From: Mari (mld2001@adelphia.net)
Date: Thu Jan 02 2003 - 17:53:47 GMT
Hi Matt,
There are parts of this piece "Confessions" that i would like to ask
questions about for clarity in a separate post. In the meantime i'd like to
say:
Your post as always is a good read IMO. Once again i come away
from my time spent here in/on the MoQdg challenged to consider points of
view and language that are different than mine.....at times as a result of
my willingness to be open to new perspectives i change my own POV (and
mind). In my estimation that does not happen here very much.....in fact i
don't see much acknowledgement of others for points well taken. i have seen
Platt do that and in fact emailed him telling him that i thought it was
admirable of him.
i am unfamiliar with the exchanges that you mentioned between Platt and
Glen but will now go back and read them for a better understanding of your
example.
A number of resent threads speak on some level to the concerns
that i am hearing (coinsidentally?) ......the timing is so curious.....that
is if you connect the dots the same way that i do.[ subjective? objective?]
( that there is an "argument" going on now between Glen and Erin in another
thread about "synchronicity" is perfect! ; ) )
During one of the Cosmos episode on PBS, Carl Sagan while
presenting Astrological fundamentals illustrated an aspect of the Zodiac
signs. The connecting of the dots with lines which produced images. To these
images were a-signed mythos. From the mythos came more mythos masquerading
as logos as they "made sense" of it all with definitive non-challengable
"meaning" of eartly matters as if the gods were speaking to them directly.
The Greeks looked up and connected the dots and saw a Bull. The Bull fit the
mythos. The Greeks saw Taurus as Zeus in disguise, the "majestic white bull"
They templated the mythos onto this constellation and the belief was born
and said to influence the person-ality born under it. (fate, destiny,
kismet?) The Egyptians saw the constellation instead as their god Osiris
while the Chinese called it alternatively the "White Tiger" or the "Great
Bridge." By connecting the dots in a random manner they wound up seeing what
they saw (subjective) then by a-signing their mythos to that image the
a-signed became greater than the some of it's parts, (objective?)
moved into motion (DQ?) creating a story with a moral and a point....the
tale could be re-told and sold to all who needed to make sense of that which
they did not know for sure: mystery needing an answer.....
..... now PICTURE this: MoQers are still connecting dots and seeing what
they want to see, a-signing meaning to "it"......embracing "it" like a child
embraces a security blanket
....reminds me of the story of the 3 blind men feeling different parts
(tusk, ear, leg? ) of an elephant describing the beast by the reality they
be-held....in one version of that story, invalidation of the others
description preceded the telling of their own (an ego runs through it )
description.....i gotta laugh because that is honestly what i see far far
too often which is why i'm ISO others willing to move on to another level.
! Like you pointed out when you gave the example of : "("Well, I'm still
right" or "I'm still not convinced" or
"You're a big doo-doo head"), and the "winner"......and i mentioned the
other day that sometimes moqers seem to repond as if
they're saying:" Jane you ignorant slut you....." the old Saturday Night
Live skit between Dan Akyroid and Jane Curtain.
It is at times "exasperating" and maybe even dis-couraging and/or
dis-heartening, effecting the will and desire to continue....( you seem at
times to be frustrated Matt ) and on some level i am also. What is
happening?
Q: Yeh. I understood more than anyone in class when we came to
thermodynamics. But entropy was the very first thing our prof and book
talked about in the thermo chapter - no "gradual approach" there. Are you
finally learning that's the way to teach it?
A: No. The best teaching always is the kind you understand as the course
goes along. Often that's at a slower pace than a college class.
Understanding isn't always a fast process. This site you're reading now is
the fast track to a few basic ideas rather than the best track. But we'll
still do mainly explaining rather than equation-solving.
Q: OK, give me the bad news quick. What is entropy, really?
A: Straight question - and you make me embarrassed right away when you say
that word "really"! The basic definition of entropy is an equation that
doesn't look too complicated, but what it means "REALLY" will take several
pages. (Of course, you already know that thermodynamic entropy ONLY applies
to chemicals and matter, atoms and molecules - not to economics or
information or pollution or human problems, unless they are directly
connected to atomic and molecular behavior, right?)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 02 2003 - 17:58:08 GMT