Alchemical Films

[Ghislain]

DS this has been a question that has bugged me for years...How Newtons and Einsteins come about.

At first glance this 11 year old May have just answered my question...I thought it was some kind of magic.

Now how does one stop learning and start thinking? I think that is easier said than done for as one starts thinking you need to learn stuff to prove the things you start thinking about.

Einstein had to go back to his books once he had his theories to mathematically test them.

I don't think my math would ever be near the level I would need to test my theories, as I am sure most of Joe Public's wouldn't, so I think Jacobs theory is missing something.

I wonder what that something is? Perhaps intense focus? But at what cost...social leprosy maybe...is that a price Joe is willing to pay?

The question remains unanswered!

tell me he isn't talking about Alchemy

Could you tell me your perspective on the Alchemy aspect in Jacob's speech?

Thanks

Ghislain

[DonSweet]

Fascinating post Ghislain ...

Loving the questions you pose.

They are precisely the aspects I'd hoped to provoke.

I've grown up in a family of exceptional people, with all due modesty, and that modesty is most certainly tempered by the fact that these exceptional minds were also often highly dysfunctional, occasionally to the point of "certifiable." It's a delicate balance.

Jacob also eludes to this, talking about being categorized and pigeon-holed by the system, almost as merely a lump of non-functional protoplasm.

Rarely does The System acknowledge something outside its narrow definitions.

I love stumbling across someone like Jacob. At fourteen (his age when this TEDTalk was shot), he's shockingly patient dealing with a roomful of "assholes-that-simply-don't-get-it."

Yeah ... I think that's what he's politely telling everyone in the audience, including video viewers.

People like this think on multiple levels simultaneously ... something I'm not unaccustomed to. My step-father's father was a literal genius who expressed himself largely as a professor of archeology at Drew University, but had several other pursuits. Exposed to him [heavily] in my early adult years, it was a challenge to have a conversation with him. We, however, developed a deep mutual respect, even friendship. We almost went into business together, him having vast resources I could benefit from. Unfortunately, I was forced to apply power brakes to it when I discovered I would merely become a subordinate toy for his amusement. That can happen with high functioning savants. All this never really effecting a change in our core friendship.

But Jacob seems to have a compassion (perhaps even empathy) for the rest of us. After all, he wouldn't have bothered with this talk at all if he didn't. In fact, he specifically states that he'd like to see us all excel to "his level" (my paraphrasing) ... which was also Newton's and Einstein's level.

I believe he's categorizing "learning" much the same way I do, which is in the classic academic sense ... memorize and regurgitate.

Child's play.

A book packed with fascinating, deep, expansive, highly intricate information laying on a table is just so much paper pulp.

Useless.

That's conventional "learning."

Useless ...

... save, perhaps, by the average industrialist that requires labor from semi-literate automatons.

Have I insulted modern culture yet?

I was hoping to.

I think what Jacob is coming out and saying ... not just insinuating ... is "You dipshits are doing it exactly wrong and you need to stop doing that and start doing this."

There are moments in this talk when I think Jacob would take great pleasure in going from seat to seat in that auditorium banging each audience member on the head with a stick asking, "Are you getting this asshole?"

Now ... I don't think there's a single thread of "meanness" in what he feels or what he'd like, but I can unquestionably feel his frustration. I think he's young enough where that frustration hasn't become true "damage." Maybe we'll all be lucky enough where he's never damaged by it. His existence and interaction with us "mere mortals" may actually become benevolent if it isn't.

So Ghislain, your question about Alchemy is fairly easily explained based on Jacob's criteria. One of the reasons I related to it has been my experience with Native Americans. In that, it's emphasized (in so many words) that "information" is fine ... even necessary ... but it's not "everything" ... it's not the whole enchilada ... which Western Culture (particularly academia) would have you believe.

What's FAR more important is "understanding" which Western Thinkers reject outright without the acquisition of information FIRST.

This is backwards.

Now, it can be argued that the empirical process itself is precisely correct ... formulate a hypothesis, establish a criteria, define a methodology, employ that methodology, then extract a pier-reviewed, repeatable conclusion.

But ...

... where the hell does this "hypothesis" come from?

Simple.

"Understanding."

PRIOR to irrefutable "proof" some crazy-ass scientist "believes" something to be the case.

Sadly, the empirical community focuses on the irrefutable proof, not the original process of acquiring a hypothesis. Until the hypothesis is proven, the asshole that proposes it is just a moronic dipshit with no proof.

The whole thing short-circuits my brain.

Western Culture wants the whole thing ... the whole enchilada ... proven, written in a book, laying on the table, finalized and completed ...

... instant gratification incarnate.

That ain't the way of things.

Our worldly experience is about EXPERIENCE ... about process ... not finality.

Oh, finality is fine ... glorious ... even fun ... but there's always something more ... there's always something more ... so life itself isn't about "conclusion" ... but the conclusion that leads to the next conclusion.

See the difference?

One is "linear" ... conclusive ... terminated ... beginning-middle-end.

The other is cyclical ... The Golden Mean ... The Golden Ratio ... The Fibonacci Sequence ... Pi ... interminable.

That's the glorious beauty of it.

[Ghislain]

I can see where you're coming from DS...

Although I wasn't a grade 'A' student it did bother me to watch people taking notes and learning them by rote without understanding the principles of the subject they were memorizing.

In an examination they would regurgitate their memorised notes to acquire top grades, but these grades did not reflect their understanding of the subject, but rather their ability to remember information.

I was the class bane as I could not move on until I had an understanding of what was being proffered. Numerous times people thanked me for getting the tutors to clarify the information put forward. I would ask them why they didn't ask for further clarification themselves and they would just say, 'I didn't like to ask'.

I cannot understand people who want to acquire qualifications in subjects that they will never fully understand! I believe this to be the majority. What I found even more annoying is that when you do ask the tutor to clarify the information they are putting forward it becomes obvious they don't really understand it either.

It is this type of learning that is holding us back for without an understanding of your subject you cannot possibly build on it and move it forward, all you can do is repeat that which has been given; some people are masters at regurgitating the information in such a way as to simulate an understanding.

I once had a math tutor who would show the class a formula and then go through an explanation of its generation, giving the history of the person responsible and what inspired them at that time. Needless to say we all ended up with an understanding of what he taught. Unfortunately the university let him go as his department (pure maths) had been dropped. I went to my head of department to explain they should keep him on to educate their lecturers on how to lecture...my plea fell on deaf ears.

I wish I could understand...

Ghislain

[DonSweet]

Ghislain ...

[DonSweet]

I'm not a big fan of "movies" teaching things. Who produced it? Who paid to say these things? What were their motives? What's the "real" message?

Here's a good example. Good words, but the whole damned thing is a Coke commercial ...

[DonSweet]

By the way Ghislain ...

Your problem in understanding is that you're "trying to make entirely too much sense."

The System doesn't want sense, it wants obedience.

[Andro]

Not explicitly Alchemical, yet very much so.

Predestination

Perhaps not the ultimate mindfuck movie, but pretty damn close, IMSO.

Trailer:



Watch in theaters, get the DVD or download via torrent:



The protagonist has many parallels to the Philosophical Matter

If I could watch only one movie this year, this one would be it.

[Awani]

Perhaps not the ultimate mindfuck movie, but pretty damn close, IMSO.

Or a recent South Park episode on Virtual Reality...

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

[Awani]

If I could watch only one movie this year, this one would be it.

It was good, but I still prefer Interstellar... but I think that is due to personal reasons...

If only the average studio going audience was smarter, or Hollywood thought they were smarter... this film should have been much harder to figure out. I wish they had done it so the audience (I) don't realize 'the truth' until the very end.

Still in my opinion it is only the third best of 2014, as I think Interstellar and Lucy are much better.

SPOILER ALERT (don't read beyond this): And she doesn't look like a man one bit, IMO.

[Awani]

Good words, but the whole damned thing is a Coke commercial...

But we are a part of the Coke as well, are we not?

I'm not a big fan of "movies" teaching things. Who produced it? Who paid to say these things? What were their motives? What's the "real" message?

You can say this about any teachings... the responsibility lies with the student not the teacher, with the receiver not the speaker.