Thoughts, cnt. 1

  1. I should have never written, nor should I write in the future, any kind of diaries. I should write, if at all, fiction. In fiction I can present anything of value that I can in a diary type of texts. In fiction it is easy to be honest. My diaries are boring, pitiful, embarrassing, pathetic. As a youngster I believed that I can tell anything about myself to anybody, that I have nothing to hide–and it was true (except that I was hopelessly romantically interested in a girl–and that was a well guarded secret :-)). With the time passing this simple situation has quietly changed, and at one time I discovered that I can’t be fully open and honest even in my diaries. Thus to be honest I have to restrict myself to fiction. And forget about being completely open, it’s unrealistic even if it is in my character.
  2. There is one kind of highly personal writing which is honest, even must be honest to be good–poetry. It takes maturity to write poems not about the author themselves. Thus most of the poetry in this sense is not mature, it’s about the author. Good poetry requires honesty, while it doesn’t have to be embarrassing. Indeed, a poem–as a rule–is not identifying concrete people or specific events. A poem should be sensual, hence concrete and specific, but it still should be symbolic, should illustrate represent many different concrete situation, not one.

    REMARK One should properly understand word honest–it’s not that easy but it’s necessary for an artist. A good artist has usually an intuitive understanding only (hm, is intuitive understanding an oxymoron? :-)).

  3. Emotions and abilities, like muscles, or like wings, should appear in pairs, where each one from a pair balances the other one harmoniously. Here are some pairs:
    • confidence and fear;
    • admiration and criticism;
    • strategic vision (global logic) and attention to details.
  4. Great physicists are often amazed that physics, which deals with the real world, is so mathematical. I guess even, or especially the great physicists are fond of mystery, of magic.

    Nevertheless the explanation of this paradoxical but so profound appearance of mathematics in physics is natural, it is almost a tautology. Indeed, it is like saying that high quality thinking is relevant to the development of physics. No more paradox. But mathematics is just that, it is high quality, artistic thinking. Mathematics is nothing but thinking and the ways to code this thinking.

  5. Stupid people love to say  I think  all the time. Liars! (To ask them to avoid words which they do not know would be too much).
  6. Adults, especially parents and teachers, ask children (even as young as three year old preschoolers) to  understand. These adults believe in their so-called rational explanations. It’s awful! They harm children. Let me mention in points why in the increasing conceptual order:
    1. Children (and to less extent adults too) learn by repetition, by continuous observation and repetitive consistent feedback. That’s for instance how wonderfully they learn language. They may apply some thinking but they don’t learn by understanding.
    2. Children learn to make gestures like they understand. This way they please adults or parents in particular. Children don’t understand but say that they do.
    3. Children by agreeing that they understand learn to lie without realizing that they do. Children learn conformism. The word understanding is wasted and abused.
    4. Child’s brain development gets damaged. Children learn false way of learning, they develop wrong intellectual habits.
    5. Adults themselves have no understanding.
    6. Adults use understanding to justify their whims. They manipulate child, and children know it (feel it), children learn from adults the cheap art of manipulation.
    7. Hardly anybody knows what understanding is. Those who abuse the notion of understanding certainly know nothing about it.
    8. It’s doubtful that there is such a thing as understanding. Lousy teachers of mathematics give credit for so-called understanding. Good mathematicians give credit for the results only. (However only the good mathematicians, and not the lousy teachers, can tell a trivial error from a significant error; thus it is the lousy teachers who punish students for trivial errors or just for formal disobedience). Great John von Neumann said something like: Young man, in mathematics you don’t understand–you get used to. And that’s how children learn too–they get used to.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *