John Connolly on fri 20 apr 07
> Lee,
> Are you also dyslexic?
"Yes. I am lucky, because it isn't severe in writing. But I often
mix up vowels or leave them out and the spellchecker catches most of
the mistakes. When I am tired (or before my morning coffee), it gets
worse. Noel, are you left-handed? I am."
The evening news carried an interview with Albert Einstien's newest biographer who said that Einstien was a very slow child. Very slow to talk. He believes that his childhood difficulty communicating verbally caused him think in pictures and concepts, and helped make him the genious he was.
John Connolly in Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
Ann Brink on sat 21 apr 07
John Connolly wrote:
> The evening news carried an interview with Albert Einstien's newest
> biographer who said that Einstien was a very slow child. Very slow to
> talk. He believes that his childhood difficulty communicating verbally
> caused him think in pictures and concepts, and helped make him the genious
> he was.
>
Hello John
I saw that same interview on the news. Don't we all think "in pictures"
quite a lot? But it's true I only know about myself! One occasion when I am
really aware that I think in pictures is if I'm trying to remember where
something is located; suddenly an image of the thing in it's surroundings
appears in my conscousness. I assumed this was typical.
Ann (I have something in common w/ Einstein) Brink, Lompoc CA
(mostly about pottery)
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on sat 21 apr 07
Hi John, Lee, Lili, all...
John mentions -
> The evening news carried an interview with Albert Einstien's newest
> biographer who said that Einstien was a very slow child. Very slow to
> talk. He believes that his childhood difficulty communicating verbally
> caused him think in pictures and concepts, and helped make him the genious
> he was.
Well which was it?
'Slow'?
Or 'slow to talk'?
Who were the evaluators at-the-time to clearify it or to share insight about
it?
What was their criteria?
What quality of attention were they paying?
It is more likely that what had been his Natural way of thinking was
reluctant to diminish and deteriorate, or he had the good sense to resist
abdicating it, to favor the kinds of 'thinking' which spoken language
requires.
Or maybe he had some B Vitamine deficiencys.
Learning to talk ( which in essence, in our broader culture anyway, is a
coersion to appease, or mitigate the violence from, the hide-bound alienated
and more or less psychotic and entirely diminished others crowding around
one who do not communicate ingenuously or Naturally, who are not 'present'
in any centered way, nor have they retained much of anything to communicate
'from' or about IN an ingenuous or Natural way, which then ) carries a heavy
price for the cornered, coerced neonate-dash-incipient or impending
speech-producer...and...once paid, we are not likely to
have ( or retain, ) any way of assaying it. We have become them.
Our Natural manner OF 'thinking' is analog and image-metaphor, and
all-at-once...and not time-extruded, 'liniar' string-outs or stringing
together of vague, mutable, ambiguous allusions or abstracts of associations
( but for presumption-habit, collusion about presumption-habit, or
telepathy to interpret, and a cheap half inch 'college' dictionary of
course, handy to wield in defence of killing the language while relying on
it, even with all it's liabilitys, as if drilling more holes in the Boat
Bottom were somehow the right thing to do... ) and unwieldly pieced-together
lengths of brachiated yet amputated to BE 'linial' instead of branching,
stumps of half-metaphors and reifications rendered into sound or written
word, which require peculiar and typically excluding neurological 'skills'
to manage even badly, let alone to manage half way well, if not being
rightly a form of psychosis more often than not...to even BE doing the first
place.
Why is it necessary?
Because ( just about ) everyone-people else is 'there'...a 'black hole' or
gravity well of sorts, it seems...
I would say the average Ant, Wasp, Bee, Katydid, Pigeon, Sparrow, Porpoise,
Tree, Annual Botanical of whatever sort...knows a great deal more 'about'
"The Universe" than Mr. Einstein did...
And, they have the nice manners to simply enjoy it, share it, communicate
about it with any one 'there' also, without trying to explain it away for a
paycheck or martinii or a government job or prestige.
Appearently, while a 'genious', Mr. Einstien disclosed no known information,
or intimations of posessing any, on his 'early'( or pre-verbal ) memorys or
appreciations at-the-time, of his presumned transition into verbal-skills
and to whatever degree, of verbal-thinking, which might edify on the matter,
at least as he had experienced it. Nor does any of this likely occur to his
biographer, who we may suppose is not a 'genius', even if he gschmoosed some
retainer from a publisher for having something to sell to them, which they
can sell to others...to put yet one more packaging onto some homogenized,
pasteurized and vitamine fortified "einstein" product for at least one more
round of it being milked....which is to say, milking those who will buy it.
Too, if to continue in this continuity of sorts...Einstein was and remains a
manufactured icon-product-sell for the furtherance of the ( mis-use and
cultivation of, the propaganda of, the ) 'Science' mystique and to help
elevate it to a psuedo-priest-class, ( hardly if ever accountable for
anything, yet insinuated to mediate - if from the side - between the
peasants-livestock and the 'manner house', or worse, between the peasants
and the Cosmos, or worse even yet, between anyone and their own
proprioception and perspecuity, and that of sensible others ) which mediacy
wished to gain further privledges and territorys for itself, and for the
handlers and managers of it to gain further security for their interests,
who use it as a political and psychological ploy and strategy as
manipulation and distraction ( you know, like whatsherface's...uhhhh, Temple
Grandin's "ramps", but the more or less 'invisible' ramps we get, or are
'on' ) for their herds of domesticated people-animals...which
handlers/managers wished to gain further privledges for themselves in their
agenda of furthering Science as mystique and mediator and permission-giver
for all things...and for a progressive and insideous legacy of invalidation
of everything which science might not have handy 'answers' for, or have
handy or incipient products to sell in an address or appeasemet of.
Remember the National Physics Labratory and their pronouncement on 'the
magic bullet'?
How far would 'that' have got say in 1890? 1920?
Not far at all...
How far with anyone of any real experience of their own?
Not 'far'...
All in all, if not for the political-psychological use he served, he would
have been of little to no interest to anybody but some few fellow Scientists
of whatever sort, or occasional lay people.
He was 'marketable' and amenible to being marketed...those who had something
to sell, packaged him...another 'Trojan Horse' of sorts...
.
Einstien had many acquaintances of course...and Luther Burbank was one of
them.
Of the two, I am more likely to tip my Hat to Mr. Burbank...who alltogether
appears to have enjoyed a far less constricted and exploited order of
intelligence and propriety...and to have avoided being an insturment of
History's, or Humanity's all too unexamined derailments, stagnation,
'ramps', and unassayed disappointments made rote unto hearsay and the
numbness and amnesia to never question it.
Mr. Einstein is an emotionally charged icon and sop, a Marylin Monroe of
Arithmetic...a tee-shirt screen-print trigger device...( if having missed
the chloral hydrate and barbituate gastric lavage and sex with the president
part...) everyone likes him ( remember the old thing of
"...he-was-the-kindest-bravest-generous-man-I-ever-met..." ? ) unexamined,
yet effective for the hear-say and trigger-association which everyone is
'positive' about while knowing nothing whatever about it or the context or
the dept of field in which he was ( and we were, ) used.
Oye...
Thus is history writ, and worse yet, read...and worse yet, repeated
endlessly to be made 'real' ( literally, "property of the king") ...or as
'real' as any other sell-job of mystification and emotion, or emotion
disguised as something more or something else.
If I were in my little Boat, far far out at Sea, on a gently day, and Mr.
Einstein were a wearied swimmer, tired and sodden unto his last...
And I saw also what might be a Kitten or Duck or something a few hundred
yards further...maybe it is only a bit of paper?
You may rest assured I would do the right thing...and row vigorously toward
it...
Love,
Phil
l v
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Connolly"
>> Lee,
>> Are you also dyslexic?
>
> "Yes. I am lucky, because it isn't severe in writing. But I often
> mix up vowels or leave them out and the spellchecker catches most of
> the mistakes. When I am tired (or before my morning coffee), it gets
> worse. Noel, are you left-handed? I am."
>
> The evening news carried an interview with Albert Einstien's newest
> biographer who said that Einstien was a very slow child. Very slow to
> talk. He believes that his childhood difficulty communicating verbally
> caused him think in pictures and concepts, and helped make him the genious
> he was.
>
>
>
>
>
> John Connolly in Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico
Lee Love on sun 22 apr 07
On 4/21/07, John Connolly wrote:
> worse. Noel, are you left-handed? I am."
>
> The evening news carried an interview with Albert Einstien's newest biographer who said
> that Einstien was a very slow child. Very slow to talk. He believes that his childhood
>difficulty communicating verbally caused him think in pictures and
concepts, and helped
>make him the genius he was.
Me & my buddy in graded school, Lars Sloan (He recently found me:
read about him here: http://www.americanbagpipes.com/ ) did mirror
writing like Leonardo DaVinci, so our teacher could not read our
notes. We were put at opposite ends of the classroom, so we couldn't
visit. So, we took the tube from a Bic pen, and a pin. We'd wrap
our "secret" messages around a pin and put it in the Bic tube and
blowgunned the dart across the room. The reciever would hold up a
sheet of paper to catch the dart. He would cough, just before the
dart hit, to mask the sound.
We also devised several different encryption systems to encode our
messages.
I was an anti-authoritarian trouble maker from early on. ;^)
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://potters.blogspot.com/
"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
John Connolly on sun 22 apr 07
"All in all, if not for the political-psycholog ical use he served, he would
have been of little to no interest to anybody but some few fellow Scientists
of whatever sort, or occasional lay people.
He was 'marketable' and amenible to being marketed...those who had something
to sell, packaged him...another 'Trojan Horse' of sorts..."
Methinks this thread is well-named.
John Connolly in Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
Bob Johnson on mon 23 apr 07
I hope I'm not being too presumptuous--and I know that this is
somewhat tangential--but I think that many of you would be interested
in "Creating Minds," a book by psychologist Howard Gardner (the
multiple intelligences guy). In it, he explores the psychology of
creativity through a series of case studies of great creative minds
that shaped the 20th century: Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot,
Graham, and Gandhi. (Each one represents one of Gardner's multiple
intelligences.) All are different in many respects, yet there is a
common pattern, Gardner finds, in the lives of the most highly
creative people, regardless of their discipline. If any of you have
read it, I'd be interested in your reactions.
Bob - in Oregon
At 4/23/2007 03:31 PM, you wrote:
>On 4/23/07, John Connolly wrote:
>>"All in all, if not for the political-psycholog ical use he served, he would
>>have been of little to no interest to anybody but some few fellow Scientists
>>of whatever sort, or occasional lay people.
>
>> Methinks this thread is well-named.
>
> Yeah. Some folks can't bear a Gulliver in their midsts.
>Imagine tying Einstein down with a spool of thread...
>
> Einstein changed the world we live in. As Huston Smith
>writes in "Why Religion Matters" the real scientific innovations all
>occurred before the 1950s. In post-modern times, we have just been
>harvesting the riches of the first half of the 20th century.
>
>
>--
>Lee in Mashiko, Japan
>Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
>http://potters.blogspot.com/
>
>"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
>Henry David Thoreau
>
>"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
>melpots@pclink.com.
Donna Kat on mon 23 apr 07
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:52:04 -0700, pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET wrote:
>Hi John, Lee, Lili, all...
>
>
>
>John mentions -
>
>
>> The evening news carried an interview with Albert Einstien's newest
>> biographer who said that Einstien was a very slow child. Very slow to
>> talk. He believes that his childhood difficulty communicating verbally
>> caused him think in pictures and concepts, and helped make him the
genious
>> he was.
>
>
>Well which was it?
>
>'Slow'?
>
>Or 'slow to talk'?
>
>
>Who were the evaluators at-the-time to clearify it or to share insight
about
>it?
>
>What was their criteria?
>
Early psychologist made the silly claim that deaf people could not think
because they did not have language. Until recently (and even now)
psychologist made their names on proving how humans were 'special' and
unlike all the other mammals out there. Just about every one of those
claims has now been debunked. Keep in mind that psychology is a
relatively young science with many different branches. In fact science as
we know it is pretty young. It wasn't that long ago that we thought the
earth was flat and if we reached the end we would fall off... hell, there
are still flat earthers out there (most of them in this administration).
When I first got into the area of psychology that I'm in those 'telling'
the story claimed that speech was 'special'. The lab I work in has spent
the last 30 years showing that no, speech is not special, it may be
specialized but it isn't special. Turns out our brain isn't all the
different from most other mammals. There are also huge individual
differences between humans. The big differences that they keep on trying
to show between men and women turn out to be a very small percentage and
you probably have a much larger difference between individuals of the same
sex. I do most things visually. My husband does things verbally (the
sexual sterotype is the opposite by the way and probably comes from how
much freedom to roam a child had when they were very young). We can both
find our way to unknown places but we do it in an entirely different
manner.
Donna
P.S. for us Americans/Aussies/etc, without the intellectuals to challange
the status quo most of us would still be in Europe/Asia/Africa (I'm
excluding those early Asians who walked across the tundra to get here)
because we would be afraid of getting on a ship (forget about having
airplanes) and sailing off the edge. So while the thinkers often get it
wrong, at least they try and inch my inch we move forward.
Lee Love on tue 24 apr 07
On 4/23/07, John Connolly wrote:
> "All in all, if not for the political-psycholog ical use he served, he would
> have been of little to no interest to anybody but some few fellow Scientists
> of whatever sort, or occasional lay people.
> Methinks this thread is well-named.
Yeah. Some folks can't bear a Gulliver in their midsts.
Imagine tying Einstein down with a spool of thread...
Einstein changed the world we live in. As Huston Smith
writes in "Why Religion Matters" the real scientific innovations all
occurred before the 1950s. In post-modern times, we have just been
harvesting the riches of the first half of the 20th century.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
http://potters.blogspot.com/
"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
Henry David Thoreau
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Donna Kat on tue 24 apr 07
One of the things they are trying to teach students in China right now is
the Western culture of questioning those in authority and respecting
individuals.
It is really hard to have creativity when you don't allow individuals to
go their own way.
I have heard bits and pieces of the work on intelligence. What I found
most interesting in this line of research was that the ability to 'lose'
oneself in one's work (lose all sense of time and outer events when
involved in doing your own work/play) plays a major part in how creative
or how successful an individual is. It turns out that the standard
measures of 'intelligence' (IQ, SAT, etc.) are less correlated with
success or creativity than this ability or even the ability to persevere.
I think what makes what we do important is that it holds on to the
difference of individuals. Target/Kmart may have a great piece of RED
pottery that I can use for day to day but I have no attachment to it. I
treasure each piece of handmade pottery I have and I will never feel that
way about anything mass produced.
http://wilderdom.com/personality/L2-2SternbergTriarchicTheory.html
http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/paik.html
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:52:16 -0700, Bob Johnson
wrote:
>I hope I'm not being too presumptuous--and I know that this is
>somewhat tangential--but I think that many of you would be interested
>in "Creating Minds," a book by psychologist Howard Gardner (the
>multiple intelligences guy). In it, he explores the psychology of
>creativity through a series of case studies of great creative minds
>that shaped the 20th century: Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot,
>Graham, and Gandhi. (Each one represents one of Gardner's multiple
>intelligences.) All are different in many respects, yet there is a
>common pattern, Gardner finds, in the lives of the most highly
>creative people, regardless of their discipline. If any of you have
>read it, I'd be interested in your reactions.
>
>Bob - in Oregon
>
>
>At 4/23/2007 03:31 PM, you wrote:
>>On 4/23/07, John Connolly wrote:
>>>"All in all, if not for the political-psycholog ical use he served, he
would
>>>have been of little to no interest to anybody but some few fellow
Scientists
>>>of whatever sort, or occasional lay people.
>>
>>> Methinks this thread is well-named.
>>
>> Yeah. Some folks can't bear a Gulliver in their midsts.
>>Imagine tying Einstein down with a spool of thread...
>>
>> Einstein changed the world we live in. As Huston Smith
>>writes in "Why Religion Matters" the real scientific innovations all
>>occurred before the 1950s. In post-modern times, we have just been
>>harvesting the riches of the first half of the 20th century.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Lee in Mashiko, Japan
>>Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
>>http://potters.blogspot.com/
>>
>>"To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts." -
>>Henry David Thoreau
>>
>>"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________________
_____
>>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>>
>>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>>
>>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
>>melpots@pclink.com.
>
>__________________________________________________________________________
____
>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Ivor and Olive Lewis on wed 25 apr 07
Dear Bob Johnson,=20
It would be helpful if you were to give us the ISBN number of the book =
by Howard Gardner. This makes it easier for those librarians who help us =
out by locating books for Interlibrary Loan.
Our library visits Redhill on Friday. If I can give my request then I =
would get the book two weeks later if it is in the State Library System.
Thanks for the tip.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
South Australia.
Bob Johnson on wed 25 apr 07
Sure! Here's the full reference:
Gardner, Howard (1994). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen
through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot,
Graham, and Gandhi.New York: Basic Books (HarperCollins).
Amazon lists 2 ISBNs, both for the paperback edition, I believe
ISBN-10: 0465014542
ISBN-13: 978-0465014545
I'd be interested in your reaction to Gardner's analysis.
Cordially,
Bob
At 4/24/2007 11:59 PM, you wrote:
>Dear Bob Johnson,
>
>It would be helpful if you were to give us the ISBN number of the
>book by Howard Gardner. This makes it easier for those librarians
>who help us out by locating books for Interlibrary Loan.
>
>Our library visits Redhill on Friday. If I can give my request then
>I would get the book two weeks later if it is in the State Library System.
>
>Thanks for the tip.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Ivor Lewis.
>Redhill,
>South Australia.
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
>melpots@pclink.com.
Ivor and Olive Lewis on thu 26 apr 07
Dear Bob Johnson,=20
Thanks a lot for that information.
If our librarian is successful in locating a copy for me I will let you =
know how I feel about the book.
Sincere regards,
Ivor
| |
|
