Motto: This field has a lot of brilliant people with excellent analytic capabilities. The problem, as always, is in synthesis. (Yiannis Hadjichristos)
The main means.
Dear young LENR researcher! Suppose you will access
my blog; if this happens I dare to ask you, that before taking any decision,
please read these two papers: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/03/modes-of-thinking-my-taxonomy.html
don’t want to brag that I have really understood what has happened with me during
my career/life or that I have a good ability to learn. However, so many things
have happened to me and I have so desperately tried to understand things, that
eventually perhaps I have discovered “something” about our world and have
described it on my blog. These two writings are at least as useful as my
pragmatic 20 problem solving rules- that are already everywhere – in some 20
languages. Therefore I have ceased to popularize them. Solving too many great
problems worldwide, too fast, could have unexpected consequences. I have – grosso modo- the same ambition as the
creator of the Muppets -Jim Henson)
but I don’t want to exaggerate so please
use my problem solving in moderation. Personal warning: a problem-less
existence would be boring. Let a few problems for the future generations,
Anyway, from the Logic paper you can learn how multi-facetted human thinking can be, and has to be for helping you to cope with the tasks in profession and life. The Pareto-truth paper will show you that what you are searching for, truth, is far from being something ideal, simple and absolute and that it will not be easy to convince and make it to work for you. And, ‘cause you have chosen LENR (or vice-versa) - you are an extreme case. Believe Uncle Peter, you are a winner case, the reward will be commensurate with the behemothiness of your task.
1) The first in chronological order is to learn to protect yourself against the dark, dangerous, damaging aspects of thinking. A practical start is this list of evils: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies Euphemistics again, they call it fallacies i.e. a hybrid of an error with a delusion, but in real life all these appear as dirty tricks by which the users’ thinking is beating, humiliating and replacing your thinking. At some conferences and on many forums this is the main activity.
2) Truth is fragmented and fractalized, therefore short sentences with a very high idea/word ratio have a formidable effectiveness in learning- aphorisms, proverbs, quotations. I hope you already have a personal collection of them. On the Web you can find them all in a few minutes, however not in the best order or with the optimal taxonomy, you have to organize wisely you collection of quotations... For the present case, you can start with: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/logic.html and http://quote.robertgenn.com/getquotes.php?catid=317&numcats=368#.UVVcXRcwpCI These quotations have a high dosis of creativity
Note It happens that the Internet has just now (April 2, 2013) sent me the following good paper inspired by the Pirsig book:
4) Learn all the time, but make much greater efforts to learn how to learn. Focusing is vital, and you have to focus on learning to think. I am trying to help you in this, but I am just an amateur and a late comer. Without the study of the ideas and techniques of the greatest living authority in this field, Edward de Bono you will not be really prepared for the task. Discover the world of de Bono. As a first step I advice you to subscribe to http://www.debonosociety.com/
I have learnt a lot from Edward de Bono, I am grateful to him; however I have decided ages ago to never be a “fan” of anybody, never! I have written about this is my most unpopular statement: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/07/dirtiest-f-word.html
De Bono is the best known for the “Six Thinking Hats” method a hugely successful thinking tool; however I prefer to use the 4 kinds of logic described in the first paper cited here. He has published over 30 books, I have read the 5 or 6 I was able to buy or borrow in the bad years, but later I have extensively studied his works on the Web. In some issues I do not agree 100% with him. For example human thinking has progressed slowly and is, in some respect, obsolete and not creative enough. De Bono has invented lateral thinking and this is a great possibility to progress. However read please this: http://www.debonogroup.com/parallel_thinking.php De Bono tries to convince us that the Gang of the Three Greeks- Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are responsible for the predominant mode of thinking based on argument. Very correctly he says: “Then came the Renaissance. The Renaissance was brought about by the discovery of the classic thinking methods of the ancient Greek philosophers. This "new thinking" provided a breath of fresh air. Humanity was given a more central role in the universe. Thinkers were allowed to use reason to work things out. Logic was now allowed”.
He describes here the shortcomings and
limitation of what I call Logic in my essay. However, no fault can be
attributed to the three main Fathers of logic. First, because they were ahead
of their age and could not predict the future. Ancient
more progressive, free, creative, luminous and serene than the Dark Ages- that
are continuing in some forms and places up to today. Second, and that’s more
relevant, we cannot ignore that actually the thinkers/philosophers of the
called Renaissance, instead of developing, diversifying and dynamizing the
bright ideas of the antiquity have successfully dogmatized them. Even the best
ideas degenerate and die due to dogmatitis. The treatment of the more “super-logic”
pre-socratic ideas, say those of Heraclitus and Zeno was even more destructive.
It is the fault of the epigones trained mainly in theological thinking, not of
I dare to say
that De Bono has to know that by dogmatization, the effectiveness of his own
original, revolutionary thinking can be destroyed. Danger! The same applies to
my more modest ideas, however I know it. This is the reason for adding Rule 20
to my system of problem solving. Greece
5) I am not very apt in using classic philosophy for this case, but I think that for this special case of LENR, many smart ideas coming from the management and business literature are adequate. Suddenly I remembered an author and a book that I insistently recommend to my young friends. It was published in the same year when Cold Fusion has appeared; it is A MUST UNDERSTAND book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Habits_of_Highly_Effective_People by Stephen Covey.
6) Eventually, please accept that you are not doing art but science, technology, engineering and you will not attain perfection. Two of my septoes tell it:
Perfectionism is dangerous,
we need sustained perfectibilism.
I am not perfectionist but
While working at this essay, the Internet has reminded me this principle: http://blog.threestarleadership.com/2013/03/28/bosss-tip-of-the-day-prompt-beats-perfect.aspx
The aim is Synthesis
I have started with the idea to analyze the situation of LENR but discussing with Yiannis and Axil, with my imaginary readers, with the Web and eventually with myself (my left-left brain hemisphere with my right-left brain hemisphere); I realized that actually a synthesis of the ideas is the aim of work for LENR.
The aim is to attain a broad and deep understanding of LENR and to develop it to a significant new source of energy. When the synthesis is accomplished, we (history will define this “we”!) will get a vision of the whole composed of parts and we will understand the place and function of each part in the whole.
A member of de Bono’s “gang of three” has explained the essence of the synthesis: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. (Aristotle)
It is about how the parts work together; if they work well, we have a positive synergy. As a sad aside, our world today is hit by epidemics of negative synergies and there are so many tragic cases in which the whole is smaller than the sum of the parts. Mainly national economies, These negative synergies define the Crisis that seems to last indefinitely…
May I note here that Covey’s book cited at 5) says the 6th habit of effective people is Synergize: “Combine the strengths of people through positive teamwork, so as to achieve goals no one person could have done alone.”
Note: In the English language there are 271 words starting with the Greek prefix “syn”- meaning “together”: http://www.morewords.com/starts-with/syn/ or if you like Scrabble: http://www.scrabblefinder.com/starts-with/syn/
Looking at what Defkalion does and wants to achieve in the near future, it becomes obvious that there are de facto two kinds of syntheses for LENR+ (HENI)
- a pragmatic one – putting together all the necessary parts by engineering at its best- the synthesis of the commercial Hyperion energy generator. Decisive factor=engineering - a theoretical one, combining “known knowledge” and knowledge to be newly created for this task thus that it gives the desired degree of understanding of the process. Decisive factors: wisdom, good thinking, positive synergy of theories.
Over 24 years were enough to demonstrate that LENR is a difficult case belonging to the category thus described by the main author of this double synthesis, Yiannis Hadjichristos: “In complex (non linear open systems) like the ones we are dealing with in LENR+ SYSTEMS, synthesis is difficult as it assumes cultural jumps, overriding the mental barriers of established ideas organized linearly and hierarchicaly.”
(I don’t want any priorities in LENR ideas; however I am proud that I was able to state early that Coulomb’s is NOT the greatest Barrier to useful LENR.)
Yiannis emphasizes the crucial contribution of paradigm changing scientists as Prigogine and Margulis, but even more the necessity that similar high-impact personalities whose ideas should be able to terminate the Crisis and the dearth of ideas in physics.
Allow me please to repeat here a longer quotation from my Logic paper: “The Cartesian, rectiliniar, rationalistic thinking of the bi-univocal cause-effect type made us difficult to understand the interdependencies and the complexity and it has lead to the necessity to remake the thinking process backward- from the detail to the whole.
Understanding of complexity requires the acceptance of paradoxes, of the existence of contradictions, the possibility that there can be used different paradoxes. (I. Olteanu in his preface to the book “The Third Wave” by Alvin Toffler)
The synthesis of LENR+ is obviously based on a much encomprising, broad multi-, cross-, and trans-disciplinary approach...
Any successful LENR+ research needs therefore a great leader and an excellent team. And positive synergy- a lot!
Yiannis considers the basic role of Time in the LENR synthesis.
In LENR “panta rhei” – all sequences flow. I have said ‘LENR is like an opera not a song’. Yiannis’s analogy is even more relevant:
The LENR meta-theory syntheses have to be like a movie not like a photography.
Very efficient analytical tools are needed in order to make such a
a mastery synthesis.
I think that despite all those frightening obstacles described in this paper, 2013 will be an excellent year for LENR syntheses- both real and mental.