I have written the above immediately after reading your comment. The readers will be interested in following the subject. Therefore, I suggest that you tell us about this situation as approached by you. About losing information as time wears down living memories: I regret not having questioned my parents about their own lifes. Still, I got from my father how we came to our family name. He explained why we got it at the time of Tsar Nicholas I, some 150 yr. ago. I am the only one of the many descendants of the 5 brothers who learned about that historical detail.
Yes, Pamela, I agree that things shouldn't be rushing around so much. Thanks for seeing this as a quieter (more thoughtful?) place, which it is intended to be. I suspect that has something too to do with the question you asked: how to get more effective use out of the intellectual capital of a company. Maybe by creating environments where the people aren't so busy rushing around (and incentives to encourage less rushing around)? No, not easy. But my bet is not only that it would work but that not much else will. And that's connected (for me at least) to Helen's question too. I, at least, can think almost anywhere, as long as I let myself go ... instead of worrying about all the things I'm SUPPOSED to be doing. That tends to make me think less. What do I think about? Yes, look around Serendip. THAT's what I think about (or at least part of it). Is it really your birthday, Tania? Come back and give Jake your advice on thinking.
And, oh yes. Jake, what is "phatic"? And where/what are "the next three Forums"? And ... thanks again for being around.
I just wanted to comment on very recent reports on drug addiction which show that marijuana is as potentially habit-forming as the 'hard' stimulating drugs since the habit-forming mechanism is the same, thus facilitating the step from marijuana to the others. From what I read, I shall try to synthesize: 1.- Biologic molecules have been discovered which cause the unbearable feeling of anxiety, in definite brain areas. 2.- The brain produces its own anxiety-preventing and relieving molecules. 3.- The drugs used for 'highs' inhibit for a long period those natural molecules. As a corollary, the habit-forming results from the fact that anxiety is now not prevented-inhibited by the natural brain products. Obviously then, other molecules capable of tiding over the anxiety in the interval permit a cure for the acute need for stimulating drugs.
Science an its applications are helping solve many physical problems. But think of the people who relapse into drug using. Their situation may be due to some brain chemical imbalance or to not yet detectable anatomical brain defects. But 'pure' psychological determinants may be the culprit. It is essential to make the differential diagnosis. Likewise, physicians can only gain in their clinical acumen through knowledge of myths an related material.
I promised to describe t the case of the anxiety-possessed patient who was helped by explaining that Eve suffered from the same anxiety-producing malaise and that the snake was just trying to help, giving the advice that apparently was common coin in ancient times (and even today, as my doctor friend told me once).
Maybe we're on to something ... Clearly fun for us, maybe of more general significance. Have a look at Making Connections ... and Insights from the brain about education and, much older, This isn't just MY problem .... There are some similar thoughts from various people about how education SHOULD be done lying around Serendip here and there.
Far from boring, Tania. A story I can identify with (I suspect most of us can). And it raises a very interesting question: is wanting to think/create pathological? or a characteristic of only some special people? How come more people don't DO it? Some thoughts of my own in This isn't just MY problem ... about why more people don't do it. No, I don't think its either pathological or inevitably a characteristic of a very small minority. In my experience, virtually ALL humans start out life enjoying thinking/creating, with other people. And then are progressively discouraged from continuing to do so, by a set of forces that are very complicated but that can, in principle, be corrected. Yes, I think most (all?) kids would not watch too much TV if they grew up in an environment that encouraged thinking, since that's actually MORE fun/interesting. If I'm right, it would pay all of us to try and help make sure more kids grow up in such environments, since it would give US more people to have fun with.
This, of course, relates as well to the drug issue which Jake alluded to. And to some related thoughts I know to be on Ron's mind (see August 5 in the Brain and Behavior Forum). Yes, of course, drugs influence brain states, in ways that mimic to varying degrees things that happen in the brain for other reasons (and yes, of course, they can be helpful in some circumstances). The "varying degrees" is the operative point: my own bet (as a neurobiologist, for reasons I think I can explain but would take too long here) is that in most cases the brain states achievable by drug manipulation are less satisfying than those that could in principle by achieved in other ways .... and so people would in general "not watch too much TV" in this case either, if they had viable, more satisfying options.
And all THAT relates to the Big Bang, heat, sources of order? Yeah (embarrassed grin), I think it probably does, but that too would probably take too long to justify here (which is already getting too long ... sorry, friends). Suffice it to say that I think Jake's suggestion that there is a qunatum mechanics parallel in the brain/mind realm is almost certainly correct (see the item on the Brain and Behavior page, subtitled "A neural uncertainty principle"). And that I think life (and brains) are very much active players in the evolution of the universe. And that we're currently working on a new exhibit on diffusion and its consequences (a set of phenomena closely related to Jake's entropy concerns). Its vcry much "in progress", with no explanatory material as yet, but you can look at the Java applet if you want an advance peek, and feel like playing around to figure out yourself what it does.
Enough? Yeah, more than. Will try in the future for more of Ron's "uncharacteristically short". Sorry. But you all triggered it. Thanks. Wow.
and there .
I'm sorry, I'll be sensible now..<grin> Seriously though there seems to be a trend here that the world is following..
Please no need to apologise among friends for anything genuine.
On the nature of learning.. I do believe on reflection that one of the most
significant discoveries I ever made was realising how few things are truely
unquestionable *fact*. Now more than ever I feel that if the 'answer' is 42,
the question is still 'Why?' For a light-hearted look at our own deepest fears
have a look at The power of stupidity
Or the path of a genuinelysearching mind.
One of the attributes of free will seems to be the ability to 'program' our own instincts In fact this often seems to be the best way to 'learn' many things. If you take control of your own instincts and then learn to trust them, appropriate responses to any situation are 'automatic' - this leaves more of the mind free to deal with the immediate situation - which in turn lets you modify your 'instincts'...
Does this make any sense?
BTW I saw an interesting model of mind behaiviour tonight that suggests a path of visceral->emotional->thinking. Perhaps this suggests suppression of emotion implicitly affects 'thinking'. How do you feel about this?
The FIRST LAW OF BEING.- You are the most important being that has been or will be created...
The SECOND LAW OF BEING.-...And your value is nil!
The THIRD LAW OF BEING.- Strive to merit paying V.A.T.
Test yourself. Test your children. Have fun. And remember: do not exploit analogies by attribute to 'make a point,' for you will be always wrong. Use them exclusively for building up a scientific hypothesis. Otherwise, wring your brain, use your mind--consciously, unconsciously, or in a discret, quantized stage--and THINK!
Eternity is time,
Time, eternity
To see the two as opposites
Is Man's perversity
-'Cherubinischer Wandersmann'
Personally I'd like *my* 'memorial' plaque to read:
"We still can't get rid of him.." < grin >
Live long and prosper....;)
Ron.
Q: How long have I got to get my reserve out if my main parachute fails?
A: The rest of your life!
And I haven't been totally irresponsible. Jake already found a whole new Serendip section on Biology that we've put together in the last couple of weeks (yes, classes have starteed and yours truly is teaching a new intro bio course). And there are some Forum infrastructure improvements as well, which you may or may not have noticed. The comment entry space now word-wraps (like any good word processor), so you don't have to hit RETURN to keep your lines in view. And you don't have to scroll down to the most recent messages any more. There's a "Go to last comment" button at the top of the Forum pages to get you there quickly (be sure to let the page finish loading before you click it or you'll get a "loading interrupted" warning).
And, oh yeah, I put up an article that I'd promised Ron. Buddhist Meditation and Personal Construct Psychology is an interesting effort to compare and contrast an eastern and a western approach to, among other things, what is and is not eternal.
So ... I'm alive, and haven't been entirely neglecting my obligations. But, yeah, a few things have yet to be gotten to. I will get to them. One way or another. Promise.
On that note, Jake asked if I could give him a tut. on HTML markup. I thought it might be a somewhat less self serving contribution that I could make here <grin>.
So here it is..
What is HTML?
The text is available in Serendipia
Have Fun,
Ron.
Oh and also to say another great source for HTML examples is to open the View - Document source window of your browser.
As for technical matters in general, I assume no one is under the delusion that I am (or could be) running Serendip myself. But it occurs to me that there are some important players who've never been properly introduced here. Bogdan Butoi, for example. Bogdan ... ? You around here somewhere? Good. Bogdan, meet friends. Friends, meet Bogdan. MA in Computer Science from Bucharest, one-time Roumanian computer entrepeneur, currently Ph.D. student in math and Serendip webmaster without whom we would ALL be in serious trouble. Bogdan's the one who knows about window spawning and such things, and has even (grin) been known to do it on occasion (for example), though not ordinarily in public. Spawing reply windows in Forums an interesting idea. Bogdan, whaddya think?
Delighted to have Giancarlo around. Serendipitously (appropriately), A Short Introduction to the History of Stupidity, which Giancarlo writes about, leapt at me off a used bookstore shelf twenty years or so ago. I need to tell it down off my shelf (and will), but like very much the idea that much of the damage humans due to each other stems from (in principle correctable) stupidity, rather than from more difficult to deal with malevolence. Will look forward to more from Giancarlo.
Which brings me to a geneeral thought/suggestion. Very pleased with Ron's HTML primer, think it could well be expanded, made more generally available. Have long felt that many of Jake's contributions could use more space, exposure. And may well be true for the hoped for addiditional thoughts of Giancarlo's as well. I don't AT ALL want to lessen communication here, but maybe we could use a new additional section in which longer essays could be more easily posted and accessed, for continuing discusion here. Mayybe something called "Thoughts of Serendipists" (following Jake)? People could send them to me as text files, with (ideally but not necessarily) HTML markups in place (which I could, of course, check), and I could then post them. What do you think?
Glad you're here helping Serendip. I was for a while the guy behind the scene, somebody you don't need to know about in order to enjoy Serendip. But since Serendip is also (at least 1%) my child (hope Paul will be happy with his 99% :) ), I decided (after Paul's posting) to show up and say Hello.
Talking about the posting form, we (me and Paul) are working on a new engine which will provide users with a way to check their HTML texts before posting them. I hope that (together with the whidow spawing) will please you all. It will be up and running (hope) by the beginning of next week.
And don't forget: I'm always happy to receive comments about our work and new ideas to improve it.
A comment on your latter posts:
THE POWER OF STUPIDITY
We always underestimate the number of stupid people.
People we had thought to be rational and intelligent suddenly turn out to be unquestionably stupid.
Day after day we are hampered in whatever we do by stupid people who invariably turn up in the least appropriate place.
It is impossible to set a percentage, because any number we choose will be too
small.
The probability of a person being stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
A stupid person is someone who causes damage to another person, or a group of people, without any advantage accruing to himself (or herself) -- or even with some resultant self-damage.
Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid people. They constantly forget that at any moment, and in any circumstance, associating with stupid people invariably constitutes an expensive mistake.
A stupid person is the most dangerous person in existence. This is probably the most widely understood of the Laws, if only because it is common knowledge that intelligent people, hostile as they might be, are predictable, while stupid people are not. When stupidity gets into the act, the damage is enormously greater than the benefit to anyone: The single most dangerous factor in any human society is stupidity.
The link to Livraghi's whole article will be added soon. Also, this forum is too long and cluttered: these problems will also be remedied, obviously.
ps. to duplicate the mythical 'double post bug'.
1. Post a message
2. Click 'Read more Comments' button.
3. After comments have reloaded: Click your browsers 'Reload' button.
(as may happen if checking back later in a session online.)
Wow.. Deja vu.. (grin).
If there is demand, I'd be happy to write a more comprehensive primer on HTML markup, but I suspect adequate resources are already availiable with a little searching. A longer document would perhaps be an appropriate page outside of the forum text. I tried to keep to concise basics useful for posters to this forum, but a little more depth may be appropriate. For instance, perhaps I could have emphasised a little stronger, that:
Small errors in syntax can lead to wildly 'unexpected' results. Jake you might like to look again at the 'general form' of the Anchor, in particular noting that " is not the same as '', that an external URL will require it's full 'http://...' form, and that the anchor has three parts:
1. The 'opening' tag, containing the label or link referenced.
Thought for the day: How often is ignorance confused with (or cause for accusations of..) Stupidity...
If I need a car for instance - I can use my knowlege of how locking devices can by bypassed (or more simply - my knowledge that windows break) to aquire my neighbors car, or alternatively I could use the same knowledge to help people (and earn 'money' or other goods) so I may buy (or hire)(or build < grin > ) my own.
One of these ideas is clearly stupid.(I assume that most of you will agree the first.) Yet the only difference is in the way the knowledge is applied. (and perhaps long term goals ;-)
I tend to draw a distinction between 'aquired knowledge' and Knowledge. Any animal (and many plants and machines) can be taught/trained to repeat a set of tasks, and thus perform (even specialised) work. This is 'aquired' knowledge. 'True' Knowledge comes when we can intelligently choose between the most approriate sets of tasks we know, to achieve a desired result, or even create a new set of tasks 'custom made' to most efficiently generate a particular outcome. An infinite number of monkies would type Shakespeare much quicker if they knew that was what they wanted from their typing.
By that token I have rarely found an intelligent person, who having done something stupid, has not grown in their Knowlege by realising precisely Why it was stupid. (The same for unfounded accusations of stupidity.)
Nevertheless, this does not take anything away from the observations of yourself and Cipolla, but perhaps may offer new insight into a solution. I must say I wholeheartedly agree with much of what you have stated - in fact so much so that I have staked my future on 'specialising in generalisation'(grin). It has long been a favorite quip of mine that, 'An expert is someone who knows more and more, about less and less, untill they know everything about nothing.' I feel specialisation should be a dynamic action, resulting as neccessary from a growing general background. 'Training' people to be specialists would seem to be a highly unsuccessful method for achieving real advances in any field. (but far more successful at creating productive 'grunts' for the dollar machine.)
Even so, we are indoctrinated from a very early age into the established system. Children are taught from an early age that to do well, they have to pass tests. Then we drill them in the 'rules' needed to pass those tests - giving them the 'security' that, 'as long as you know the rules, you'll be OK.'
After many years of this, how do you expect them to react when they discover(the lucky ones) or are told, that the real world is nothing like that at all? How does any creature act when you challenge it's security?
If anyone doubts the value of being able to rapidly adapt to any circumstance, I'll refer you to a race of giant reptiles that once enjoyed unchallenged domination of this planet, for a while...
It is however a fundamental deduction in buddhist logic. Without getting too long winded about this, it runs along the lines of: Those with knowledge will be called upon at various times to judge. The greater the knowledge about that which is judged against, the greater then the knowledge of the suffering and loss ultimately caused by that judgement. This can be extended to exemplify how only those ignorant of the far reaching consequences of their actions, (as most of us are, most of the time..) can make judgements without angish. (hence: Knowledge is Suffering - Ignorance is Bliss, which is a subset of the more encompassing belief that Suffering comes from attatchment.)
"The fact (as srongly remarked by Cipolla) is that there is as much stupidity among University professors as there is among illiterates."
Indeed in the same way that we all shine in different, often highly individual ways, outstanding stupidity also seems to be highly unique in this fashion. A common reflection among skydivers is 'Learn from others mistakes, you may not live long enough to make them all yourself.'
My personal benchmark these days is not so much to look at my individual actions, nor to place too much weight on my past succeses or failures, but rather to see that my actions as a whole result in more benefit than damage.
"If I want to buy a car and I don't have the faintest idea of what a car is or how it works..."
Then you have become a victim of clever marketing, why else would you want one.. McCoke(tm) anyone??(grin)(I do agree with the rest of the remarks you made about this.)
"I had high marks at school in history, though some of my teachers, maybe, would not have been pleased if they knew how I got them."
Another beautiful example of institutionalised stupidity - rather than commend you on your intrepid cunning (for you applied knowledge that many of your peers did not), the stereotypical response would be to want to punish you for circumventing the system. (perhaps this would be just, as detection would have meant you had failed in the application of your chosen knowledge(grin)) I can't help thinking that regardless of your 'study' methods - you probably gained more from that history class than many others that also attended with you.
As an aside here I have found great value of late in becoming more aware of the personal history of many of the important figures that have bequeathed us the world we live in today - it seems to be of great value in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their beliefs. (many of which we seem to have inherited without question). Yet in my younger days, with eyes only for the future, the value of history was lost on me. I guess it took personal experience with the powerfully causal nature of the past to truely appreciate it's value.
"...stupidity has a much greater impact on historical events than most historians are prepared to admit."
And historical stupidity has a much greater effect on the present than most of us could begin to imagine... Yet we reinforce this inherited stupidity vehemently - It's not difficult to gather a rabid mob to burn some modern day heretic, who dared to challenge 'conventional wisdom'. The more things change, the more they stay the same. - who was it that said that?
I'll leave this for now with a quote from the mystic physicist (sorry Jake ;-):
On tecnhicalities
I hope I get the paragraphs right this time... but I have two questions.
Why do we have to use HTML to wtite our comments? Not all people writing in forums are familiar with that lamnguage, and this is the only forum I know that requites it.
Why do we have to write ionline? I generally write off-line, but I can't do it with Serendip.
Plus ça change...
I can't think of any "author"; maybe it's just folklore. My grandmother used to say it (she was French, and also a very remarkable woman). As I understand it, it is not a rejection of innovation; but just the notion that some things (ça) appear to change but don't. Which of course is often true. I also think it's generally meant in a negative sense: sometning that we would like to change, but doesn't.
History
I did not "cheat" at school. I simply used books that were not the official textbooks, including some that "rigid" teachers could see as frivolous, or too controversial. Some teachers encouraged that, some didn't... What is relevant here (as has been commented) it the style of teaching; and also that history (as any other subject) can be taught at fifferent levels of depth. Of course it is not possible to get into as much depth in ordinary schools as can be done in universities concentrating on that subject; but the issue is not the amount of knowledge, it's the angle. At all levels students can be encouraged to understand history rather than just memorize names, dates and events... but I guess we all agree on the issue of learning and teaching.
Stupidity
Here is a brave, but probably disastrous, attempt to provide links. If I fail, I hope Jake or Paul or some other expert can do it properly.
this is supposed to be a link to my original comments on "The Power of Stupidity".
this is supposed to be a link to Part Two, that I just wrote.
Cheers to all,
Part Two I hope they work this time... and please forgive my clumsiness.
If you find a US link more convenient, here is the original link to the first part of "The Power of Stupidity". In a few day's time also "Stupidity Two" should become available on that site.
I promise this is the end of my messing around.
Cheers
As told, HTML is only required for beauty. It is most convenient for poems; otherwise, indicate paragraph by means of XXXX or similar. I prepare long comments off-line, copy and paste on-line. Utilizing WORD I avoid typos and wrong words.
On teaching: I read today an editorial in Science dealing with the challenges of teaching in this information age. Perhaps this is the subject teachers ought to concentrate on: How to adapt teaching institutions to the sudden onslaught of free-for-all wealth of information. Again, the core remains: teaching how to find out which information to process into knowledge. The following terms are relevant: 'working memory' and 'semantic memory.' Computers utilize similar memories: RAM (working) and hard disk (semantic).
I have the impression that I have enough time disposable to do effectively the transfer of information to knowledge. I read slowly and find connections with knowledge present, which becomes enriched and in turn makes more connections. I also can devote a very long time in the analysis of a bridge hand.
I am quitting this forum, it is too long, and neither Paul nor Bogdan are available to make order.
eg. "I didn't say you said that."
"I didn't say you said that."
"I didn't say you said that."
..these all use the same words but I think you will agree can have importantly subtle differences in interpretation. By adding some form of emphasis marking, I can make MY interpretation somewhat clearer, even in this trivial case.
Your series of posts was a beautiful example of the learning curve at work. 'Why do I have to learn this..?(groan)' - 'Oh.. wait a minute.. hey, this is actually useful.. and fun..'(grin).
I hope you did not take my comments on 'cheating' (your word, not mine(grin)) as a personal affront. I did not intend to inflict a moral standpoint on your actions, but I feel that 'cheating' is perhaps as misunderstood as Stupidity. If you went outside the bounds of the 'normal' curriculum, that could be perceived by some as a 'cheat' or by others as extending your ability in an intelligent way. In hindsight (which always seems 20/20 (grin)), I would say that my own academic success' was a result of a desire to learn and extend to that which was outside of the established curriculum. If you consider that most of the significant discoveries attributable to 'Man' involve some kind of shortcut or 'cheat' to extablished knowlegde (Occam's razor is perhaps our best historical example of trying to define this method), then intelligent cheating is a highly desirable trait to encourage. (as opposed to 'stupid cheating' which aids no-one.)
The 'wheel' is perhaps our most pervading example of our learned ability to cheat friction...
Briefly on 'plus ca change': there is a word in the english language that many here will recognise as a simile 'homeostasis' - which is the innate ability of an object to remain apparently unchanging despite influences acting upon it. It's applicability to human form and nature would suggest that change, while also innate, is a fickle process to conciously attempt to control.
Voltaire not a cynic?? I am reminded of how he savaged Leibniz for his speculations on the existance/creation of the universe. Liebniz postulated that if there was in fact a 'creator' that it would be logical for such a creator to be rational, omniscient and omnipotent, any other option would imply that the 'creator' was flawed. It then follows that such a creator would be likely to choose the best of all possible worlds to create, as any other choice would be irrational.
Voltaire's public reply was. "Oh Dr. Pangloss!(Liebniz) If this is the best of all possible worlds, what must the others be like?" But perhaps this is unrepresentative of him?
While I don't neccesarily agree with Liebniz need for a 'God of the gaps in our understanding', his logic, based on his assumptions, was quite sound.
Was Voltaire a "cynic"? I guess so. But that is not necessarily a "destructive" attitude. "Is this the best of possible worlds?" is a very strong philosophical question; and indeed "Candide" is not an exercise in naivety, but a cutting criticism of Leibinitz.
I believe creative/innovative thinking is always based (whether we are aware of it or not)on the assumption that this is *not* "the best of possible worlds" and our understanding of the "world" is not the best possible way of understanding. True innovating thinking is the art of the impossible - or what appears to be impossible on the basis of existing knowledge.
This leads straight into one of my favorite subjects, complexity, turbolence, chaos, lateral thinking... and to the original Socratic notion, "the more I know, the more I know that I do'nt know"... and to the basic issue of knowledge, or if you prefer "cognitive thinkig", which has always been the basic and most difficult of all philosophical disciplines and now is even more crucial than ever... Cheers,
So while in our own eyes, our world may be less than perfect, and this is probably true because our understanding of it is less than perfect (it may be perfect but we just don't realise..), this only really effects our own survival within a perfect system. The universe cares little for our opinion on it's perfectness or otherwise, and will continue to go on existing no matter what we do to stuff up our tiny portion of it. We certainly can't threaten it with a 10 megaton MIRV.(grin)
I do always get a chuckle out of Socrates' irony, considering that most people do not know that they 'do not know, what they do not know'. It was exploration into the meta-thinking fractal that indirectly led to me being here (and at EGR). By thinking, I can solve problems. By thinking about thinking, I can devise better ways to think when solving problems. By thinking about this, I can...
Voltaire: a satirist. He mocked Leibniz with examples of his ‘best of all possible worlds,’ like when he deals with the famous earthquake of Lisbon with the horrible loss of life because God's creation decided to tremble when the Cathedral was replete and the congregants were ready to sing His glory.
On Socrates: I was much impressed by his Apology, as given to us by Plato. I found out that Socrates has been misjudged on the reasons for having been convicted.
I just called to say hi. I've been very busy lately, so forgive me for not taking part in your intellectual meditations. Every so often I think of all of you and 'eavesdrop' from under my pile of work.
Jacob: your poem on complexity is beautiful
Ron: as you can see, your teachings on HTML have improved my artless writing. thanks
No, of course, one doesn't have to use HTML around here, but yes, of course, its fun. Which is to say what's already been said here both in words and deeds: what's important (and fun) is NOT being right, and hence becoming steadily less wrong.
In which spirit, Serendip itself evolves. Yes, yes, slower than some might have preferred (hmmm, now there's a theme for further consideration; I've come to believe patience is essential to "getting less wrong"; just my old age or something more fundamental?). Regardless, Bogdan and I HAVE been working on some forum improvements (for here and the rest of Serendip's forums), and they should be in place within the next week. They'll include a new interface which will allow one to check one's messages before submitting them (so you can, among other things, see whether HTML markups are doing what you want ... or even just try out HTML markups for fun ... or, as presently, ignore HTML markups entirely). And we're creating a new home, Serendipia, for longer messages, so the Forums themselves can be cleaned up, and won't get so lengthy in the future. Serendipia will be linked reciprocally with the Forums, so one can go back and forth between there and related longer contributions. In short, give and take stays healthy and alive in the Forums, but longer contributions to discuss there get sent by email for posting in Serendipia.
Perfect? NO, of course not. There is no such thing. But "less wrong"? Hope you all think so ... and share my pleasure in the new as the product of all our collective activities/experiences, at Serendip and elsewhere.
Thank you for your kind review and appraisal of serendip, and, of course, your valued contribution. Should your frantic search for next week's logo lead you past this small peninsula of, dare I say, "intelligence", once again, then please accept my heartfelt compliments.
Serendip would indeed seem to be a place for 'people who suspect that mindless quoting, from sources not experienced, would appear to propagate comfort in continued ignorance, without improvement'. While classifying things may not be fun, and often quite misleading, thinking certainly is stimulating.
I must confess that I am a little confused by some of your remarks though. I'm not sure how thinking precludes a thing from being entertaining? Or which parts you think are not 'educational'? - perhaps you mean the colourful clickable banners and logo's which act as trailguides, hopefully to the good bits. It was however nice to know that you hated 'edutainment' enough to incarnate it only twice - and that the revolution was over before even that same paragraph, in your rush to Forget that serendipity is not something that can be provided, though there may be ways to be less-wrong about where it was last bookmarked.
Now that that's off my chest, veridical greetings to our more perspicacious denizens. It seems that we have all been out tending to our respective gardens of late which is perhaps how it should be.
Thanks Tania, for delicately highlighting that though HTML may be capable of adding dimension to our writing, fecund promulgations are still the demesne of au courant cognisance.
I'm still trying to find the words to express my gratitude to Paul for making the world 'just a little bit safer' over these past few months. It was indeed a pleasure to learn a little about what you have achieved in your 'absence'. I'm not sure if it was simply the timing of your post, or the detail that you carefully anchored between the lines, or simply the strange influence of a single monkey washing a potato somewhere, but I'm filled with a strong feeling that the tide has again ebbed, and for a while things are just a little "less wrong".
In fact reading the newspaper this morning, it almost feels like deja vu - With the Ivory nest of the 'cold blooded' collapsing top-heavy around their feet, and the small warm blooded creatures, hiding in the undergrowth, ready to feed on their eggs, at the start of our southern spring.
My eyes are a little wider open, even again today, as from the debris of those who Do, Teach, or Administrate, I see a few precursors of those who have quit teaching and begun leading - not by the hand or on the end of a rope, as we have become so used to, and not by the confirmatory glances we expect to comfort us when we look over our shoulders before proceding, but by walking out in front and saying "Hey! I'm over here. Catch me if you can."
Enjoy being patient Paul. If you drop a pebble into a pond it does take some measure of time before the new tide mark can be reliably established. But be hungry also. For we may not go where you send us, but if you search to satisfy your own hunger, curiousity may just compell us to follow, or even to daringly race out in front.
If I've ever learned anything, perhaps I have learned that, It's impossible to teach anyone to walk. All you can do is give them your time and love while they teach themselves.. and perhaps, if you're a good enough walker, catch them, should they stumble.
For those of you to whom many of these words remain meaningless.. well, perhaps you'd best be off. You may have a nest that needs guarding..
Still Here??
<grin>
"To thine own self be true
And it must follow as the night the day
Thou canst not be false to any man (or woman) ..."
Thanks Ron. Thanks, Jeff (and Jake). We'll all keep trying ("was created and is continuously developed by Paul Grobstein, AMONG OTHERS"), outside our comfort zones, among friends.
Forum improvements, including pop-up windows, will be in place (at last) tomorrow. Bogdan and I are just putting some polish on. In the meanwhile, visit , if you haven't yet. And meet a new Serendipian, Antonio Preti, who has there a piece called The Gift of Saturn: Creatiivity and Psychopathology. Turns out Jake is not the only wanted interested in Janusian thinking.
Next word from Bogdan. Hope everyone likes the improvements (yeah, yeah, keep the suggestions coming).
After a long and painful labor, the new posting server was born, error free (I hope :) ). The two doctors (Paul and I) tried to transform the new born into a smart and handsome kid. So here it is, waiting for your input. It is smart enough to tell you (if you ask) how your posting will look before ... you will post the message, so you can go back and fix any HTML tag (yeah, it knows HTML too).
So, what are you expecting for? Go and try it!
By the way, the dream was about a computer game I often play. I was living it (if you know what i mean).