Dinesh's photos with the keyword: COPIED

……. Look at the two shapes in Figure 3.7. The one on the left looks like a paint splat. The one on the right resembles a jagged piece of shattered glass. Now let me ask you, if you had to guess, which of these is “bouba” and which is a “kiki”? there is no right answer, but odds are you picked the splat as “bouba” and the glass as “kiki”. I tried this in a large classroom recently, and 98 percent of the students make this choice. Now you might think this has something to do with the blob resembling the physical form of the letter B (for “bouba”) and the jagged thing resembling a K (as in “kiki”). But if you try this experiment on non-English-speaking people in India or China, where the writing systems are completely different, you find exactly the same thing. Why does this happen? The reason is that the gentle curves and undulations of contour on the amoeba-like figure metaphorically) one might say) mimic the gentle undulations of the sound ‘bouba,’ as represented in the hearing centers in the brain and in the smooth rounding and relaxing of the lips for producing the curved boo-baa sound. On the other hand, the shart wave forms of the sound kee-kee and the sharp inflection of the tongue on the palate mimic the sudden changes in the jagged visual shape. ….. Page108/109

At the time that Rutherford en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford moved to Manchester, the inside of the atom was only poorly understood. The overall masses and sizes of atoms, however, had been known fairly well since the late nineteenth century. An atom of carbon, for example, has a mass of about 2 X 10 Power of 23 grams and a radius of about 10 to the power of 8 centimeters. In slightly more familiar terms, it requires about a hundred thousand billion billion atoms of carbon, back to back to stretch the width of a penny. It is astounding that scientists were able to determine the size and masses of objects so much smaller than anything that could be seen with a microscope. Indeed, even to believe in the existence of the invisible world of the atoms required faith in scientific reason. ~ Page 85

The Ad Means: Come into our store – a store for selling everything – we can help you get whatever you want, big and small, at a good price. there are good types of goods for sale, and staff to help you and look after you when you visit the store.

Herschel’s (John - 1792-1871) interest in botany, born during his time in the Cape Colony, was put to use in his photographic experiments. Herschel began to experiment with floral dyes, using the petals of fresh flowers in the place of the silver salts to produce photographic papers. He would crush the flower petals to pump in a marble mortar, sometimes with the addition of alcohol. The juice expressed by squeezing the pump into clean linen or cotton cloth was spread on paper with a flat brush, and dried in the air……. One of his color processes used an iron pigment known as Prussian blue rather than vegetable dyes. This process dubbed by Herschel the “cyanotype,” became the most commercially valuable of the paper photographic methods in 1840s, and survived into the twentieth century as the basis of the architect’s blueprint. By washing paper with a solution of ferric ammonium citrate, an iron salt, Herschel created photographic paper highly sensitive to the action of light. After half an hour or an hour’s exposure to sunshine, followed by a wash in a solution of yellow potassium ferrocyanate, a white image would appear on a bright blue background. This cyanotype process led to the publication of the first book to use photography: Anna Atkin’s ‘Photographs of British Algae: Cyanotype Impressions” first part published in 1843 …. During the summer of 1843 Atkins began working on a book about algae, using the cyanotype method of photography. In her preface she explained that “the difficulty of making accurate drawings of objects as minute as many of the Algae and Confervae, has induced me to avail myself of Sir John Herschel’s beautiful process of Cyanotype. …Pages 235 to 237 John Herschel: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Herschel

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligence www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2516 books.google.com/books/about/Intelligence_and_how_to_get_...

A bird is singing in a tree. Where is the sound of the bird? In the tympanic membrane? Along the auditory nerves or behind my ears in the brain itself? Internal or external? Actually, the sound is neither in the bird nor in me, but rather in the total relationship. When there is total relationship, at the instant the division between the internal and external is not there. When there is sound it does not take time to hear the sound. There is just sound. When one sees anything, there is no time. here by “seeing” I do not mean just sensory input, although it certainly includes that. I am talking about the total relationship. Does the response that comes with direct relationship take time? Time only enters when thought looks back at it. The seeing and the response are not separate. Only thought is trying to understand, which includes trying to recognize, separates perception from action. Newness can never be recognized. Only the old, the known, is recognizable. The seeing of challenge, which by its nature is new, and the response to it are not divided. They are one. Thought, which after the fact wants to explain the response, creates time by putting the explanation in casual terms. That is, it makes the challenge the cause, and the response the effect. When thought is analyzing totally mechanical events, it can be creative in explaining the sequences, but only in mechanistic terms. Seeing totally, which never occurs in time, has its own movement, which is in that moment choiceless. Of course the moment that comes from clarity can span a period of time. What I’m saying is that the awareness initiates that momentum. ~ Page 125

This story of cave en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave is connected with what’s come to be known as Plato’s Theory of Forms. The easiest way to understand this is through an example. Think of all the circles that you have seen in your life. Was any one of them a perfect circle? No. Not one of them was absolutely perfect. In a perfect circle every point on its circumference is exactly the same distance from the center point. Real circles never quite achieve this but you understood what I meant when I used the words ‘perfect circle.’ So what is that perfect circle? Plato would say that the idea of a perfect circle is the Form of a circle. If you want to understand what a circle is, you should focus on the Form of the circle, not actual circles that you can draw and experience through your visual sense, all of which are imperfect in some way. Similarly, Plato thought, if you want to understand what goodness is, then you need to concentrate on the Form of goodness, not on particular examples of it that you witness. Philosophers are the people who are best suited to thinking about the Forms in this abstract way; ordinary people get led astray by the world as they grasp it through their senses. ~ Page 6

It was a quiet winter evening. I had settled down by the fireplace with my grandson Eli to read him Antoine de Saint-Exupery’s classic, ‘The Little Prince.’ We were just starting, reading the first page where the six year old boy, strongly impressed by a book about the jungle, makes a drawing. To him the picture was clear: It is a boa constrictor digesting an elephant. How surprised he was when the grown-ups did not see what he had drawn – all they say was a hat! He had made a second drawing, so they would be able to understand. Only when the boy met the Little Prince did he find someone who looked at his first drawing with the same eyes, seeing it was an elephant in a boa. I had found my metaphor. xi Prologue (Mind Set by John Naisbitt)