Om 'n polinoom op te los.....

In wiskunde word gesê dat, om 'n probleem met meer as een onbekende op te los, daar vir elke onbekende 'n onafhanklike vergelyking opgestel moet word. Dus, om 'n probleem met n onbekendes 1 eenduidig op te los, moet daar ten minste n vergelykings opgestel word wat onafhanklik waar is... 
Dus: hoe ingewikkelder die probleem, hoe meer onbekendes is daar, hoe meer onbekendes, hoe meer vergelykings moet terselfdertyd opgelos word. 
Tradisioneel word dit dmv matriks notasie en determinante gedoen. Die berekenings word egter baie vinnig baie groot en tydrowend.  Dankie tog dat daar deesdae rekenaars is wat dit redelik vinnig kan oplos!
Soos ek reeds gesê het, hoe meer kompleks die probleem, hoe meer veranderlikes en hoe meer vergelykings en dus is daar ook meer algemene oplossings wat die probleemstelling sal waar maak. 


As mens dieselfde beginsel nou toepas op mense en die moontlike motiverings vir hulle aksies, kom mens agter dat daar 'n byna eindelose hoeveelheid denkpatrone kan wees vir elke besluit. Veral as mens die besluit/resultaat beskou en dan daarvandaan terug moet werk om die motief te probeer ontrafel. Dit is gou duidelik dat die denkpaaie vinnig in 'n delta van kleiner stroompies vertak wat elkeen 'n mate van waarheid bevat. Om dus by die "regte" motief of dan eerder 'n "aanvaarbare" een uit te kom, moet al die moontlikhede een vir een ondersoek word. Selfs dan is dit moontlik dat mens dalk die werklike redes kon misgekyk het. Dit sou kan wees dat mens a.g.v. persoonlike vooroordeel of voorkeure dalk die ware rede geïgnoreer het of nie wou aanvaar nie.... Tog behoort mens by die regte antwoord uit te kom as mens stelselmatig te werk gaan en die sytakke een vir een ondersoek. As mens dan 'n postulaat uit die ander persoon se oogpunt met elke beginpunt as motivering skryf en dit agterna lees en ontleed, kan mens moontlik by die toepaslike waarheid uitkom. 


Die grootste probleem met 'n wiskundige waar/onwaar uitgangspunt by mense en hulle optredes, is dat mense nie altyd rasioneel optree nie. Hulle tree ook nie eens altyd diedelfde op in soortgelyke situasies nie! Mense is kompleks. Dus is meeste van die eenvoudige oplossing waarby mens deur logiese afleiding uitkom, onvolledig en nie-spesifiek. Daar is du s inderwaarheid 'n oneindige aantal werklike moontlike redes vir 'n sekere optrede van 'n persoon.... Dus moet mens altyd oop vir oortuiging wees as mens vir ander se motiewe redes soek. Daar is vele moontlikhede en dus moet mens verskillende opsies oorweeg voordat daar sommer afleidings gemaak word. ;-) 
Van die skrywes wat volg is dalk moontlike oplossings van die algemene probleemstelling van hoe daar geredeneer word, maar is NIE noodwendig die REGTE oplossing van die spesifieke mens se redenasie/motiewe nie........ 

Malicious software?

I had to write about this at some time.. I still don't know if it was a good or a bad thing, all I know is that it dragged me, perhaps not kicking and screaming, into the cyber space of blogging and/or poetry. 
Perhaps I am not the best example of someone who takes responsibility for my actions, but at least I do not change horses in mid stride. Perhaps that is my biggest problem. Always have been. I value(d) emotions and names given to emotions too highly to just say things to people in order to convince them of something so that I can  get what I want from them. 
I have NEVER just told a woman I loved her, not even in a joke, perhaps not even if I loved her more than an alcoholic loved a cold beer on a hot day.... 
So to me the biggest sin would be insincerity. I am not build in that way, so I can not even imagine what would motivate someone to say one thing to someone while you mean/feel something totally different.  
Being the being that I am, I have to explore this motivation of someone to do something that I do not understand or see any reason or necessity for... 
I suppose that maybe I am not inclined to be insincere because I am not incecure. I do not mind people not liking me, but then it should be for the right reason! I can't stand people speaking half-truths and blatant lies about me in order for them to motivate their conduct towards me. I am tactless, but truthful. I don't do insincere compliments. I don't say anything positive I do not mean.... I would rather be inclined to take the Mickey out of people, perhaps even say things that they sometimes take the wrong way thinking I am attacing them, when I am just having a friendly battle of wits/pulling their leg in an awkward way....

Was Dexter the Wright right about writing with his right hand in his writings?

Or was it a sinister plot left by the wrong one writing with the left hand to sink the plans of the rightous wright that writes with the right hand? Or was it MacIntyre?

NARCISSISM, AFFILIATION, AND POLARITY (Not my own ideas, but I think there may be some truth in it...)

NARCISSISM, AFFILIATION, AND POLARITY  


            The most intense and romantic human relationships occur because each partner finds in the other a confirmation of his own personal values. A person feels affiliation with the traits and character of the person he loves or who loves him.


The feminine personality[1] experiences affiliation in a manner similar to a sports fan: "we win, they lose." He feels enlarged by being part of a person whom he idealizes, who somehow extends him. He becomes like a company that benefits from being acquired. We could call this process upward affiliation.


            The masculine personality experiences affiliation by possessing someone who loves him and who gives him value, and more confidence in his own independent self as a moral motivator of others. We could call this possessive affiliation. 


            Sometimes this process goes a little further. The feminine personality may covet the qualities of his ideal to the extent that he wishes to be like the ideal. In a similar way, the masculine personality may want the feeling qualities of his beloved to become integrated into the processes of his own personality. We call this process narcissism. The narcissist attempts a kind of face-off, and sometimes approaches relations with favored others with a lot of histrionics and infatuation .


            Narcissism is generally perceived to be a gay-male phenomenon, with great negativity. It's the sugar-daddy-bald-legged-old-man-and-handsome stud (Wilde-Bosie) syndrome. Erich Fromm in “The Art of Loving” compared it to symbiosis. But actually its main appearance is in the conventional heterosexual world in what George Gilder called “the sexual princess problem,” something that drives the divorce rate.


            Narcissism, at its worst, can grow to be very destructive. Criminologists tend to associate it with a kind of sociopathy in which a person exhibits a totally unrealistic apperception of his own importance, and then engages in such anti-social behaviors as stalking, murder (along the “O.J.” pattern ¾ “if I can't have you, nobody else can”), or even terrorism. More commonly, the narcissist will notice a certain emptiness in his relations with ordinary people around him. He doesn't really care (in the sense of inner excitement and willingness to prioritize) about someone whose appearance doesn't turn him on. This emphatically does not mean he expects sex or even physical intimacy with someone who attracts him, but it does make him critical of someone who does not. 


            In traditional heterosexual marriage, there is a convenient opportunity to outgrow the affiliation and even outright narcissism that made the couple fall in love in the first place. That is, beget and raise children. Parenting gives a couple something to do to build a relationship like nothing else. But in some marriages and in most gay couples, both partners need to exercise continuous creativity in the love and power dichotomy to outgrow initial romantic infatuation.


            A greater problem occurs when a relationship starts where one partner is narcissistic and the other is not. It is very difficult to maintain momentum in such couplings, beyond platonic friendship; and even that can fail if the “superior” partner perceives the other's offering as a fake, or if the other appears to feel ashamed of or guilty about his intentions. The narcissist finds himself in a position of expecting a “quality” from another Mr. Right that he cannot, either due to factors beyond his control or due to a laziness defect deep within his character, match.  He then finds settling for something more “realistic” as motivated by just not being alone, and finally he must choose between remaining alone on his “road less traveled” or settling into some kind of ascetic or charitable spiritual or religious discipline.


 This whole imbalance issue reminds one of the unspoken social ukase, to allow one's innermost feelings and drives to be molded by others into a practical, balanced, but deepening sexuality that keeps one alive and in touch with the real needs of others. After all, many marriages and partnerships form and last with very little affiliation, let alone narcissism. We call this societal expectation aesthetic realism, as it was known in the 1970s.


 Of course, it is incorrect to use this notion to justify a “moral” condemnation of homosexuality, since this process works with many gay couples in practice. To make it work, both partners need to enter their pairing with a certain pre-existing balance, and a desire to find daily good living in their relationship instead of a highly individualized expression of idealistic values. Narcissistic love seems on the one hand individualistic in that it seems to give the person absolute control over his erotic choices (at the fantasy level, at least), and yet at the same time collectivistic, in that is seems to relate to a collectively defined aesthetic idea. Indeed, “realism” in family relationships is held by some as an inevitable step in individual growth. (Oh, how those grade schools marked “progress of the pupil as an individual” and “progress of the individual as a member of the group.”) 


            Narcissism, after all, has its selling points. It reminds one of the mediocrity of much of the human scene, of how conventional life often deteriorates into false submission ¾ even timidity ¾ and recklessness, and of how it tolerates premature degradation of individuals. Indeed, today narcissism is a good motivator for physical fitness, good health habits, and the avoidance of tobacco, excessive alcohol, and recreational drugs. It takes a narcissist to appreciate the full potential of another person if (and only if) that potential partner's gifts really are extraordinary. But at some point, one needs to look beyond one's own bellybutton. 


Furthermore, discussion of affiliation, narcissism and balance in relationships depends on just what one means by “relationship.” If being “married” is one's expected goal, the imbalance of a pairing seems a much bigger issue than it is for someone who allows himself or herself to have many “significant others” without full sexual relations. 


            None of this is said with the intent to moralize. We just want to describe what really happens in uncontrolled experiments. But narcissism and affiliation bear a definite relation to moral thinking. Moral systems that emphasize collective welfare, egalitarianism, or security may emphatically reject narcissistic and affiliative processes, particularly for objects chosen by individuals. Conservative morality, with an emphasis on simple moral "truths" easily seen in the Bible (as fundamentalists read it), emphasizes anchoring the individual's sexual psyche in conventional gender obligations and monogamous marriage, to the extent that individuals see affiliation as just a temptation. Fidelity to these obligations is supposed to ensure a fair amount of justice, and homosexuality becomes an unacceptable distraction. 


Liberal morality (sometimes appearing to be based on situational thinking or on rejection of simple readings of the Bible) becomes focused on egalitarianism and accepts homosexuality as long as it follows, in its own way (gay marriage), the “everybody's beautiful” myth. Objectivism accepts certain imbalance in opportunity and wealth and puts all the responsibility for the choice and process of affiliation back up on the person, as long as the person is totally responsible for himself and realizes he needs a bit of charity to grow as a real sovereign individual.  Narcissism, taken as a whole, is frowned upon in general because, if carried out by most people, it would tend to make society more “Darwinian” and leave average people (assuming the culture no longer lets them “hide” behind marriage) with no one who will care about them. 


The public perception that homosexuality (particularly among young men) is fundamentally narcissistic undermines sincere attempts by gays to gain legal recognition for committed relationships, for the right to adopt and parent, and even to serve in the military. On the other hand, love and power generate more than a zero-sum game: If you care about someone you choose by your own standards (however narcissisticly) it becomes easier to care about others who do not immediately appeal. Even so, if someone has never learned to care about others with narcissism, he will become a suspect “single” viewed as a bit creepy (as in a passage in Joe Babcock’s Salinger-like novel The Tragedy of Miss Geneva Flowers,[2] where the first person teenage narrator speculates on what it would be like to be 40 and still enjoys only his ephebophilia.)


Are “unbalanced personalities” more likely to be narcissistic? Perhaps they would see a narcissistic object choice as more expressive of individuality. On the other hand, a balanced personality might find more individual satisfaction in procreation (propagating his own biological substance and proudly accepting as a parent what one bears from his genetic lottery) and might see “hero worship” as a kind of collectivism!


One can look at narcissism as a catalyst for a chemical reaction, as explained in those hated high school chemistry courses. It is helpful in stimulating creative expression in relationships but it does not constitute creativity in itself. The creative challenge is in finding something special to love or to value in a partner, and to perform as the one person that can both recognize and develop those special gifts. It is not sufficient just to care about another person when that person can make one feel turned on. We need to keep our social preoccupation with “looks” (whether in a gay male context or not) in the proper perspective.


ãCopyright 1997 by Bill Boushka and High Productivity Publishing

'n Opgepompte windpomp

Gister se reën... of: Nog 'n Ode aan die windpomp

Tuiste van verlede
Blyplek van die spook, 
bouval van die lewe,
meganisme van hoop,
spieëlbeeld in vloeistof, 
nuwe vlerke vir die wind gekoop. 

Yster, sink en staal
Spesifiek gekombineer om water uit die dieptes uit te haal Ingenieursprestasie, 
kunstige kombinasie 
van raam en rat en vlerk. 
Ystersonneblom met toring en 'n stert
Die groen masjien laat westewinde werk. 

Die wolke wat sy wegwaai, 
se trane huil hul op 'n  ander berg se skouers uit....
dit syfer in die vloeistoffase deur klip en rots en sand, 
gaan lê dan onder langs die diamant.
Daar wag dit rustig vir die regte tyd
om weer na bowe te migreer.
Lewensvog van lank-lank gelede
dìe bring hy van benede 
na die dors dam van die hede..
Alles op sy kop weerkaats 
in stille waters blink,
meer waardevol vir mens en dier en plant 
as die glinster van die diamant 
wat lê in diepe grond, 
onder in 'n dieper laai, 
ja daarso waar die duiwel draai. 

Yster, sink en staal 
fasiliteer die
koue transformasie, 
Westewinde waai die wolke weg, 
Maar pomp dit tog weer later,
getransformeer tot 'n ander fase, water,  
van onder hierdie skurwe aarde op,  
na waar dit blink die spieëlbeeld skep
van die masjien wat windgedrewe, 
hierdie skaars verbinding bring
vanwaar in stilte onder sand en klip en saam met diamant, 
dit in die skoot van moeder aarde rus.

Die lewensvog, meer werd vir mens en dier en plante 
as al die streek se diamante. 
Hoe wild sou hierde plek nie wees, 
sonder jou ou windpomp ysterslaaf, watergees?

Hoe weet die water waar om heen te loop?
Wat vertel die suier vir die vloeistof, 
die silinder vir die stang?
Wat beveel die wind se fluistering aan die wiel se vlerk?
Hoe weet die dooie dinge 
om die wette van: 
Archimedes, Newton en Bernoulli 
so te sê maak werk?
Die kurwe van die vlerk te volg? 
Die stagnasiedruk van gas op vlak, 
van vloeistof op soliede stof... 

Is die molekules dalk bewus 
van die mensgeskrewe wette van hidrolika, 
wat hul bewegings probeer beskryf?

Wie het vir die wind vertel 
om oor die uitgestrekte vlaktes heen, 
díe staalkonstruksie uit te soek, 
sy asem in die suile uit te stort, 
die water te oortuig om pad te vat? 
Na stille damme en die windverwaaide krippe. 
Die blink weerkaatsing in die môrestil, 
die beeld van hoe die meer, 
onder hierdie skurwe wêreld paradeer...

Venus Aarde Mars Jupiter

Venus en Jupiter is deesdae nogal skynbaar "na" aan mekaar. Altans so lyk dit vir ons as ons van die Aarde af kyk. Kort na sononder is dit die helder "sterre" in die wes-noordweste. Deur 'n 20x of groter teleskoop kan mens nogal Jupiter se mane ook mooi sien, dit is 4 helder kopspeld-gaatjie grootte liggies wat in 'n lyn langs Jupiter op verskillende afstande lê. Elke aand is hulle op 'n ander plek. Soms is al 4aan die selfde kant van Jupiter, soms is hulle 2, 2 weerskante gegroepeer, soms 1, 3. Soms is minder van hulle sigbaar, dan beteken dit die ander is of "agter" Jupiter of "voor" die planeet. Dan kan mens hulle nie onderskei van die helderder lig van die groter hemelliggaam nie. Interessant genoeg was die mane van Jupiter die eerste manier van "sinchronisering" van die horlosies regoor die aarde. Daar is toe ook tabelle opgestel met tye relatief tot "greenwich mean time" van wanneer die een of ander maan van Jupiter gaan "verdwyn" deur agter die planeet in te skuif. dit kon met 'n teleskoop waargeneem word van enige plek op die aarde waar dit op daardie oomblik nag was, dit het op dieselfde tydstip gebeur, aangesien die relatiewe posisie enige plek op die aarde nie veel verskil gemaak het aan die siglyn na Jupiter nie, aangesien dit so vêr weg is relatief tot die deursnee van die Aarde. Met gesinchroniseerde horlosies kon die seevarders en kaartmakers dus die lengtegraad van 'n plek op die aardbol bepaal relatief tot 0, oftewel Greenwich. Nog al 'n oulike dog eenvoudige metode.
Venus is die helderste van die twee planete, op die oomblik links onder Jupiter. 


Noudat die maan weer bietjie later opkom, kan mens die twee baie mooi sien vroegaand.
Mars is ook redelik helder, maar nie soos Venus en Jupiter nie. Mars sit nader aan die vertikaal op die oomblik  as mens so 8uur die aand kyk. Sy rooi skynsel maak hom redelk maklik herkenbaar tussen al die ander ligbronne in die naghemel. 


Ek dink mens kan dalk 'n paar treffende foto's van die planete neem met 'n lekker lang lens op die oomblik....

22 02 20 12

2 b 50...
Better than not 2 b
As an avocate once said...
The alternative is: 
"Too ghastly to contemplate."


Not that it should be,
I lost a lot of friends
And family along the way
Some not even making it to this day


So today, my birthday,
I say:
To all the friends I had before
Who ever entered through my door, 
I'm glad you came along. 
I dedicate this.. so read-along, 
to all the friends I had before!


To my shooting friends who didn't make it to today:
Schalk and Carel and Dave and Tony and Mr. Brown..
Shoot a few V-bulls up and down the ranges 
where the wind never changes 
while you're in the aim!


To my family I lost in the recent past...
Oom Roelf, Oom Clem, swaers Ettiene en Chris. 
Ek sal julle mis. 
Maar solank as daar geheue is, 
sal ek onthou wat ons saam kon doen.
Die lief en leed, 
die swoeg en sweet, 
die saam jag, 
die saam lag, 
die saam eet.


En vir die wat steeds by my is: 
Baie baie dankie!!
Ek benodig al jul hulp. 
In die gespartel van dag tot dag oorleef, 
gee julle my die krag 
vir nog 'n dag 
van voorwaarts!!.. 
vergeet en vergeef!


En vir dìe wat verkies om nìe
meer vriende te wees nie..
laat dit goed gaan met julle ook.
Laat die pad vir julle gelyk wees,
maar nie te veel ge-yk wees,
want te min variasie
blyk meestal net vir die eentonige
en eenvoudige nasie 
genoegsaam te wees!