Notices by tatzelbrumm@qoto.org, page 2

@freemo
Dammit, still can't edit posts on qoto.org.
So I need to add the fractal logo in an extra post.

@freemo
My view on
"Question others to teach ourselves"
is decidedly more cynical.
[https://www.projekt-gutenberg.org/wbusch/diogen/diogen.html]

Graphically, for a logo, think
"Obama campaign"
… unless you explicitly want to go for
"Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations".
But that might look like a Romanesco cauliflower.

@freemo
Thus spake ADOrno:
[Minima moralia]

126
I.Q. – The modes of conduct appropriate to the most progressive technical state of development are not limited to the sectors, in which they are actually promoted. Thus thinking submits to the social supervision of its services not only where it is forced to do so by its occupation, but comes to resembles such in its entire complexion. Because thought has been well-nigh inverted into the solution of tasks assigned to it, what is not assigned is also dealt with according to the schema of the task. Thought, having lost its autonomy, no longer trusts itself to comprehend something real for its own sake, in freedom. This it leaves, with respectful illusion, to the highest-paid, and makes itself measurable for this. It tends to behave, for its own part, as if it had to unceasingly portray its usefulness. Even where there is no nutshell to crack, thinking turns into training [in English in original] for some sort of exercise or other. It relates to its objects as mere hurdles, as a permanent test of its own being in form. Considerations, which would like to be responsible for the relation to the material [Sache] and thereby for themselves, invite the suspicion that they are vain, overblown, asocial self-satisfaction. Just as the neo-positivists split cognition into the scrap-heaps of empiricism and logical formalism, the intellectual activity of the types, who regard the unity of the sciences as written on their foreheads, is polarized in the inventory of the known and the test sample of the capacity for thought: to them, every thought turns into a quiz of whether they are informed or of their qualifications. Somewhere the correct answers must already be posted. Instrumentalism, the latest version of pragmatism, has long since become not merely an affair of the application of thinking, but rather the a priori of its own form. When oppositional intellectuals caught in such a spell wish to approach the content of society differently, they are crippled by the shape of their own consciousness, which is modeled in advance on the needs of this society. While their thought has forgotten how to think for itself, it has simultaneously turned into the absolute exam-authority of itself. Thinking means nothing other than checking at every moment, as to whether one can think. Thus the asphyxiating quality of every seemingly independent intellectual production, the theoretical ones no less than the artistic ones. The socialization of the Spirit [Geistes] holds it, roofed over, ensorceled, under a glass, as long as society is itself trapped. Where thinking previously internalized obligations imposed from outside, today it today incorporates its integration into the all-embracing apparatus, and goes to pieces, even before its economic and political verdict can overtake it.

127
Wishful thinking. [In English in original] – Intelligence is a moral category. The separation of feeling and understanding, which makes it possible to say, free and blessed are the knuckleheads, hypostatizes the historically achieved splintering of human beings into functions. The praise of simplicity [Einfalt] resonates with the anxiety that whatever has been separated might reunite and thus put an end to the mischief. “If you have understanding and a heart,” goes a couplet by Hölderlin, “show only one of each / Both condemn you, if you display them together.” [from Hölderlin’s poem Good Advice] The denigration of restricted understanding in comparison with infinite reason which echoes in philosophy, a reason which, as infinite, is at the same time undiscoverable by the ultimately finite subject, echoes in spite of its critical justification the old saw: “Be ever true and faithful” [quotation from Mozart song]. When Hegel demonstrated to reason its stupidity, he not only brought the isolated determination of reflection, the positivism of every name, to its measure of untruth, but became complicit in the ban on thought, severing the negative labor of the concept, which the method claimed to achieve, and swears by the highest height of speculation like the Protestant priest, who recommended to his flock to remain one, instead of relying on their own weak light. Rather, it is up to philosophy to seek out the unity between feeling and understanding precisely in their contrast: in the moral unity. Intelligence, as the power of judgment, opposes in its carrying out what is already given, by simultaneously expressing it. The capacity of judgment, which seals itself off from the drive-impulse, does justice to this last precisely by a moment of counter-pressure against the social one. The power of judgment is measured by the staunchness of the ego. Thereby, however, also in that dynamics of the drives, which is handed over by the division of labor of the soul to the feelings. Instinct, the will to stand fast, is an implication of the meaning of logic. By forgetting itself, showing itself incorruptible, the judging subject wins its victory. By contrast, just as the narrowest circle of human beings dumb themselves down, where their interests begin, and then turn their resentment against what they do not wish to understand, precisely because they could understand it all too well, so too is the planetary stupidity, which prevents the contemporary world from seeing the absurdity of its own arrangement, the product of the unsublimated, unsublated interest of the rulers. Short-term and yet irresistible, it hardens itself into the anonymous schemata of the historical trajectory. This corresponds to the stupidity and obstinacy of the individual; the incapacity, to consciously unite the power of bias and bustle. It is regularly found in conjunction with moral defects, a lack of autonomy and responsibility, while so much is true in Socratic rationalism, that a clever person, whose thoughts are directed at objects and do not circle formalistically around themselves, can scarcely be conceived of as evil. For the motivation of evil, blind prejudice in the contingency of what is one’s own, tends to dissipate in the medium of thought. Scheler’s comment, that all cognition is founded in love, was a lie, because he demanded that love be something immediately viewed. But it would become the truth, if love pressed for the dissolution of all appearance [Scheins] of immediacy and thereby, to be sure, became irreconcilable with the object of cognition. Neither the synthesis of psychic compartments, alienated from each other, nor the therapeutic displacement of the ratio with irrational ferments, is any help against the splitting of thought, but rather the self-constitution of the element of the wish, which antithetically constitutes thinking as thinking. Only when that element is completely dissolved, without any heteronomous remnant in the objectivity of thought, does it drive towards utopia.

@freemo
Wellllll.........
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greedy_algorithm

@freemo
I can’t seem to convince Wolfram Alpha to give me not the income, but wealth distribution in the USA vs. Canada and Germany.

As for anecdotic evidence,
I’ve seen lots more homeless people in the streets in the USA (San Diego) than in Germany (Tübingen).

And while you’re solidly in the top quintile (probably even top percent) of both income and household wealth,
as potentially unemployable as I am (you can check if you want to),
I won’t drop anywhere as deep here in Germany than in the USA.

“Check your privilege” sounds disgustingly woke, but there you are.

@FailForward @trinsec @freemo
I was about to mention the Gini Index, but you beat me to it.

@freemo
A lot of religous folks consider your statement
INCONCEIVABLE!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

@freemo
Caedite eos omnes.
Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
— Benjamin Netanyahu

@freemo
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
— Benjamin Netanyahu

@freemo
Exercise your religious freedom.

May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage

RAmen.

@freemo @AncientGood

I got this link sent to me from someone I don’t suspect of conspiracy theories a while ago:
https://www.thefallofminneapolis.com/
presenting a very different picture of the situation,
i.e., that the Chauvinists were sacrificed to an enraged public.

How would one even start to fact-check this?

I don’t want to believe it.

@freemo
I made this up myself,
and the translation
(with explanatory hyperlinks)
is in the alt text.

@freemo
https://twitter.com/Tatzelbrumm/status/1746484912301932915

@freemo,
looks like @khird linked to a good reference article for this question of yours about tuning conventions and their evolution.
My answers cover the physical principles that allow reconstruction of these conventions over time without having to rely on recorded traditions.

@freemo
There are (wind) instruments whose pitch only depends on physical dimension and speed of sound, cf.
https://www.oboefiles.com/why-does-the-oboe-tune-the-orchestra-and-how-to-do-it-right/

If the physical dimension and speed of sound didn't change since the instruments were build, you can reconstruct absolute pitch from the past.

@freemo
How can you determine absolute pitch of musical ensembles from times before precise frequency measurement devices were available?

You examine instruments that cannot really be tuned, but whose pitch is based solely on their geometry and physical constants that don't change over time.

@freemo
How can you determine absolute pitch of musical ensembles from times when precise frequency measurement device was available?

You examine instruments that cannot really be tuned, but whose pitch is based solely on their geometry and physical constants that don't change over time.

@freemo
How can you determine absolute pitch of musical instruments that were built when no precise frequency measurement device was available?

You examine instruments that cannot really be tuned, but whose pitch is based solely on their geometry and physical constants that don't change over time.

@freemo
You can't tune any instrument for any arbitrary frequency.
That's why the tuning sequence of an orchestra starts with the oboe.
Historic woodwind instruments preserve their pitch and make it available to contemporary precision frequency meters even though measurement instrumentation to determine absolute frequency wasn't available when they were built.

@freemo
You can't tune any instrument for any arbitrary frequency.
That's why the tuning sequence of an orchestra starts with the oboe.
Historic woodwind instruments preserve their pitch even if measurement instrumentation to determine absolute frequency wasn't available when they were built.