thinking thoughts. [meta is a part of metaphor and metallic and metallica and metamorphosis and i'm sure a few others. interestingly enough, i like all of those words except meta.] 060313 ... oren To_me, meta belongs in blather. Lists are an integral part of this indigo realm. 060313 ... z atem, perhaps? 060313 ... walrie atem as in "a tim" or atem as in "atom/adam"? i don't know, i just feel like those four letters by themselves lack the potential to become a good sounding word. i can get meat or team or mate or tame, tame being the best of these, but still undesirable when compared with the likes of haberdashery or delicious or pants. i don't know why i am even continuing to try to explain this. there is no relevance. please meta away. 060313 ... meta again, thank you for your graciousness. 060313 ... personally................. i find meta totally annoying. but i've added about 5 topics to it anyway. 060314 ... misstree i was a bit put off at first... that indescribable "tsk" that has no sibilants and seems to be perfected by parents, plus a slight smear of eye_rolling... but i agree that it really is unobtrusive (aside from a bit more thickness of meta on the recent page)... and here's why i've grown to think it's kinda nifty... i like sociology, because it's the study of patterns in blowing leaves... people as individuals act in random ways, society imposes order but it's still acted upon randomly, blah blah blah (stretching a bit, i know, i'm tired)... seeing the metablathes laid out like that, well, for some reason it reminds me of google earth... i know that part of it is that i have some sort of sense or another of the contents of many of the blathes (though i haven't seen any of the popularity contest type stuff meta'd, but i'm frequently absent and on a stone age computer, so that means little, and honestly, i'm not terribly anxious to see it reappear in the recent list)... anyway, returning from that tangent (o why_am_i_not_sleeping?), it's kind of a way to pull back and scan, to see what blather says about blather... the word meta is a rather interesting one in itself, and i'm not surprised that it's z that's brought it to the forefront in these lands (that is verymuch a compliment, m'man)... for a system to self_reference is an entirely different order of thing... meta_thought, thinking about thought, chew on that a second... now you've got meta_meta_thought... and one that is thought of... poof! you have infinite loop! (we have ininity; who needs god? kidding! sort of.) i support meta because it introduces infinite loops, gives a point where perspective on blatherer's blathes about blather can be skimmed for the patterns in the leaves, and because really, if not having some new insight or witticism at the end of how_long_have_you_been_at_blather is enough to piss in your cheerios, really, you need to find some thicker skin and better things to worry about. i'd add to the metaing, but i'm afraid the forces of disorganisation would consider me a traitor and stop showing me pretty pictures in the rippling tides. and that would be no good. keep painting, meta_team! has already forgotten what she said and *really* needs sleep 060504 ... misstree and just because i thought it was nifty and i am avoiding sleep like a junkyard_dog, the "who needs god?" quip was an internal reference to a quote from rose marschack of the poster children... something along the lines of, if you take the beginning moment of the universe and assign it variable t, then take t/2, there exists a moment before it... do it again, and you have a moment before that... insert infinity and burn in a godless hell (or just reincarnate. all the cool kids are doing it.) *this blathe in no way indicates my or mz. marschack's opinoins on the existence or lack thereof of any diety ever concieved of (especially ones that hand out parking spaces and make it not rain really hard while i'm waiting for the bus). just that we have both been pro-infinity at some point in our lives. now please untie me and put out the bonfire. 060504 ... () () 060504 ... z mt: i very much like your notion about infinite loops. the idea of wormholes or quantum tunneling is very much part of why i meta. i think of the cross-linking in blather in general as a kind of externalized syntactic synesthesia. recursive loops abound and are like a play full sort of psychosis. i like to imagine that meta is a hidden structure. in my mind, it crosses blather space in holographic dimensional extensions. and like space, the nodes are what create gravity. i created meta with the intention that it would be used by everyone who cares to. ideally, it is a kind of a zeitgeist of some of the denizens of blather. we (together) are meta. 060504 ... ? what i wonder is how useful has the organisation been, how poetic, how creative? 080807 ... oren In_the_end, I_don't think it really matters. It_is_what_it_is. 080807 ... ? so i shouldn't wonder? 080807 ... - - 091204 what's it to you? who go blather from