We hear the term used both in construction and as a human quality. The dictionary will list these two different definitions as individually numbered entries after the word.
Conceptually, there is no difference. The 'level of integrity' that something or someone has will be determined by the 'design chosen' and the 'substances used' and the 'shape' and 'structure' in the design to arrive at 'what it is' or 'we are.' There are 'elemental factors' to consider, but, 'in the end,' we are really trying to accomplish 'sufficient integrity to fulfill purpose and defy nature.'
We might 'insulate' our walls to 'prevent the effect of the real weather' and/or to 'eliminate sounds.' We would insulate our walls for our own comfort.
If one designs 'excessive integrity,' it comes with the cost of extra weight that must be borne elsewhere in order to defy gravity. If one designs 'insufficient integrity,' it comes with the cost of being unreliable that must be borne elsewhere in order to defy gravity.
The integrity of a rock is such that it won't bend; it will, however, break. It is dense, and, therefore, heavy. While we may conceive of rocks in positive terms, most commonly we use them to build walls and throw at people with the intent to harm them. 'Rock solid' integrity will break before bending. We can hide behind rocks, and we can use them for anchors. However, if it rolls while we are hiding behind it, it may crush us. Used as an anchor, it can keep us from drifting. However, it will also keep us submerged if the water rises, and allow for drift to the degree the tether rope exceeds the depth of the water. Rocks are very heavy to use for protection against rain, and radiate heat and the absence of heat.
Rocks also don't fare well with some of nature; rocks crack, separate, and get swallowed in earthquakes, and melted and spewed in volcanoes.
We all have integrity. It is the 'fabric from which we are made.' The material that we choose for the construction of our thoughts and concepts will determine how well we are able to defy nature.
Nothing, however, defies time. Time is always a 'relative factor.'
Whether we see our objective to 'soar to the heavens (or Heaven),' or just to 'float our boats,' will be a determinant in which materials we will use in our intellectual defiance of gravity. Of course, in gravitational terms, that would relate to 'common sense,' which comprises the 'largest body of thought.'
If you plan to 'soar,' prepare for the friction and the fear of heights. If you plan to 'float,' plan to adjust the length, both directions, of the tether rope.
If you still don't understand how these concepts relate to real life, you're trying to put it together lineally. If you understand these concepts and are now ready to understand life, then, too, you are putting it together lineally. If you thought, and just thought, then you're onto conceptual thinking.
Answers lie within problems. However, we often mistake 'symptoms' as 'problems,' and then try to cure symptoms lineally.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
A Call to Conscience: Swift's Proposal
Socrates not-so-quietly tried to influence the Athenian public into considering such things as justice, good, and right. Jesus Christ not-so-quietly influenced the public into considering 'one's own sins' before casting a stone at someone else for her sins.
Another not-so-quiet 'call to conscience' was a satirical pamphlet by Jonathan Swift entitled "A Modest Proposal." The precept for this purpose need only be that the essay was 'a call for man to search his conscience.'
Swift used an 'equal but opposite' appeal from the style of Socrates or Jesus Christ. Those two used a formula that included pointing at an injustice, and asking others to put themselves in that position. Swift used the formula of pointing at an injustice, and suggested preposterous expansion of the injustice.
Swift's 'poor taste' was highly criticized. The pamphlet proposed cannibalism of the newborn, including recommendations for preparating the meat. It was presented with the 'might is right' arguments of that e=mc2 factor in history, one of which was the presumption that increasing income was right, regardless of the social consequences.
Those who read it were presented with a mathematically sound argument for allowing the sale and consumption of newborn babies. The absurdity of the topic, however, drew society's attention to a 'missing factor' in the equation, that being one of human suffering.
Socrates attempted to draw society's attention to a 'missing factor' in the equation, that being one of human suffering.
Jesus Christ attempted to draw society's attention to a 'missing factor' in the equation, that being one of human suffering.
One difference between the three is Swift is recognized for his 'literary genius' not his 'philosophic genius.' Another difference is that Swift was not executed. What does it all mean? I don't know yet, and maybe I never will. I'm just rambling.
All had similar 'desired results,' that being 'having individuals add the factor of human suffering when [making decisions/supporting concepts].'
It seems so elementary when drawn like that, but we still haven't learned what they were trying to teach us. Though we don't literally do any longer what these men addressed as immediate issues, we make a few minor changes and rationalize it as different.
For example, in discussions on message boards, it has been suggested that we 'stone child molesters to death.' When I suggest that it's probably already as legal as it will ever be, so no reason to hold back, I get back that they really want 'society to tolerate it,' and 'for someone else to really do it.' When I 'modestly propose' that we also stone the victims for from that source is the likely next generation of pedophiles, I get back that my suggestion is presposterous and in poor taste!
Swift donated his fortune to a hospital for imbiciles. Society should probably follow that lead.
Another not-so-quiet 'call to conscience' was a satirical pamphlet by Jonathan Swift entitled "A Modest Proposal." The precept for this purpose need only be that the essay was 'a call for man to search his conscience.'
Swift used an 'equal but opposite' appeal from the style of Socrates or Jesus Christ. Those two used a formula that included pointing at an injustice, and asking others to put themselves in that position. Swift used the formula of pointing at an injustice, and suggested preposterous expansion of the injustice.
Swift's 'poor taste' was highly criticized. The pamphlet proposed cannibalism of the newborn, including recommendations for preparating the meat. It was presented with the 'might is right' arguments of that e=mc2 factor in history, one of which was the presumption that increasing income was right, regardless of the social consequences.
Those who read it were presented with a mathematically sound argument for allowing the sale and consumption of newborn babies. The absurdity of the topic, however, drew society's attention to a 'missing factor' in the equation, that being one of human suffering.
Socrates attempted to draw society's attention to a 'missing factor' in the equation, that being one of human suffering.
Jesus Christ attempted to draw society's attention to a 'missing factor' in the equation, that being one of human suffering.
One difference between the three is Swift is recognized for his 'literary genius' not his 'philosophic genius.' Another difference is that Swift was not executed. What does it all mean? I don't know yet, and maybe I never will. I'm just rambling.
All had similar 'desired results,' that being 'having individuals add the factor of human suffering when [making decisions/supporting concepts].'
It seems so elementary when drawn like that, but we still haven't learned what they were trying to teach us. Though we don't literally do any longer what these men addressed as immediate issues, we make a few minor changes and rationalize it as different.
For example, in discussions on message boards, it has been suggested that we 'stone child molesters to death.' When I suggest that it's probably already as legal as it will ever be, so no reason to hold back, I get back that they really want 'society to tolerate it,' and 'for someone else to really do it.' When I 'modestly propose' that we also stone the victims for from that source is the likely next generation of pedophiles, I get back that my suggestion is presposterous and in poor taste!
Swift donated his fortune to a hospital for imbiciles. Society should probably follow that lead.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
This Would Really Work
The speed of light, and electricity, is about 144,000 miles per second.
The Earth is about 25,000 miles in circumference.
If you were to hook a wire to a switch, wrap the wire around the Earth seven times, and then hook it to a light near you, you would actually see about a one second delay between the time you threw the switch to when the light comes on.
Good luck getting a permit, though.
-----------------------
I'm reading through this now (7/2/07):
Six times 25,000 equals 150,000. Six times should be sufficient. If the wire were wrapped seven times, it would take about one and one-sixth seconds.
One cannot discount the one-sixth of a second. If you put enough of those together, you end up with a millenia.
The Earth is about 25,000 miles in circumference.
If you were to hook a wire to a switch, wrap the wire around the Earth seven times, and then hook it to a light near you, you would actually see about a one second delay between the time you threw the switch to when the light comes on.
Good luck getting a permit, though.
-----------------------
I'm reading through this now (7/2/07):
Six times 25,000 equals 150,000. Six times should be sufficient. If the wire were wrapped seven times, it would take about one and one-sixth seconds.
One cannot discount the one-sixth of a second. If you put enough of those together, you end up with a millenia.
So Which Came First:
. . . the chicken or the egg?
Answer: The egg. Chickens are born from eggs.
Question: Where did the egg come from?
Answer: The female of whatever two closely, genetically-compatible species mated, the progeny of which was the first chicken.
Answer: The egg. Chickens are born from eggs.
Question: Where did the egg come from?
Answer: The female of whatever two closely, genetically-compatible species mated, the progeny of which was the first chicken.
Monday, June 25, 2007
The Blinder of Atheism
Atheism is not 'no belief in God;' atheism is 'belief in no God.' It is a belief based on one's principles.
When considering this, keep in mind that most people operate at a 'spiritual level' ranging from 'quiet belief' to 'quiet non-belief.' There is an 'inequality' in comparing those with 'loud belief' to those with 'quiet non-belief.'
The groups that are comparitive are the 'polar' groups, those that comprise the 'most radical' in 'discharging' 'their principles.'
The organization of Atheists is structured as a church would be. It has its heiarchy, its evangelists, its publications, and even seeks donations. It is protected speech under 'freedom of religion,' and rightfully so. In 'equal but opposite' fashion, this organization tries to change public policy, and its objective is to 'become established' as the 'national religion.'
The main argument that people stumble on is that Atheists contend that 'freedom of religion' is the same as 'freedom from religion.' It isn't, and philosophical beliefs about the existence or non-existence of God is a religious belief. That's not my fault; I'm just pointing out that 'belief in God' and 'belief in no God' are both 'beliefs about God.' The beliefs are opposite, but they are also equal.
While those at the polar opposite go out of their way to explain 'everything happens at God's will,' those with 'atheistic blind faith' go out of their way to explain 'everything is explainable without a concept of God or soul.'
We know that electricity is comprised of matter. We know matter has weight. We know that there is some electricity in living animals that is not present in dead animals. We know that electricity cannot be destroyed, nor does it 'just go away.' We know there is a minute amount of weight loss at death.
We have documentation of near death experiences in which 'light' is a common element. Physical scientists explain this phenomenon as 'the bursting of brain cells' as those cells die. We have documentation of out-of-body experiences, many of which center around anesthesia. Physical scientists explain this phenomenon as 'dreaming.' We have documentation of people giving verifiable accounts of events in 'previous lives.' Physical scientists explain this phenomenon as 'lucky guessing.'
What physical scientists don't do is close the mathematical possibility that a soul or God doesn't exist.
I, too, find the likelihood of 'existence of God,' as defined by 'polar believers' 'so highly improbable' as to be 'virtually impossible.' Equally, I find the likelihood of 'existence of no God-like concept' so highly improbable that it, too, would be virtually impossible.
The truth, it seems, lies somewhere between the poles.
When considering this, keep in mind that most people operate at a 'spiritual level' ranging from 'quiet belief' to 'quiet non-belief.' There is an 'inequality' in comparing those with 'loud belief' to those with 'quiet non-belief.'
The groups that are comparitive are the 'polar' groups, those that comprise the 'most radical' in 'discharging' 'their principles.'
The organization of Atheists is structured as a church would be. It has its heiarchy, its evangelists, its publications, and even seeks donations. It is protected speech under 'freedom of religion,' and rightfully so. In 'equal but opposite' fashion, this organization tries to change public policy, and its objective is to 'become established' as the 'national religion.'
The main argument that people stumble on is that Atheists contend that 'freedom of religion' is the same as 'freedom from religion.' It isn't, and philosophical beliefs about the existence or non-existence of God is a religious belief. That's not my fault; I'm just pointing out that 'belief in God' and 'belief in no God' are both 'beliefs about God.' The beliefs are opposite, but they are also equal.
While those at the polar opposite go out of their way to explain 'everything happens at God's will,' those with 'atheistic blind faith' go out of their way to explain 'everything is explainable without a concept of God or soul.'
We know that electricity is comprised of matter. We know matter has weight. We know that there is some electricity in living animals that is not present in dead animals. We know that electricity cannot be destroyed, nor does it 'just go away.' We know there is a minute amount of weight loss at death.
We have documentation of near death experiences in which 'light' is a common element. Physical scientists explain this phenomenon as 'the bursting of brain cells' as those cells die. We have documentation of out-of-body experiences, many of which center around anesthesia. Physical scientists explain this phenomenon as 'dreaming.' We have documentation of people giving verifiable accounts of events in 'previous lives.' Physical scientists explain this phenomenon as 'lucky guessing.'
What physical scientists don't do is close the mathematical possibility that a soul or God doesn't exist.
I, too, find the likelihood of 'existence of God,' as defined by 'polar believers' 'so highly improbable' as to be 'virtually impossible.' Equally, I find the likelihood of 'existence of no God-like concept' so highly improbable that it, too, would be virtually impossible.
The truth, it seems, lies somewhere between the poles.
The Blinder of Religion
God never began and He will never end: the definition of infinity; an element of time.
A year on Earth is a split-second to God; time moves at 144,000 MPS.
God created the world in seven days. Most people can't fathom the distance traveled in seven days.
God created everything. In time, everything here is here now.
There are a lot of mathematical consistencies between what people believe about God and what we know about time. However, because religion requires 'blind faith' in what others have written, those who are devout must denounce other concepts that are visible. In order to believe in the Bible, 'they cannot believe that which we are able to see.'
The genius who it seems Judea-Chrisitanity has adopted as its number one enemy is Charles Darwin. His theory of natural selection is right before our eyes, if we will only open our eyes to it.
Darwin's natural selection theory makes mathematical sense. Here are the two principles you need to accept in order to understand it, provided you 'will' look at it: (1) progeny have characteristics of both parents but are not identical to either; (2) dead animals don't have babies.
It comes down to one element of 'blind faith' that prevents Darwin's natural selection theory from being considered by those of the Judea-Christian faiths: the commitment, or oath, to believe the Bible is 'The infallable word of God.'
Folks, we've found dinosaur bones. It isn't an elaborate conspiracy to blaspheme God. Those things really existed.
The unfortunate aspect for the world is that it leaves Aristotle as the most influential person in history, and Jesus Christ as the most misunderstood and abused person in history - well, maybe Charles Darwin is as misunderstood and abused; you get the point, if you 'will.'
A year on Earth is a split-second to God; time moves at 144,000 MPS.
God created the world in seven days. Most people can't fathom the distance traveled in seven days.
God created everything. In time, everything here is here now.
There are a lot of mathematical consistencies between what people believe about God and what we know about time. However, because religion requires 'blind faith' in what others have written, those who are devout must denounce other concepts that are visible. In order to believe in the Bible, 'they cannot believe that which we are able to see.'
The genius who it seems Judea-Chrisitanity has adopted as its number one enemy is Charles Darwin. His theory of natural selection is right before our eyes, if we will only open our eyes to it.
Darwin's natural selection theory makes mathematical sense. Here are the two principles you need to accept in order to understand it, provided you 'will' look at it: (1) progeny have characteristics of both parents but are not identical to either; (2) dead animals don't have babies.
It comes down to one element of 'blind faith' that prevents Darwin's natural selection theory from being considered by those of the Judea-Christian faiths: the commitment, or oath, to believe the Bible is 'The infallable word of God.'
Folks, we've found dinosaur bones. It isn't an elaborate conspiracy to blaspheme God. Those things really existed.
The unfortunate aspect for the world is that it leaves Aristotle as the most influential person in history, and Jesus Christ as the most misunderstood and abused person in history - well, maybe Charles Darwin is as misunderstood and abused; you get the point, if you 'will.'
Seeing is Believing is a Myth
We've all heard the old adage 'seeing is believing.' Don't believe it; it's a myth.
If we believed everything we saw, then we would have to believe a magician really can make an elephant disappear. We would also have to believe that sleight of hand is really magic unless we actually saw the sleight. Intellectually, we accept it for what it is: entertainment. We may even leave the show saying 'I couldn't believe my eyes.' It would be more accurate to say 'I didn't believe what my eyes brought into my logic center because it didn't seem possible to me.
Now that I've given an example that proves that the statement isn't always true, let's look at it mathematically. 'Is,' in language, is the same as 'equals' in mathematical concepts. If the statement is true, then we should be able to reverse it to 'believing is seeing,' and still end up with a true statement.
If that were true, then you don't believe you really have great-great grandparents, unless you actually saw them, of course.
This is an important premise to understand before we look into two organized religions that blind themselves to possibility: Judea-Christianity and Atheism.
If we believed everything we saw, then we would have to believe a magician really can make an elephant disappear. We would also have to believe that sleight of hand is really magic unless we actually saw the sleight. Intellectually, we accept it for what it is: entertainment. We may even leave the show saying 'I couldn't believe my eyes.' It would be more accurate to say 'I didn't believe what my eyes brought into my logic center because it didn't seem possible to me.
Now that I've given an example that proves that the statement isn't always true, let's look at it mathematically. 'Is,' in language, is the same as 'equals' in mathematical concepts. If the statement is true, then we should be able to reverse it to 'believing is seeing,' and still end up with a true statement.
If that were true, then you don't believe you really have great-great grandparents, unless you actually saw them, of course.
This is an important premise to understand before we look into two organized religions that blind themselves to possibility: Judea-Christianity and Atheism.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
My Mom and Algebra
I love my mother dearly, and you likely would, too, if you met her. She has always been there for any of her children at any time.
I don't recall what brought on a discussion of algebra, but her contention was that it's stupid and unnecessary. It seems she doesn't get the concept of variables.
I told her to not put too much emphasis on that. Algebra is about finding the equation that solves the problem, and that she uses it whether she knows it or not. She challenged me on that. I simply asked if she's ever doubled a recipe. Of course she had. I asked how she did it. She said she just doubles everything.
I wrote '2X' where X is the recipe is the formula she used.
'Like hell I did,' she replied!
She's so beautiful to me!
I don't recall what brought on a discussion of algebra, but her contention was that it's stupid and unnecessary. It seems she doesn't get the concept of variables.
I told her to not put too much emphasis on that. Algebra is about finding the equation that solves the problem, and that she uses it whether she knows it or not. She challenged me on that. I simply asked if she's ever doubled a recipe. Of course she had. I asked how she did it. She said she just doubles everything.
I wrote '2X' where X is the recipe is the formula she used.
'Like hell I did,' she replied!
She's so beautiful to me!
My College
I don't honestly know what the last class was that I took; maybe it was that commercial real estate appraisal course, but it doesn't really matter.
With that class completed, I am now into my sophomore year!
I didn't get an 'A' in that real estate course. The teacher said that a percentage of a number changes depending in whether you divide or multiply. His theory was that 5% of 100 is 5 if you multiply by .05, but it's something like $5.25 if you divide by .95 and subtract 100. I told him that dividing by .95 isn't resolving 5% of 100, but rather is determining what number 100 is 95% of. He didn't get it, and he didn't believe me. He gave me a 'C' even though I knew which line to put which number on - and why!
I also didn't get an 'A' in a political science course entitled 'How Congress Works.' Oh well, but not really.
My cumulative GPA is 3.73, and I will forever hold the record in Mrs. Towey's communication skills class for catching 31 coins piled on my elbow. I know that for a fact, because she's dead!
With that class completed, I am now into my sophomore year!
I didn't get an 'A' in that real estate course. The teacher said that a percentage of a number changes depending in whether you divide or multiply. His theory was that 5% of 100 is 5 if you multiply by .05, but it's something like $5.25 if you divide by .95 and subtract 100. I told him that dividing by .95 isn't resolving 5% of 100, but rather is determining what number 100 is 95% of. He didn't get it, and he didn't believe me. He gave me a 'C' even though I knew which line to put which number on - and why!
I also didn't get an 'A' in a political science course entitled 'How Congress Works.' Oh well, but not really.
My cumulative GPA is 3.73, and I will forever hold the record in Mrs. Towey's communication skills class for catching 31 coins piled on my elbow. I know that for a fact, because she's dead!
Tenth Grade Geometry
I won't mention my tenth grade teacher's name because there are probably people alive who loved him. He was old, fat, and didn't seem to like us. He was about to retire, and he didn't care any more. He rarely talked to us, didn't want to explain things to us, and rarely looked up from what he was reading at his desk.
In all fairness to him, I was getting rebelious.
I did what I felt like, pulled my only 'B' in math ever, and quit taking math courses - until community college, that is. It was required at that level, also. I took a lab class, did the work in a day, and showed up twice for tests.
I had to pay for that course, so I went ahead and got an 'A'.
In all fairness to him, I was getting rebelious.
I did what I felt like, pulled my only 'B' in math ever, and quit taking math courses - until community college, that is. It was required at that level, also. I took a lab class, did the work in a day, and showed up twice for tests.
I had to pay for that course, so I went ahead and got an 'A'.
Ninth Grade Algebra
Mrs. Nelson was an old lady about to retire from teaching. When I first learned she would be my teacher, I was afraid of her. I had heard stories about how hard she made the students work, and how hard she graded.
Mrs. Nelson proved to be very wise. After a couple of days in her class, she made me come in after school. She was concerned that I was cheating since I was getting my class work and home work done in about twenty to thirty minutes. She gave me some problems, and observed my work.
The next day, she told the class that when I was done with my work, classmates could use the remainder of my time in the class to tutor them.
I found my ninth-grade yearbook a few years ago, and went through it. There were several, perhaps many, comments thanking me for helping that person through Algebra.
Mrs. Nelson died a couple of decades ago, but part of her lives on with me from the lessons she taught me about capability and use of time.
Mrs. Nelson proved to be very wise. After a couple of days in her class, she made me come in after school. She was concerned that I was cheating since I was getting my class work and home work done in about twenty to thirty minutes. She gave me some problems, and observed my work.
The next day, she told the class that when I was done with my work, classmates could use the remainder of my time in the class to tutor them.
I found my ninth-grade yearbook a few years ago, and went through it. There were several, perhaps many, comments thanking me for helping that person through Algebra.
Mrs. Nelson died a couple of decades ago, but part of her lives on with me from the lessons she taught me about capability and use of time.
Eighth Grade Math
I loved my eighth grade math teacher. His name was/is Mr. Reed.
Mr. Reed had been teaching over in Africa for a few years before he returned to the states. What I remember best about him is that he was very nice, very interested in us, and seemed to love what he was doing.
His job was to teach us how to divide big numbers with long division method. I found it very elementary, and suggested a way to do it that I developed when I used to calculate ERAs, batting averages, and points per game. I don't know what he thought about an eighth-grader challenging conventional math theory, but he did allow me to explain how I did it.
After listening to me, he told me that it wouldn't work with large numbers. I told him I could prove it would, and asked him to give me a problem. He wrote what appeared to be large numbers on the black board and handed me the chalk.
I did my grid, and had the problem solved in about 45 seconds.
The other kids laughed at him.
That tore me apart, because I was trying to impress him, not show him up. It bothers me to this day.
Mr. Reed, thank you for the opportunity, and I'm sorry for accepting it in front of the class.
Mr. Reed had been teaching over in Africa for a few years before he returned to the states. What I remember best about him is that he was very nice, very interested in us, and seemed to love what he was doing.
His job was to teach us how to divide big numbers with long division method. I found it very elementary, and suggested a way to do it that I developed when I used to calculate ERAs, batting averages, and points per game. I don't know what he thought about an eighth-grader challenging conventional math theory, but he did allow me to explain how I did it.
After listening to me, he told me that it wouldn't work with large numbers. I told him I could prove it would, and asked him to give me a problem. He wrote what appeared to be large numbers on the black board and handed me the chalk.
I did my grid, and had the problem solved in about 45 seconds.
The other kids laughed at him.
That tore me apart, because I was trying to impress him, not show him up. It bothers me to this day.
Mr. Reed, thank you for the opportunity, and I'm sorry for accepting it in front of the class.
Chris and Todd and Me
I've grown up to be an average-heighted man, just slightly over 5'8", but not 5'9", though I used to give myself that part-inch. However, I was small as a child.
Chris and Todd were neighborhood kids. Chris lived next door. He is a year older than I am, and he played varsity everything. Todd lived across the alley, and is two years older than me. He and Chris would compete for the win anytime we played sports. I just always lost, but it never bothered me too much because these guys were older and bigger.
In addition to our backyard sports, we each got a game of Basket and had a set of the baseball game cards included in the packs we collected. We would set up our teams and play entire seasons in a couple of weeks.
Each day that we played, Chris and Todd would hand their team's results to me, and I would calculate the pitchers' ERAs, the hitters' batting averages, or the players scoring average (basketball).
No one had taught me how to do math when the numbers got that big - after all, I was only 9 or 10 - so I just figured out how to do it.
It's probably the main reason why they let me hang out with them; well, that, and to put me in football gear and give me a couple seconds for a head start!
Chris and Todd were neighborhood kids. Chris lived next door. He is a year older than I am, and he played varsity everything. Todd lived across the alley, and is two years older than me. He and Chris would compete for the win anytime we played sports. I just always lost, but it never bothered me too much because these guys were older and bigger.
In addition to our backyard sports, we each got a game of Basket and had a set of the baseball game cards included in the packs we collected. We would set up our teams and play entire seasons in a couple of weeks.
Each day that we played, Chris and Todd would hand their team's results to me, and I would calculate the pitchers' ERAs, the hitters' batting averages, or the players scoring average (basketball).
No one had taught me how to do math when the numbers got that big - after all, I was only 9 or 10 - so I just figured out how to do it.
It's probably the main reason why they let me hang out with them; well, that, and to put me in football gear and give me a couple seconds for a head start!
Truly Two-Dimensional Things Aren't Visible to Us
My granddaughter will soon be two years old. It's okay for her to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. She is also able to identify a circle from a square.
If she grows up to have common sense, she will one day believe that Santa and the Easter Bunny don't really exist. She will, however, go to her grave believing circles and squares do exist.
I should qualify that. They may really exist, but we can't see them.
What she identifies as a square is really the direct view of one side of a cube, or, perhaps, the bottom of a pyramid. What she identifies as a circle is a direct bottom or top view of a cylinder, a direct view of the bottom of a cone, or a direct view the cross-section, split at the halfway point or greater, of an orb.
Even things we see as two dimensional objects, like walls or paper, have depth, length, and height.
The common person can intellectually accept that there are things that aren't visible to the naked eye, like germs, cells, and molecules. It is accepted mostly because those things can be proven to exist. Those things are three-dimensional, just minute.
However, you cannot prove that squares and circles exist without drawing them in three dimensions on a three-dimensional object.
Socrates would ask a question, and find an hypothesis without conflict.
Aristotle would look at something, apply his prejudices, discount anything that seemed too large, and pretend he knew everything.
Einstein said reality is just an illusion - albeit a very persistent one.
Reality is only what we perceive it to be. To my granddaughter, Santa is very real because she perceives him to be real.
It is much easier to prove something exists than to prove it doesn't exist. To presume that the lack of proof that it exists is the same as it not existing is to presume germs didn't exist until they were discovered.
Lineal math would suggest that to have a two-dimensional object, one only needs to take one of the three dimensions away. That is short-sighted. We also wouldn't be able to see four-dimensional objects, though following the same lineal thought process, the four dimensions would include length, depth, and height plus one more.
We found germs looking very minutely in our three-dimensional world. I don't know if anyone knows what to look for in a two-dimensional or four-dimensional world. I don't know if anyone would know where to look for it. I certainly don't, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
So perhaps you're not convinced that 'common sense' is short-sighted. If you believe there is no number greater than ∞, how about ∞2?
The more we know, the more we realize how little we know.
If she grows up to have common sense, she will one day believe that Santa and the Easter Bunny don't really exist. She will, however, go to her grave believing circles and squares do exist.
I should qualify that. They may really exist, but we can't see them.
What she identifies as a square is really the direct view of one side of a cube, or, perhaps, the bottom of a pyramid. What she identifies as a circle is a direct bottom or top view of a cylinder, a direct view of the bottom of a cone, or a direct view the cross-section, split at the halfway point or greater, of an orb.
Even things we see as two dimensional objects, like walls or paper, have depth, length, and height.
The common person can intellectually accept that there are things that aren't visible to the naked eye, like germs, cells, and molecules. It is accepted mostly because those things can be proven to exist. Those things are three-dimensional, just minute.
However, you cannot prove that squares and circles exist without drawing them in three dimensions on a three-dimensional object.
Socrates would ask a question, and find an hypothesis without conflict.
Aristotle would look at something, apply his prejudices, discount anything that seemed too large, and pretend he knew everything.
Einstein said reality is just an illusion - albeit a very persistent one.
Reality is only what we perceive it to be. To my granddaughter, Santa is very real because she perceives him to be real.
It is much easier to prove something exists than to prove it doesn't exist. To presume that the lack of proof that it exists is the same as it not existing is to presume germs didn't exist until they were discovered.
Lineal math would suggest that to have a two-dimensional object, one only needs to take one of the three dimensions away. That is short-sighted. We also wouldn't be able to see four-dimensional objects, though following the same lineal thought process, the four dimensions would include length, depth, and height plus one more.
We found germs looking very minutely in our three-dimensional world. I don't know if anyone knows what to look for in a two-dimensional or four-dimensional world. I don't know if anyone would know where to look for it. I certainly don't, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
So perhaps you're not convinced that 'common sense' is short-sighted. If you believe there is no number greater than ∞, how about ∞2?
The more we know, the more we realize how little we know.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Aristotle: The Genius Who Really Wasn't
The generation after Socrates' death, his philosophies were made very popular by those who knew him, one of whom was Plato. Plato had a student named Aristotle, who is maybe the most influential person in history with his development of biological studies, logic, and psychology. Aristotle was undoubtedly a learned man and a scholar; however, there are many, myself included, who don't believe he was truly a genius.
Aristotle was very, very popular. He also had an insatiable thirst for knowledge. He was embraced by the public and religious leaders as one who expanded on Plato and Socrates. However, it is the last item in the series that causes the question of Aristotle's genius.
Aristotle seemed to have an amazing ability to look at something and explain how it worked. What has proven out later is that Aristotle seems to have compromised his principles for popularity. People wanted answers, perhaps confirmations, and he would produce them even if he didn't really know what he was talking about.
Two conclusions of Aristotle's that demonstrate his lack of genius were:
* Earth is the center of the universe, and stars were made from a 'perfect material' not found on Earth.
* The male gender in all species is larger and has more teeth.
Not only did Aristotle make these mathematical errors in his reasoning, he also accepted prestigious positions, taught for money, and fled his own fairly-certain execution only to die naturally within the year. These compromises of Socratian ethics indicate that he was in it for more than just passing knowledge on to future generations, and that he feared death.
He also added an inductive reasoning philosophy to Plato's description of Socrates' deductive methods. Starting at the beginning is a lineal thought, and served mainly to verify erroneous logic. To wit: Aristotle believed that if Earth was not the center of everything, then things in the air would be left behind as Earth flew through the sky. Inductively, he verified this by noting that birds aren't left behind in flight, ergo the Earth stays in one place.
His conclusions were the main argument against the mathemetician's Aristarchus of Namos claim a few decades later that Earth is in a solar system, rotates, and orbits the sun. Not until Copernicus, about 1,700 years later, would the genius of Aristarchus of Namos be recognized. Many of the scientific errors in the Bible can be directly attributed to Aristotle's teachings and the churches embracing of his 'verifying conclusions.'
So let's evaluate Aristotle's genius:
Was Aristotle a genius?
According to Kant's definition: Aristotle certainly appeared to be able to know that which others would need to be taught, but one would have to accept that Kant meant that a genius only needs to believe he knows what others would need to be taught. He was able to create new things. My conclusion is that according to Kant's definition, Aristotle was not a genius because he 'really didn't know that which he professed to know.'
With Schopenhauer's added definition: Aristotle appears to have put the will to live ahead of intellect. My conclusion is that he doesn't qualify according to Schopenhauer.
According to my criteria:
1. Aristotle was likely a conceptual thinker (he was entrepreneurial), but often fell prey to lineal conclusions.
2. Aristotle seemed to be able to compute math in ways common people can't, but he seemed to rely on prejudices to discount the math (i.e. he was correct in his math that if stars are the same things as our sun, then they would have to be millions of miles away.) However, he apparently didn't count the number of teeth in both genders of humans.
3. I haven't drawn a conclusion.
4. Aristotle seems to have used the creative side to consider options, but relied on his analytical side to draw many of his erroneous conclusions.
5. Aristotle's theories certainly have affected future generations, but not necessarily positively. His conclusions set astronomy back nearly 2,000 years, and modern religion is still flawed by erroneous Aristotlian presumptions.
6. He seems to have not been able to envision a million miles.
7. Aristotle appears to have understood the importance of physical laws and dynamics, but seems to have discounted some of it due to prejudices about limitations.
8. Aristotle appears to have had a misogynistic prejudice, and sought wealth and fame. When it came to death, he abandoned his principles totally.
9. Aristotle's conclusions demonstrate a blind faith that the male gender is superior to the female gender in all species, and that there are boundaries to reality.
By all three definitions, Aristotle does not seem to rate as a genius.
This is probably best verified when, in challenging Aristachrus's theory of the sun being the center of the solar system, it was popularly discounted for lacking the 'common sense' of Aristotle's conclusions!
Aristotle was very, very popular. He also had an insatiable thirst for knowledge. He was embraced by the public and religious leaders as one who expanded on Plato and Socrates. However, it is the last item in the series that causes the question of Aristotle's genius.
Aristotle seemed to have an amazing ability to look at something and explain how it worked. What has proven out later is that Aristotle seems to have compromised his principles for popularity. People wanted answers, perhaps confirmations, and he would produce them even if he didn't really know what he was talking about.
Two conclusions of Aristotle's that demonstrate his lack of genius were:
* Earth is the center of the universe, and stars were made from a 'perfect material' not found on Earth.
* The male gender in all species is larger and has more teeth.
Not only did Aristotle make these mathematical errors in his reasoning, he also accepted prestigious positions, taught for money, and fled his own fairly-certain execution only to die naturally within the year. These compromises of Socratian ethics indicate that he was in it for more than just passing knowledge on to future generations, and that he feared death.
He also added an inductive reasoning philosophy to Plato's description of Socrates' deductive methods. Starting at the beginning is a lineal thought, and served mainly to verify erroneous logic. To wit: Aristotle believed that if Earth was not the center of everything, then things in the air would be left behind as Earth flew through the sky. Inductively, he verified this by noting that birds aren't left behind in flight, ergo the Earth stays in one place.
His conclusions were the main argument against the mathemetician's Aristarchus of Namos claim a few decades later that Earth is in a solar system, rotates, and orbits the sun. Not until Copernicus, about 1,700 years later, would the genius of Aristarchus of Namos be recognized. Many of the scientific errors in the Bible can be directly attributed to Aristotle's teachings and the churches embracing of his 'verifying conclusions.'
So let's evaluate Aristotle's genius:
Was Aristotle a genius?
According to Kant's definition: Aristotle certainly appeared to be able to know that which others would need to be taught, but one would have to accept that Kant meant that a genius only needs to believe he knows what others would need to be taught. He was able to create new things. My conclusion is that according to Kant's definition, Aristotle was not a genius because he 'really didn't know that which he professed to know.'
With Schopenhauer's added definition: Aristotle appears to have put the will to live ahead of intellect. My conclusion is that he doesn't qualify according to Schopenhauer.
According to my criteria:
1. Aristotle was likely a conceptual thinker (he was entrepreneurial), but often fell prey to lineal conclusions.
2. Aristotle seemed to be able to compute math in ways common people can't, but he seemed to rely on prejudices to discount the math (i.e. he was correct in his math that if stars are the same things as our sun, then they would have to be millions of miles away.) However, he apparently didn't count the number of teeth in both genders of humans.
3. I haven't drawn a conclusion.
4. Aristotle seems to have used the creative side to consider options, but relied on his analytical side to draw many of his erroneous conclusions.
5. Aristotle's theories certainly have affected future generations, but not necessarily positively. His conclusions set astronomy back nearly 2,000 years, and modern religion is still flawed by erroneous Aristotlian presumptions.
6. He seems to have not been able to envision a million miles.
7. Aristotle appears to have understood the importance of physical laws and dynamics, but seems to have discounted some of it due to prejudices about limitations.
8. Aristotle appears to have had a misogynistic prejudice, and sought wealth and fame. When it came to death, he abandoned his principles totally.
9. Aristotle's conclusions demonstrate a blind faith that the male gender is superior to the female gender in all species, and that there are boundaries to reality.
By all three definitions, Aristotle does not seem to rate as a genius.
This is probably best verified when, in challenging Aristachrus's theory of the sun being the center of the solar system, it was popularly discounted for lacking the 'common sense' of Aristotle's conclusions!
Socrates: a Philosophical Genius
Socrates is considered the 'father of western philosophy.' He was an Athenian who lived in the fifth century before Christ. There is no evidence that he ever wrote his own thoughts down; what we know about him is from Plato's and Xenophon's writings, and the plays of Aristophanes. He is portrayed as a poor man who listened to a divine voice in his head, and who was pious. He placed great value on good, justice, beauty, and virtue. He accepted his execution, apparently with options, as a matter of principles.
He lived during a time when the general philosophy of 'right and wrong' was determined by who could win a battle. He is described as a 'gadfly' who would undermine the establishment's philosophy of 'might is right' with the Athenian people, to one of consideration for justice and good. He became such a pain in the butt that he was eventually executed for corrupting youth - this in a society where men having sex with boys was accepted! (Forget about that; his life has an e=mc2 factor that is long ago and far away.)
One of his philosophies, perhaps his most important one, is known as 'the Socratic method.' Through the method, a problem is solved by asking a question and finding an hypothesis (answer) that doesn't have conflict. It is the basis of 'the scientific method' used still today. He believed that the 'best results' (note: not 'correct' result) were derived from 'searching one's soul' (paraphrased) and asking others for input.
Other thoughts attributed to Socrates, by the sources we have, include:
* People spend too much time worrying about family and careers, and too little time worrying about the 'welfare of their souls.'
* Moral excellence is the result of one accepting divine inspiration than parental nurturing.
* His wisdom was not pretending to know that which he didn't.
* People should be more dedicated to self-development than gathering wealth.
* The job of a philosopher is to show others how little we know.
* People should be governed by philosophers, and not by democratic popularity.
* We live because of a life force that departs the body upon death.
* A true philosopher cannot fear death.
* One should honor his contracts regardless of the consequences.
Many people in Athens loved Socrates and thought him to be the wisest man in Athens. We can't know for certain that he was the wisest in the land, but he was, at least, regarded by some to be. Despite offers to help him escape, including the bribing of the guards, he accepted the court's decision, and considered his execution 'his answer to dying of old age.'
Question: Was Socrates a genius?
Applying Kant's definition: Socrates appears to be a man who knew what others would have to be taught, and was able to create methods for moral and ethical self-evaluation.
Applying Schopenhauer's addition to Kant's definition: Socrates appears to be a man who placed intellect predominate to will.
Applying my standards:
1. Socrates was a conceptual thinker.
2. The Socratic method is a demonstration of his understanding of using math uncommonly.
3. His relief over not having to die naturally and painfully demonstrates an understanding about how time works.
4. He used creativity and analysis to arrive at his conclusions.
5. His theories have added to the knowledge base for future geniuses.
6. He believed in a 'physical soul' and reincarnation that lived on after physical death. This doesn't demonstrate fully the envisionment of infinity, but it does show that he understood continuum.
7. His observation about 'genetic myths' of the day demonstrates an understanding of bodily physical laws and human dynamics.
8. He suffered execution over his principles.
9. He was incapable of accepting the norm claiming that he could become rich if he were to use his knowledge for pandering. He had no blind faith.
Socrates was a genius by all three standards.
So, if you're wondering why I'm going through this exercise to arrive at the conclusion that Socrates was a genius, the continuing story of Socrates and his 'posthumous recognition' as a genius led to him becoming prophetic. We'll skip Plato. He was a genius also. However, you should not just accept my word for that!
We need to go one more generation. Plato has already set up his school, and is teaching Socratic philosophy to students. Then one day, he died, and Aristotle became Plato's 'self-professed desciple.
He lived during a time when the general philosophy of 'right and wrong' was determined by who could win a battle. He is described as a 'gadfly' who would undermine the establishment's philosophy of 'might is right' with the Athenian people, to one of consideration for justice and good. He became such a pain in the butt that he was eventually executed for corrupting youth - this in a society where men having sex with boys was accepted! (Forget about that; his life has an e=mc2 factor that is long ago and far away.)
One of his philosophies, perhaps his most important one, is known as 'the Socratic method.' Through the method, a problem is solved by asking a question and finding an hypothesis (answer) that doesn't have conflict. It is the basis of 'the scientific method' used still today. He believed that the 'best results' (note: not 'correct' result) were derived from 'searching one's soul' (paraphrased) and asking others for input.
Other thoughts attributed to Socrates, by the sources we have, include:
* People spend too much time worrying about family and careers, and too little time worrying about the 'welfare of their souls.'
* Moral excellence is the result of one accepting divine inspiration than parental nurturing.
* His wisdom was not pretending to know that which he didn't.
* People should be more dedicated to self-development than gathering wealth.
* The job of a philosopher is to show others how little we know.
* People should be governed by philosophers, and not by democratic popularity.
* We live because of a life force that departs the body upon death.
* A true philosopher cannot fear death.
* One should honor his contracts regardless of the consequences.
Many people in Athens loved Socrates and thought him to be the wisest man in Athens. We can't know for certain that he was the wisest in the land, but he was, at least, regarded by some to be. Despite offers to help him escape, including the bribing of the guards, he accepted the court's decision, and considered his execution 'his answer to dying of old age.'
Question: Was Socrates a genius?
Applying Kant's definition: Socrates appears to be a man who knew what others would have to be taught, and was able to create methods for moral and ethical self-evaluation.
Applying Schopenhauer's addition to Kant's definition: Socrates appears to be a man who placed intellect predominate to will.
Applying my standards:
1. Socrates was a conceptual thinker.
2. The Socratic method is a demonstration of his understanding of using math uncommonly.
3. His relief over not having to die naturally and painfully demonstrates an understanding about how time works.
4. He used creativity and analysis to arrive at his conclusions.
5. His theories have added to the knowledge base for future geniuses.
6. He believed in a 'physical soul' and reincarnation that lived on after physical death. This doesn't demonstrate fully the envisionment of infinity, but it does show that he understood continuum.
7. His observation about 'genetic myths' of the day demonstrates an understanding of bodily physical laws and human dynamics.
8. He suffered execution over his principles.
9. He was incapable of accepting the norm claiming that he could become rich if he were to use his knowledge for pandering. He had no blind faith.
Socrates was a genius by all three standards.
So, if you're wondering why I'm going through this exercise to arrive at the conclusion that Socrates was a genius, the continuing story of Socrates and his 'posthumous recognition' as a genius led to him becoming prophetic. We'll skip Plato. He was a genius also. However, you should not just accept my word for that!
We need to go one more generation. Plato has already set up his school, and is teaching Socratic philosophy to students. Then one day, he died, and Aristotle became Plato's 'self-professed desciple.
Conceptual and Lineal Thinking
While all geniuses are conceptual thinkers, not all conceptual thinkers are geniuses. More common, typically conceptual thinkers include entrepreneurs, artists, and entertainers. They are people who tend to start with the whole picture, and work in the details. Lineal thinkers tend to start with the details, and create the picture they want. Both work fine for day-to-day life, and, in fact, life is set up for lineal thinking people.
I don't know if one can really learn conceptual thinking, or if the progression through math is simply a weeding out process to determine who can and can't think conceptually. It seems to me that it can be learned, or they would find a gene or something. It isn't something that's necessarily inherited or inspired through environment. Regardless, I believe humans are capable of learning it, but they must understand it and practice it.
That won't make you a genius, but at least you'll have a possibility!
The side of the brain most people will have to turn on is the creative side. We are taught to analyze problems to resolve them. We're then to turn on our creative sides, and filter that through our analytical sides to arrive at the 'correct answer.'
Conceptual thinkers start out with the result they want, and start working out the variables they need to accomplish what they envision. I've mentioned some typically conceptual thinkers that are in the positive. In the negative, serial killers and frauds are likely conceptual thinkers. There are a lot of details involved in these types of crimes that require 'creative analysis.' Conceptual thinkers are sometimes regarded as 'learning disabled,' but many of those people may really just be 'lineal-learning disabled.' Order doesn't mean as much to a conceptual thinker as to a lineal thinker.
How any one conceptual thinker uses the skill will depend on his or her principles and ethos. However, a high regard for principles is inherent in a genius, even if those principles aren't popularly accepted, or even necessarily provident or healthy for humanity. Geniuses will tend to leave if they are required to compromise their principles in order to stay.
It's a concept they can't accept.
I don't know if one can really learn conceptual thinking, or if the progression through math is simply a weeding out process to determine who can and can't think conceptually. It seems to me that it can be learned, or they would find a gene or something. It isn't something that's necessarily inherited or inspired through environment. Regardless, I believe humans are capable of learning it, but they must understand it and practice it.
That won't make you a genius, but at least you'll have a possibility!
The side of the brain most people will have to turn on is the creative side. We are taught to analyze problems to resolve them. We're then to turn on our creative sides, and filter that through our analytical sides to arrive at the 'correct answer.'
Conceptual thinkers start out with the result they want, and start working out the variables they need to accomplish what they envision. I've mentioned some typically conceptual thinkers that are in the positive. In the negative, serial killers and frauds are likely conceptual thinkers. There are a lot of details involved in these types of crimes that require 'creative analysis.' Conceptual thinkers are sometimes regarded as 'learning disabled,' but many of those people may really just be 'lineal-learning disabled.' Order doesn't mean as much to a conceptual thinker as to a lineal thinker.
How any one conceptual thinker uses the skill will depend on his or her principles and ethos. However, a high regard for principles is inherent in a genius, even if those principles aren't popularly accepted, or even necessarily provident or healthy for humanity. Geniuses will tend to leave if they are required to compromise their principles in order to stay.
It's a concept they can't accept.
The Theory of Relativity
e=mc2; so what does it mean? It is how time works.
I haven't actually studied what Einstein wrote, so forgive me if I don't use the same terminology or have a slight flaw in the description. Here's the theory in simple language:
Time is infinite and travels at the speed of light (or electricity); if I recall correctly, that's roughly 144,000 miles per second. At the moment (to at least the 144,000th of a second) something is created, it has an e=mc2 factor attached to it. From that point on, it ages until it is reduced to dust or ashes.
People have long wondered about time travel. Geniuses have long known it is possible, though Einstein was the first person who told us how to do it. Here's how you advance in time: go faster than the speed of light. If you could reach a speed of 288,000 MPS for 24 hours, you would be one day older, but you'd be in the day after tomorrow. To go back, or forward, 100 years in one year, you would have to travel at 14,400,000 miles per second for that year.
Obviously, we have nothing that can physically withstand that speed - except our minds. Mentally, we can go back or forward 100 years in a split-second. If you think I'm saying that we can think about it in today's world from where you sit, you can, but you can go beyond that. Nostradamus did, and so did Edgar Cayce. They did it in transcedental states, which is very close to dreaming except there are cognizant abilities.
The phenomenon that we call 'deja vu' (feeling like you've been there before) is most often associated (relative) to dreaming. We recognize day dreaming as our minds wander off the topic at hand. Do our 'minds' really 'wander off?' Certainly, our physical brains don't, so it's easy to conclude that our minds don't actually leave the location of our bodies.
I think that's a very short-sighted conclusion. Near-death tales often contain elements of traveling through 'a light.' Physical scientists have concluded that it is the visual affect of dying brain cells. They talk of seeing dead relatives. Physical scientists suggest that is just memory. They talk of seeing their 'entire lives flash before their eyes.'
What physical scientists can't explain is what happens to the 'life energy' at death. Energy cannot be destroyed. It can, however, alter form.
That doesn't prove that our minds can actually travel, but rather suggests that the possibility is not eliminated.
Back to the topic of time and relativity: imagine a line with arrows on both ends. From that line, we snag a loop which becomes 'our time.' We do with 'our time' that which we 'will.' How we 'spend' or 'expend' our time is up to us. When 'our time is up,' our life energy leaves our physical bodies and does whatever our life energies do after physical death. Perhaps we even have some control over it, but I don't know.
Time never began, and it will never end. It just is, and it affects everything by aging it.
So let me run through this scenario: my grandfather died in 1989 at the age of 86. I have a picture of him taken about 1920. As of today, it's roughly 87 years old. Is it now older than my grandfather?
Of course it isn't. It never will be older than my grandfather. My grandfather's e-mc2 factor will always be from earlier in time. He's in the picture, and he couldn't have been there before he was created - unless he went faster than the speed of light to do it!
I haven't actually studied what Einstein wrote, so forgive me if I don't use the same terminology or have a slight flaw in the description. Here's the theory in simple language:
Time is infinite and travels at the speed of light (or electricity); if I recall correctly, that's roughly 144,000 miles per second. At the moment (to at least the 144,000th of a second) something is created, it has an e=mc2 factor attached to it. From that point on, it ages until it is reduced to dust or ashes.
People have long wondered about time travel. Geniuses have long known it is possible, though Einstein was the first person who told us how to do it. Here's how you advance in time: go faster than the speed of light. If you could reach a speed of 288,000 MPS for 24 hours, you would be one day older, but you'd be in the day after tomorrow. To go back, or forward, 100 years in one year, you would have to travel at 14,400,000 miles per second for that year.
Obviously, we have nothing that can physically withstand that speed - except our minds. Mentally, we can go back or forward 100 years in a split-second. If you think I'm saying that we can think about it in today's world from where you sit, you can, but you can go beyond that. Nostradamus did, and so did Edgar Cayce. They did it in transcedental states, which is very close to dreaming except there are cognizant abilities.
The phenomenon that we call 'deja vu' (feeling like you've been there before) is most often associated (relative) to dreaming. We recognize day dreaming as our minds wander off the topic at hand. Do our 'minds' really 'wander off?' Certainly, our physical brains don't, so it's easy to conclude that our minds don't actually leave the location of our bodies.
I think that's a very short-sighted conclusion. Near-death tales often contain elements of traveling through 'a light.' Physical scientists have concluded that it is the visual affect of dying brain cells. They talk of seeing dead relatives. Physical scientists suggest that is just memory. They talk of seeing their 'entire lives flash before their eyes.'
What physical scientists can't explain is what happens to the 'life energy' at death. Energy cannot be destroyed. It can, however, alter form.
That doesn't prove that our minds can actually travel, but rather suggests that the possibility is not eliminated.
Back to the topic of time and relativity: imagine a line with arrows on both ends. From that line, we snag a loop which becomes 'our time.' We do with 'our time' that which we 'will.' How we 'spend' or 'expend' our time is up to us. When 'our time is up,' our life energy leaves our physical bodies and does whatever our life energies do after physical death. Perhaps we even have some control over it, but I don't know.
Time never began, and it will never end. It just is, and it affects everything by aging it.
So let me run through this scenario: my grandfather died in 1989 at the age of 86. I have a picture of him taken about 1920. As of today, it's roughly 87 years old. Is it now older than my grandfather?
Of course it isn't. It never will be older than my grandfather. My grandfather's e-mc2 factor will always be from earlier in time. He's in the picture, and he couldn't have been there before he was created - unless he went faster than the speed of light to do it!
Gravity
Gravity is the greatest of all physical forces that we are aware of. The common person doesn't see that gravity affects everything - no exceptions. It affects your bank account, your job, your relationships, and your mental well-being. If I didn't mention it, it still affects it. This is a concept that the common person has trouble understanding, and, therefore, accepting. They know it is the force that keeps us on Earth, but that's incorrect. It is the force that attempts to draw us to the center of Earth.
Gravity is the physical force that attracts smaller objects to the center of larger objects. That's all it is. To narrow it beyond that is to reduce its all-encompassing power.
Success in life is achieved by 'defying gravity.' In order to do so, one must use physical dynamics. Doing any one thing to get a 'loft' will only lead to a hard fall unless dynamics continue to be used to 'defy gravity' again, albeit from a higher starting point.
In the defiance of gravity, one must also be aware of other physical forces. Some people dream of 'rocketing to success' without realizing that there will be a great deal of friction encountered. When this is done, the person often 'burns out,' which is an effect of friction. That type of effort rarely works, and the result of failing to 'rocket,' is that the dream is subjected to the laws of inertia.
One must use dynamics to defy the force of gravity. Whether it's bouncing, springboarding, catapulting, rocketing, or leveraging (not an exhaustive list), we use these dynamics in our lives. The most common dynamic I hear people refer to in order to defy gravity is 'climbing the ladder.' It tends to be stable and safe if put on firm ground, and people are more comfortable with the view than with 'riskier dynamics.' However, it's necessary to separate oneself from the comfortable view in order to be different from the norm.
Risk with these other dynamics can be significantly reduced if they are calculated such to help reach the next level, and not used just to see where you will land. You may not have enough tension, or you may be over-stressing because of excessive tension.
Perhaps your problem with gravity is different. Perhaps you're carrying too heavy a load to make much progress on your journey. Shedding probably is needed. Perhaps shaving would work better. Maybe you just need to dump.
Perhaps you have a sea of problems. Early success might just be achieving a float. That's done through displacement. If you're already floating, maybe you want to sail - just don't forget the importance of the rudder! Maybe you can get it going fast enough to add a hydrofoil to rise above the water. Maybe you'll have the gall to add wings and soar!
Regardless of whether you get this or not, gravity will be the main force you fight in not having your dreams, relationships, careers, and bank accounts get pulled below ground level. If it starts out from high enough, it's better described as crashing!
Gravity is the physical force that attracts smaller objects to the center of larger objects. That's all it is. To narrow it beyond that is to reduce its all-encompassing power.
Success in life is achieved by 'defying gravity.' In order to do so, one must use physical dynamics. Doing any one thing to get a 'loft' will only lead to a hard fall unless dynamics continue to be used to 'defy gravity' again, albeit from a higher starting point.
In the defiance of gravity, one must also be aware of other physical forces. Some people dream of 'rocketing to success' without realizing that there will be a great deal of friction encountered. When this is done, the person often 'burns out,' which is an effect of friction. That type of effort rarely works, and the result of failing to 'rocket,' is that the dream is subjected to the laws of inertia.
One must use dynamics to defy the force of gravity. Whether it's bouncing, springboarding, catapulting, rocketing, or leveraging (not an exhaustive list), we use these dynamics in our lives. The most common dynamic I hear people refer to in order to defy gravity is 'climbing the ladder.' It tends to be stable and safe if put on firm ground, and people are more comfortable with the view than with 'riskier dynamics.' However, it's necessary to separate oneself from the comfortable view in order to be different from the norm.
Risk with these other dynamics can be significantly reduced if they are calculated such to help reach the next level, and not used just to see where you will land. You may not have enough tension, or you may be over-stressing because of excessive tension.
Perhaps your problem with gravity is different. Perhaps you're carrying too heavy a load to make much progress on your journey. Shedding probably is needed. Perhaps shaving would work better. Maybe you just need to dump.
Perhaps you have a sea of problems. Early success might just be achieving a float. That's done through displacement. If you're already floating, maybe you want to sail - just don't forget the importance of the rudder! Maybe you can get it going fast enough to add a hydrofoil to rise above the water. Maybe you'll have the gall to add wings and soar!
Regardless of whether you get this or not, gravity will be the main force you fight in not having your dreams, relationships, careers, and bank accounts get pulled below ground level. If it starts out from high enough, it's better described as crashing!
Welcome to My Nightmare!
So there I was, sitting in a meeting room at the Sheraton for a day of management training. I barely qualified to attend these meetings being a mere supervisor, but I was a confident young man who had been recruited from another company to create the department. However, at this point, my 'honeymoon period' had expired, and I was just another mouth to feed.
We were taking Personalysis tests trying to identify the type of people that we are so we can know how each is motivated and better understand ourselves. It was truly one of the more interesting self-evaluation studies I'd been in on, so I was gleaning information about how my mind and motivations work in comparison with other industry professionals, including the CEO and all the levels of VPs that existed!
We were asked to use one word that describes us. It went around the table. People used words like 'organized' and 'thorough.' I said 'iconoclast.' Even the VP who was an aspiring author, and a man I totally respect to this day, said 'huh?' If I had known that no one understood the term, I would have said something like 'progressive,' or some other term common people understand, but which doesn't describe me as well as 'iconoclast.'
You see, I hadn't recognized it yet. All I wanted to do was participate fully. Anyway, my negative child is almost square, despite that squares don't really exist.
My father was a major influence in my life. He wasn't a genius, but he was highly creative and had an insatiable drive for learning. He was wise, and he was a conceptual thinker. I don't recall how old I was when I asked him what he knew about Einstein's theory of relativity. You see, I was strong in my math skills, but I couldn't figure out how e=mc2 works when we aren't given any numbers to plug into those variables. He didn't really understand it, but had been shown an example once. He gave me verbal illustration of a scenario in which a train crosses a bridge.
He never got it. I understood it, albeit after some thought was applied to the 'train crossing the bridge' example. I can even explain it in fairly simple terms, but the knowledge won't do much for a person who doesn't apply it to deep creative thought.
Kant defined a genius as one who understands what others would need to be taught AND who is able to create. Schopenhauer added another group to Kant's definition: those in whom intellect predominates will, seemingly adding, amongst others, the geniuses that Asperger would identify about a century later.
Whatever.
Here is what I notice is common among geniuses:
1. They are conceptual, not lineal, thinkers.
2. They are able to compute, or understand, math in ways common people can't.
3. They understand how time works.
4. They use both the analytical and creative sides of the brain in problem-solving or creation.
5. Their theories, though often flawed or short-sighted, add to the knowledge base for future geniuses.
6. They can envision infinity - and beyond.
7. They understand the importance of physical laws and dynamics, and can apply those to arrive at conclusions.
8. They are highly principled, even if the principle isn't particularly accepted by society.
9. They lack the ability to have blind faith.
Geniuses differ from learned people. Education is an accomplishment, and it will open doors, but it doesn't do much for a person's 'uncommon sense.' Education, for the most part, has been reduced to knowing which answer goes on which line. Amongst the throngs of people who now have that piece of paper that tells the world 'this person knows which answer goes on which line' are some people whose thought power is so much greater than the average that they can describe things that will boggle the minds of the others without trying to boggle their minds.
Those around me have been concerned about my sanity for the past several months. I tell them I want solitude at times, and at other times I want companionship. They tell me to make up my mind. I have, and I've said it for years. To wit: I've told my daughter that I love her, and would like her to come and visit me often. She still won't move out. So yesterday, when I told her I needed solitude, and six hours later the population in my house went from three to four (which is the wrong direction to get to one), she got my point when I threw the recycling container at the garage. THEN I got the house to myself for a while.
She called me 'to see if I was all right.' Of course I was all right, but told her I need her to start picking up subtle hints like direct statements.
It drives me crazy, I tell you! In fact, I'd probably go break some religious symbol, but I'm only an iconoclast figuratively!
I have no idea where this blog will head off to. I'm not going to try to control that part of it, but will rather just see where my thoughts lead.
If this crap interests you, and you want to add something, please feel free to do so. I'm moderating the comments to avoid spam, common sense, and other things that waste time.
We were taking Personalysis tests trying to identify the type of people that we are so we can know how each is motivated and better understand ourselves. It was truly one of the more interesting self-evaluation studies I'd been in on, so I was gleaning information about how my mind and motivations work in comparison with other industry professionals, including the CEO and all the levels of VPs that existed!
We were asked to use one word that describes us. It went around the table. People used words like 'organized' and 'thorough.' I said 'iconoclast.' Even the VP who was an aspiring author, and a man I totally respect to this day, said 'huh?' If I had known that no one understood the term, I would have said something like 'progressive,' or some other term common people understand, but which doesn't describe me as well as 'iconoclast.'
You see, I hadn't recognized it yet. All I wanted to do was participate fully. Anyway, my negative child is almost square, despite that squares don't really exist.
My father was a major influence in my life. He wasn't a genius, but he was highly creative and had an insatiable drive for learning. He was wise, and he was a conceptual thinker. I don't recall how old I was when I asked him what he knew about Einstein's theory of relativity. You see, I was strong in my math skills, but I couldn't figure out how e=mc2 works when we aren't given any numbers to plug into those variables. He didn't really understand it, but had been shown an example once. He gave me verbal illustration of a scenario in which a train crosses a bridge.
He never got it. I understood it, albeit after some thought was applied to the 'train crossing the bridge' example. I can even explain it in fairly simple terms, but the knowledge won't do much for a person who doesn't apply it to deep creative thought.
Kant defined a genius as one who understands what others would need to be taught AND who is able to create. Schopenhauer added another group to Kant's definition: those in whom intellect predominates will, seemingly adding, amongst others, the geniuses that Asperger would identify about a century later.
Whatever.
Here is what I notice is common among geniuses:
1. They are conceptual, not lineal, thinkers.
2. They are able to compute, or understand, math in ways common people can't.
3. They understand how time works.
4. They use both the analytical and creative sides of the brain in problem-solving or creation.
5. Their theories, though often flawed or short-sighted, add to the knowledge base for future geniuses.
6. They can envision infinity - and beyond.
7. They understand the importance of physical laws and dynamics, and can apply those to arrive at conclusions.
8. They are highly principled, even if the principle isn't particularly accepted by society.
9. They lack the ability to have blind faith.
Geniuses differ from learned people. Education is an accomplishment, and it will open doors, but it doesn't do much for a person's 'uncommon sense.' Education, for the most part, has been reduced to knowing which answer goes on which line. Amongst the throngs of people who now have that piece of paper that tells the world 'this person knows which answer goes on which line' are some people whose thought power is so much greater than the average that they can describe things that will boggle the minds of the others without trying to boggle their minds.
Those around me have been concerned about my sanity for the past several months. I tell them I want solitude at times, and at other times I want companionship. They tell me to make up my mind. I have, and I've said it for years. To wit: I've told my daughter that I love her, and would like her to come and visit me often. She still won't move out. So yesterday, when I told her I needed solitude, and six hours later the population in my house went from three to four (which is the wrong direction to get to one), she got my point when I threw the recycling container at the garage. THEN I got the house to myself for a while.
She called me 'to see if I was all right.' Of course I was all right, but told her I need her to start picking up subtle hints like direct statements.
It drives me crazy, I tell you! In fact, I'd probably go break some religious symbol, but I'm only an iconoclast figuratively!
I have no idea where this blog will head off to. I'm not going to try to control that part of it, but will rather just see where my thoughts lead.
If this crap interests you, and you want to add something, please feel free to do so. I'm moderating the comments to avoid spam, common sense, and other things that waste time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)