The Problem with Overunity. A different approach.

[Haliburton]

well all that african man did was describe the subway.  Now they know what the subway looks like so know he can just say i took a subway to london instead of giving a description , and so on, They do not use subways so why would the have the word subway, in there native language! What they did have was descriptive words that lead to what is know known as a subways by them.  Same for us.  How can we name something we never seen thought of or felt.  And yes you can look at the past.  by video documents, mind ETC.    

[hansvonlieven]

OK Jeanna.

What I call the precursors to an invention are all the things that have to be present before the idea can take shape. Amongst them are the required knowledge base, the ability to reason, the opportunity to observe, the ability to perceive a need, perhaps even manual skill, these sorts of things.

Many of these things are shaped by language, cultural background, living conditions, opportunities for exchange of ideas (which again are language dependent) and so forth.

For example, a pious Muslim is unlikely to invent a better pork sausage, his religion prevents him from doing so. An illiterate factory worker cannot conceive a particle accelerator. Autistic people do not make good brain surgeons.

There has to be a foundation from which to proceed. These foundations are often severely restricted. Language plays a big part in this.

Have you ever seen a scientific dissertation in ghetto speak? It is unlikely to happen, The vocabulary and the grammar are missing to express sophisticated concepts.

Does that answer your question?

Hans

[jeanna]

However, the precursors to that inspiration are a requirement to ferment the idea. That is my point.

Yes, but I would say not to ferment the idea, although I see your reasoning for saying that, I would still want to say the precursors like what the patent office refers to as "skilled in the art" are a requirement to produce it.

While the muslim may not ordinarily be inclined to invent a better pork sausage, he may be enterprising and do it anyway because he can see the market for it. And that would make him very out of the box and perhaps in some personal danger.

Still the language would be less of an impediment than the customs of his society.

An illiterate factory worker who is NOT also stupid could perhaps see the overall picture of a particle accelerator, if shown by a persom clever at explaining... and what makes you think there are no autistic brain surgeons??

I do understand your point, I think.

It is just that I think that thinking :out of the box" puts someone beyond these limitations.

jeanna

great topic, Hans!

[laci]

Dear Hans,

  I am afraid your parallel between the Pidgin speaking guy in Papua and our OU fraternity  and our outlook is not exactly correct.
I am nearly certain this guy never mingled with "whitie" women and never noticed that (at least some of them, if not the majority) are relieved when they leave the clinic - not distraught. This guy must have been near hermetically  isolated from any other sections of society, or so profoundly devoid of curiosity (in other words a man of "limited wisdom") that the concept of difference, or diversity had not occurred to him.
The trouble with your parallel is this: we may be going around in circles, but some of us (perhaps quite a few of us) are not deliberately shunning the development of our conceptual framework. On the contrary, we are seeking to expand it and we are conscious that this expansion may bring about radically different notions and outlook.

Perhaps one of the reasons for the lack of substantial progress is this. From my own observation I see that the vast majority of us pursuing overunity is totally one-sided - I mean toatally practical minded, and the idea of seeking a theoretical framework or system of reference  is as  far away from him/her as the the Pidgin speaker from the "House killing piccaninnies".

Overunity is a very deep concept, I am increasingly convinced that theoretical and practical outlooks must go hand-in-hand to maximise the chances for success. We can see a very good example for a co-operative pair of our colleagues - does it ever occur to you all why exactly Bedini needs Peter Lindemann? Because Bedini - a genius amongst us - is almost totally incapable of expressing himself.
I do not mean it so drastically, they may be good friends anyway, but Bedini needs Lindemann, and by saying so I do not think I denigrate or defame Bedini - at least I do not intend to pooh-pooh him.
Perhaps the problem is that so many of us want to be the sole genius,  The new Faraday.

The great pity is the total lack of co-ordination between practical and theoretical efforts. As if they were totally distinct universes.


  laci

[hansvonlieven]

An illiterate factory worker who is NOT also stupid could perhaps see the overall picture of a particle accelerator, if shown by a persom clever at explaining...  Jeanna


Yes Jeanna, true, but that would also be a precursor by itself.

Hans