Wednesday, September 30, 2015

With great power comes great responsibility



(image credit)
The quote “With great power comes great responsibility,” which highlights the principle of _Noblesse oblige (obligation of Nobility), is variously attributed to the Oevres de Voltaire, Volume 48 (1829)[1], Thomas C. Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates (1827)[2], and a variety of other sources and derivations.
Reference: With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility.
 

Monday, September 28, 2015

With freedom comes responsibility


(image credit)
It seems like a paradox, but in reality it is not.  It is only a paradox, in large measure, because some people have an incomplete grasp of freedom.  They see one side of the coin, and neglect looking at the other side that speaks to responsibility.  That is, to exercise our freedom responsibly.
 

Friday, September 18, 2015

What is art? Teresa Herrera on affecting us



Teresa Herrera suggests that art is "something in the world that exists that affects people" and "makes you sensitive to things around you."
 

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

What is art? Eric Hullquist on engaging us



Eric Hullquist defines art = imagination + skill, which arouses an emotional response and engages us in some way.
 

Monday, September 14, 2015

What is art? Leon Botstein on transforming us



Leon Botstein argues that art is "the fingerprint of our existence in the world, that has its impact on things we transform through the use of our imagination."
 

Friday, September 4, 2015

Buckminster Fuller vis-a-vis The Tripartite Model


Buckminster Fuller
I live on Earth at present, and I don’t know what I am. I know that I am not a category. I am not a thing - a noun. I seem to be a verb, an evolutionary process - an integral function of the universe.
~ R. Buckminster Fuller ~

R. Buckminster Fuller was a renowned 20th century inventor and visionary born in Milton, Massachusetts on July 12, 1895. Dedicating his life to making the world work for all of humanity, Fuller operated as a practical philosopher who demonstrated his ideas as inventions that he called “artifacts.” Fuller did not limit himself to one field but worked as a 'comprehensive anticipatory design scientist' to solve global problems surrounding housing, shelter, transportation, education, energy, ecological destruction, and poverty. Throughout the course of his life Fuller held 28 patents, authored 28 books, received 47 honorary degrees. And while his most well know artifact, the geodesic dome, has been produced over 300,000 times worldwide, Fuller's true impact on the world today can be found in his continued influence upon generations of designers, architects, scientists and artists working to create a more sustainable planet.
I've encountered Fuller here and there, thus far, but he definitely warrants a deeper study.  Certainly I'm impressed by his accomplishments, and right now I can only aspire to match these.  But more importantly, I'm intrigued by however he thought, however he reasoned, however he came to understand whatever it was that he was working on.  In other words, I want to learn more about the process than the outcome.

Why?

Because the more bits and pieces I learn about him, such as the above notes from Corina Marinescu, the more I sense that Fuller's thinking resonates with mine, specifically The Tripartite Model, which speaks to a much wider range of scholarship and discipline - Science | Art | Religion - than any one scientist, philosopher or professor is used to.
 

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Think small to solve big problems



Transcript 
One argument that we make is that we could all benefit a little bit from thinking more like children, okay. Now you could say well, we're -- first of all everybody's biased in a lot of ways and we have our set of biases too. It may be that we embrace the idea in this book of thinking like children because we're kind of, you know, childlike. We have kind of obvious observations sometimes. There's observations that strike people as obvious. We ask a lot of questions that are not considered, you know, the kind of questions that people ask in good company or smart company. But one of the most powerful pieces of thinking like a child that we argue is thinking small. So I realize that this runs exactly counter to the philosophy of the arena in which I'm appearing which is thinking big, Big Think, but our argument is this. Big problems are by their nature really hard to solve for a variety of reasons. One is they're large and therefore they include a lot of people and therefore they include a lot of crossed and often mangled and perverse incentives.

But also a big problem -- when you think about a big problem like the education reform. You're dealing with an institution or set of institutions that have gotten to where they've gotten to this many, many years of calcification and also accidents of history. What I mean by that is things have gotten the way they've gotten because of a lot of things a few people did many, many years ago and traditions were carried on. And now to suddenly change that would mean changing the entire stream of the way that this institution has functioned for many years. Therefore, attacking any big problem is bound to be really hard and the danger is you spend a lot of resources -- time, money, manpower, optimism which is perhaps one of our most precious resources attacking a problem that you can't make any headway on. So I mean, you know, history is littered with brilliant people who have attacked large problems in the past half century, century among them famine, among them poverty and most recently I think education reform, a healthy diet and so on. So these are all really big problems.

So our argument is -- you know what? There's a lot of people out there thinking big. Maybe some of them will be successful. Probably not so many honestly. It's very, very hard. Our argument is -- you know what? Let the people who are gonna try to think big solve big problems -- let them go. There's enough people doing that. Why don't you just try to think small. Why don't you try to find one piece of the problem that you can identify and peel it off and try to solve that problem or answer that question. So there are a lot of reasons why it's better to do that. It's easier to satisfactorily answer a small question or solve a big problem because you can get the data, you can understand the incentives, it's just inherently much less complicated. If you can come up with a solution to a small problem there's a much better chance you'll actually be able to get it done. A lot of people feel like they come up with the answers to big problems but then you need to get all the political and capital will to do it. And that can be much harder than actually solving the problem.

So if you can peel off a small piece of a problem and then someone else peels off another small piece and you add them up, you're constantly, you know, working toward a better place. So I'll give you an example. If you think about, let's say, education reform. Even that very phrase is kind of weighted or biased toward the supply side, the schools. It's basically saying that oh, all the kids and the families who are sending their kids to school -- they're all doing exactly the right thing. But education needs to be reformed because plainly the schools and teachers and principals, they're the bad people. So that's kind of an assumption already about where the problem should be solved. So you think, you know, people have been talking about the many, many inputs that go into education -- class size, technology in the classroom, resources spent, curricula -- the way the curricula are taught and so on [transcript truncated].
My notes

Instead, look at it from the standpoint of the students going to school. Look at areas where they’re not doing well.

Pilot program ▪ School of One (NYC). Give students options, such as format, setting etc., for learning the same material. How did each student best learn? [1]  

At the end of the day, you have an algorithm about how students best learned.[2]

Having eye glasses is a really big deal in learning. [3]

My comments

[1] Assess students, managers et al. Learning Style.

[2] Yes, of course. This algorithm is uniquely crafted for each student, much as the teacher or the school may tend to cluster, to lump, to categorize or segregate. What’s more, the optimal is to ▪ assess Learning Style, ▪ adapt classroom teaching accordingly, then ▪ see how it all works and ▪ adjust further as necessary. This is the algorithm.

[3] Think big, act small. If we are really to solve the big, entrenched, more serious, we must keep our eyes on the ball. No, we cannot solve big problems in one fell swoop or even in one lifetime. But if we have our collective eyes on the ball, then the small steps we take will eventually solve those big problems.