I was away from the computer until very late tonight, and had intended to edit some of my posts of today for errors (missing words, problems with grammar and punctuation, etc.) consequent to my posting, of necessity, in great haste
only to find the first effort thwarted by a locked thread
so they will remain uncorrected, my apologies
this has been an interesting interlude, my time here as both reader-only and, far more briefly, reader and poster
an interlude that is now coming to an end
I find it ironic that a board so laden with self professed dismay and disillusion in face of the inequities, injustices, and violent misuse of man by man so proliferate in the world cannot seem to sustain civility, courtesy, and congenial mutuality between and amongst its own members
defense of, and a call for, good manners in the midst of conflict is not to be confused with defense of a particular position, assertion of fact, and/or proposed argument: I point this out becos there seems a great deal of confusion about this, generally, here; this confusion leads to accusations of, and heated opposition to, a perceived "taking sides" or "declaring alliances" over substance, rather than a more reasonable and accurate understanding that none of us need agree with anyone as a requisite to passionately defending that person's right to reasonable self expression
for the last time in re the two "hot button" topics: orgonite/agnihotra ash, and Donovan's material; and for the first time, my personal opinion on the substance of those, as distinct from my opinion on the right of anyone to be accorded polite audience, and a reasonable argument/refutation if found obscure or wanting in their proposals:
orgonite/agnihotra ash: I have no personal experience with either of these , and have found the reports/discussion posted here and elsewhere of interest; all the more in case of the latter, becos of the very fascinating and intriguing history and international practice and study of the effects, as well as the obvious parallels to certain biodynamic practices. I am unable to form an opinion as to the efficacy of either orgonite or a.ash, but am open to learning and hearing more about them, as information becomes available. as I am an adult, I feel no need of, and have a decided aversion to any notion of, a "nanny" to guard or shield me from any possible "hucksterism," as I am quite capable, and well experienced, in the exercise of my own judgment
Donovan's material: as I seem to be the only, or one of the few, posters here to have read more than the maths/geometry pages on Donovan's site, I will restrict my remarks to that subset of the material there
as a former teacher, I recognised immediately the indicators of Donovan's severe dyslexia, and took that into account when reading his posts and website material; I did not mention it in response to the endless "Glick/Crick" commentary becos I felt that would be for him to bring up, if he felt comfortable doing so in such a hostile environment; he did, and so I feel it permissible to mention it here:
that someone has difficulty composing language in a manner familiar to us, a manner that follows (consistently or at all) conventional structures and patterns, does not indicate a lack of intelligence, nor is it to be taken as a sure sign of invalid content or process
equally, it does not assure validity
even moving to and fro between well composed texts in different languages consistently presents problems for writer, translator, and reader - the proverbial, and very significant, matter of all those things, always very important, that are "lost in translation"
understanding each other requires effort and humility on all sides: there will be little progress if all discussion is reduced to a form of contest in which rhetorical "might" always, and only, makes right, and such right alone may carry the day
I don't know if Donovan's maths/geometry propositions are "true" and demonstrable; I suspect that after accounting for confusion arising from miscommunication, neither does anyone else here, really, truly, know
there is a kind of intelligence that I like to call the inventor's intelligence: this sort of intelligence is at its best when "tinkering," when actually making things, manipulating them, seeing what they will do, and "listening" to them thro all the senses, while observing them acutely and without prejudice, and only then applying intellect to explain what has been "heard" and observed
we could mention here the famous bumble bee: theoreticians might have denied the bee the flight she performs quite handily, had the bee relied on "proofs" of incapacity, rather than simple instinct and instinct's expression/demonstration
we don't really understand everything, which seems to me a good thing; and it certainly seems a good thing to acknowledge any observed thing whether or not we can account for it with the understanding we have to date
to all the "rude debunkers" - isn't it possible that the authors of the propositions you find so offensively ill conceived and presented are simply mistaken - not that they are deliberate prevaricators with ulterior motives, or, perhaps worse, pathologically mendacious?
of course there is always also the outside, however far outside, possibility that they are in some way(s) correct: if not in understanding, then in observation?
there are, after all, things that "work" yet we know not why
anyway
I've tried in all my time here to be respectful to all, careful in my words, and to always encourage us all; for those occasions when I failed and was intemperate, for such I apologise; I have, certainly, been quite tart in replies to posts that impugned my character, intentions, and methods, and for this I do not apologise
I enjoy exploration of a wide variety of subjects and an open and far ranging exchange between and amongst all manner of people
if anyone here would like to begin or continue a correspondence with me, please send me a private message and I will be glad to provide an email address
thank you
and of course, thank you to Jeff for his hospitality and generosity