Replying to LO28431 --
Dear Jan, and Others (I'd like to know if someone else reads this thought),
you wrote:
> I've dropped writing I because i do not
> see myself as I. Writing I seems to me to impy that I is more important
> then you, he, she, it, we, you and they. And indeed didn't note that i is
> also the square root of -1, ... [snip]
By noticing this notation :-) you probaby also noticed how i, that stands
for the square root of -1, is a complex number, thus has many roots (most
of them complex :-). Actually, as many roots as you wish ... just name it
:-)
Descart, who's considered to be one of the (if not The) fathers of all
western scientific disciplines of study, is also responsible for out
tendency to embed comlex numbers into Cartesian maps: coordinates, 2x2
matrixes, Euclides geometry (the way we see it ...) etc, etc,
But if we allow ourselves sometimes, not always, to look around throu
polar-lences (radians - for direction, and volume - for quantity (of
energy, off course)), we may discover colors we've never seen before.
Andrew, I'm sure you'll support me here ... even though you live under the
(false) impression that you do not understand mathematics :-)))
We (Yes, We, the LOvers of this list) generalize and analyse ideas and
gedanken-experiments while acctually all we do is tell our own story -
each and every i - with his own, in a complex way, since our roots are
comlpex.
just as you wrote:
> However, it only reinforces with me the idea that me, myself and i
> (re)redefine ourselves - in a complex way with projections, retrojection,
> introjections, subjections - as reflections of ourselves in others.
> Thank you for the support,
and same to you,
Judy
--Judy Tal <judyt@netvision.net.il>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.