Quora answer: What are good ways to retain information?

One good way to retain information is to create diagrams of what ever you are studying. I learned this from a teacher of philosophy I had in college whose name was Professor Alfonso Verdu. He would draw diagrams of the philosophies that he was teaching. So I took this method as my own, and did diagrams of all the philosophical works I studied over the years. What is amazing is that I can remember diagrams that I did years ago, or those that Professor Alfonso Verdu used in teaching us philosophy. I converted many of my diagrams into digital form in my books and papers. See for instance, The Fragmentation of Being and the Path beyond the Void (http://works.bepress.com/kent_palmer).  The key is to avoid using the same format for each diagram like, for instance, MindMaps.  Each diagram has to be tailored creatively to the content being portrayed. The work of creating the diagram that is suitable for understanding needs to be kept in a notebook so it can be referenced. If you look at it occasionally when you are thinking about the problems then that reinforced the memory. But just the act of creating the diagrams more or less imprints it permanently on ones memory. Once one has done diagrams like this for a long time, the diagrams are no longer really necessary, but they always help. Not sure why this is so. I guess the brain gets accustomed to think diagrammatically about concepts and one eventually learns just to do it spontaneously.

Here are some examples:


6

Posted March 26, 2012 by kentpalmer in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , ,

Quora answer: If someone self-identifies as a polymath, is he/she actually one?

Quora answer:  If someone self-identifies as a polymath, is he/she actually one?

Kent Palmer http://kdp.me Copyright 2011


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath

I am a polymath. I refer you to my answers on Quora, and my works as evidence. Now it is for you to decide if I am actually one.

For instance, Socrates claims to not be a Sophist. But in certain circumstances Plato makes him look precisely like what he is against. Thus, what are we to take from that when we become disillusioned with Socrates and his difference from the Sophists as Nietzsche did for instance. Socrates was an anti-polymath, and the sophists were seen as the polymaths, and that is one of the things that Socrates held against them, he thought of them as Hydra, having many heads, and said that they escape into holes with many exits in the course of arguments. But Plato can be seen as a Polymath, if you read all his dialogues. So we have a Polymath with a character who is not a polymath, and who is against Sophists who are normally polymaths, from whom Socrates is hard to distinguish except by external factors like the fact that Socrates is from Athens and not a foreigner. and that Socrates does not ask for money to engage in conversation. Rather than knowing anything himself, Socrates is seen as one who is good at asking, hard to answer questions bout the real meaning of abstract words. So eventually you are completely caught up in Plato’s irony and you don’t know what to think. Basically to your point Plato and Socrates have the ideal of not being Sophists but in the end it seems that they themselves may be sophists. And so their claims must be pointing to something else than the nature of sophistry, something beyond sophistry like the Nondual for instance. Something not recognized in the tradition that followed, and something truly lost in oblivion in our tradition due to active suppression.

Being a Polymath in our society is highly discouraged. Everyone is a specialist. And specialism is in fact nihilism. Thus if you are to overcome nihilism oneself one is forced to try to become a polymath, but in that search for knowledge one puts oneself beyond the pale of academia, because the whole purpose of academia is to control knowledge and who might claim to have it. And everyone says that it is impossible for anyone to know everything in our age, but no one claims that it is impossible to know everything that is significant. That is still open as a goal. But then how do you decide what is significant? My measure is whether or not it relates to the structure of the Western Worldview as it is rooted in the Indo-European worldview. And significance is gained by comparing that to the various nondual traditions like Taoism, Buddhism, DzogChen, Sufism, etc. Significance comes from ones problematic. My problematic the nature of Western Science in relation to the structure of the Western worldivew, and we do this by studying anomalous cases like Acupuncture that has no scientific explanation, but is recognized to work by the establishment even though no one knows why. These anomalies suggest we might have blindspots in our own scientific approach to the world, which come from the structure of our worldview, which is now world dominant. Significance comes from the spread of the Kurgans due to horsepower, Colonialization, and now Globalisation by the Indo-Europeans whose worldview has become world dominant. This coincides with the ultimate nihilistic act which is destroying the planet, i.e. the ultimate terrorist act of destroying the planet and taking everyone else including all other species with you, which this world dominant Worldview seems to be in the process of attempting to realize. The fact that it cannot control itself to stop the emissions that is causing global warming and leading to a greenhouse planet suggests that there is something fundamentally self-destructive in this worldview, which is terrorizing the rest of the planet. In some respects Terrorism is a reflection of ourselves in the mirror of the world. The first terrorists were European anarchists. We developed the weapons of mass destruction which are being used to kill masses of people. If we had not spread them all over the globe we would not find them being used by others. So it seems fairly clear that the Western worldview is its own worst enemy, and unfortunately the enemy of all, including the other species on the planet.

So it is from this global crisis that we take the significance of our problematic. And it is from this crisis that we take the energy to pursue the quest for self-knowledge whereever it may lead. And it is the fact that it leads to many disparate fields that produces the polymatic qualities, which are a side effect of the intellectual journey being taken over a lifetime. And in fact I would guess that all polymaths have a similar motivation, they find something which is fascinating and they pursue it whereever it may lead in the pursuit of understanding, and knowledge of many subjects picked up as tools along the way is the result. They are not seeking to be polymaths, but they are seeking an elusive query, that continually hides in various fields of inquiry or endeavor and the only way to continue the pursuit is to master to some extent those various fields.

So the sign of a true polymath in my opinion is one who has a deep enough problematic that it cannot be bound by specialization, and who thus becomes a renegade from the Academic control structures built to reign in and control knowledge.

A Crank on the other hand is someone who is obsessed with something which is not related to the cutting edge of the tradition and does not recognize the tradition and its judgment on what is valuable and what is not valuable. Every polymath is somewhat of a crank, because they are willing to develop ideas that totally break the mold of the tradition. But the crank really does not understand the tradition, and thus pursues a vision completely out of kilter with it. The Polymath on the other hand is so involved with learning pursuing his goal that he just happens to learn a lot along the way, without regard to whether the knowledge is useful or fits into normal categories manufactured by Academia to control knowledge, The Crank is the person who is filtered out by the academic control system. The polymath does not care about the boundaries for learning established by the Academic knowledge control system because he is pursuing a problematic that is a crosscutting concern and too busy doing that to bother with specialization and the peer pressure of peer reviewed publications. The the true polymath has no peer. Because all the peers implicitly recognize the boundaries of specialization and are loath to transgress those  boundaries.

This brings us to the trees in the Garden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Trees). But it appears there were actually five trees  trees of life, of immortality, Knowledge, comprehension, and knowledge of good and evil (http://www.bardic-press.com/thomas/saying19.htm). Aristotlec says “There are five virtues of thought: technê, epistêmê, phronêsis, sophia, and nous (1139b15). ” (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/episteme-techne/). Throwing Blake into the equation we have several lists of terms we might try to reconcile.

<pre>
5 trees                     nonduals        Aristotle    Blake
(source of 4 rivers)  Root              nous          albion
Immortality               Source          sophia       Urthowna
Life                           Fate             phronesis   Tharmas
Good & Evil             Good           (metis)        Luvah
Comprehension      Right           techne        Urizen     (reason)
Knowledge              Order           episteme    Beulah Land
(Information)          InfoEntropy  (senses)      (created world)
</pre>

Only a Polymath can come up with a table like this. Whether it is meaningful or not you have to judge for yourself. If it is not meaningful then you would have to judge me a crank. If it is meaningful then it means that there is a lot more to life than just knowing a lot of things, and being a polymath is merely the most superficial of characteristics that we would desire as human beings if we could have all the depth we might  be able to attain.

Nous also called intellect or intelligence, is a philosophical term for the faculty of the human mind which is described in classical philosophy as necessary for understanding what is true or real, very close in meaning to intuition. It is also often described as a form of perception which works within the mind (“the mind’s eye”), rather than only through the physical senses.[2] The three commonly used philosophical terms are from Greek, νοῦς or νόος, and Latin intellectus and intelligentia respectively. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(wisdom)

Note: “Phro­nesis is the histor­ically implicated, communally nurtured ability to make good sense of relatively singular contexts in ways appropriate to their relative singularity.” (https://sites.google.com/site/praxisandtechne/Home/architecture/knowledge/episteme/phronesis)

The Polymath merely collects knowledge though his fascination on his intellectual quest after what is sought from his problematic. This is indeed only the surface. What we need is something deeper that takes from all the trees in paradise rather than only one.

19. Jesus said, “Blessed is he who exists from the beginning before he comes to be. If you are my students and listen to my words, these stones will become your servants. For you have five trees in Paradise, which do not move in summer or in winter, and their leaves do not fall down. Whoever knows them will not taste death.”
http://www.bardic-press.com/thomas/saying19.htm

Reference: https://sites.google.com/site/praxisandtechne/Home/architecture

http://kp0.me/GQuvME

http://www.quora.com/If-someone-self-identifies-as-a-polymath-is-he-she-actually-one

Posted March 26, 2012 by kentpalmer in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , ,

Quora answer: If someone self-identifies as a polymath, is he/she actually one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath

I am a polymath. I refer you to my answers on Quora, and my works as evidence. Now it is for you to decide if I am actually one.

For instance, Socrates claims to not be a Sophist. But in certain circumstances Plato makes him look precisely like what he is against. Thus, what are we to take from that when we become disillusioned with Socrates and his difference from the Sophists as Nietzsche did for instance. Socrates was an anti-polymath, and the sophists were seen as the polymaths, and that is one of the things that Socrates held against them, he thought of them as Hydra, having many heads, and said that they escape into holes with many exits in the course of arguments. But Plato can be seen as a Polymath, if you read all his dialogues. So we have a Polymath with a character who is not a polymath, and who is against Sophists who are normally polymaths, from whom Socrates is hard to distinguish except by external factors like the fact that Socrates is from Athens and not a foreigner. and that Socrates does not ask for money to engage in conversation. Rather than knowing anything himself, Socrates is seen as one who is good at asking, hard to answer questions bout the real meaning of abstract words. So eventually you are completely caught up in Plato’s irony and you don’t know what to think. Basically to your point Plato and Socrates have the ideal of not being Sophists but in the end it seems that they themselves may be sophists. And so their claims must be pointing to something else than the nature of sophistry, something beyond sophistry like the Nondual for instance. Something not recognized in the tradition that followed, and something truly lost in oblivion in our tradition due to active suppression.

Being a Polymath in our society is highly discouraged. Everyone is a specialist. And specialism is in fact nihilism. Thus if you are to overcome nihilism oneself one is forced to try to become a polymath, but in that search for knowledge one puts oneself beyond the pale of academia, because the whole purpose of academia is to control knowledge and who might claim to have it. And everyone says that it is impossible for anyone to know everything in our age, but no one claims that it is impossible to know everything that is significant. That is still open as a goal. But then how do you decide what is significant? My measure is whether or not it relates to the structure of the Western Worldview as it is rooted in the Indo-European worldview. And significance is gained by comparing that to the various nondual traditions like Taoism, Buddhism, DzogChen, Sufism, etc. Significance comes from ones problematic. My problematic the nature of Western Science in relation to the structure of the Western worldivew, and we do this by studying anomalous cases like Acupuncture that has no scientific explanation, but is recognized to work by the establishment even though no one knows why. These anomalies suggest we might have blindspots in our own scientific approach to the world, which come from the structure of our worldview, which is now world dominant. Significance comes from the spread of the Kurgans due to horsepower, Colonialization, and now Globalisation by the Indo-Europeans whose worldview has become world dominant. This coincides with the ultimate nihilistic act which is destroying the planet, i.e. the ultimate terrorist act of destroying the planet and taking everyone else including all other species with you, which this world dominant Worldview seems to be in the process of attempting to realize. The fact that it cannot control itself to stop the emissions that is causing global warming and leading to a greenhouse planet suggests that there is something fundamentally self-destructive in this worldview, which is terrorizing the rest of the planet. In some respects Terrorism is a reflection of ourselves in the mirror of the world. The first terrorists were European anarchists. We developed the weapons of mass destruction which are being used to kill masses of people. If we had not spread them all over the globe we would not find them being used by others. So it seems fairly clear that the Western worldview is its own worst enemy, and unfortunately the enemy of all, including the other species on the planet.

So it is from this global crisis that we take the significance of our problematic. And it is from this crisis that we take the energy to pursue the quest for self-knowledge whereever it may lead. And it is the fact that it leads to many disparate fields that produces the polymatic qualities, which are a side effect of the intellectual journey being taken over a lifetime. And in fact I would guess that all polymaths have a similar motivation, they find something which is fascinating and they pursue it whereever it may lead in the pursuit of understanding, and knowledge of many subjects picked up as tools along the way is the result. They are not seeking to be polymaths, but they are seeking an elusive query, that continually hides in various fields of inquiry or endeavor and the only way to continue the pursuit is to master to some extent those various fields.

So the sign of a true polymath in my opinion is one who has a deep enough problematic that it cannot be bound by specialization, and who thus becomes a renegade from the Academic control structures built to reign in and control knowledge.

A Crank on the other hand is someone who is obsessed with something which is not related to the cutting edge of the tradition and does not recognize the tradition and its judgment on what is valuable and what is not valuable. Every polymath is somewhat of a crank, because they are willing to develop ideas that totally break the mold of the tradition. But the crank really does not understand the tradition, and thus pursues a vision completely out of kilter with it. The Polymath on the other hand is so involved with learning pursuing his goal that he just happens to learn a lot along the way, without regard to whether the knowledge is useful or fits into normal categories manufactured by Academia to control knowledge, The Crank is the person who is filtered out by the academic control system. The polymath does not care about the boundaries for learning established by the Academic knowledge control system because he is pursuing a problematic that is a crosscutting concern and too busy doing that to bother with specialization and the peer pressure of peer reviewed publications. The the true polymath has no peer. Because all the peers implicitly recognize the boundaries of specialization and are loath to transgress those  boundaries.

This brings us to the trees in the Garden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Trees). But it appears there were actually five trees  trees of life, of immortality, Knowledge, comprehension, and knowledge of good and evil (http://www.bardic-press.com/thomas/saying19.htm). Aristotlec says “There are five virtues of thought: technê, epistêmê, phronêsis, sophia, and nous (1139b15). ” (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/episteme-techne/). Throwing Blake into the equation we have several lists of terms we might try to reconcile.

<pre>
5 trees                     nonduals        Aristotle    Blake
(source of 4 rivers)  Root              nous          albion
Immortality               Source          sophia       Urthowna
Life                           Fate             phronesis   Tharmas
Good & Evil             Good           (metis)        Luvah
Comprehension      Right           techne        Urizen     (reason)
Knowledge              Order           episteme    Beulah Land
(Information)          InfoEntropy  (senses)      (created world)
</pre>

Only a Polymath can come up with a table like this. Whether it is meaningful or not you have to judge for yourself. If it is not meaningful then you would have to judge me a crank. If it is meaningful then it means that there is a lot more to life than just knowing a lot of things, and being a polymath is merely the most superficial of characteristics that we would desire as human beings if we could have all the depth we might  be able to attain.

Nous also called intellect or intelligence, is a philosophical term for the faculty of the human mind which is described in classical philosophy as necessary for understanding what is true or real, very close in meaning to intuition. It is also often described as a form of perception which works within the mind (“the mind’s eye”), rather than only through the physical senses.[2] The three commonly used philosophical terms are from Greek, νοῦς or νόος, and Latin intellectus and intelligentia respectively. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(wisdom)

Note: “Phro­nesis is the histor­ically implicated, communally nurtured ability to make good sense of relatively singular contexts in ways appropriate to their relative singularity.” (https://sites.google.com/site/praxisandtechne/Home/architecture/knowledge/episteme/phronesis)

The Polymath merely collects knowledge though his fascination on his intellectual quest after what is sought from his problematic. This is indeed only the surface. What we need is something deeper that takes from all the trees in paradise rather than only one.

19. Jesus said, “Blessed is he who exists from the beginning before he comes to be. If you are my students and listen to my words, these stones will become your servants. For you have five trees in Paradise, which do not move in summer or in winter, and their leaves do not fall down. Whoever knows them will not taste death.”
http://www.bardic-press.com/thomas/saying19.htm

Reference: https://sites.google.com/site/praxisandtechne/Home/architecture

http://kp0.me/GQuvME

http://www.quora.com/If-someone-self-identifies-as-a-polymath-is-he-she-actually-one

Quora answer: What are some non-American films you shouldn’t go your whole life without seeing?

Andre Rublev by Andrei Tarkovski http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Rublev_(film) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Tarkovsky


http://kp0.me/H3JzZu

http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-non-American-films-you-shouldnt-go-your-whole-life-without-seeing

Posted March 26, 2012 by kentpalmer in Uncategorized

Tagged with

Quora answer: Are Harold Bloom’s books worth reading as a layman?

Harold Bloom is a key Literary Theorist for many reasons, but I think the most interesting of which are his books the Anxiety of Influence and the Map of Misreading, where he talks about how creativity is really stealing, and then covering up what is stolen. For instance, now it is fairly clear from recent Scholarship that Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger stole large portions of their “innovative” ideas from the later Husserl which is documented in The Other Husserl The Horizons of Transcendental Phenomenology  Don Welton; Another case is that of Foucault who at the end of his life according to Dreyfus admitted that His theory of Power merely substituted that word for Being in Heidegger’s Being and Time. These are crucial transitions in Continental Philosophy and it seems the anxiety of influence dynamic that Bloom pointed out out holds true in these particular cases. The map of Misreading is similar to Drefyus’ idea of how changes occur in the tradition, where peripheral concerns become central and central concerns become peripheral. In the Map of Misreading each poetic genius misreads the earlier generation, and we can see that misreading is having other concerns that bring to the fore what is peripheral in the earlier generation’s works. So Bloom zeros in on a particular dynamic that explains change in the Poetic tradition and that is probably also true for Philosophy if not more so.

Of course, this theory of Dreyfus and Bloom explains only incremental change and not Emergent Events. Emergent Events are radical changes that are very difficult to explain in this way, like the discovery of Quantum Theory for instance. Einstein’s Relativity could be seen as an example of this sort of change of the way we are viewing things already known by looking at them differently, i.e. via an Anagogic Swerve. But explaining things that come out of nowhere to change everything, like Super-conductivity, or Solitons, or Quaternions, for instance, cannot be explained by this type of theory. Thus we need to augment Bloom’s theory with a theory about the nature of Emergent Events and when we do that it takes us deeply into the structure of the worldview.

http://kp0.me/GQrAn9
http://www.quora.com/Are-Harold-Bloom-s-books-worth-reading-as-a-layman

Quora answer: How does study abroad change a person?

I studied in England for almost ten years doing a Ph.D. at London School of economics. In London the cultural life is amazing, and so one can do what ever one wants to do culturally easily, which for me was going to Plays and watching Movies from all over the world. National Film Theater was right across Waterloo Bridge from my school so I would study during the day and go to a rare movie at night many days, so that I received a whole education in film at the same time as pursuing my other studies. And then of course there are new plays all the time, and excellent acting, and it is just the best possible place for theater experiences of the highest quality. And then London itself is a fascinating place where there are people from all over the world, living together, and so I would walk from one end of the city to the other, and came to know it like the back of my hand. Eventually I started riding my bike all over London and it increased my range to explore the city. And then there are restaurants of every description, and it is a whole adventure to find the best ones that are affordable as a student and to eat at these places and explore new cuisines from the world over. In london they have a magazine called time out which puts what is happening around the city at your fingertips. So what ever your bent you can indulge in the arts and culture to your hearts content which is a whole education in itself. And of course there are the art museums that one can visit regularly and see great art collections, which it is good to visit often to see the same pieces over and over again. I walked through the British Museum every day and tried to take a different route and see something different, but my favorite thing in the Museum was the pieces from Sutton Ho, I lived in Highgate area and regularly I would walk across all of London via the parks. You could go all the way to Kew gardens via parks with short gaps where you had to walk through streets between the parks. I would get up in the morning and walk across the Heath down to a tea shop in hampstead to have breakfast, and then go down to school or where ever I was going to study. And between the Senate House, the Library of the London School of Economics and the British Museum there was every book that had been printed practically. So I would study in the British Museum most of the time, reading books from the Philosophy section of the Senate library. Also if you are going to the University of London you can take classes in any of its schools, and so there is a wide variety of courses on offer to be taken if one feels up to it. But if you are doing a Ph.D. there you do not have to take any classes, but you are free to spend your time studying what ever takes your fancy, and so one may learn a lot in various disciplines if one is diligent in ones pursuit of knowledge.

When you get sick finally, as I did of the city, you can get a place in the country and then live in a cottage in the countryside, as I did where it is easier to concentrate on ones studies when one starts writing ones dissertation. I lived in a village a tiny cottage and would get up everyday, go for a walk in the country, and then write for hours on the working papers for my dissertation. After the intensity of life in London living in the country is a good break, but you can always take the train down to London to get books, and see ones advisor, and do other cultural events if one is so inclined. And then trips to Scotland and Yorkshire or Brighton, or Oxford and Cambridge are also worthwhile excursions just for a break.

Eventually one returns home to America fundamentally transformed because one has actually experienced high culture, high academic institutions that are world class, and all the wonder of living in one of the worlds greatest cities, which is an adventure in itself. What one learns is that there is a whole world out there that Americans just do not know exists. The rest of the world knows it exists, and only we who think we are so powerful that we dominate the world, but we do not know that world we dominate. And we do not realize how superficial most things are in America, how shallow we are as a people, and how flimsy what we take as culture to be. We are strong in our economy due to its vastness, and we are good at technology, and we have developed powerful military that can police the world. But this world we dominate is very different from our homegrown vision of it, and basically we live in a self imposed illusion as to the nature of the relations between nations and peoples around the world because our media has oversimplified everything into trite statements, while the phenomena itself is very complex, nuanced, and with untold variety. For instance our political spectrum is just that a linear displacement along a single line from left to right. But in Europe the political field is multidimensional, and that is a wake up call for someone who only thinks of politics as linear in its inherent dimension. When all the peoples of the world converge in a single city then it is has a very rich texture which has infinite variety to experience. If you are an expatriate living overseas for a long time one is never part of their social structure, but one is not at home either, and so that gives one a kind of freedom to explore possibilities that you would not have either at home or if you were a native of the place one is living for a long time. Toruists never get the culture that they are in. It takes years to get over ones presuppositions and to actually understand the differences in the place one is living abroad. You live in places that tourists never see, but which are the real places worth being in within that culture. For instance Highgate and Hampstead are villages outside London that were engulfed by the city, and so they still have that rustic feel to some extent, and so they are different from all the other parts of London, and they verge on either side of the Heath which is the great open space in London, and so it is a good place to escape from the city without leaving it. If you don’t have a car then one walks or rides busses or the tube everywhere and so you are constantly in contact with the people of the city, and there are myriad chance meetings and friendships that develop with people normally in America one would never meet because of our encapsulated existence in suburbs, cars, and on our private property. The sameness of driving, and the fact that every shopping center has the same franchised shops, so that everything is bland here is in sharp comparison to England where there is lively street commerces and most of the shops are unique because of the way that the city was built so that the first floor of every building was a shop front. In the city there are plenty of interesting shops that you would never find elsewhere, my favorite example is the Left handed store where everything made of left handed people is available. The key is not just to visit the place but to become a resident for long enough to absorb the culture, and then you see the deep seated assumptions that American Society and Culture, such as it is, have shaped us and our relation to the world. Just as an example I met another graduate student studying math, and he invited me to his flat to talk about some esoteric sort of math he was studying in which i was interested. And it turned out that he was living in the flat where Sylvia Plath committed Suicide. He showed me the oven that she stuck her head in when she did it. It had probably not changed a bit since she lived there. If you had read Sylvia Plath’s depressing poetry, and knew who she was then this sudden surprise of being in the very place where she lived her last days and killed her self was both shocking and also gave you some insight into her desperation. Each building associated with a historic figure is marked and you can see where the famous people lived who fill our imaginations with their works. So just walking down the street in London is a history lesson in itself. History is palpable in London, as where ever you turn is a building with a plaque on it siting some famous person or some event that is well known in our history. So one is tempted to dive into history and find out the stories of those people who have plaques that you have never heard of. If you experience different value systems in foreign lands one is able to better gauge ones own value system, and the lapses where we take things for granted that are just not true anywhere else in the world. For instance, what we take as poverty in our country would be riches anywhere else in the third world. In england you are more in touch with the rest of the world because of all the people you meet from other countries, you learn about things you never knew exited because our media never covers most of what is actually happening in the world.

Be transformed, get out of America for a significant period of time, somewhere where the horizons of experience open up, and for english speakers the best place to start is England. We are Elizabethans fundamentally, because that is when we broke away from England. The Indians are Victorians. But English culture has continued to evolve, some would say languish. But what is happening socially and culturally in england is something very different from our Elizabethan take on the world here in America that is so limited in every possible way. Anyone who has not experienced living abroad for extended periods has no idea of the box we are in, and which we cannot see out of. And our blindness to the reality of the Other effects the world in radical ways because we are the Romans of our day. Other countries have real culture, and civilization, and to some extent we are still barbarians, which has its good and bad points. We are naive and tend to get lured into conflicts that are not our own by the cagey English. But because we are Elizabethans we do not have the insipid qualities of English society rooted in Class structures.

http://kp0.me/GOY8Tm

http://www.quora.com/How-does-study-abroad-change-a-person

Quora answer: What existed before the Universe?

The real question here is not about the Universe per se, but about our perception of it. In other words how do we start talking about a Universe at all?

And the answer to that in my opinion is General Schemas Theory, i.e. that we project many different templates of understanding on Spacetime and the Universe is one of them.

The series of schemas are something like this:

F theory (two orthogonal time lines)
M theory
string theory
———————-
Pluriverse
Kosmos
World
Domain
OpenScape (meta-system. environment, context, ecosystem, epigenome, media etc.)
System
Form
Pattern
Monad
Facet

Since each of these schemas are “systems” and the next higher one into which it is nested is a “meta-system” then the answer is that the Pluriverse, or Multiverse, or Many Worlds is the next higher schema up into which the Universe or Kosmos is nested and so what is Before (outside, beyond) the Kosmos as universe is the Pluriverse, or Multiverse that the many worlds theory and string theory posits. The Pluriverse is up to ninth dimension, and so string theory and even higher dimensional versions of it like M and F theory are unschematized for us.

http://kp0.me/GMW1vS

http://www.quora.com/What-existed-before-the-Universe

Posted March 26, 2012 by kentpalmer in Uncategorized

Tagged with ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.