vol.82
Locked
 
|
A note for all mathematicians in the group -- was told by surgeon in my writers group that 40% of mathematicians and all others who also are able to "see" existence of additional dimensions are now considered to be schizophrenics. I may be included since my first novel (trying to find a literary agent by the way if anyone knows a good one -- Tony Hillerman's would do, for example) describes a newly discovered element, xarium (fictitious) which, when held in palm of hand of heroine, takes her to another dimension (also fictitious - but hey, since I was able to describe it, that means I am able to "see" it -- so obviously am diagnosable for sure. )
Just wanted all you "other dimension" scientists to realize this. (She was actually serious. Keep in mind, that the DSM used to list homosexuals among the crazies too, so I wouldn't worry too much.) And my novel is entitled Of Coins, Toadplates, and Pestles -- set mainly in New Mexico -- discusses spiritwalking, environmental predictions over next six decades. want to find an agent first before published if I can. Accept any ideas. Peggy Miller Missoula, Montana ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
That certainly explains a lot.
--Doug
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:12 AM, peggy miller <[hidden email]> wrote:
A note for all mathematicians in the group -- was told by surgeon in my writers group that 40% of mathematicians and all others who also are able to "see" existence of additional dimensions are now considered to be schizophrenics. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Explains a lot about surgeons, maybe...
> That certainly explains a lot. > > --Doug > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:12 AM, peggy miller <[hidden email]>wrote: > > > A note for all mathematicians in the group -- was told by surgeon in my > > writers group that 40% of mathematicians and all others who also are able to > > "see" existence of additional dimensions are now considered to be > > schizophrenics. > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
I once read a comment on a writer's blog which liked her multi-dementional characters.
-- rec -- On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:11 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote: Explains a lot about surgeons, maybe... ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
Well we are warned , we have been labeled and next they will begin the Culling.
Out of curiosity why 40% only , did the other mathematicians pay someone off or get the socially correct answers ahead of time? Your Surgeon friend enjoys discriminating against Mathematicians.
Being a devotee of maths has always been a challenge, society has never trusted mathematicians or scientists. We live in a society where intelligence is closely linked to concepts of evil. When in fact the worst atrocities in history seem to have been committed by seemingly normal people. Maybe this is the root of society’s schizophrenia, it can not accept that normal people are very dangerous.
Normal people externalize the consequences of their actions to a scapegoat and normal people wander about life free of guilt. The freedom of the Normal person is possible only while identifiable groups can be blamed. In this new global society groups struggle continuously to blame other groups for consequences affecting their lives.
Global society composed of discreet societies is in a struggle to identify the traditional scapegoats. Many of the formerly small scapegoat groups are now capable of defending themselves from false accusations, so now we have to find new scapegoats that are easier to utilize. The anti science movement has been around for over 20 years, and has only had limited success so maybe now the shift is toward mathematicians since they do not seem to have any defenders and make a soft target.
I can just see it now, the villagers storm the Math departments with pitch forks and torches ablaze crying out , “The mathematicians are in the tower let’s burn the rats out of their lair.” “Spare that one, he is only an engineer and can fix my toilet” “The rest are dangerous Schizophrenics we must sterilize this Building with blood and flame”
That would be a great opening scene for a novel or movie, what went so wrong about the “ Knowledge revolution”?
Dr.Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)
120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. Winnipeg, Manitoba CANADA R2J 3R2 (204) 2548321 Phone/Fax
-----Original Message-----
That certainly explains a lot.
--Doug On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:12 AM, peggy miller <[hidden email]> wrote: A note for all mathematicians in the group -- was told by surgeon in my writers group that 40% of mathematicians and all others who also are able to "see" existence of additional dimensions are now considered to be schizophrenics. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Scientists and Mathematicians as Scapegoats
|
|
Vlad(imyr) -
It doesn't surprise me that people who are smarter than we are intimidate us. We are often intimidated by people who are bigger or more attractive, why not smarter (more educated, more functional in abstract but relevant topics)? A more general question might be "why do we vilify or scapegoat those more able than us?" One good reason might be that on average, humans have a propensity for "taking advantage", using what advantages they have over others in a selfish way. We can be thoughtless bullies. I am of two minds on this one. (does that imply schizophrenia?) On one hand (mind?), as a member of the class of people who are educated in math and sciences and have some apparent innate ability with these subjects, and who has been subject to "blameful" rhetoric from those who are not educated (or adept?) in such intellectual pursuits, I am very aligned with your thesis about "scapegoating". On the other hand (mind?), I have observed that a great deal of conventional mathematics and science is based in very analytic and reductionist approaches. <preaching-to-choir> Such approaches can have great utility for isolating and understanding subsystems in said relative isolation. Unfortunately they can obscure total system behaviour/understanding and lead to unfortunate (mis)understandings. <goofy-personal-anecdote-about-contemporary-science> I feel lucky to have come of age in Math/Science as nonlinear science was just beginning to get a foothold (early 80's). While I never became a harp-playing crystal-gazer, the New Age movement of the 80's and it's influence or congruence with modern science (Tao of Physics, etc.) has been a positive thing. Even "old" modern physics (early 20 century) like Relativity and Quantum Theory has offered science some new paradigms for thinking about reality and even causality than it's roots in Descarte's and Plato and the like. <long-winded-attempt-to-summarize> The point of this is that the narrow application of reductionistic, linear approaches to science (and engineering and economics and ...) may have very inconvenient, outrageous, unintended consequences. Smart, educated people (like mathematicians and scientists and engineers) who have been exposed to other ways of thinking who continue to "hold the throttle down" as we plunge toward a potential abyss might not be without blame for the resulting disasters in our various global systems (climate, biosphere, economy, socio-religio-economic)... I'm not big on labels like "evil" but I do think we all deserve to (continue to?) reflect on our role in the myriad global scale problems the world might be facing. Some of us feel absolved when we throw our plastic packaging into a recycle bin, or buy a hybrid car, but it goes just a tad deeper than that, and there is a passive "evil" to stopping there (if that far). If horrific possibilities (and realities) of nuclear physics didn't wake us up, and the consequences of rampant greenhouse gas release doesn't wake us up, then will it be a silly "unexpected" consequence of genetic engineering or nanotechnology? I believe in the "grey goo" scenario about as much as I might have that the first nuclear explosion might have "ignited the atmosphere", but the probability is not zero and the consequences are about as high as we can measure... not sure how to resolve the limit of the infinite divided by the infinitesmal in this case... but I don't think we can dismiss it entirely. Don't say oops! - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: "Being Normal for Dummies"
|
|
That seems to be at the core of this issue, the two minds.
I agree Steve there are at least two different ways at looking at this silly notion ( My ex-wife would say there is only one and she seems to be the world's leading authority on Normal Behavior). The very fact that you can elucidate two positions seems to imply that you have an ability that Normal people do not possess. Normal people do not wish to hear the alternative versions. Normal people see nothing sinister about making a man, pin a Pi figure on his lapel and make him sit at the back of the bus. Normal people never worry about what happens to the urine and crap going down the toilet. It is disturbing to have lived through all our training and realize that not everybody appreciates us. Sometimes I suspect that we are resented because the bar was held to high. Other times I suspect that since we all started out Normal some of us don't recognize that we are still related to the herd more intimately than we acknowledge. Outside of our fields we are basically as ignorant as the rest of the herd and just as vulnerable to bogus ideas. Climate Change was just one example of many scientists at odds with each other. Having more than one mind seems to be quite reasonable even necessary but when it gets defined as a pathology we just might have flatted the tires of our only escape vehicle. I have a relative who is an Orthopedic Surgeon and often he can scare the crap out of me with his opinions of the world. So as long as everybody aspires to be Normal lets try and figure out what that means? Does anyone have a " Being Normal for Dummies" that I can borrow. Clearly this is different Normal than the mathematical Normal. In fact perhaps the exact opposite. Are there any Normal people in this group which we can reference or use as referees? Maybe the reason we are all here is because we have been rejected by Normal Society? So are we creating our own asylum? Dr.Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology) 120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. Winnipeg, Manitoba CANADA R2J 3R2 (204) 2548321 Phone/Fax [hidden email] -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: April 27, 2010 1:36 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] Scientists and Mathematicians as Scapegoats Vlad(imyr) - It doesn't surprise me that people who are smarter than we are intimidate us. We are often intimidated by people who are bigger or more attractive, why not smarter (more educated, more functional in abstract but relevant topics)? A more general question might be "why do we vilify or scapegoat those more able than us?" One good reason might be that on average, humans have a propensity for "taking advantage", using what advantages they have over others in a selfish way. We can be thoughtless bullies. I am of two minds on this one. (does that imply schizophrenia?) On one hand (mind?), as a member of the class of people who are educated in math and sciences and have some apparent innate ability with these subjects, and who has been subject to "blameful" rhetoric from those who are not educated (or adept?) in such intellectual pursuits, I am very aligned with your thesis about "scapegoating". On the other hand (mind?), I have observed that a great deal of conventional mathematics and science is based in very analytic and reductionist approaches. <preaching-to-choir> Such approaches can have great utility for isolating and understanding subsystems in said relative isolation. Unfortunately they can obscure total system behaviour/understanding and lead to unfortunate (mis)understandings. <goofy-personal-anecdote-about-contemporary-science> I feel lucky to have come of age in Math/Science as nonlinear science was just beginning to get a foothold (early 80's). While I never became a harp-playing crystal-gazer, the New Age movement of the 80's and it's influence or congruence with modern science (Tao of Physics, etc.) has been a positive thing. Even "old" modern physics (early 20 century) like Relativity and Quantum Theory has offered science some new paradigms for thinking about reality and even causality than it's roots in Descarte's and Plato and the like. <long-winded-attempt-to-summarize> The point of this is that the narrow application of reductionistic, linear approaches to science (and engineering and economics and ...) may have very inconvenient, outrageous, unintended consequences. Smart, educated people (like mathematicians and scientists and engineers) who have been exposed to other ways of thinking who continue to "hold the throttle down" as we plunge toward a potential abyss might not be without blame for the resulting disasters in our various global systems (climate, biosphere, economy, socio-religio-economic)... I'm not big on labels like "evil" but I do think we all deserve to (continue to?) reflect on our role in the myriad global scale problems the world might be facing. Some of us feel absolved when we throw our plastic packaging into a recycle bin, or buy a hybrid car, but it goes just a tad deeper than that, and there is a passive "evil" to stopping there (if that far). If horrific possibilities (and realities) of nuclear physics didn't wake us up, and the consequences of rampant greenhouse gas release doesn't wake us up, then will it be a silly "unexpected" consequence of genetic engineering or nanotechnology? I believe in the "grey goo" scenario about as much as I might have that the first nuclear explosion might have "ignited the atmosphere", but the probability is not zero and the consequences are about as high as we can measure... not sure how to resolve the limit of the infinite divided by the infinitesmal in this case... but I don't think we can dismiss it entirely. Don't say oops! - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
I'm not so sure about "Clearly this is different Normal than the mathematical Normal. In fact perhaps
the exact opposite." This sort of thing always brings to mind a wonderful (and scarily accurate) quote from George Carlin: "Think how stupid the average person is, and realize that half of them are stupider than that." (OK, yes, median would be more correct, but I doubt the mean and median are far off here...) I just recently read Susan Jacoby's book, The Age of American Unreason (http://www.amazon.com/Age-American-Unreason-Vintage/dp/1400096383/), which devotes a bit if time to discussing why intellectuals aren't necessarily trusted or liked (at least in America). The book has its flaws -- she's much better at history than at making solid, evidence based arguments against things like the gender-based education, the dangers of television-watching for children and the "death" of writing, reading and conversation, made worse by the internet -- but the history she tells is compelling, which makes the book worthwhile. Brent P.S. this may be my first post, so I guess I'm delurking here. Hi! From: Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky <[hidden email]> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 3:40:53 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] "Being Normal for Dummies" That seems to be at the core of this issue, the two minds. I agree Steve there are at least two different ways at looking at this silly notion ( My ex-wife would say there is only one and she seems to be the world's leading authority on Normal Behavior). The very fact that you can elucidate two positions seems to imply that you have an ability that Normal people do not possess. Normal people do not wish to hear the alternative versions. Normal people see nothing sinister about making a man, pin a Pi figure on his lapel and make him sit at the back of the bus. Normal people never worry about what happens to the urine and crap going down the toilet. It is disturbing to have lived through all our training and realize that not everybody appreciates us. Sometimes I suspect that we are resented because the bar was held to high. Other times I suspect that since we all started out Normal some of us don't recognize that we are still related to the herd more intimately than we acknowledge. Outside of our fields we are basically as ignorant as the rest of the herd and just as vulnerable to bogus ideas. Climate Change was just one example of many scientists at odds with each other. Having more than one mind seems to be quite reasonable even necessary but when it gets defined as a pathology we just might have flatted the tires of our only escape vehicle. I have a relative who is an Orthopedic Surgeon and often he can scare the crap out of me with his opinions of the world. So as long as everybody aspires to be Normal lets try and figure out what that means? Does anyone have a " Being Normal for Dummies" that I can borrow. Clearly this is different Normal than the mathematical Normal. In fact perhaps the exact opposite. Are there any Normal people in this group which we can reference or use as referees? Maybe the reason we are all here is because we have been rejected by Normal Society? So are we creating our own asylum? Dr.Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology) 120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. Winnipeg, Manitoba CANADA R2J 3R2 (204) 2548321 Phone/Fax [hidden email] -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: April 27, 2010 1:36 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] Scientists and Mathematicians as Scapegoats Vlad(imyr) - It doesn't surprise me that people who are smarter than we are intimidate us. We are often intimidated by people who are bigger or more attractive, why not smarter (more educated, more functional in abstract but relevant topics)? A more general question might be "why do we vilify or scapegoat those more able than us?" One good reason might be that on average, humans have a propensity for "taking advantage", using what advantages they have over others in a selfish way. We can be thoughtless bullies. I am of two minds on this one. (does that imply schizophrenia?) On one hand (mind?), as a member of the class of people who are educated in math and sciences and have some apparent innate ability with these subjects, and who has been subject to "blameful" rhetoric from those who are not educated (or adept?) in such intellectual pursuits, I am very aligned with your thesis about "scapegoating". On the other hand (mind?), I have observed that a great deal of conventional mathematics and science is based in very analytic and reductionist approaches. <preaching-to-choir> Such approaches can have great utility for isolating and understanding subsystems in said relative isolation. Unfortunately they can obscure total system behaviour/understanding and lead to unfortunate (mis)understandings. <goofy-personal-anecdote-about-contemporary-science> I feel lucky to have come of age in Math/Science as nonlinear science was just beginning to get a foothold (early 80's). While I never became a harp-playing crystal-gazer, the New Age movement of the 80's and it's influence or congruence with modern science (Tao of Physics, etc.) has been a positive thing. Even "old" modern physics (early 20 century) like Relativity and Quantum Theory has offered science some new paradigms for thinking about reality and even causality than it's roots in Descarte's and Plato and the like. <long-winded-attempt-to-summarize> The point of this is that the narrow application of reductionistic, linear approaches to science (and engineering and economics and ...) may have very inconvenient, outrageous, unintended consequences. Smart, educated people (like mathematicians and scientists and engineers) who have been exposed to other ways of thinking who continue to "hold the throttle down" as we plunge toward a potential abyss might not be without blame for the resulting disasters in our various global systems (climate, biosphere, economy, socio-religio-economic)... I'm not big on labels like "evil" but I do think we all deserve to (continue to?) reflect on our role in the myriad global scale problems the world might be facing. Some of us feel absolved when we throw our plastic packaging into a recycle bin, or buy a hybrid car, but it goes just a tad deeper than that, and there is a passive "evil" to stopping there (if that far). If horrific possibilities (and realities) of nuclear physics didn't wake us up, and the consequences of rampant greenhouse gas release doesn't wake us up, then will it be a silly "unexpected" consequence of genetic engineering or nanotechnology? I believe in the "grey goo" scenario about as much as I might have that the first nuclear explosion might have "ignited the atmosphere", but the probability is not zero and the consequences are about as high as we can measure... not sure how to resolve the limit of the infinite divided by the infinitesmal in this case... but I don't think we can dismiss it entirely. Don't say oops! - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |