More Gentle Introduction to WSM (by Philippe)

[haselhurst]

More Gentle Introduction to WSM (by Philippe)

Hello everyone,

As a philosopher very much into the absolute nature of metaphysics and reality, it seems that I will write things that people don't really want to hear (or may sound crackpot, by talking about truth and reality as if we can really know such things).

Over the past few months I have exchanged quite a few emails with Philippe (who is into marketing) and he wrote a short little introduction that is a bit more gentle (see below).

I wonder if anyone has any thoughts, would care to contribute.
Geoff
---------------------------------

Hi Geoff,

During the weekend, I did read your introduction as you requested earlier. It is certainly interesting and well written but from a "style" point of view, it is rather too direct (at least for an introduction) which obliges you to become defensive (You come back several times to the point that this is not "Crackpot"). I am not sure at all that this is the best way to convince people.
Whatever the contents of your message, you must take into consideration the reality "outside" because that's the one your readers are living in. Practically this means that you simply cannot start by saying that "absolute truth, i.e. physical reality itself, has finally been discovered". It just doesn't wash and 95% of the people you want to reach will part with you after this sentence. It "smells" crackpot! All the gurus, sellers of miracle oils and illuminated fools also have "absolute truth" almost by definition. Although here, I am sure you will agree that post-modern relativity can be of some help.
I have written below a short "introduction" to show you how I would put it. This is not an alternative to your introduction but rather a different way of presenting the same idea but in a way that I think may be more acceptable to the people you want to reach.

I hope you find it interesting. Here it is:

Is reality knowable?
Post-modern thinking tell us no and is the current dominant ideology. But is it right? From the relativity of space/time to the relativity of ideas, this philosophy has sapped the base of our convictions by creating alternative realities where nothing is for certain and everything is open to argument. But what if all this was based on a misunderstanding?
The relativity of Einstein tells us that someone falling from a window is weightless and immobile from his point of view. But it does not tell us that there are alternative realities. There is only one outcome and it is that the smaller body (the person) will crash against the larger one (the earth).
Likewise it may be that this post-modern thinking is blurring our vision by multiplying the points of view. What if there is in fact a reality based on solid physical foundations? Couldn't we call the knowledge of this reality and the physics on which it is based: truth?
Well, I believe that there is such a reality and that we are close to understanding the physics on which it is based. The purpose of this site is to introduce both the philosophy and the physics of this reality and in so doing put our thinking and actions in a more meaningful context which I am convince will not only lead to a better understanding of the challenge we are currently facing but also bring some possible solutions.
This "truth" is not based on esoteric knowledge or dogmatic ideas but on an effort to combine a philosophical vision of the world together with a physical explanation of why reality is the way we experience it and not otherwise. As such, it is not a "revelation" but an invitation to question our current beliefs and maybe, just maybe open the door to a new paradigm of understanding the world around us.

Best regards, Philippe

---------------------------------

Hi Philippe,
You are so very nice to write such a careful introduction as an example. It is certainly more gentle than my writing, and it confirms a few comments that I have received from others. It also confirms my very positive view of you! I am going to read it a number of times (try and program some of that friendly sincere style into my metaphysical mind of absolute truths!) I owe you a favour! So I hope that there is something I can do in return for you one day.

Over the next month Karene and I are re-writing Introductions to ten main pages and improving navigation to make these more central and obvious within what has become a fairly large website. You will hopefully see some of your influence in this new work! So I would like to write to you then and get your further thoughts. I admit to feeling a little selfish in asking for your help - its just that after reading many philosophers you get a good feel for when someone is smart and worth listening to. To me, you are one of those rare people, and thus it would be a shame to waste such talents and knowledge. (This is not flattery, but me being a philosopher, stating the truth!) I hope also that you find our work on truth and reality interesting (and important!?) compared with the daily grind of marketing, that it stimulates your mind to interesting ideas! Thank you and take care (in a crazy world) Will be in touch in another month hopefully. Geoff

PS- I have read your intro half a dozen times now - it really is very good (and i don't write that to many people!). None of it jars (like my own writing does at times, when I later re-read it!) and it kinda encourages the person to read on and find out what this polite and thoughtful person has to say (as it hints at the importance of the work). Karene also read it, she said, "Geoffrey, it makes me feel guilty that i cannot write such things and help you more with your work." (Karene is actually a lovely help, most images and quotes have been sourced by her, she is a constant source of enthusiasm.)

[robertkernodle]

Guarded Passion

In art discussion forums, I have voluntered numerous comments on marketing philosophy vs personal philosophy.

I believe that there is always a tone between the words that has an unspoken effect on the reader--- it has to do simply with the honesty of the message, how truthfully it comes from the heart. Over time, this tone has a consistency to it that either supports the underlying emotion or shows it to be fake or simply too outrageous.

When we look to first-impression marketing strategies to contrive "the best possible approach to people", I think sometimes we can strangle the heart of the original message or intent.

I am VERY wary of crackpots, and I never thought "CRACKPOT" when I read the introduction to Spaceandmotion.com. I read the consistency of the passion behind the words, and took it with my usual grain of salt (i.e. caution).

We cannot be worried all the time about how our passion will be accepted. Sometimes we just have to put it out there as intelligently as we can without too much guarding, and trust that the really intelligent people will get it instead of being scared away.

If people cannot handle a little passion, then they are a little gutless.

Now THAT wasn't so gently said, . . . was it?

[Chris Wright]

I think that's a very interesting point Phillipe has raised. To my mind, there is definitely something slightly threatening about spaceandmotion's style, but I also think Robert has a point - that Phillipe's gentle style conveys a certain insincerity.
I have just spent 3 nights in a hotal, and so have watched lots of CNN, and that style reminds me of the adverts imbetween stories that really do grate against the ear, though Phillipe's writing is not nearly so severe as that.
As ever, there is a balance to be reached, and I will wait for Geoff's rewrites to see whether it has been.
Chris

[haselhurst]

Hi Chris, Robert, Philippe,

It is a delight to have the three of you here, adding your knowledge and thoughts.
I was going to reply to Robert, but now there is no need. Chris has written it for me.
So shock horror Chris - we agree on something!

Yes, there are problems with spaceandmotion website style, but also some good aspects (it does generally seem to attract nice, intelligent people rather than nutters, so that's a good start!).

As I see it both logic and emotion are very important, and that the best human emotions will be founded on reason.
I wish i could get the balance right - i get very pessimistic about website and my style of writing at times.
But I live in hope, that with help from you guys (and hopefully quite a few others over time) that we will get the right balance / style, and get it out there in the world so it has some effect.

Three great posts above, my thanks to all of you.
Geoff

[karene]

Hello all,

This has been a very interesting discussion for me to follow.

When I first read your introduction Philippe (about a month ago), I really thought it was fantastic (and still do).
As Geoff writes above, I felt guilty that I couldn't help him write such an intro and was jealous of your abilities (and still am!). I am very sensitive to Geoff offending people with absolute truth (which as a philosopher he feels he must state and abide by). We all know this is very uncool in our postmodern world and I sometimes feel Geoff is 'shooting himself in the foot'.

So in your gentle introduction Philippe I recognised what I wanted to express but couldn't. To still get your knowledge across, but not turn people off with absolutes. Asking questions to make them think is a good tool. Answering their questions with sensible responses (which hopefully conforms to their emotions). A gentle non-threatening authority.

From reading Chris & Robert's responses, I recognise that Geoff's style (though 'slightly threatening') definitely has merit in being honest & passionate. As a person I am attracted to Geoff in that he is so himself, all the time. Definitely not fake nor pretentious. In a very 'marketed based' world, to live isolated from it and to write honestly, has a certain unique attraction.
I further hope that Geoff is judged on his writing style at this forum too, rather than our hastily written website.

It's really great to have help (Philippe) and your responses (Chris & Robert). Writing is a tricky business and I agree with Geoff that a sensible balance, 'the middle path', is what we are seeking.

Thanks,
Karene

[Chris Wright]

Hello again, I thought the task of introducing the WSM looked fun, so I gave it a shot, though it doesn't flow like Philippe's does:
Millenia ago, in ancient Greece, a philosopher named Democritus theorized that if you kept divinding things up into smaller and smaller bits, eventually you would get to something that could not be divided - and he called this thing an atom.
And thus was born the concept of particles, and a quest that would drag mankind through thousands of years of investigation to find the smallest thing there is. And the question still stands: 'just how low can you go?' What is now called the atom is not fundamental at all, it breaks up again and again and again... for how long?
But what if all this - the seemingly infinite search for the smallest particles that exists - what if it was all futile? What if, in fact, the very concept of the particle was flawed to begin with?
Until very recently, particles served well in physics as models - we could imagine them and use them in thought experiments that would lead to tangible results. But then along came Einstein and various other people with all their abstract ideas, and eventally quantum physics was born. And still people think to themselves: 'but where is the smallest particle, now?'
With all these complex new theories, particles alone didn't model the universe well enough any more - and so we began to resort to another idea that we knew about: waves. And invented something else to make it all fit: fields. And still people felt this was how you found truth about 'what it is like down there'. There was no truth in such ideas, they were just models that didn't even work very well.
The real truth is that particles and fields do not exist - they are just ideas that came in handy. What we once thought of as particles can now be seen as waves converging at one point in space, and this point is called an electron. From this foundation, everything makes sense again - we no longer need to thing of lots of different things as building blocks resting in nothingness, but can see everything as one continuous whole which happens to vibrate in interesting ways. We are all waves, everything is waves - this is the Wave Strcture of Matter, or WSM for short, and it will revolutionise philosophy and physics.
Chris

[Philippe]

Of course Robert is right... in general: You must have convictions to be credible. Let's all agree on this point.

But that was not my point. The practical question I am trying to answer is the following: How to attract people whose intellect will add to the site and in significant numbers?

WSM is interesting because it offers a framework to build-up on but it is not "the answer" yet because as such there is no satisfying explanation to... well, quite a lot of things. (What for example happens within a neutron which makes it look like... a neutron?)

To answer these questions is a lot of work and will require the participation of many people. My question is: How to get these people on-board?

Here you must absolutely take into consideration the nature of the Internet. If you start your introduction saying that the "truth" was revealed during an abduction (You do not, this is an example.) You will find people alright but I am not sure that you will enjoy the discussion much (or that it will be productive.)

The only way is to bring people to your way of thinking by:
1 - Highlighting the weakness of our physics especially all the "stuff" we conveniently push under the carpet because it doesn't quite square.
2 - Presenting an/your explanation and offering ideas (alleys) to go further and build-up on the basic principles.

That is what I meant. It is just practical. Nothing to do with conviction. Let's take it for granted that people believe in what they say. (OK, this is not always true but usually people always gives you the benefit of the doubt at the beginning.)

I think it would be very interesting to have physicians from CERN (for example) presenting some of their finding to see how this could be interpreted with the WSM. Then, at last we will be on a road to somewhere. I can't wait for this to happen.

Best,
Philippe

[haselhurst]

Hello Everyone,

I must admit that i find the above posts all very useful. I think that when it comes to complex things like humans, there is no absolute 'best' way to write, there are many different styles that can prove useful, are good in some ways, not so good in others.
But by being aware of some of these different styles of writing, and how different people perceive them, it will help us to proceed with greater chance of success.