Posts Tagged ‘Computer’

About Ontology

Tuesday, August 12th, 2008

magic chaldrounMetaphysics is a theory of being in itself, of the essence of things, of the fundamental principles of existence and reality.

A major part of Metaphysics is concerned with the Static Part of the Reality, Being (Ontos, Ontology). The main issues of Metaphysics can be simply derived by playing with the verb to-be.

Behind Ontology (Being) is the verb to Be. The noun Being is-a-State-of to Be. When we take the first-derative, the difference of Being, Being becomes Becoming.

When you apply Causal Reasoning you have to find out Who is the Cause of the change of Being to Becoming. You also have to find out how a Static System changes into a Dynamic System.

A solution is to Imagine an Ultimate Being (The Absolute) who changed his Being into Becoming. This Absolute Being is the One. The change from the Static to the Dynamic is called Creation.

There are two possibilities. The Creator is Outside the Becoming or the Being is part of the Becoming. In the first case we are talking about an Ultimate Being, God, the Void, who is the creator of the Dynamic System.  In the second case God IS the Dynamic System. Let’s call this Being “All That Is“.

The Difference between God and “All That Is” is the way the Act of Creation takes place. The Act of Creation of God is an Explosion, a Unique Act. The Act of Creation of “All That is” is an enfolding. Creation as an Enfolding moves slowly. Every new Expressions of the Unfolding show itself at the Right Time and the Right Moment.

The distinction between Being and Becoming has resulted in a major Fight on every Scientific Battleground we can imagine.

Let’s have a short look at Information Technology.

Data-oriented methodologies emphasize the representation of the Static relationships between the parts of the whole, the Data or the Database. On the other hand, process-oriented methodologies emphasize the actions Performed By a software artifact, a Program.

When we dig a little deeper into this subject we see that A Program (something written in a Programming Language) is a Static (Stored) Representation of a Process. When the Computer Executes a Program it Becomes a Process.

So the Dynamic is Stored in the Static and the Static becomes Dynamic because something called a Computer (An Actor, the Operating System) activates the Static. Interesting Enough the Computer is also a Program that is stored in itself. The basic part of the Computer is the Clock. The Clock generates a Rhythm.

So the Static is really a Dynamic and the Essence (The Metaphysics) of the Computer is a Clock, A Rhythm.

The Dynamic Structure of the Computer is an Enfolding of the Basic Structure of the Computer Itself which is Stored in Itself, which is a Rhythm. During the Rhythm the Computer moves through a Cycle.

I don’t want to dig deeper but I hope you see that the Computer Metaphor is a representation of the idea of “All What Is”.

The interesting point is that in the Reality of the Computer Metaphor there are Many Beings (Monads).

If we dig a little deeper we see that the Many Beings Communicate (by the Internet Protocol). They Unite on a deeper Level and transform into a Network. The Network is What it Is.

To a Human Observer the Network makes no Sense. We are unable to understand the essence (The Metaphysics) of the Network. We understand our Part but don’t see the Whole.

The Whole, the One, is beyond our Understanding. It is Unknowable (“neti neti“, “not this, not that“).

Language is a Static Representation of the Dynamics of Speech. A Human executes Language to perform the Process of Speech but Speech is not captured by Language. Human Speech is constantly adapting to Practice and Language is adapting to Practice. New (Computer) Languages are created all the time.

A Computer Language is a sub-set of Human Languages called Logic. Logic is a sub-set of Human Speech called Reasoning but Reasoning is not able to Understand the Whole.

Theory is a Static Representation of the Dynamics of Practice. A Human executes a Theory to perform the Process of Practicing. But Practice is not able to Understand the Whole so When a Practice fails we create a new Theory. Theory is adapted Practice and Practice is applied Theory. Being is adapted Becoming.

Being changes in Time because we are Experiencing (Being (t) = Being (t-1) + Experience). Experience is the Difference of Being is Becoming. The Becoming who is The One is generating Experience.

God is the Experience of God.

roseAs You see it is possible to create many concepts and theories of Metaphysics just by Playing with the Verb To Be.

There is one more Language Game to Play. If we Play this Game we are entering the World of Deleuze.

Deleuze was fascinated by the Mathematician and Philosopher Leibniz. Leibniz invented a new Mathematical Game called Differentials. When you calculate a differential you calculate the way a function is changing in time.

Leibniz found a way to move from being to becoming and his formula is very easy. Becoming = Lim (t -> 0) (Being (t+1)-Being (t)). Find the smallest distance between two moments of Being. The smallest distance between two Beings is an Event.

The basis Structure of our Reality is not a Substance (The Static) but something that Moves Us (Emotion). The basic Structure of our Universe are Moments, Nows.

We are Points of View that are Experiencing a Beautifull Fluent Crystal, a HyperDiamond. Every Point of the Multi Dimensional Diamond is an Event.

 We are trying to explain the Beauty of this Crystal to the other Points of View but we are unable to do this because we are only able to see a very small part and we are looking from our own angle.

 We will never See the Whole until we are able to become a Circular Point of View, A Communion.


A Website about Ontology

About Events, Time, Being and Becoming in Physics

About Leibniz and Differentials

The Relationship between Events and Free Will

Deleuze and Events

Why the Universe is a Configuration of Nows

 About Spinoza, The Philosopher of the Emotion

About the Relationship between Events and Creativity, the Ontology of Deleuze



About Learning Styles

Friday, February 15th, 2008

E-Learning is one of the results of the E-Commerce Bubble. During the E-Commerce Bubble everything you can imagine would be changed into a booming business if it was combined with The Internet (a Website).

When you would use the Internet you could learn Everywhere at Every place at Any time. Every “old-fashioned” system that was supporting an Educational Institution was E-ed. It was provided with a “web-site”-interface. Behind this interface nothing changed.

The “old-fashioned” E-Learning packages were designed to automate a professional educational environment. The only thing that changed was that the books (or the PPT’s) were put on a screen.

E-Learning is an example of a technological view on Education. Every new technology that emerges has-to-be used because they (the learners) use it and because they use it it will help them to be educated.

We HAVE TO use the mobile phone and wiki and forums and web-cams and 3-D and games and web 2.0 (or 3.0) and …. If we don’t do that we will be out of the competition..

The big question is are new technologies really helpful to improve the current learning environment?

My answer is that it matters and it does not matter. It matters because we have to stay in contact with “real life”" and it does not matter because an effective learning environment has nothing to do with technology in general.

We learn by practicing and every environment that is related to the practice we want to acquire works fine. So if you want to become an account-manager and to sell you need an mobile-phone you have to learn to use a mobile phone.

But when you want to learn how to fight terrorists you need to learn to use other tools also.

Is it possible to learn “how to design” on a computer?
Is it possible to learn to meditate on a computer?
Is it possible to learn “to be creative” on a computer

We don’t learn to play the piano on a mobile phone and we don’t learn to use a mobile phone on a piano but a computer (or better software) could be programmed to simulate a piano.

Is it possible to learn mathematics on a computer?

I ask you these questions because I hope you feel that they are related to different “fields” of learning.

You could learn “how to meditate” on a computer but practicing meditation is something else.

You could use the computer to create but painting and singing and making poetry needs something else.

They need an “internal tool” that has to develop itself. This internal tool could be called a talent and a talent is a “given thing”. We are (by definition) born with a talent. Goethe called the “internal” tools organs.

We are not only equipped with fysical organs but are also equipped with other non-fysical organs. They make it possible to see and to hear. Organs or talents are specialized structures or functions that are there when you are born. They have to be trained by invoking them.

They are invoked by giving them a challenge. Sometimes the challenges is a “cognitive” challenge (mathematics, patterns) but others need a “manual” challenge. They are “handy”.

When “handy” people are forced to do “cognitive” training they are not challenged and they fail.

The current System is not aimed at developing a talent. Some Systems are specialized in certain talents (Art, Top Sport) but some talents are not recognized. They are not recognized and even “killed” by the System.

I was born with a Mathematical Talent. Later I found out that this talent was inherited from my mothers family (Van Biezen). My talent was merely killed by the System.

It was killed because my talent is a specialization and a specialization implies also short-comings. One of my short-comings is my memory. I am able to remember (and recognize) patterns but I am not able to remember lists. I failed school because I was unable to learn the lists in foreign languages.

The strange thing is that I don’t have problems learning to speak a language. A language is not a list of words and learning a language is not about learning a list that maps words. If translating one language in the other was that easy the perfect translator would be on the market for a long time.

The fact that people are different creates a big problem when you want to create an educational factory. The factory is only able to do its job when the Input is “the same”.

If the input is divers you have to create a diversity of production-lines and you have to navigate the resources through these lines at the right moment.

When everybody is different the problem is unsolvable but when we are able to determinate a limited amount of differences current logistic approaches are capable of solving the problem.

The current logistic system in the Educational Factory is aimed at optimizing the activities of the Teacher (Class, Subject). He (or she) is the most important asset and the pupils have to follow the planning of the Logistic System.

If we would change the priority and put the learner in the centre and we would recognize that the development of a talent is the most beautifull thing a human being is able to do we have to change the logistics. Computers are beautifull tools to help to accomplish this.

The interesting point is that it is possible to determine a limited amount of “learning-styles” related to certain classes of talents. To my surprise nobody is using this knowledge. Just one learning style is used called Instruction (Telling “How-to-do-it”).

About the Conduit and the Toolmaker Metaphor

Friday, November 9th, 2007

In 1979 Andrew Ortony was the editor of the book Metaphor and Thought. It contains contributions of John Searle, George Lackoff and Thomas Kuhn.

The book started a revolution in cognitive science later called Embodiment“. The embodiment-movement has proven that metaphors are “the Tools of the Unconsciousness” or the “Foundation of Thinking”.

One of the most important articles in the book is written by Micheal Reddy. Michael Reddy demonstrates that 70% of the English language is conceptualized and structured by the conduit metaphor. This percentage is increasing.


This metaphor incorporates three interconnected metaphors:

Concepts, thoughts, feelings, meanings, sense and ideas are objects.

Words, sentences are containers.

Communication is the act of sending and receiving a container.

The Conduit Metaphor transforms Communication (the Act to Commune, to Fuse) in a Dual Monologue between two Senders.

Later (1988) Andrew Ortony was the author of another collection of articles about the Emotions (The Cognitive Structure of Emotions). The book contains a widely used model of the Emotions.

The model shows that Humans have the tendency to define an Intelligent Agent behind every thing that happens (an Event). The Weather is a person (“the wind blows”) and the Creator behind “every thing” is a person (God).

Computers are seen by Humans as Highly Intelligent Agents that use the Conduit Metaphor to communicate. When a Computer starts to commu-nicate it sends a Message and the User has to respond.

The User creates a Container (“type a sentence”, “push a button”, “click a mouse”). The Computer responds by sending his Containers (text and/or pictures, “CON-tent”) back. Computer and User are participating in a dual monologue we experience as commune-nication but …..

In reality the Computer is not a Human Being and unable to act as a Human Being.

It is unable to Adapt so we have to Adapt.

Internally we believe Computers are Very Smart and when things go wrong we, “the users”,  have pushed the wrong button, have send the wrong text or have installed the wrong version of the software.

The Computer is Smart and we are Stupid.

The Computer is not only Smart. He is also unable to understand “Who I Am”. He uses “Stereotypes” and he never adapts itself to “Me”.

I have to adapt to him.

The Computer acts like an Autist.

When we try to commune-nicate with an Autist we get frustrated. But because he is mentally ill we have to accept “he will not change”.

We have to Cope.

Coping is a method to escape problems we are unable to remove. We have to cope with the Computer that Acts like an Autist.

The only thing that is left is to reduce our Stress. We reduce our Stress by discussing the stress with our friends. When we do this we feel a lot better because we discover that we are “not alone”.

The Autistic Computer generates many discussions and these discussions are Dialogues. They bring us (the Not-Machines, the Organisms) closer to each other. To solve our problems we start a Path of Mutual Discovery.

We solve many problems by exchanging tips and tricks.

Michael Reddy shows that 30% of the English Language can be described by another Metaphor, the Toolmaker Metaphor. The Toolmaker Metaphor is about cooperation, mutual discovery and the exchange of “tips and tricks”.

The Toolmaker Metaphor is connected to an old “Paradigm” that is slowly fading away in our current Society.

In the Toolmaker Metaphor Humans are unable to understand the other. We are all living in our “own unique private universe”. This Universe is What We Are. In our own universe we develop all kinds of private tools.

In the middle of all of the universes is a post-box. In this box we share pictures (ideas) with other universes. When we find a picture we interpret this picture in our own universe. We understand something because without “knowing” we share a lot.

We are also cooperative because without cooperation we are Unable to Survive.

We need the others. So we send a picture back with adjustments. We are very proud that we have developed a tool that is doing his job in our own Context.

“It really works” and we want to Share our excitement. At the other side the same happens and step by step we develop shared tools.

In the toolmaker-metaphor the Tools are an Extension of the Human. They are an extension of our muscles, our senses, our memory, our emotions or our imagination.

When new extensions are developed we have to integrate the tools with our own private internal tools. We do this by practicing. When we have practiced enough we become One with the Tool.

We Commune.

We ARE our cars, we ARE our Glasses or we ARE our Piano. When the tools are doing their job we even forget that we are using them. We are in deep trouble when our tools fail. Suddenly we are aware of the interdepence between our bodies and our tools.

When we see a computer as a human tool we have to define what part of us we want to be EXTENDED.

When we accept that the Computer is an Autist we have to accept that he is excellent in only one thing. He is an Idiot Savant.

Autists love to Repeat the same Task and most human don’t like repetition.

Let us give the repetitive tasks to the Computers so we can start to PLAY (Simulators!).

When we accept our selves we have to accept our shortcomings.

When we use the Idiot Savant to help us to overcome our shortcomings we are in a complementary relationship.

We are Friends for Life.


What is an Emotion?

About Emotional Architectures

Why Civilians are Not Computers

Saturday, November 3rd, 2007

MontesquieuMontesquieu tried to balance the Power of the State. He defined three functions called the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary.

He based this model on the British constitutional system, in which he perceived a separation of powers among the Monarch, Parliament, and the Courts of Law.

In a Democracy the Parliament represents the People. It is chosen by an Election. Out of the Parliament the Executive Power is chosen by a Majority of the Votes.

At this moment the Executive Power is not one Person, the King. The real executive power is the Bureacracy. Since the times of  Montesquieu the Real Government has grown out of proportion. It is practising a very special approach called Muddling Through.

When you work yourself through the Mudd of Politics you move along with the Centers of Power that are now Moving all the Time. Muddling Through is an approach that is wasting a lot of time,  energy and money and the practical result is most of the time not visible.

The model of the Trias Politica was mainly created to protect the Legal System. At that time is was “without power” and was highly needed to keep the total System in Balance. At this moment the Legal System is too Powerful and Highly Inefficient. We have to create a new balance.

At the Time of Montesquieu the People were without Power. The Parliament was a representation of the Elite. This Elite controlled the People. At this moment a new Elite is controlling parliament but it is not representating the People.

The people are Individualists that want to go their own way. Every  new law is frustrating their efforts to accomplisch something with other Individualists.   The Old Democratic System is dying but the System is unable to define a new System that is more suited to the current Spirit of Time.

The Old System is also unable to use Network Technology to Unite the Individualists into Groups that work for the benifit of the Whole. The Cybernetic Cooperation could be the answer.  

Second and Third Order Cybernetics contains all the answers to solve the Problems but the people in the Political Mud are very busy to keep their Positions and don’t spend much time to look at the facts.

To keep the System in Balance Laws are formulated based on a Law of General Principles, The Foundation Law (GrondWet in Dutch). Every new Law has to obey this Law.

The Trias Politica was formulated around 1700 in the Era of Enlightenment. After 300 years it is still implemented in Government.

Since the Enlightment the Science of Defining and Maintaining Laws has transformed itself in First and Second Order Cybernetics.

Everybody knows Democracy is not functioning any more. It looks like nobody is able to agree that it is based on a Theory that is proved to be Wrong. When People try to discuss Democracy they are almost all the time attacked mostly by the People that are Part of the System. They believe there is no alternative to the current System.

Although it is impossible to manage a Country with a Software System it would help them to understand what is wrong with the Law.

If they would have developed a Software System to manage the Country they would have found out that they needed something else.

It could be possible that they would have made the move from First Order Cybernetics to Second Order Cybernetics (or Higher).

What is Wrong?

The answer is simple.

When I Tell you to do Something and You don’t understand what I am telling You, You are unable to do what I told You.

If I tell You to do something and You understand what I am telling You but You don’t want to do it or you are not able to do it you don’t do what I told You.

The Government is Executing a Computer Program without Using a Computer.

The Laws are just Words and they are not Logical.

So if the Government would implement its Laws in a Computer the Computer Would Stop Immediately.

Is it possible to formulate Rules that Control the State that can be executed by a Computer?

Of Course. Why not?

Will it work?



Civilians are not Computers.

They are Organisms.


About the Human Measure

About Organisms

About the Legal System

About Meta Art

Wednesday, September 5th, 2007

marcel_duchampSince 1915, Marcel Duchamp occasionally bought simple objects in order to exhibit them as art objects. What he wanted to show is that “The Spectator Makes the Picture“. To many people the Art of Duchamp was the End of Art.

The end of art was also a new beginning. Many of the artists who rejected the traditional art object found new realms to explore, by moving to a new level of abstraction, Meta-Art.

The meta-artwork is a class of possibilities rather than an individual thing. It may take the form of an always changing pattern (Open Form), a collection of building blocks (Interactivity), a physical process (Process Art), a computer program (Algorithmic Art), or a mere idea (Concept Art).

What Meta-Art is trying to accomplish is to generate all the possibilities and “Let the Spectator Choose what he Likes“.

Producing beautiful art is not easy. Especially if you have to make a living out of it. Many artists would sell their soul to the Devil in exchange for a magical tool that would produce the perfect artwork, enchanting their patrons and producing fame and fortune for themselves. In every era artists searched for generators and libraries of beautiful components. It is well-known that geniuses like Bach and Mozart used music-generators.

The concept of an Art Generator was described in the book Ars Generalis Ultima of Ramon Llull (1232-1315). Lullus (his Latin name) got his idea from the ancient Astrologers, the Magi. Ars Generalis Ultima inspired Gottfried Leibniz who inspired Gilles Deleuze (“Le Pli“) and George Chatin (“The Limits of Reason“).

Interviewer: “Can you tell us something about your new opera?” Giuseppe Verdi: “It’s exactly the same notes as the previous one, I merely changed the order a little bit.”

Giving the spectator a choice can be done on the level of a picture (“Now I like it“) or on the level of the process itself. “What he likes” is permanently changing according to the moods of the spectator. If would be even better if the environment and the spectator were constantly in the Now, kept in “a Permanent state of Pure Beauty“.

mondriaanThis is what Mondriaan wanted to achieve “Our material environment can only posses a pure beauty (i.e., be healthy and satisfy utility in a truly direct way), if it no longer reflects the egoistic feelings of our small personality: it does not even have any lyrical expression any more, but is purely plastic.”

“For the present moment I see no possibility for arriving at a purely ‘plastic’ expression by only following the organism of what is to be built, focusing only on utility. Our intuition is not sufficiently developed for that, and too involved with the past. [. . .]

For instance, utility often requires repetition in the way of nature (in workers housing, for instance), and in that case the architect needs the concept of plastic expression and the power to go against what the practical goal seems to indicate. Because there are always possibilities for architectural solutions which satisfy the practical goal and the esthetic appearance.”

Mondriaan experimented with Metrical Repetition and Symmetry. He studied Improvization and Jazz to find the perfect pattern. At that time Mathematics and Computers were not helpful to him. Chaos-theory (Emergence), Fractals (Self Reference) and Super Symmetry (The Multi Dimensional String) were “invented” much later.

Mathematicians have been gifted with the Talent of Art. All of them love Music and many of them make music. To me Mathematics is about pure Beauty. It is not a coincedence that Mathematics is the leading force to create innovative Art.

Mathematics in combination with the Computer is capable of much more. It is capable of generating and controlling adaptive environments. Places where happenings take place that create new narratives. We are not far away to create the automated Chronotope, the Holodeck in the famous television series Star Trek.

buildingsI have been involved in many experiments in this area. I worked with Erik Vreedenburgh and Remko Scha  and Ad Luytwieler . The website of Artifical contains many briljant articles. I used them in this blog (Thanks).

All of them are able to create beautifull buildings for a budget that is a fraction of what we pay now. They even create adaptive buildings. Buildings that can be used by everybody in every state of his body and in every state of his life.

It is time to move ahead. The Computer, the Calculator, is not only capable of slaving the human. He is also able to serve and help us to calculate, to count, to tell us about Harmony and even pure Beauty.

A Human needs to be creative to Understand The Self.

Our Personal Art is a Mirror to See what We Are.


About Magic and the Memory Palace

About Color and Music

About Morphology

Why Good programmers have to be Good Listeners

Friday, June 29th, 2007

Edsger Wybe Dijkstra (1930-2000) was a Dutch Computer Scientist. He received the 1972 Turing Award for fundamental contributions in the area of programming languages.

One of the famous statements of Dijkstra is “Besides a mathematical inclination, an exceptionally good mastery of one’s native tongue is the most vital asset of a competent programmer“.

Why is this so important?

People communicate externally and internally (!) in their native tongue. If they use another language much of the nuances of the communication is lost. When people of different languages communicate they have to translate the communication to their internal language.

A computer language is also a language. It is a language where every nuance is gone. With the term nuance (I am a Dutch native speaker) I mean something that also could be translated into the word meaning. A computer language is formal and human communication is informal. We communicate much more than we are aware of when we speak.

So Programming is a Transformation of the Human Domain of Meaning to the Machine-Domain of Structure.

A programmer with a mathematical inclination (being analytical) AND an exceptional good mastery of one’s native language is the only one who can built a bridge between the two worlds.

When he (or she, woman are better in this!!!) is doing this he knows he is throwing away a lot of value but it is the consequence of IT. Machines are not humans (People that are Mad act like Machines).

Machines are very good in repetition. Humans don’t like repetition so Machines and Humans are able to create a very useful complementary relationship.

The person that understood this very well was Sjir Nijssen. He developed with many others something called NIAM. NIAM has generated many dialects called ORM, FORM, RIDDLE, FCO-IM, DEMO. The basic idea of all these methods is to analyze human communication in terms of the sentences we speak. It takes out of a sentence the verbs and the nouns (and of course the numbers) and creates a semantic model of the so called Universe of Discourse.

What Nijssen understood was that a computer is able to register FACTS (reality we don’t argue about anymore) and that facts are stored in a database. If we all agree about the facts we can use the facts to start reasoning. Want to know more about  reasoning. Have a look at this website.

To create a program that supports the user a good programmer has to be a good listener and a highly skilled observer. Users are mostly not aware of their Universe of Discourse. They are immersed in their environment (their CONTEXT). Many techniques have been developed to help the observer to make it possible to recreate the context without killing the context (Bahktin). Have a look at User-Centered-Design to find out more about this subject.

Want to read more about Dijkstra read The Lost Construct.

The Sad (?) Insight of Ludwig Wittgenstein

Tuesday, May 29th, 2007
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Ludwig Wittgenstein

In 1921 Wittgenstein thought that the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus had solved all the problems of philosophy.

Later in his life (The Philosophical Investigations, published 1951) he came to the conclusion that he was utterly wrong.

He found out that language itself is the problem.

Language is woven into the fabric of life, and as part of that fabric it works relatively unproblematically.

Philosophical problems arise when language is forced into an abstract environment, where all the familiar and necessary landmarks and contextual clues are absent. The tragedy is that almost nobody understood Wittgenstein at that time.

One of his students in Cambrigde when he still believed in abstraction was Alan Turing. He invented the Turing Machine, one of the foundations of computers and computer languages.

Computer Languages and everything created by a Computer Languages suffers the Problem Wittgenstein identified.

I was a witness to an important part of the history of computing. I was responsible for many what I now would call abstraction-projects.

I have been extremely busy with the creation of E-Learning, Knowledge-Management, Centers of Expertise, Educational Games based on Story Telling etc.

They all failed in the end but the creation-process was fun.

One of the inspiring persons I spoke was Mr. Ikujiro Nonaka. His book The Knowledge-Creating Company was just published.

He showed that knowledge could be divided into formal (again abstract) and informal knowledge.

He defined a 2X2 matrix of the knowledge-tranfer process.

The most difficult of course was the transfer of informal-informal knowledge.

My big mistake was to believe that informal/informal knowledge-tranfer could be supported by a Computer System.

The Computer System itself is formalizing everything. Many years later (about 5 years ago) I came to the same (sad?) conclusion as Wittgenstein (and Bahktin).

What can we do? The only way to transfer “knowledge” is to talk person-to-person in a secure environment.

Some people will understand each other and become friends. They are a small Centre of Expertise.

Many people will think(!) they understand the other. They will go their own way until they realize, perhaps when they are 56 (like me), that in the end your mostly wrong and sometimes right.

Keep meeting and talking! And realize The Creation Process is always Fun.


About the War of Words

About the Foundations of Mathematics

How the Proof of the Pudding is Really in the Eating

How to Analyze a Context