For anyone that knows me, they know that I am a huge van gogh fan. I learned something about van gogh today which was very moving. His variations seem never to be shown together, ever, one beside the other.
Just like all his series: the sunflowers, potato eaters, violets, fields, shoes, etc. all seem to be shown in singles. Single ones, because they are so valuable and are spread everywhere. Like a deck of cards or a calendar, make much more sense when part of a suite or series.
The Mme Roulin, is a perfect example. Each great museum seems to own just one. much of the meaning however seem to be aesthetic beauty from the variations on a theme that he uses.
If any technology is to be used to be the general population. It can’t be more complex than an ATM.
Quick Thought.
Art and Sport. (wondering this while watching Australian Open)
The fascination people have with both art and sport, at a higher level may be really the same thing (for instance how in physics, light and radio waves, or the weak and the strong nuclear force unite etc etc). It can be said, they are simply strongly related if not identical.
Art can be said to be a sport with internal (or psychic) opponents. Actions are taken according to the behavior of the opponent/conflict. There is a game element here perhaps.
We are drawn by events which:
A. Involve a closely matched set of opponents
B. Demonstrate a level of great skill
(perhaps added C. Represent something important to us or are representations of ourselves)
The triple threat of which draws our attention and requires a the person to enter a ‘transcendental problem solving state’. That is at least what we live for, when we appreciate both art and sport. An art or sport when it does not demonstrate A or B feels very boring. It is when we are in A and B, a person enters the TPSS, that is when we as an audience learn from and which we epitomize in these pursuits.
And all other fourway sports… but soccer seems as good a candidate as any.
The teams are aligned opposites face one another. Game Theory meets Bicycle Kicks.. teams can help each other out, encouraged, but not required. Teams with the highest score wins. A,B,C,D this encourages cooperation up to a certain point which is advantageous.
When a team is winning, the other teams are encouraged to make an alliance, that alliance breaks once the score is more even or the time is running short.
Just a thought’
Why are some organizations efficient and others not?
It occurred that possibly the best way of analyzing and finding inefficiencies in an organization is to use vectors. Like electricity, macro-economics and swimming, aggregate/net action is really the most important thing. Measurement of energy versus application is easily seen with vector relationships. If bureacracy brings you in a circle, your net vector will be zero, but energy applied, will be much higher. The organizations with the greatest absolute vector magnitude divided by energy applied will be the strongest most efficient organization. This ratio, M/E call it should be as important as P/E for finance. It seems that this is the easiest way to create metrics, for bureacracies and to eliminate ‘circles’.
Not sure why I like this so much, but I do. The world’s most advanced straw. enjoy.