QQC: Mathly Mental

Quote: as follows==>

Question? Is the question part necessary now?

Comment: In a way, I think that having to think about how I do complex or simple mental calculations has stifled or muddled my original methods. I don't usually think about how I do mental math. For instance, the example to the right I have been doing for a while now that I think about it, but it was not something that I had to think about. Not to say that this book is bad, just sometimes I think that thinking about mathematical thoughts just muddles the methodology. Certainly, this reading's section on the finding of squares is incredibly convenient and useful. I had not thought of using his method to square stuff before. It makes finding the squares much simpler and more accurate. In a way, though, as distracting as these methods might be, it is certainly interesting to try them out and learn about ways to facilitate cranial expansion.

Flow: QQC

Quote: See Right

Question: Why are those who turn to religion considered disillusioned? Also, since when is religion a temporary fix to address the enduring question of the meaning of life? Certainly it provides enduring answers...

Comment: The author here is asking for this one. Csikszentmihalyi is the author I'm assuming here, since he wrote a number of works concerning flow...My first contention with the author is that many are turning back to religion. First of all there has consistently been a substantially larger percentage of the populace that has expressed an interest or a belief in a higher power or being. In America this higher power has been of the Christian doctrine, with the familiar God and his son Jesus Christ. The numbers of believers in Christianity in the States has been declining recently, but the majority of the American population nonetheless considers itself religiously Christian. If this were not the case, then the contention that our current president Barack Obama was secretly a Muslim should have not meant much to anyone. In fact, if he was simply a non-Christian (as in Atheist or Agnostic) then this suggestion also should have been ignored. The fact that it inflamed the political debate of the Presidential race for a number of weeks on both sides with both liberals and conservatives vying for a Christian America should show that, if indeed the population is religious, and Christian (with which the author is perhaps most familiar, being European), then most of the populace is misguided, as is our President, by the very basis of his own American religion that helped get him elected (not simply because of any Republican rhetoric that might discredit him).

Secondly, the idea that the Holy Texts, revelations, "myths," and lack of scientific reasoning are not only addressed in the religious works themselves, (to use the familiar example of the Bible) but also have shown that their logic and reasoning outlasts that of science. In the first place, to attempt to put scientific limitations on a being of higher authority than man is, in itself, a contradiction of terms. The idea that such a being exists in and of itself defies scientific reasoning. The very notion that God defies the scientific reasoning and larger picture of the universe means that he cannot exist in a world where laws, theorems, and proofs govern the universe at large. That is, because God cannot be explained with Science, God must not exist [according to science]. This idea is preposterous in itself. The big bang theory, which cannot, itself be explained with science because the laws of the universe do not apply to the singularity from which the big bang event originated, is commonly accepted by physicists and astronomers, yet scientists themselves have said that the very laws of physics which govern the universe are not present "in the beginning", and therefore the big bang cannot be fully explained by science either. Yet, in the view of science, the big bang exists, and God does not. To take another case in point, we might consider that the author suggests that to accept religion one has to overlook an awful lot about how the real world works in order to accept religious texts and the concept of religion. Concerning the Bible (my personal favorite), we might point out that half the battle is accepting that there is a God. Since God created the universe and has always existed (since infinity squared in one direction and infinity squared in the other direction--past and future), it is easy to ascribe to God the power to assign to the universe laws to help his creation run itself. Or perhaps God controls everything personally, and it just so happens that he likes to run things a certain way. Certainly the Bible illustrates that he likes us to operate in a certain way as prescribed through the prophets and His Son.

"...[T]o ignore a great deal of what is known about the way the world works." This statement is false. The Bible assumes the reader's belief in God and his authority. It does not address vital issues of friction between science and religion because the inspired writers who wrote the Bible would not have understood what God would have been instructing them to write (for our benefit). Issues that have been raised concerning the Earth-centric verses Heliocentric understanding of the universe that ground their ideas in the Bible take from verses that can not only be interpreted in either direction, but stem from previous ideas concerning the governing of the celestial bodies. Thus a proper reading of the Bible can easily turn the contradictory verses on their heads, especially since the verses in question are usually ambiguous to begin with. However, what I want to address is the idea that the Bible does not know how the world works. This is false. The Bible may not address the scientific questions of today, but when it comes to the metaphysical questions of human existence, the Bible has been a mainstay for over 3700 years (Since Moses started writing Genesis and the other Torah books). The Bible concerns itself with the problems of humanity and dealing with our lives in the face of adversity and opposition, and how to maintain a Godly countenance in the face of evil. Although many humanists denounce the Bible as judgmental and ill-suited to the modern lifestyle, time and time again people have proven that while those who follow the Bible might not be the richest or the most successful, the vast majority of the upright (excluding the persecuted) have found the most satisfaction in their lives. The Israel of the Ancient times was governed by a law (the Mosaic law) that ultimately provided flow not only between the people--the villagers, the tribesmen, and the nation--but also between God. The flow that the law of Moses intended to support allowed for a flow that maintained the physical and spiritual health of the people, and created a Flow of mindset and oneness between God and man that allowed the Israelites to get the most out of life, because they understood the reason for their existence.

Nowadays Christianity has largely replaced (though not entirely) Judaism as the main religion that worships YHWH (the Hebrew letters that spell the name of God). This is because the Mosaic law was national, but the Christian law is personal, which is far more suited to governments because the Mosaic law only applied to Israelites, and made no provision for an earthly appointed king that the Christian religion allowed. Christianity address questions that concern the way that people interact with each other, how to combat evil people and evil thoughts, and clearly explains that happiness was never a promise from God. Happiness, is in fact, ultimately related to what is happening around us. Contrary to Csikszentmihalyi, happiness really does rest in our surroundings. It is embedded in what he proposes as the answer--Flow. To be completely involved in whatever we are doing, not in a higher personal state or commitment to see the good in whatever situation we are in. Does anyone really achieve flow working on the chain gang? Happiness is the following: "I'll be happy when I get a raise." "I'm so happy you came to see me." "I was so happy when I finished paving the patio." All are examples of happiness that are purely based on what we are doing, what is happening to us, around us, or in us. This happiness is not an eternal state. If it were, it would not depend on our involvement in doing (which is an awesome restorer anyway, not to ignore these benefits). Flow endures as long as the state of mental and physical ability are stretched in a manner in accordance with the task. The state that the Bible proposes, which we'll term joy, endures beyond involvement, beyond boredom, beyond persecution. It is a mindset that comes when one realizes that not only is God in control, but when one realizes the virtues discussed in the famous Serenity Prayer: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference." The understanding that comes when you understand that there really is a higher power that is watching over you. (Even if there is not, and I am not suggesting such an idea, but even so, the peace that people who realize this idea are still more satisfied with their lives than those who are not so inclined or convinced.)

It is not through our own that we will achieve flow, and even if we do flow is fleeting, but the Joy that results from our relationship with God is not only lasting and substantial, but is, with proper maintenance, unbreakable.

QQC: Mastery

Quote: see left

Question: But seriously, folks...why reach?

Comment: But really, this sort of negates the purpose of the other aspects of mastery. We can never achieve mastery, therefore mastery is never the sort of pain we think it is. Perhaps we ought to better define the mastery that the author is discussing here. Mastery attracts because mastery eludes all? No, on the contrary, it attracts because it seems to elude most (it might really elude all, but not everyone thinks this). Who wants to be the master is no one can attain it? Rather, Someone can attain it, so it might as well be me. The idea with mastery, perhaps, (& however), probably goes hand in hand with the very learned people of the world, where the expression: "the more you know, the more you know how much you don't [know]". This is probably the idea of mastery being discussed here.True mastery is perfection. No man can claim this (ok, so I know one man, but most people disregard this account, so for now we'll call him an anomaly). Mastery is better defined this way and make much more sense in this respect. Was Bobby Fischer the Chess Grand Master? yes. Did he realize his fallibility? Certainly. Did he make mistakes? always. Yet why would he be regarded as a Chess Master? Because he attained higher than anyone else during his time. The real reason for his fame? His ability to approach mastery closer than anyone else had done before. But no one knew better than Bobby Fischer how easily his mastery could be overcome, because, if we are to take the author's words as true, there is always the ability to get infinitesimally closer to the unobtainable level of true mastery than those before us.

Mastery is an Asymptote. This is discouraging, not encouraging. Clearly the real idea with this message is that there is always room to improve. You are never at a point where you can simply stop worrying, stop practicing, stop searching for ways to upgrade, improve, redefine, reinvent, finesse, refine, fix, address problems or improvements. We are never at a point where we can be fully self assured. For those of us who love to learn, this is encouraging in this respect only. Certainly we would like to achieve mastery. But perhaps if we did, what would we do then?

QQC: Higher Existence Tips

Quote: Take a class in speed readingBooks are full of information that can enhance your knowledge-base, vocabulary and yourself as a person. Speed reading is an easy way to get at this info faster so that you can have more time for other endeavors.
Comment: Since when was reading a means to an end, as opposed to being the end? Shouldn't we read for the sake of reading and not simply because we are reaping the final product? The harvest only comes after the whole labor of the farm-plowing, sowing, weeding, maintaining, feeding, and fertilizing (as in, causing to come to seed). Then comes the harvest, reaping the benefits of the labor. In recent years, we have industrialized agriculture to circumvent these natural processes with man-made "solutions" that create more problems than they solve. This farming model can be applied to speed reading, in a way. If you read the information that is contained in the book, but don't take the time to consider it, you can end up taking less away of what you should have learned, and more of what you gleaned from a surface reading. Unless you have a photographic memory, in which case I suppose you could mull over what you had just read and get more from it. But, again, isn't reading supposed to be the activity you do for fun, not because you want to be smarter?

These were some interesting points, but I didn't agree with all of them. I did think that some of them were very to the point and exceptionally applicable.

Chapter One BON QQC

Quote: See Right--> (and yes, it's upside-down)
Question: What student, even the math-devoted one, doesn't ask this question? (OK, so it's a weak question. I'll be asking more later...)
Comment: It's interesting to see how much Euclid expanding our understanding of mathematics, especially since he lived such a long time ago (about 2300 years). It's pretty funny how little has changed since Euclid's time. Math has advanced, but people haven't changed. I was also wondering why 1 doesn't fit into the accepted view of prime numbers. If 1 fits the bill, what about 1 doesn't work in prime theory? The book expressed little about why the mathematicians find that one doesn't fit the prime number bill... It listed a brief math equation to demonstrate, but it wasn't candid enough to show why (I feel). I also thought that it was funny that, although amicable numbers are more populous than perfect numbers, they still seem to be very few in number (esp. considering that we had only 1 pair for centuries until Euler and Descartes discovered a few more (Euler making some 30 discoveries [minus some for the wrong ones]). It doesn't seem like there are a whole lot more friendly pairs than perfect numbers.

QQC: Chapter 0

Sorry, I didn't realize there was actually a previous reading due here...
Quote: (see left)

Question: The Julian Calendar did not have the zero issue associated with it because of its dating origins. What year, on the Julian calendar, was the Gregorian calender adopted?

Comment: I thought that it was weird to think about the fact that there is no year zero. Of course, as the book mentions, zero is not usually used as a counting number, and just as the years go from 1 B.C to 1 AD, so, too, do the centuries jump from the first century B.C. to the first century AD, which, of course has a zero in the hundreds, or "centuries" position. However, as strange as the mix-up between B.C. and AD is, the fact remains that, had the Pope decided to include a year zero, the concept, even with the knowledge of the logic behind it, would be stranger still. I suppose that, no matter which way we turn, we will be stuck in this matter.

Another part I found interesting about the reading is how late in the game the concept and notion of zero comes into play. This is 1582. Shakespeare is on the up and up, the Ottoman are rising to power just a few years after conquering the Byzantines, and the Renaissance in Europe has already started. And zero is still [insert zero equivalent expression here], nowhere to be seen. Such a strange thought that Shakespeare, though granted the knowledge of zero as a number and a concept and as a digit used to hold place value, did not understand it in the same way that we do today.

Chapter nano

Quote: (see right)-->

Question: Does a [modern] calculator operate on the same basic principle as an abacus?

Comment: I thought that the idea of Romans using binary to solve math problems is pretty cool, especially when binary seems like such a modern invention in terms of ways to think about and express numbers. Especially when you consider the thought that advanced abacus users could utilize the simplicity of the binary-based abacus to do incredibly quick mental calculations. I also thought it interesting to note that calculus, the name of this class, comes from calculus ponere. Ponere means "to put" (in Spanish, it is poner), so our Calculus class is really just about pebbles (OK, so not really, but you get the idea behind this comment). Sometimes our origins are not as flattering as they ought to be....