C5 at 9/16 was not the problem
-
We play TCU on Saturday.
-
@HighEliteMajor said:
It’s interesting - @sfbahawk says, “Frank Mason didn’t all of a sudden become a wuss.” Right. The question is “why” did he and Selden have such great difficulty vs. WVU.
I am not buying the family in a snow storm hypothesis. Easterners are all used to blizzards. They grow up with them. I have lived there. I never worried about anyone being late, because of a storm. I knew they were going to be late.
I am not buying the scheme hypothesis. If it were the scheme, then Frank and Wayne would not have been the only ones baking pop tarts. Devonte would have had his baker’s hat on, too.
I am not buying the Stanford analogy. Embiid was absent. Self was trying to maintain a team model hoping Embiid might somehow be persuaded to return. This team had no such injury to a starter impeding it.
I am not buying the “didn’t just suddenly become a wuss” reasoning either. Why? All competition over the course of a game, a season, or a life intermittently exposes legacy softness that has to be hardened, or one has to concede one’s ceiling has been reached. This team has been a team that suffered through hardship to prevail, but suffering is not the same as hardening. But to get to the top, you have to be hard to the core, or as nearly as one can be. This team found it has legacy softness in at least Frank, Wayne. The softness may be in Svi and BG, too. And in others that were not exposed. Suffering is NOT the same as hardening.
Frank Mason and Wayne Selden ran into a buzz saw fueled and run by a very tough Mountaineer logger–Bob Huggins, running what may be thought of as a thug-saw.
KU had this season been the experienced team dishing out the hurts to less experienced and/or less physical teams.
KU had gotten the idea that it was tougher than other teams, because it had met all such challenges of toughness.
It was an honest mistake.
Competition by its very nature exposes what we did not know we did not know.
The thug-saw cut Frank and Wayne to the quick and found soft marrow, not hard bone.
Now the bone must be healed and the bone callous thickened, so that the marrow cannot be reached so easily by a thug-saw.
Self has apparently hidden from he media.
Self has sent his assistant, Kurtis Townsend, to speak of not competing.
Self has apparently decided to get a thug-saw, but wisely not to become associated with it.
Pity the next opponent.
Pity WVU in its visit to AFH.
KU basketball players may all be issued Devin Williams model goggles for the return engagement just to send a clear message.
This isn’t the end.
This is the beginning.
-
@jaybate-1.0 I agree with your theory. To paraphrase, Self said post game “We were full of ourselves”. I agree. I think these guys were too confident that they didn’t compete hard enough. And it showed.
-
@DinarHawk Self said after the game the Jayhawks (14-2, 3-1) may have been “a little full of ourselves” after winning 13 in a row and vaulting to the top of the national polls.
-
@benshawks08 Like this when Wayne was called for charging?
-
The identity of this KU team (and the previous two years as well) is that they are a finesse team. WVU, WSU, Stanford, Temple are all physical teams and these are the teams that have made KU look their absolute worst in the past 2.5 seasons. This team doesn’t have the enforcers that they’ve had with T-Rob, the twins, Cole, D-Jax, Simien. Nobody on KU is going to make opponents pay for going to the rim and nobody is scared of KU right now because there’s no reason to be afraid of KU.
KU needs an enforcer in the middle of the defense that can make teams think twice about driving the lane.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 still someone is going to have to step up and decide that they aren’t going to get punked and bullied. It is a mindset that they must have in order to make a deep run. Any of them have the potential to be that, they just don’t know how to or that they can.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 Mr.Withey!!!
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 I know everyone thinks Perry is soft, but he’s been tougher than anyone else on the team, in my opinion. Well, Frank’s tough too, but you know what I mean.
-
@nuleafjhawk Perry played tough against WVU, but the team overall is still a finesse team and didn’t fight back against WVU’s bullying.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 IMO, “finesse” may not quite be the right word. Ironically P erry is the only one not playing like…what @drgnslayr 's wife always says!
-
@nuleafjhawk are you throwing his wife under the bus?
-
@nuleafjhawk Finesse doesn’t explicitly mean a lack of toughness. Finesse just means you game is more skill based than power based. To me, skill based means you have multiple moves in your repertoire and power based are guys that are naturally stronger than others and depend on that strength and have a limited repertoire of moves.
-
@Crimsonorblue22 I would never do that! But @drgnslayr has mentioned several times that his wife likes to call them the “P” word. As do I.
-
Interesting note. I was partially watching the San Antonio Cleveland game while keeping my dad company at the hospital and at the end of the third quarter Sager was interviewing Popovich…
I would love to see Coach Self go “full Popovich” on a reporter that asks dumb questions…
You gotta tell me that? I already know that stuff…What is the question…I’ll ask them nicely to commit less turnovers…how is that…what the hell do you want me to do?..Classic!!!
-
Judging by the early life and education section of his wiki page, Poppa appears to have some spook background that perhaps allows him to be a little bolder than the average coach with the media. Just a hunch though.
-
Whew!! Im glad this post survived the data dump!
I’ll rest easy tonight.
-
That was blast from the past.
-
@Lulufulu I’ve chuckled at your post three times now. The hand wringing we went through about Center! Man. This thread represents about 30 others lengthy ones like it.
-
IMHO, one thing that people are still not clued into sufficiently about the digital age is that ALL information on the internet appears unreliable to significant degree by definition, because it can be altered so many intentional and unintentional ways without any ability to verify and paper trail it beyond a reasonable doubt. Michael Crichton’s novel “Rising Sun” dramatized the intrinsic problem with authenticity of digital images long ago now, but the problem is inherent in all digital information. Changes can reputedly be made that are untraceable and undetectable. Not only digital photos but all digital information is suspect IMHO.
Without putting too fine of a point on it, it appears internet information is likely way more protean and unverifiable regarding accuracy and authenticity in both real and legal senses than any one can yet adequately grasp.
When a mass of data disappears, not just the data disappears but that data had contextual links to other data that we cannot even begin to understand without extensive investigation and analysis, and even then we may or may not be able to arrive at understanding beyond a reasonable doubt…
There are just endless steps from keyboard, to RAM, to hard drive, to wifi hub, to internet relays, to servers, to storage, to retrieval, where information can be corrupted accidentally, or intentionally by means probably not even discoverable. Heck, even random packet loss can corrupt. Proving beyond a reasonable doubt what appears actually is, or was, the accurate, authentic action of a communicator appears to be VERY difficult on the internet. How does one prove beyond a reasonable doubt that digital content was not corrupted? that the intent of the communicator was not tampered with? If Gerry Spense, or someone of his caliber, were in court, I suspect it would be very tough. This has been the problem from the beginning with the concept of total information awareness. So what if the government is totally aware of all information if the information it is totally aware of is corruptible to a significantly indeterminate extent? And reputedly our government itself is but one of many players actively engaged in poisoning the well of digitized information. Most governments are reputedly tampering with digital information and so probably are many other kinds of organizations. Who can even say beyond a reasonable doubt that this thread above was not tampered with even before it first appeared on any screen, or that it hasn’t been tampered with numerous times since. There is no escaping this problem. IMHO it is part of the double edged sword of digital connectivity.
-
I believe this access to total information has changed our psychology about information. No longer can a piece of information be devastating, because we recognize it as only a piece, and maybe also we no longer perceive it as immutable. The soundbyte gotcha age is behind us. Contrast Howard Dean’s Howl to Trump’s “Grab em by the _____”. Everything is now contextual, which is more realistic, but attempting to frame the context, rather than finding the news, is where the pundits butter their bread.
With the mass proliferation of available perceptions, any piece of information, which used to be perceived as concrete, is now abstract. It is an incomplete object without opinions attached to it. I wonder if most people are uncomfortable handling information that has not already had an opinion attached.
-
@approxinfinity Howard Dean’s howl was epic btw.
-
@approxinfinity said:
concrete
You are a astute and insightful analyst of the interface of digitalization and its effect on meaning in culture. You are enough younger than me that you could put into clear words what I could only fumble around the edges of.
We are dealing with a paradigm shift in the foundations of meaning in a digitized culture vs a predigitalized culture that will be as pervasive and “impactful” as occurred to meaning in the ascent of bureaucracy and industrialization during the era of paper on printing press has been.
The early phases of this changes produce alarmist analyses that emphasize the incomprehensibility of what is to come and naively argue that because the change is incomprehensible to us that it spells doom. This is a prejudice of educated intelligence; that without broad, fitting and effective knowledge human action is doomed. Wrong.
History records humanity negotiating these periods again and again. It is frankly what we do. We are creatures that endlessly create meanings out of sensory input that may or may not help us live. Nature’s indifferent context then selects us endlessly in tiny increments towards meanings that work, whether they are true or not in any given moment.
Life is the record of expedient fit with context.
All meanings possible at a given time have been tried at one time or other in large or small attempts. Times and context change and new meanings are tried along with old ones.
What works is repeated, if it does not too suddenly traumatize the order.
What does not work is often kept if it perpetuates the order.
Digitalization changes meaning as you say with such breathtaking clarity.
The question is: can we find a way to benefit from it by making it not too traumatic to the order?
I never worry about humans creating new effective meanings the way Jean Baudrillard did, when he said humans had destroyed first god, and now the truth in their progression from agrarian, to industrial, to digital, and that without truth humans were doomed to a random, meaningless existence not unlike plants; that Baudrillard could conceptualize only as a void likely to lead to extinction.
Baudrillard betrayed what I referred to above as the prejudice of educated intelligence. It believes like a slave master that meaning, order and rational work can only occur with the epistemically equivalent of masters and slaves. Note that the institution of slavery has always been an integral part of not just the culture and its legal and economic institutions, but a part of its epistemology also. One learns to be a master or a slave. Similarly one learns to be an educated person or an uneducated one. Hence education is not only an institution of law and economics but of epistemology also.
Baudrillard reasoned that if digitalization and mass culture make knowing the truth about reality; I.e., ends meaning coherent relation of individual with knowable context as he understands it; that humans are doomed because they will make effective choices only randomly and the prejudice of an educated intelligence assumes that that will be insufficient for effectiveness human culture.
First, most animal and plant cultures get on perfectly well with out the kind of knowing that Baudrillard’s prejudice of the educated intelligence is mourning the loss of.
But second and more importantly, there is no reason to assume that human beings, which are so prolific at imagining and making up and imputing meanings will not invent a fitting new meaning of what is going on in the dynamics of knowing information in the digital age–as you just have.
Unexpected shit is going to continue to happen.
Digitalization itself will trigger some of it as people are slow to learn the implications of the fundamentally new at any time.
But we WILL get the hang of this change too!
Whether we do anything good with the new opportunity; that’s the $64^100000000000 question.
Put yourself back at the time the Egyptians, who believed in nature god’s you could see and feel and that verifiably did things in their work , like the Nile, and the sun, were confronted with some Jews that invented a sky god that they god say or attribute anything to without you being able to disprove it. You knew a lot of bad shit was going to happen because of all the lying, cheating and deception that the new wet ware was going to make possible. You didn’t really see how anyone could believe this nonsense. You prayed to the Nile and it silted your farm land richly. The Jews prayed to this sky god and said it damned you AND made the Nile silt your lands. And these crazy bastards were running around cutting the foreskins off their own kids and saying god and god’s book made it law they do it.
You didn’t like it, but you knew they had successfully changed the nature of meaning with this sky god invention. And they designed damned good pyramids for you. So, you went along to get along.
Meaning is expedient that way. Meaning is more a strategic reconciliation than a fact. Meaning is as rigid and objective, or squiggly and subjective, as is expedient at the time for the deeply wise–especially for the great philosophers and theologians. There is no question that great Christian and Jewish theologians would have been great nature god theologians before sky god’s were created, or, if you prefer, revealed themselves. Abraham would have been a stunningly good nature godder had he been born awhile earlier and not known about Yahweh. Jesus was by all accounts a solid Jew before god revealed himself to Jesus. Meaning thus is a strategic reconciliation with what can be known. Wise persons? They try never to lie, because they understand the underlying flexibility of the truth. Lying is even more rigid and subjective than the truth. Thus, Lying is wrong is not just as a moral, but comes as close to an inflexible truth as there is.
We will adjust to this new digitalization of knowing. Some eggs will get broken along the way. Some already have been. But we will adjust.
-
@jaybate-1.0 great post. Meaning also is heavily related to language and the implicit context that is attached to each word as per the audience. “Sky god”, as you said, makes Yawheh feel foreign to us, while God comes with implied context and feels more entrenched and undeconstructable. Just by changing the language you open up the possibility of new ideas, just as changing the tuning of a guitar might facilitate a new melody.
-
Thanks and I believe quite devoutly in a Christian sky God. It’s the wet ware that was around, when I came along. And it works for me. And if I had been born in Brooklyn with Russian immigrant parents, I would likely believe in a Jewish sky God, or an Roman Catholic sky god, or a Russian orthodox sky god . Or if I had been born in the Arab community is suburban Detroit, I probably would believe in an Islamic Sky god. And they would work for me and I would probably secretly believe that I was not the chosen and the others were not infidels for believing what they believed, just as I do today, though publicly peer pressure might occasionally make me have to say such things to get the whole sale price, or to get my child a good education, or a good job, or marry into a respectable family, if he/she wanted such things.
All will be well and all manner of things shall be well.
