https://www.facebook.com/groups/721704878218903/posts/2437242443331796/

Knife and Hammer Coat of arms for the Uncertified Typewriter Mechanic

https://www.austintypewriterink.com/ati-the-podcast.html

https://www.austintypewriterink.com/

https://typewriterdatabase.com/1954-remington-quietriter.20681.typewriter

"Remi the Duck"<br /> US QWERTY / 10 CPI / Pica 134 (534)<br /> Hard Platen (original)<br /> Everett "Everetto" Henderson of Austin Typewriter Ink (custom painted/serviced)<br /> No.3 in Everett's "Inked Machine" series

repetition here from before to introduce mental health...

Top slip contributors to OED: 1. Thomas Austin Jnr. 165,061 slips over 10 years (45.22 notes per day) 2. William Douglas 151,982 over 22 years (18.92 notes per day) 3. Thomas Nadauld Brushfield 70,277 over 28 years (1.98 notes per day) 4. William Chester Minor 62,720 slips over 23 years (to 1906) (7.5 notes per day)

benesch auf seinem "es ist kompliziert" trip...<br /> wir haben also eine "controlled opposition" (AFD) (no surprise)<br /> und ein "controlled regime" (SPD/FDP/Grüne/CDU/Linke/...) (no surprise)<br /> also deutschland ist nur eine kolonie (ein vasall) von irgendwem (no surprise)

whatabout die aggressive NATO ost-erweiterung?<br /> sind da auch "die russen" schuld?<br /> oder ist das auch "nur ein talking point" von irgendwem?

eine illusion ist ja dass "der steuerzahler" irgendwas entscheiden darf.<br /> das sieht so aus, als wäre die regierung "von unten" finanziert<br /> (aktuell: bauernproteste gegen dieselsteuer und KFZ-steuer auf landmaschinen)<br /> aber es gibt trotzdem immer einfluss "von oben"<br /> also von banken (verniedlicht als "die windmühlen von zion")<br /> die der regierung kredite geben (solange die regierung brav ist)<br /> von geld das die bank aus dem nichts schöpft, ohne gegenwert, also "falschgeld"

der film "leave the world behind (2023)" will uns erzählen: "no one is in control."<br /> ich teile eher die ansicht von catherine austin fitts:<br /> es gibt einen "mister global" (also eine "weltregierung") (praktisch die UN)<br /> die schon längst alle nationalstaaten unter kontrolle hat<br /> und nur für die öffentlichkeit spielt man das theaterstück "nation gegen nation"<br /> so wie man innerhalb der nationalstaaten das theaterstück "gewaltenteilung" spielt<br /> aber unterm strich ist es alles die gleiche mafia<br /> aber das versteht man auch erst dann.<br /> wenn man sich mal anlegt mit bullen, staatsanwälten, richtern, gutachtern, jugendamt, ...<br /> solange man diese "autoritäten" nicht provoziert, sieht es aus wie "heile welt"

benesch hat auch diesen "wissen ist macht" vibe, aber das stimmt einfach nicht,<br /> und ist höchstens eine ablenkung, wenn man selber keine lösung hat...<br /> yuri bezmenov würde sagen: "only when the military boot crushes his balls,<br /> then he will understand... but not before, that is the tragedy of demoralization."

ich darf meine fresse aufreissen, weil ich hab auch nen lösungsvorschlag:<br /> pallas. wer sind meine freunde. gruppenaufbau nach persönlichkeitstyp.<br /> github com milahu alchi<br /> der staatsanwalt sagt, mein buch ist "volksverhetzung"... die drohungen werden lauter

das studieren von "geopolitik" scheitert einfach daran,<br /> dass diese probleme so groß sind, und so weit weg sind, dass man gefangen ist in passivität.<br /> deswegen mein "bottom up" ansatz: gruppenaufbau nach persönlichkeitstyp.<br /> und wenn der funktioniert, dann kommt die revolution von selber...

Full name of the ERA (Environmental Research Area) of the Sneed Prairie where Austin College, led by Dr. Peter Schulze, conduct their annual research.

A game by Austin Kleon for making jam sessions less boring using cards.

Inspired by Oblique Strategies and The Creative Tarot.

Austin Kleon made his own deck of Oblique Strategies by handwriting them onto the front of playing cards with black sharpie.

Making my own Oblique Strategies deck. https://t.co/a1FpNifdLp pic.twitter.com/XsnRBt0GNW

— Austin Kleon (@austinkleon) November 1, 2015

Psychic Austin - Psychic Reading, Austin ,Texas

Mine is always with extra shrooms. :)

this is strange; I suppose you can 'succeed' in carrying out the utterance, but it does not consecrate anything, which... is the entire point? So, strange to say that it fails only in part when in another sense it fails completely. It's like I succeeded in taking a shot but missed the basket?

How can you take back an action? (though you could retract a claim about an action, of course)

Not absolute; not bedrock (though we thought it was). And merely? This is "merely" the dissolution of what you thought reality was?

Haha - claiming "truth" for something that he acknowledges might not be provable - 'take my word for it, it's a fact'. Use of the performative again in "claim," e.g. "I claim" cannot be responded to with "that's not true!"

Proverbial tip of the iceberg; the "seen" part.

Important distinction between doing and reporting; the former obviously an action, and the latter a verifiable statement. But can the lines blur? Is "I do" ever reporting the fact that you are getting married, which is verifiable?

All statements are boolean: T/F

Not sure that all cases considered are worth considering...?

You would think the goal of an essay would be to find or argue a truth, but here he is marginalizing it; truth is not the goal.

Arguing that truth and falsehood are not what matters; that the performative exists outside such claims (as we learn later).

Using the performative in his opening through the use of "I claim"; and here he claims truth. He performs his own argument.

So the utterance is surrounded by other ceremonial trappings, and without which there is a presumption that the utterance is hollow, that the accompaniments make it "complete"; suggests that the ceremony becomes greater than the sum of its parts by being able to bring about this binding force which the parts cannot do individually; or can they - is just the utterance enough to describe and seal the inward act? The other question is, does the utterance imply (and describe) the other trappings?

And yet these are just words; as believable or unbelievable as the uttering of an oath?

The consecration of the oath; but when is the uttering just a garnishment? For some, the internal / spiritual bond is the key thing, binding regardless of whether the one to whom the words are uttered believes them or not; the words are just words, but the intent is everything. The intent can exist without the words, and so the words can exist without the intent. It is the words though that offer a public record of commitment, and against which one's character is judged and assessed in accordance with their ability to live up to them.

Interesting choice of words; many swear that they are real and binding, but, yes, they are imaginary (in our culture); we require signed contracts, and verbal oaths are nice, but have a romantic tinge to them and we expect them maybe to not be kept as frequently.

The process by which we arm feelings of guilt / responsibility / etc to trigger when we have second thoughts about the vow we've made

Requires a certain solemnity, yes, but how many vows or promises are made with no intention of ever keeping them? Or only that they were meant in the moment, but that future circumstances resulted in the changing of one's heart/mind?

Drilling down to the even-more-particular; not just anyone can marry somebody, at any time, at any place, with a word (and have it mean anything); requires person w/ particular qualifications / authority / occasion / etc.

Also requires a society/set of institutions that considers such acts normal and reasonable. In this way, the particulars affected by the occasion are part of a much large general sphere in which they are legitimized and sanctioned; and outside of that may exist a larger sphere which is baffled by them.

While the naming or the uttering of "I do" symbolically 'seals' or makes the transaction official, the naming or the uttering is part of a longer ceremony. Not sure about betting though; it would be strange somehow if a complete stranger bet another with no prior interaction (i.e. no mechanism to build trust, etc), but it could happen

Dangerous?

Make them more particular; less general

Aren't the words more ceremonial? i.e. in marriage, they bind symbolically, but what really matters is the legal stamp of the JOP? But that's not what everybody stands, applauds or weeps for; maybe on some level that's what we're doing with words here?

Good qualifier; reminds us that language is always shifting.

Is it true that the function of the utterance is to assign metadata in some way?

Performs an action affecting particulars in a way that cannot be measured or perceived outside of the moment in which the utterance takes place.

Is this phrase also an exercitive, neither true nor false?

Involve the:

• creation of relationships
• creation of dividing lines which, prior to the uttering of the sentence, did not 'exist'; i.e. prior to "I do" they were not married, but afterwards they are; prior to "I name this ship...", it had no name, but afterwards it does; they are historical mile markers of sorts.
• involves particulars; not all women are my wife; this one is. Not all ships are named; but this one is.
• must be said aloud or in print, and often needs to be backed by some legal authority to "legitimate" the action; of course, anybody can name something, but the 'officially recognized' name can only come from a certain privileged source / I can marry a random woman just by saying "I do" to her, but the 'marriage' is not recognized, etc'; privileges some constructs over others by a vested authority
• also denote things that cannot be done for me; I must utter them in order for them to take effect (be true); they require agency (or the appearance of agency)
• the statements themselves are neither true or false, they just are; ex-post we can decide that a subsequent statement identifying the brother as the legal heir to the watch is 'true' or 'false'; but the original declaration is neither(?)
• involve the combination of words with some ceremony or ritual that somehow enshrines it (in the case of the bet maybe the ritual is the exchange of money, but not sure if that fits the bill). Almost like incantations of sorts.

"A speech act in which a decision is made regarding action; examples include orders and grants of permission."

The action is performed with the uttering of the sentence.

When in doubt, defer to authority.

Is the disguise applied moreso by the reader's bias than the author's intent?

pre-conceived view or bias

Makes me think of a generation set in its ways butting up against a younger "less respectful" generation that is "doing it all wrong"; i.e. generational divide between viewpoints; some may think a revolution hardly necessary, that it is fine the way it is and that they are simply being disruptive.

"denoting a speech act or sentence that is a statement declaring something to be the case"

Qualifying / conditional factors?

And how does the reader know exactly, and to what extent, the boundaries of a definition are being pushed by the use of a word which they think they are familiar with?

There is an unaddressed problem which hinders clear communication; there is no standard criteria for the establishment of intent in communication. (Doubt that's what the ultimate argument is, but seems to be the set-up)

A sentence remains a sentence; it is just a tool or vehicle for the delivery of something which depends entirely on its configuration.

The utility of the vehicle used to distinguish truth from falsehood itself rests on an assumption; purports that there is or maybe ought to be a 'purpose' to a statement.

Makes it feel inclusive; a conversation.

Same School as Gilbert Austin

This clause is representative of the deep seated belief in and importance of education in a democratic society. Nearly all the Founding Fathers believed that education was the only way that a democracy would not become a demagoguery. With this clause, Jefferson creates an intimate connection between education and active citizenship, a relationship that is still emphasized at the University today. Without this clause, the spirit of our University and of our Nation would be drastically different.

As noted by many of my classmates, it is a very cruel irony that basing the location of the University on the grounds of its "centrality to the white population" was not only considered "impartial," but also "mature." What is especially disturbing is the fact that it was considered mature. The notion that Jefferson and the other members of the board considered this racist criteria to be mature reveals that they have no legitimate or profound disagreement with racism and white supremacy. They genuinely believed that this was only a rational thing to consider when locating a University. What is even more disturbing about this notion is that it forces us to question the truthfulness of our Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson. If the same man that argued that every man has certain inalienable rights can blatantly contradict his own beliefs when founding his University, then what can be said about the values and people that founded this nation?

Always wanted to see these bats, and now I hope to get my chance!

This was actually a major point of contention in our senior seminar class a few weeks back, when we were reading J.L. Austin's speech-act theory in How to Do Things with Words. Particularly when we discussed how the similarity between performative and constative (non-performative) statements begins to increase when evaluating their infelicities (lack of success; failures):

“In order to explain what can go wrong with statements we cannot just concentrate on the proposition involved (whatever that is) as has been done traditionally. We must consider the total situation in which the utterance is issued—the total speech-act—if we are to see the parallel between constative statements and performative utterances, and how each can go wrong."

Austin urges us here to seek out context as a way of identifying how both performative and constative statements can go wrong (or become "infelicitous") in distinct ways. Though performative and constative statements may appear similar without proper context, Austin argues that they become clearly different when considering individual situations.

This is almost reminiscent of J.L. Austin's "How to Do Things with Words" and his theory surrounding performative utterances v. constative utterances. Language as direct action, or "speech-acts" and not mere nonsense.

In it's own way, the body also engages in rhetoric. I find it interesting that Austin tried to document it in such a visual manner, although the execution was... meh.

I want to write a dissertation on this repeated refrain over the years. No doubt it's partially true, but the same claim is made every year in some op-ed article in some local newspaper or magazine. Austin has been becoming less weird since it first became weird.

Can. Not. Wait.

In the still developing planned community of Mueller: