Re: Burrokeet presentation

> 
> From: Richard Hamel-Smith <rhamel-gAYLxUKfjlvd8Zgiw/[email protected]>
> 
> Nobody, myself included, wants to do any more work than they absolutely
> have to. That's one of the main ideas behind computing as a whole. So
> whatever solution Burrokeet provides, it needs to be stone-axe simple.
> 



All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is
violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident. -Schopenhauer?

http://www.google.tt/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%2Bschopenhauer+%2Bsolutio
n+%2Bbefore+%2Bproblem&btnG=Google+Search

Schopenhauer, I think, said something to the effect that a sign of true
genius was to arrive at a solution before looking at the problem. -I could
not find it.

http://www.threes.com/cgi-bin/threes_cat_nav.cgi?subject=Philosophy&begin=90
&end=99

"In ordinary life we think by thesis and antithesis; always and everywhere
there is "yes" or "no," "no" or "yes." In thinking differently, in thinking
in a new way, in thinking by means of signs of things, I came to understand
the fundamental errors of our mental process.

In reality, everywhere and in every case there were not two but three
elements. There were not only "yes" and "no," but "yes," "no" and something
else besides. And it was precisely the nature of this "third" element, in
accessible to the understanding, which made all ordinary reasonings
unsuitable and demanded a change in the basic method. I saw that the
solution of all problems always came from a third, unknown, element, that is
to say, it came from a third and unknown side, and that without this third
element it was impossible to arrive at a right solution.

Further, when I asked a question I very often began to see that the question
itself was wrongly put. Instead of giving an immediate answer to my
question, the "consciousness" to which I was speaking began to move my
question round and turn it about, showing me that it was wrong. Gradually I
began to see what was wrong. As soon as I understood clearly what was wrong
in my question, I saw the answer. But the answer always included a third
element which I could not see before, because my question was always built
upon two elements only, thesis and antithesis. I formulated this for myself
in the following way: that the whole difficulty lay in the putting of the
question. If we could put questions rightly, we should know the answers. A
question rightly put contains the answer in itself. But the answer will be
quite unlike what we expect, it will always be on another plane, on a plane
not included in the ordinary question."


Then there is: "Solutions Looking for Problems"

  http://www.parshift.com/Essays/essay055.htm


Happy Sunday!



Visit the CIS Project on the WWW:  http://www.cis.org.tt

View the offlist archives: http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.education.cis

-------------------------------------------------

Dgroups is a joint initiative of Bellanet, DFID, Hivos, ICA, IICD, OneWorld, UNAIDS and World Bank
--- You are currently subscribed to cis as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-cis-221309I-T6/[email protected]