text:
User:Dchimself

One is currently a 'mature' undergrad student at UC. Not a genius but generally competent, with, it may be said, a skeptical attitude to many things; evidently there is much self-delusion in the New Age and elsewhere. According to Paulo Coelho in 'The Alchemist' nobody believes another's truth: yet i am an energetic master in whom Samadhi occurred at age 55, with a life task of establishing a 'green' sustainable healing community near Canberra, in association with others who presumably agreed before this incarnation and will share or otherwise relate to this vision. The vision includes helping others to their own enlightenment event, given the energetic ability mentioned above and other things not mentioned here. So as to help raise the collective consciousness, sine qua non: international agreements not worth their paper will not change things! The name of this community is The Sanctuary, as specified by a committee on the next level of reality (remember 'My Fathers house has many mansions'?) and channeled to me through a 'psychic' friend (i.e., one whose sensorium is working as intended: Heavens! a teleological suggestion).

Enquiries are welcome; expressions of disbelief are irrelevant and will be ignored. Reality is only known through direct personal experience, not by hearsay, and many are at present motivated by Freudian denial and unconscious fear. But by definition anyone in denial does not know it; neither did i when younger and myself in such a state. Therefore, know thyself!

PS God is only known by (temporarily) being at one; this is the knowledge principle referred to by T.H.White in his story of 'The once and future king' about Arthur as taught by Merlin using said principle on his pupil by temporarily turning him into a fish or whatever. DChimself 08:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

E-portfolio 21 August 2010
The following remarks centre on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in particular his meta-needs and the top of said hierarchy namely self-actualisation and beyond. The unusual experience I have in this area is too valuable and useful, indeed necessary for humankind, for me to pretend ignorance. This despite likely even inevitable negative egoic reactions from others.

Yet such experience is evidently available to many at this point in the human story. Perfection and sainthood is NOT required, and is NOT something I claim, or ever wish to.

It was about this date 10 years ago that my Self-Realisation (Cf., the Buddhist Enlightenment) occurred.

Reactions in some people to this claim have varied from disbelief to jealousy, and include apparent cognitive dissonance, also underplaying or diminishing my experience. These are dishonourable responses. I do not see myself as self-actualised; this is an ongoing process. Even so there has been discovery of a particular energetic ability, apparently from a past life as a species of metaphysician: this was unknown on a conscious level before it emerged.

My experience of ‘At-one-ment’, as described by Christian; Sufi, and Hindu mystics, is held to be a specific emotional state according to the Behavioural Barometer established and copyrighted by Three-In-One Concepts, Burbank, CA. This on the body level of awareness, higher harmonics of which are Proud on the subconscious level (as well one ought to be!) and Aware on the conscious level. In a world in which most are not yet Aware. And its negative is Unwelcome on the subconscious level, as would be expected from the ego.

Hence the strongest antipathy from those with inflated egos. Inflated ego may be positively correlated with intellectuality in our time.

This matrix in my experience as sometime therapist works very well; it has internal consistency, even beauty just as does the periodic table of the elements discovered by Mendeleev. Note ‘discovered’, not made up: discovered by hundreds of specialised kinesiologists over some years in terms of reactive English keywords common to all clients, no matter what their mother tongue. Eventually an assembly of 144 specific keywords on three levels of being, positive mirrored by negative. Thus conscious Anger relates to subconscious Fear of Loss and on the deeper level bodily Separation. R.D. Laing made much of the birth process as traumatic; also investigated by Arthur Janov, both unpopular authors in mainstream psychology.

Psychology seems to be unaware of discoveries in allied fields. No mention of the Chinese energy Meridians in Reeve (2009), or the fundamental emotions historically associated with them despite apparent confirmation by some contemporary anatomical and electrical investigations (e.g., Hiroshi Motoyama, one of whose publications I have). I can feel my own meridians to some extent, presumably the Yogis of antiquity were similarly or more sensitive.

Self-healing of ‘incurable auto-immune’ ulcerative colitis 20 years ago centred on dissipation of excessive energy of subconscious Guilt from childhood trauma in my large bowel meridian, consistent with Chinese medicine but an experience and paradigm not yet admitted to by nominal authorities in the field: Western medicine still in the Dark Ages; Freudian denial (itself a motivation!) rules still.

No mention of cellular memory in psychology: yet I have experiential knowledge of this in my own system, including a sudden and florid appearance of typical smallpox pustules all over right arm and back (together with unmistakable marks of the original inoculation at age 9) following some work in specialised kinesiology decades later. Photographs sent to the Australian centre for immunisation information; my E-mail ignored by the ANU professor/Nobel prize winner who originated this particular inoculation.

No mention either of Kundalini arousal and rotation, also experienced by self (and by a friend in identical fashion), and apparently a pre-requisite for enlightenment: it does something to the brain because that is where it moves around and is felt. Another psychic at the local Spiritualist church said she experienced spontaneous yoga postures when her kundalini became active: what is the motivation for such spontaneous behaviour??? Not egoic.

So what is my motivation for (long) pursuing my dream of ‘an authentic Shangri-La’ (as I have been informed it shall be)? Firstly I know it is possible, dependant primarily on a cohort of individuals who have healed themselves -or are at least willing to face themselves (in particular their shadow side described by C.G. Jung) to that end; a sine qua non for further personal and societal development. (refer Mohandas Gandhi: “Change yourself”). Secondly, human society is undeniably in a fix which no-one appears able or willing to correct on the causal level, so someone has to. Without interfering in others’ karmic debts or recreating karma for oneself. Thirdly, there may well be some remaining pathological (?) desire to ‘do well’ in my own psychology so as to secure the love and approval of parents not apparent in my own childhood. Such ‘pathology’ (yet in some cases meant to be; karmically appropriate) inarguably motivates many, e.g. some workaholics and politicians. But at least I am aware of it and can now use it in a positive manner.

Indeed motivation is primary in psychology: how to persuade or encourage people to consume more and more and not question authority! “Consume. Be silent. Die.” That famous renegade behaviourist who started all this Gruen transfer effect etc.

Human beings have creative ability: to my mind creation begins with an act of imagination (the historian Sir Kenneth Clark noted that a senescent society is marked by a loss of imagination) and is then dependant on emotional energy for manifestation in physical reality. And ‘enthusiasm’ while not a specific emotion includes the holy name ‘Hu’ as in Human = ‘God-man’. But everything is holy anyway.

Yet people can over-motivate themselves via particular personal development courses to engage at odds with their actual life-task (i.e., that to which they are genetically and hence psychologically most suited); a kind of hysteria or ungrounded energetic state. Balance is all; attitude is all, the uncommon point of free will choice, the head informed by the heart.DChimself 08:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

26 August 2010
Decided to look at the top of Maslow’s hierarchy to see how far he got in his understanding compared with my own experience and consequent understanding. This is evidently an evolutionary stage in human psycho-spiritual development, as suggested by the Jesuit anthropologist Teilhard de Chardin in his Noosphere theory: for which to eventuate we need many more enlightened people!

Also, incidentally, theorised by various contemporary philosophers or self-styled Spiritual teachers: but they seriously mislead many to the extent they suggest that the enlightenment event concerns the intellect or the mind. Having not sufficiently clarified or kept in check their own minds. (i.e., not yet neutralised false beliefs or cultural biases, and not yet expressed that repressed emotional energy/psychic pain from childhood which underlies an overactive ‘monkey mind’ ). Their unresolved anger is in their faces, for all who have eyes to see.

How many in this area write from actual life-experience? Biographies capture attention more than do empty words. The following attempts, in its penultimate paragraph, to point out one aspect of Spiritual motivation:-

At last, Enlightenment!

'''In this moment everything you know, or think you know, becomes irrelevant: the entire Multiverse becomes irrelevant; your loved ones become irrelevant, you yourself become irrelevant. Only the loved One exists and is relevant.''' '''The One is above space and time. In this moment of absolute bliss you are the One; you are complete, wanting nothing - indeed you ARE nothing. And yet at the same time you are everything that is; was, or ever shall be.'''

'''In you is infinite love and infinite possibility; immense creative potential. And in infinite love there is no room or place for anger or vengeance: these are of Man, not of God.'''

'''This moment can save the world. Out of it you, even imperfect as you are, are changed, and your thoughts and attitudes are changed towards this pre-eminent goal, in whatever task or ability is yours.'''

At once human and divine, with all the responsibility which flows from this Realisation.

dc 19 April 2010/ reference event of August 2000.

Someone will hopefully address the question of what (unconscious and pathological dynamic) motivates suicide bombers and terrorists: for example an introjection from some Mullahs’ psychopathology into a vulnerable or weak psyche without ego-strength, or one wallowing in unforgiveness and hatred? Also touches on the famous statement of Jesuits and one behaviourist re. childhood programming,.

Amazing how we can motivate ourselves from a mere belief, especially an egregious religious belief. That facility surely speaks of a mind beyond mere neurochemistry or bioevolutionary origins. Emeritus professor Valerie Hunt (1995) Infinite Mind: The Science of Human Vibrations, Malibu: Malibu Publishing Co. says the mind is an energy field that surrounds and interpenetrates the physical body, (i.e., not a mere product of brain activity). Consistent with my infrequent experience of out-of-body travel, when I noticed that I still had emotions and was able to think: sceptics will suggest this was at most a mere energetic projection from a living brain; at least, my imagination. But this reality was checked as valid by a visit in the flesh to the same location two weeks later.

Years ago I concluded the mind influences the nervous system at the quantum sub-atomic level; more recently some academics have come to the same understanding. Not to say we are correct!

Some basic physics: metaphysical reality is merely a harmonic of physical reality. Hence many realities, each perceived as physical when a being’s attention is focussed or detained there- by our own awareness only. Logically we already exist on or have access to all levels.

Higher harmonics in theory contain higher energy levels hence ‘Spiritual’ motivation is in theory more powerful than any other – as exemplified by Gandhi, for example. Of course more is involved than this simple schema.DChimself 08:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

E-portfolio 3 September 2010
Struck again by how much uni resembles being at high school, and by how much the world knows not, as exemplified by the majority of students and staff. This is painful and lonely for me given I am under advice to ‘Allow others to have their own opinions’ (suggesting that I have the ego-strength to override others: heavens! I could have been Departmental Secretary after all, given less personal integrity and less respect for others).

If more people knew what I know (i.e., the answers to the questions of ultimate philosophical and religious concern) the world would change overnight. Am I being hypocritical by pretending ignorance and behaving like any other student? A Piscean chameleon.

This is not me: I am not being myself! No doubt one of Maslow’s metaneeds is to be oneself, applicable at all levels of development. Refer Thomas 33: ‘Jesus said, “Preach from your housetops that which you will hear in your ear”. Matthew 5:16 also had some advice on the subject. So I shall report my experience (as related to emotions and motivation) in this portfolio.

To me a thought (i.e., an interpretation of an event or situation) is primary and is followed by a fleeting emotional response which underlines its meaning or significance for the individual, as influenced by Weltanshauung and personal beliefs or mores. Yet some things (e.g., murder or rape or gross inequity) are beyond cultural relativism and absolutely should evince disgust, for example. Given that emotions are identical across all cultures (and on a less evolved level across species) this is simply how we know for sure what is good and bad. (Yes I know these terms are of heuristic value only).

Am getting fed up with reading books written by those who do not know, trying to figure everything out intellectually or scientifically, based on false premises: do we have the time for that, even if it were possible? The Gordian knot of world problems begs for a different approach, as already indicated in Greek myth, no doubt also appreciated by C.G. Jung. The sword of truth must be allowed to cut through people’s shadow sides, to begin with. This is an individual responsibility, and such introspective responsible people are the Greek heroes. Mankind afraid of his own shadow!

One uni lecturer has already admitted she is unwilling to investigate her own brain or mind; a common fear whose psychodynamic origins, reinforced by Freudian misunderstanding, Hollywood exaggeration and religious dogma, she probably does not understand. If one tried to explain, the defences would come up immediately, so that is not the way. Is a psychologist ‘One who investigates any psyche except their own’? But psychology per se does not investigate the psyche in any case.

Thank God I have friends including on higher levels of reality who are aware, with whom a conversation is more meaningful. The authentic Spiritual teachers (e.g., Melchizedek and Joshua ben Joseph) must have had tremendous courage and resilience to manage such a class; motivated by tremendous compassion in such a thankless task!

I take the liberty of adding that last motive (maybe not ‘tremendous’) to my own portfolio, when it became clear to me after working through my own childhood trauma (e.g., being frozen in fear whenever my teacher came close in primary school, not to mention a general fear state at home) how much suffering others had and still have, in the form of psychosomatic disease which kills or blights in later life, as it did in me for 20 years prior to my initial psychological awakening.

Maslow was of the opinion that some emotion could be ‘too much’ for a person. In my experience this is not so: according to specialised kinesiology the human system has circuit breakers which prevent emotional overload, and in one case I experienced incredibly powerful collective human grief which was sufficient to stop my breath, but I survived. This is consistent with yin-yang meridian theory in which grief involves the lung meridian, and with cultural practices of breast-beating in grieving women to free up the overload or blockage and reset the circuit.

This case related to a vision of the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami 12 months before it occurred, when I was literally hit with said Weltschmertz. A soundless voice told me my relatives would be safe, and that I would be ‘given more’, in which case I expect more visions of world disasters in future.

Will anything less change human irresponsibility and complacency? These geological events are not accidental, but are anthropogenic on an unconscious metaphysical level: simple cause and effect. Included in irresponsibility is a denial that we are collectively that powerful; but did not Joshua say we could ‘move mountains’? It is a mistake to believe in fairy stories, but these are not fairy stories.

In a similar case on the day of the Canberra bushfire I and a friend were planning a run along Deek’s Drive in what was then a pine forest. That morning I (unusually) asked Spirit what I should do that day, and immediately received a very strong gestalt message to “Stay where you are!” Our usual run would have burnt us to a proverbial crisp.

I understand that an open mind includes open Chakras, through which such metaphysical messages are received. The Chakras connect to the Meridians, in which emotions flow, hence an emotionally blocked individual is unable to perceive such messages. This ties in with the case of a young lady with diagnosed cancer of the pineal (or pituitary, I do not recall which) gland for whom Spiritual healing was necessary. Her Spirit Guides conveyed to me that she was drinking alcohol to offset the pain (which she then admitted), and it turned out that she was in fear of a gift of clairvoyance or similar related to the particular gland, so was blocking that gift via a disease process.

I hasten to add these are uncommon events in my life; most of the time I plod along like others appear to. But I am told that most peoples’ minds are closed in our present society. Mine certainly was to begin with. As an indication of the effort which may be required, it was necessary inter alia for me to undertake an esoteric meditation on my major Chakras twice a day for 7 months before they were open and clear of negative energy. Such work is not possible before resolution of psychodynamic material blocking the meridians (i.e., repressed emotions), which itself takes both time (some years) and courage.

The extent of this problem (Arthur Janov calls it primal pain) in society is of course in Freudian denial, as it is in individuals.

Incidentally, I object to being given a ‘Cheatsheet’!! Such a title comes from an individual projecting his/her own self-perception, and I reject such a thought: it has no place in my psyche. Do not worry about this; it is just that having largely cleaned out my system i have to be especially careful not to sully it again.DChimself 08:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

E-portfolio 11 September 2010

Aaahr! It be me again (Devonshire dialect). Self-determination theory has some validity. The 'dialectic' is true, but there is more to it than probably admitted by Ryan & Deci. For example, environmental sit-you-hate-ions arise AS REQUIRED as a teaching mechanism in order to facilitate psycho-spiritual evolution. Our shadow self is automatically projected onto and reflectd by the consensus reality we inhabit, at both individual and collective levels. WE do it!!

An aware person then simply enquires "What is the lesson for me in this situation?". For example, an impulse in self not to finish these degrees upon enquiry was attributable to a subconscious belief that 'Life is a struggle' acquired mostly from my mother. It was then necessary to detach from that belief in meditation and substitute a more positive one. Without these academic quals. it would be more difficult for me to persuade (perhaps unaware) others of my capability in respect of The Sanctuary.

People are indeed inherently active: this was part of the definition of a living organism given by my biology teacher in school. But i also know what it is like to have close to zero energy in a depressed state. Competent is how i regard myself and have been described by others: many competencies appear to develop in past lives (not yet admitted to by science despite considerable case study evidence).

Relatedness can also be met by relating to God, as in the yogic path of bakhti (Devotion). Indeed 'no man is an island'. Many relationships are based on unmet childhood need and can be co-dependancies which delay or prevent individual growth.

As to a need for power, it was written in the 1930's that our society is characterised inter alia by excercise of power without responsibility, e.g., the infamous political ploy of "Don't tell me that, then i can say i wasn't told!" Such a need is surely pathological, touching on personality disorders.

God gives real power to those who have demonstrated an ethical or moral ability to handle it (e.g., around 20 years qualification period for an authentic gift of Spiritual healing); even so it can be taken away if it is abused.

To understand spiritual motivation it is necessary to accept many truths not yet admitted to by mainstream psychology or philosophy, or rather subject to disbelief following the various intellectual so-called enlightenments in recent history. Yet God is part of the US declaration of independance. One such truth is teleology; surely not so hard to admit to given the established fact of biological evolution?DChimself 00:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

E-portfolio 20 October 2010

Now finished essays in environmental governance and physiological psychology which took a lot of work and time; almost forgotten how to use this wiki! Becoming clear that psychology does not know that emotions are a variety of kinds of creative (life) energy, of both valences. They were categorised in traditional Chinese medicine a long time ago and associated with the 12 bilateral acupuncture meridians that carry either valence of specific basis emotions; for example the stomach meridian carries contentment or disgust. Motoyama showed how to measure them in 1974, in considerable electronic detail with graphs etc. In one review, his book was disregarded on the grounds that no controls were presented. Perhaps the reviewers did not read his book properly; it appears to be not readily available (i got a second-hand copy a couple of years back). It would have confounded their unconscious desire to find no evidence for meridians (?), as was their 'scientific' final conclusion. Nobody wants to upset scientific apple carts; and very few if any researchers or reviewers describe how they ensured that their own minds were clear (or indeed open!) to begin with. This touches on depth psychology. Papers by forensic psychologists can be an eye opener; these people are a breed apart. Manfred Clynes was another who described a means of measuring emotional response in the form of his sentic apparatus. Convincingly, he obtained distinct graphs for basic emotions, clearly valid across different nationalities, just as facial expression is valid across ethnic groups. No mention of him in the textbook! Has anyone done a factor analysis of words for emotions as was done for personality characteristics? The psychodynamic confound is a theme that runs through experimental psychology; we find what we want to find, we will not find if we do not look. There are two sorts of anger, as i think Gordon Allport (?) also distinguished: new and old. New anger is gone by the next day; old anger relates to an unconscious unresolved issue or trauma, and the person will still be ruminating on it for days after the particular button has been pressed. Positive affect is constructive; negative affect is destructive, unless it is somehow turned around or used/expressed. Some iconoclasts may use negative affect as their primary motivation. Nagative affect is destructive to the body, however. We have executive function (i.e., free will), despite the cop-out in psychology that this is for philosophy to deal with, and despite learned pessimism etc. DChimself 04:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

E-portfolio 23 October 2010

OK on PANAS i scored 34 positive and 13 negative: one is not, and is not required to be, perfect! As discussed, Dr. Candace Pert wrote a book 'Molecules of emotion' years ago to the effect that neuropeptides carried emotional messages (she discovered the opiate receptor in the brain). Around 100 neuropeptides are now known. Some are produced simultaneously with the neurohormones such as GABA, endorphins. No mention of her work in the textbook, nor of these neuropeptides. What is wrong with psychology? We also know from Motoyama's work that information is transmitted relatively slowly (slower than nerve impulses) in the meridians, as measured by skin conductivity at specific points identified by Dr Reinhold Voll. The meridians are said to be located in connective tissue or at muscle/connective tissue interfaces. The neuropeptides are carried in large vesicles manufactured at any point in the neuron including the axon, and travel slowly down through it. We might anticipate some anatomical feature that is associated with neuropeptide manufacture and/or transport, therefore. Of course any cell can manufacture neuropeptides, not just neurons. The brain may originate these transmitters, then there may be a cascade effect through other than the nervous system. In her latest book 'Everything you need to know to feel Go(o)d', Pert focusses on blissful feelings and points out that electrical charge and frequency (Cf. ion pumps across membranes) is also altered in cells with neuropeptide receptors, such that there is in theory an electromagnetic transmission/reception of emotional state between individuals. This may account for empathy. This reminds one of Neil Cherry's theory that susceptibility to mobile phones etc relates to specific EM frequencies of ion exchange in cells (i.e., windows into the physiology) rather than an overall heating effect, still ignored by the powers that be with vested interests. DChimself 00:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

E-portfolio 7 November 2010

Great! Yesterday's paragraphs were not saved. Shall try to remember them. Memory of course is linked to emotion; an evolutionary survival adaptation. Finished the Textbook Chapter, thank God and perhaps other beings. No-one is alone, and in my experience every thought is known and recorded: we are all transparent, which fact might upset the machiavellis of this world.

A. N. Whitehead's concept of the Universe is basically correct: God does indeed exist and participate including via subsidiary aspects or beings. But there are many universes making up a multiverse; creation appears to be continuous as understood in astronomy and physics. Around one million universes so far, i gather, each with its own administration.

Went through some emotional processing on Friday and Saturday, just in time to finish the Chapter (hence some minor changes) and in particular the PPT slides with voice-over. A person's being is also found in their voice and it was better that i let go of some more introjected stuff from my father. Some of this material can take on a life of its own, and can be communicated with on that basis in meditation. Given that it has life, it is not appropriate to destroy it, but rather send it back to its source; or to the Source. Grief was the emotion associated with this material, which had to be expressed as part of its disposal, around 10 minutes in total.

Given that such material is sub-conscious, few know how much is within. A lot, in my case which is probably not unusual. Roberto Assagioli recognised that a lot of programming occurs in childhood, independantly of Freud and his followers. There is in most people a veritable reservoir of repressed psychic pain from childhood, and a not unreasonable fear of disturbing it. Hence : "Do not mess with my mind!" Given that the outer world is reflective of the inner world (i.e., we project our unconscious stuff onto the world at large) this explains both why the world is in a mess, AND the common fear of change in a person's normal life. Few want to change externally because it means a dialectic change internally, which might shake up the existential reservoir, and bring it to consciousness (which would be incredibly painful). Better to kill another human being than face all that pain, as some incompetent Primal therapists are said to have discovered. Hence so much apathy in the world, and the delay in paradigm shifts (the old brigade have to die off first).

In line with the above, there may be a strong response to my Spiritual motivation chapter and mutimedia coverage, to deny or otherwise rationalise it away, perhaps as my private delusion. Hence attitudes to any new discovery -Rupert Sheldrake being a prime example, whose book on morphic fields was recommended to be burnt (not very scientific!) by the then editor of the journal 'Nature'. The psychics i know just raise their eyes and shrug at the prevailing ignorance in the world, to which i might add the unwillingness to open the mind (for there be Dragons!). A mind that is effectively shut down in order to contain painful psychodynamic material is also not open to perceptions of metaphysical reality, and the help that is available from people and angels (who are also people) on that level.

DChimself 03:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

E-portfolio 10 November 2010

Trying to upload multimedia assignment; foiled by delays of variable length in PPT slides appearing on screenr.com. screwing up my timing. Upload speed a miserable 389 Kb despite Telstra wireless broadband, have to establish when is best time of day.

Read chapter on growth motivation in Reeve (2009). Quite insightful on his part; but the answer to evil in Man was given by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn : "No man does evil unless he first convinces himself it is good". We are at once created and evolutionary beings, in whose biological gene pool are very problematic (animal?) genes predisposing to all sorts of human mischief, yet nothing is more powerful than human Will as Roberto Assagioli probably realised (it is in his theory of psychosynthesis). This topic is generally ignored in psychology.

Had recently to face and dispose of two attitudes in self, namely perfectionism and associated arrogance. It is now clear that they have coloured my life to date, at least since they were introjected in childhood.

Best not to describe my childhood, a barrier to self-actualisation and self-realisation. Paradoxically such a hurdle can contribute towards more efort or Will than otherwise.

It is now clear that in terms of spiritual development humility is a much safer attitude, even though it can be overdone. And Self-realisation (Enlightenment) is not the end but is a new beginning: there is a long way to go. Yet such a new beginning can save this world.

It seems i am more than moderately adventure-seeking, no doubt positively correlated with an actualising tendency. DChimself 05:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

E-Portfolio 20 November 2010: conclusion.

Part of my motivation to read psychology was to find out what if anything the discipline (that last word suggestive of a silo mentality not allowed to stray into an inter-disciplinary perspective?) had to say about my life-experience which includes various metaphysical experiences after my mind opened in my mid-40’s. Another reason relates to a perception that in our present ‘intellectual’ society, extra paper qualifications are necessary to establish credibility in the eyes of others in terms of my life-task of establishing a different kind of community as a practical or pragmatic and measurable hence provable model for others.

In our present society in which most minds are figuratively (and literally in terms of neurophysiology or structural neurology) closed for psychodynamic reasons, mention of experiences outside such a limited consensus box is a threat to such unadmitted general psychopathology, and likely to be met not only with denial but also active antipathy, consistent with the various ego-defence strategies identified by W. and A. Freud, Melanie Klein et al.

Nevertheless the metaphysical realm is a source of help, greatly needed at this juncture for the world as a whole. Information percolates down via personal inspiration; it is not derived de novo at this low level.

Needless to say very little is presently admitted about such experience, except that (in accordance with Freudian denial in the referee) it must be indicative of insanity. Yet our present society as a whole is arguably insane, as indicated by unsustainable practices; psycho-somatic disease, and pervasive greed (e.g. the ‘American Dream’) and fear (e.g. of losing one’s job) as major societal motivation. Also a large proportion affected by diagnosed mental illness at some time in life. A Pueblo Indian chief commented on this evident insanity in a conversation with C.G. Jung in the 1920’s or 1930’s, in which he suggested that thinking only with the head (i.e., out of touch with emotional indicators) was the problem.

Plato described human awareness in his metaphor of the cave in which the inmates could only perceive shadows of reality; in Buddhist thought psychological denial of reality is fundamental. H.G. Wells pointed out the danger in trying to explain reality to others in his story of the sighted man in the land of the blind, who became public enemy number one and obviously needed an operation to remove his eyes and so restore him to sanity. Arthur Janov has described many case studies of individuals who faced their pathology in order to transcend it (a necessary part of their self-actualisation process). In Greek and all other mythologies, including Revelation in the Bible, the stories are descriptive or symbolic of individual psychological development: the hero’s journey described by Joseph Campbell.

Such pathology is basically derived from psychological programming in childhood, as known to Jesuits and confirmed by the behaviourists in psychology. But it can include past-life experience too. For example, temporary apathy (lack of motivation) in myself was traceable to a very short life in Africa in which ‘I’ died of starvation; thus a core belief in the psyche: ‘Why bother, I am just going to die anyway’. This is an obvious area for transpersonal research; much radically empirical data has already been collected and reported by various authors.

I am not convinced that self-esteem is irrelevant to motivation, given imperfections and unadmitted influences in research. Surely if it is low there would be a perception of lack of efficacy or external locus of control (is it possible in the context of general systems theory to perfectly isolate these related factors experimentally?) and hence little motivation: I have lived this one in terms of a lack of self-confidence related to academic endeavour derived from experience in primary school in which no result was ever good enough, even though above average. Hence unimpressive subsequent results in secondary school and at university decades ago, despite an IQ apparently in the top 0.2% of the population. This last is no guarantee of sanity! An inverse correlation may exist in this part of the bell curve, dependant of course on the definition of sanity.

A negative core belief, e.g. that one is an ‘idiot’, energises the inner saboteur (i.e., Jung’s ‘shadow side’) to ensure that the belief is not threatened. Other core beliefs such as ‘life is hard’ taken on from a parent add to the shadow side and its influence. A fundamental lack of nurturing (i.e., no receipt of unconditional love) in childhood, as inevitably experienced by many in our present and past society, adds further to the difficulty or challenge, perhaps giving rise to a self-perception/belief of being unworthy.

Yet something in the psyche rises to meet these challenges. What that is, is suggested in the Wikiversity textbook chapter on Spiritual Motivation. Further, my own experience simply IS that God exists and helps those who ask or otherwise merit help, including via subsidiary entities such as Angels and Cherubs (I gather we are a different class of entities, namely evolutionary and open ended rather than simply created and limited). My experience thus validates and perhaps extends Whitehead’s process philosophy and cosmology.

I finally conclude that the influence of both Free Will and Soul are fundamental in human motivation, for which refer to James Hillman, and more especially Roberto Assagioli’s theory of psychosynthesis.

The book ‘First Pilgrim in Paradise’ (Anderson, in press 2011?) describes an extreme case of self-transcendence and authentic God-Realisation at age 69 while maintaining a physical body and normal (i.e., imperfect) personality on this minor planet, following a lifetime’s devoted effort along these lines, and despite a childhood not dissimilar to mine. He has a M.Sc. degree, and was offered a Ph.D. but chose otherwise.

Despite being told his achievement is unique in all the Multiverses, unlike many supposed Spiritual masters or teachers he has no ‘airs and graces’ and appears entirely normal, even unimpressive. This last is probably significant: he wisely adopted an attitude of humility to begin with.

Needless to say he will be regarded as insane by some supposed experts. I accept his experience and claim because some of my experience is similar, and these experiences are consistent with the reported experience of others, including some friends who have obviously helped many without recognition or material reward.

His motivation is unclear; I understand he began with the clear intention (i.e., Will?) to ‘realise the highest Spirituality possible’.

120.158.97.245 07:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

title: User:Dchimself


text:
User:WiiRocks566

About Me
I'm a current student.

Go to User:WiiRocks566 in other 'Wikiprojects'.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:WiiRocks566


text: File:NISS logo(400px).gif

title: File:NISS logo(400px).gif


text: File:Ucniss-sport-workplace.gif

title: File:Ucniss-sport-workplace.gif


text: File:Ucniss-sport-event-management-400px.gif


text: File:Ucniss-sport-sponsorship-and-media-400px.gif


text:
User talk:Wanderingsilverstone

 Hello Wanderingsilverstone, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wanderingsilverstone


text:
User talk:Dchimself

 Hello Dchimself, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 Hi , I am Percy. Nice to meet you. I love the beach, swimming, fishing, and I am currently doing some research at Wikiversity on oceanography. I am also learning to play piano. What do you like? Can I be your mascot?

Motivation and emotion
Hi. Welcome to the unit and to Wikiversity! I look forward to learning with you and I hope you find the topic and the unit rewarding. Please feel free to let me know if you have any suggestions or would like help at any point along the way. Sincerely, James Neill, -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My opinion regarding your textbook chapter
Hi, just with regards to your textbook chapter on human spirituality, you wrote;

"Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) mentions Man’s inherent motivation to self-transcend in the preface to his book ‘The Devils of Loudon’ (Huxley, 1952). His Perennial Philosophy (Huxley, 1945) is in my view a correct statement of the fact that oneness with God is possible and has been experienced by mystics over the centuries. But his later endorsement of psychedelic substances as an aid to such experience (Huxley, 1954) is an evident mistake, indicated by there being no claim to this eventual experience in his writing.

That this was a mistake is also supported by the view put forward in Adams (2002) that there is a necessary moral component to spiritual development, with which Kohlberg (1984) would no doubt agree. There are in this context no shortcuts. Adams also points out that the contemporary writer Ken Wilber’s integral theory of transpersonal psychology is deficient in this respect. It is surely an illogical proposition that the immoral can realise oneness with the Divine. Charles Darwin would also disagree with such a proposition, as we shall see shortly."

While it may be true that there are no shortcuts on the path of God, I think that it is important not to dismiss the influence that psychedelic substances can have to aligning people on to the path of God. Whole generations of individuals were turned on by psychedelic substances during the 20th century, and a lot of those people stumbled on to, and proceeded with, a spiritual path, one that they might not have found had it not been for their contact with such substances. This is particular true of Timothy Leary and Ram Dass, former psychologists whose spiritual awakenings and subsequent teachings were born out of the psychedelic movement. So while it is true that yes, there are no shortcuts and psychedelics can't take you all the way, it is also important to recognise the potential that psychedelic substances hold to show people the spiritual possibilities at the end of the road, particularly in modern culture, which in some ways is devoid of a relevant spiritual context. What do you think?

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dchimself


text:
User talk:WiiRocks566

 Hello WiiRocks566, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:WiiRocks566


text:
Talk:Structures

In the Method of Joints section, L is not defined but it is used to calculate the moments. Making it more clear to define L as 5 meters.

title: Talk:Structures


text:
User:Numiri/KinderCalculus

KinderCalculus is an experimental home curriculum that teaches typical K-6 children Calculus by relieving them of the burden of large number arithmetic.

Freed from this burden, children in my family reached Calculus in their K-6 years with 2 hours/week of effort. A wider test is needed but that is difficult to do because families will rarely commit a child to a 7-year curriculum throughout K-6. Though our coverage is not as thorough as the high school materials, we've been able to manipulate equations at mid-level difficulty by using: (1) unified algebraic concepts (2) a simplified vocabulary (3) shapes to de-clutter equations (4) infinitesimal numbers. These methods are included here.

With these basic skills, we've even re-derived some of humanity's crowning intellectual achievements on reality (Einstein), infinity (Cantor), and creation (fractals). I think it's worth rethinking the burden of big arithmetic if we can replace it with these these wonders of the world.

The "kinder" part of the name KinderCalculus refers to the German term for young children and not Kindergarten.

Vocabulary

Because of its unconventional goal, KinderCalculus uses an unconventional approach. I propose to replace much of the arcane vocabulary with simple relatable kid-friendly terms. It is my personal belief that the choice of vocabulary plays a substantive role in a subject's difficulty -- any subject:   in language. Ask yourself: would I start teaching my child to read with a sentence like "observe the blotchly decorated canine as it executes a rapid gait",  or would I start with "See Spot run"?  in business. Should we teach kindergardeners to practice "collaborative consumption", or just teach them to "share"?  in physics. Most children cannot grasp what an "inertial reference frame" in Special Relativity is, but they certainly know what being "adrift" is.

Let's face it, if we force cumbersome language on children, we place a substantive cognitive load on a child and distract the child from the concept at hand. KinderCalculus replaces such poly-syllabic abuses with significantly shorter words like "verbs" for "operators", "nouns" for "operands", "speed" for "derivative", and "peers" for "commutative and associative operands". Terms are chosen based on its mnemonic value, brevity, descriptiveness, relatability, and their appeal to a child's sense of subversion. For example, with K-2 children, "potty humor" is an endless source of amusement so I use the term "blunderwear" to describe certain algebraic associative pitfalls similar to the inner and outer layers of clothing. With children, the silly becomes memorable and the subversive offers an illusion of empowerment. See the Glossary for more terms.

Remarks

Thoroughness: at this stage, this content is only an outline of a teacher's guide -- it is NOT meant to be read by children and it is NOT a complete textbook. As such, the focus is on alternate ways to explain advanced concepts to children, so I don't cover all the concepts in the K-12 curriculum. I only cover areas where this approach diverge from the standard exposition for Algebra & Calculus. I skip non-algebra & non-calculus areas such as number sense, probabilities, proportions, reading data tables, etc.

Exercises: rather than do a wide breadth of exercises for Calculus homework, I take the lazy teacher approach of doing hard exercises over and over again, such as repeatedly doing proofs of the Fundamental Theorem, Chain Rule, Product Rule, and time dilation in Special Relativity. This stems from a lack of teaching preparation time more than anything else.

Prerequisite for teachers: the reader is assumed to have mastered high school algebra & calculus.

Prerequisite for children: fractions & 2-digit arithmetic.

Table of contents

For more information, email numiri@yahoo.com w/ the subject "KinderCalculus"

title: User:Numiri/KinderCalculus


text:
User talk:Numiri/KinderCalculus

Invitation to discussion (transwiki from Wikijunior)
I invite community involvement in this discussion. To be clear, this is a discussion that I started, and the two issues (not restricted to the one talk page, but in practice this is where all the discussion is taking place so far) are the name of the specific module and, more broadly, the metaphor of layers of clothing of which it is a part. --Pi zero (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I would be glad to read through it and tell you my thoughts, but I am a little concerned the book describes itself as "an experimental K-6 math program". I have my usual concerns about verifiability and original research. This sounds to me like a part of realm of education research. Do you off hand know if there any references, syllabuses, etc attached to this book? Or is this wikbooks the home of this experiment? Google searching doesn't really turn up much, but maybe I am out of the loop or searching the wrong terms. Thenub314 (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Update: Kayau has started an RFD, where Panic has suggested transwiki to Wikiversity. I've commented there (and the thread on the talk page continues). --Pi zero (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 * After reading the book, I think the phrase "an experimental K-6 math program" just tries to say that this book uses a new, innovative approach to teaching the topic. IMHO this is the best reason for writing wikibooks. --Martin Kraus (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem with choice of metaphor
The metaphor of removing layers of clothing comes across as inappropriate. A different metaphor is needed. --Pi zero (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See this related discussion. --Pi zero (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the metaphor is pretty good. Do American or English children wear clothes when they bath? I guess most don't; thus, this is a metaphor almost every child can relate to. --Martin Kraus (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Formatting
This book could really benefit form some mathematics formatting instead of the ascii-art math symbols. There is lots of info at meta:Help:Displaying a formula or come by and ask at WB:WikiProject Mathematics.

Here are some specific things I noticed that can be improved.

Powers: In LaTex $$5^3$$ or in wiki 53

Big parenthesis: In LaTeX $$\Bigg($$      $$\Bigg)$$, or in wiki

Square roots: $$\sqrt{x+1}$$, in wiki √ x + 1 (the √ symbol is contained from the button with that symbol that is visible if you select the "symbols" menu when editing a page.)

Hope this helps. Thenub314 (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that the symbol is only available in the beta toolbar. Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 12:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Are you sure, because I don't use the beta, it is god awful. Nonetheless I managed to insert it. Thenub314 (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree that the beta (vector skin) is awful, but I only use the toolbar from beta, or the enhanced toolbar. I just switched back and couldn't find the symbol. I'm switching back. Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 13:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer -- I will use these symbols. Beta or not, if they are not in the tool bar, I'll just use the markup. Numiri (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Numiri/KinderCalculus


text:
User:Numiri/KinderCalculus/Nouns & Verbs

Nouns & Verbs
Vocabulary

variables: are "blank numbers", or containers for amounts such as your age or test score. Variables are written as letters or shapes, such as

$$ \begin{align} x         &= \textrm{Gwen's\ height}\\ y         &= \textrm{Heather's\ age}\\ \heartsuit &= \textrm{Heather's\ older\ brother's\ age\ } = x + 3\\ \square   &= \textrm{Chandler's\ test score} \end{align} $$

simple nouns are numbers and variables.

verbs are operations like +, -, *, /, ^, 0--, --0, cos, etc.

compound nouns, aka layers, are combinations of verbs and nouns, and they are usually written with parentheses or shapes.

Examples of nouns (simple and compound) are: 1, x, $$\heartsuit$$, x + 1, y * ( x + 1 ).

anti-verbs are minus, divide, log and root

anti-nouns are negative, reciprocal, log, and root

forward-verbs are plus, times, powers

forward-nouns are positive numbers, integers (not reciprocals), and leaves

phrases are mathematical expressions. We prefer this term for syllabic brevity.

The table below shows that most arithmetic traces back to the + verb. The Blead section of this book explains these verbs in detail.


text:
User talk:Numiri/KinderCalculus/Nouns & Verbs

This page should consider using symbols ♡, ◻ for hearts and squares (or their filled in variants).
 * I note that the second of those comes out as an undefined symbol on my laptop. Granted, it's not exactly a new laptop.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe $$\heartsuit$$ and $$\square$$ then?

Also I think we can combine the fraction notation ( \frac in LaTeX) and the composition notation( \circ in LaTeX) along with a little negative space ( \! ) to create the left and write divide symbols as so.

 * $$\circ\!\frac{125}{3}$$

And we can just fill the top and bottom with some blank space when we the symbol alone by $$\circ\!\frac{\quad}{\quad}$$.


text:
User:Numiri/KinderCalculus/blead

We simplify math by generalizing its many verbs (*, /, powers, log, root) into a single concept called the blead, allowing the early introduction of logs & roots at the same time as we introduce multiplication and division.

Self-plus *, self-times ^, and their opposites /,$$\frac{\ \ }{\ \ }\!\circ$$, $$\circ\!\frac{\ \ }{\ \ }$$, are much alike. In this section, we will study their likeness. They share a common relationship call the BLeaD: L    / \ /  \   B     D

The blead diagram shows the construction of the verbs *,^,/,$$\frac{\ \ }{\ \ }\!\circ$$, $$\circ\!\frac{\ \ }{\ \ }$$ by repeating a base. The term is an initialism of its components: Base, Leaf/Lattice, and Depth. The table below shows how the verbs * and ^ act by taking a base amount and repeat it to form lattices and leaves. The repetition count is called "Depth". Tracing the B-L-D diagram bottom-up gives the "forward" verbs *,^ and tracing it top-down gives the "reverse" verbs /,$$\frac{\ \ }{\ \ }\!\circ$$, $$\circ\!\frac{\ \ }{\ \ }$$.

Role Reversal (ror), aka Commutivity
In self-plus, the base and depth can reverse their roles and still give the same lattice count. For example 5 * 3 = 15 = 3 * 5, that is, 0 - 0 - 0                                     |   |   | 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0                     0 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0    ->       0 - 0 - 0     base 3, depth 5 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0                    0 - 0 - 0                                      |   |   | base 5, depth 3                       0 - 0 - 0
 * |  |   |   |    rotate           |   |   |

With self-times, this does not hold true. For example, $$5^3=125$$ while $$3^5=243$$.

In other words, "snowflakes don't ror" (can you imagine a dainty little snowflake making any load noises like a "roar"? No). That's why self-times has 2 divides, right-divide & left-divide, and self-plus has only one.

Traveling downward in the blead diagram, we form the verbs /,$$\frac{\ \ }{\ \ }\!\circ$$, $$\circ\!\frac{\ \ }{\ \ }$$. Because of the symmetry in self-plus between base and depth, that is "lattices do ror", traversing down its blead diagram towards either base or depth yields only one algorithm -- the divide /. Since snowflakes don't ror, traversing downwards yields 2 algorithms, the left & right divides $$\circ\!\frac{\ \ }{\ \ }$$ and $$\frac{\ \ }{\ \ }\!\circ$$. The left & right divides are also commonly written as roots and logs. For example:

$$\circ\!\frac{125}{5} = \log_5{125}=3$$

$$\frac{125}{3}\!\circ = \sqrt[3]{125}=5$$

L                                 / \ L     /   \     L                  root = --o = B       D = o-- = log D                B

The Evert section will show further similarities between these self-ish verbs.

Powers, Logs & Roots
Logarithms are a confusing concept for many, but they are conceptually simple when viewed as a type of fraction. As a matter of fact, they are SO similar to fractions that we propose a fraction-like notation for them: the right & left fractions.

If we visualize multiplication as "shaping a quantity into boxes" with length & width, we can visualize powers as "shaping a quantity into snowflakes". The length and width of the snowflake is the length & width of its shape. Here are a few thoughts on numerical representation of quantities as bases, that will help solidify the ideal of length & width in powers.

 A quantity 9, 27, 81, 16, 64, ... can be thought of as a bunch of dots, independent of it's numerical representation in base-2, ... base-10, ... or any base. Children are so used to base 10 that they think that base-10 is the quantity and cannot conceive of a quantity in any other bases. In terms of representations of an object, a person's name or social security number does not define the person -- the person thinks, feels, and exists even without the identifier. Similarly, a quantity exists regardless of its base-n representation. It's also useful to bring back the analogy of language for numbers.

There are many foreign languages, each with its own alphabet -- the English alphabet has 26 letters, while the Russian alphabet has 33. Numbers can have many alphabets. The base-4 alphabet is (0,1,2,3), base-16 (hex) alphabet is (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,a,b,c,d,e,f). Because of the limited alphabet and the endless concepts to be written, we have to string letters together into words to represent the concept. Similarly, because of the limited characters in a base, and the endless quantities to be written, we string the characters together as numbers. In terms of the alphabet, the log is the number of digits in a number (its length), and the base is the size (width) of that alphabet. As a matter of fact, the "D" in BLeaD can also be thought of as an abbreviation for "digits".

Even as symbols, the log & root has a very natural interpretation as length & width when writing a quantity in symbols: the length is the digit count, and the width is the alphabet size. The alphabet of a written number is the characters in its base. For example, 1023 (in base 10) = 33333 (in base 4) has length of 5 digits & width of 4 alphabet characters. Even fractions don't have this interpretation of length & width! Hence, we argue that log & roots are even more natural as fractions.

Some numbers do not fit perfectly as a lattice or a snowflake. For example, 1234 is "3.1 digits" long in an alphabet that's 10-characters wide; as a lattice, it can be 12.34 long and 100 wide.

Etymology
The term blead borrows from Warren Ellis' Bleed in his Planetary story, where the term is defined as the space between universes that make up the multiverse. Similarly, our blead is a core concept that pervades mathematics by connecting all the algebraic verbs. However, for children we intentionally avoided complete likeness to Ellis' Bleed to avoid the thought that math is as painful as blood letting. Ellis' fictional story also uses a snowflake construct which we also use, but the similarity here is in word only and not any further reaching metaphor.

title: User:Numiri/KinderCalculus/blead


text:
User talk:Numiri/KinderCalculus/blead

Rename.
If this were the worst word choice in the book (which it isn't, at the moment), I would say this is a bad choice and needs to be changed. Even taken by itself, it teaches kids to make strongly negative associations with math. --Pi zero (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The closest words to Blead are Bleat and Bleed, and because of the spelling, the kids may start to think of maths as bleeding... looks like a pretty violent book in mathematical standards. Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 14:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is not a good name, perhaps BaLD would work with the B-L-D theme they are trying to get across.  Together with a joke about bald math teachers to go for the subversion tactics the book intro discusses and it could work well. Thenub314 (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that joke published before? If it isn't, that may be OR as well... Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 13:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If I managed to find a good joke to insert into the text I will make sure to properly attribute the joke for you. :) Thenub314 (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Originally, I wanted to use "Bleed" to refer to DC Comic's multiverse reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleed_%28comics%29, in which the Snowflake and Monster Group provide a foundation. There, the Bleed is the interstitial spaces between multiverses. It's a good way of planting the seed for more exciting math to come. There is also an amazing history and fiction around this concept. In my opinion, the stories around it is some of the best stories ever told in comics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_%28comics%29. Think about it, what could be a richer experience for kids than compelling stories, set against a mathematical backdrop of cool ideas like  Quantum Mechanics Max Tegmark's MUT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis ), and the Beauty and The Beast of mathematics (Monster and E8)  I think such richness is worth a little hurt.

I too did not want kids associating math with something painful. But the idea of the multiversal Bleed with all its mathematics was so compelling that I compromised and opted for a re-spelling as Blead. "Bald" jokes does play into the subversive approach, but it also gives a green light for kids to be mean about bald men, especially when the bald men are not math professors. I want to be subversive, but only when it comes to generic subjects like potty humor or wedgies.

Given that this book is now in Wikiversity and directed at adults, I propose to revert to the original Blead and provide alternate terms such as Bald for adults to choose from. I urge you to read Planetary before passing judgement. You can find a teaser here http://www.dccomics.com/media/excerpts/planet_prev.pdf, where there is reference to "Integral Design Theory" aka "Description Theory" that bears a resemblance to Max Tegmark's work. The story does have adult elements in it, but it's nothing that a benevolent Sharpie cannot fix. What do you think? Numiri 16:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Go for it. I think the changes made to try to make the text fit into Wikijunior should be undone.  When everything is up and a bit more complete would probably be the best time to discuss which metephores are best to use.  Because I imagine something a bit consistent from beginning to end would work best. Thenub314 16:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Numiri/KinderCalculus/blead


text:
User:Numiri/KinderCalculus/syntax

Fences
aka. "Layer Vision", aka. syntax, aka. order of operation, is the ability to correctly see the order of operation. Associativity is a special case of Layer Vision with verb purity -- that is all + verbs or all * verbs. The following explains to students the necessity of Layer Vision.

Fences are shapes or parentheses marks that define the span of a layer.

(\ ) \ \ \ \Bigg(\qquad \Bigg) $$

Take a look at the phrase

\left(\left(\frac{((4\times x)+1)}{3}\right)^2 - 5\right) $$

When we do arithmetic, we work from the innermost layer outwards. The fences tells us to start with x. Working outward, we times 4, then add 1, then divide by 3, then self-times 2, then minus 5. But as you can see, a lot of fences can clutter up the phrase. We'd rather write

\left(\frac{4x+1}{3}\right)^2 - 5 $$

and have set rules to tell us the layering order. This is "layer vision" -- the ability to see the layers even when fences and verbs are invisible.

It's important to get the layering right because an incorrect reading of the layers will give wrong answers. For example, 4*5+1 may be read as (4*5)+1 or 4*(5+1). If we chose the wrong layering, we may answer 24 instead of 21.

When parentheses become too cluttered, we can also use shapes.

Invisible Verbs
Often expressions can be really cluttered such as

\frac{-b + (((b^2) -(4 \times (a\times c)))^{1/2})}{(2\times a)} $$

We would like to write cleaner expressions so we make the following noun-placement rules that makes a verb invisible.

With verbless & fenceless notation, the messy expression above rewrites as the cleaner standard quadratic formula.

Invisible Fences
Here are the standard rules, in authoritative pecking order, that defines fenceless layering:

With these fenceless & verbless invisibility rules, the nasty phrase above becomes a cleaner

$$ \frac{-b +\sqrt{b^2-4ac}}{2a} $$

Syntax diagram
Mathematical expressions have a syntactic structure that can be drawn as a "branch". For example, .                          3             3                                     .            3  3            \           /                                      .           a  b      is      ^ -- * -- ^. /          \                                      .                           a             b. . and. .                           a. 3           \                                                 .            (ab)      is      * -- ^ -- 3. /                                                .                            b. . In this diagram, the first operations (inner layers) are leaf nodes while the later operations (outer layer) are the inner nodes. This diagram will come in handy as we consolidate the many algebraic operations (see section on algebraic identities).

title: User:Numiri/KinderCalculus/syntax


text:
User:Numiri/KinderCalculus/Dress

Often, we are given an equation, say 4x + 5y = 3, and be asked to "solve for y". In an archeology analogy, we are asked to dig through layers of dirt to discover the bare bones fossil of "y". If we look at an equation as a scale balancing 2 weights, we see how to dig through layers of dirt.

\begin{align} 4x+5y &= 3\\ -4x + 4x +5y &= 3-4x \qquad \text{(when we add something to one side of the scale, we must do the same to the other side to maintain the balance.)}\\ 5y &= 3 - 4x \qquad \text{(thus, we dig through the outer layer by reversing the verb from + to - and moving the noun 4}x\text{ to the other side.)}\\ y&=\frac{3-4x}{5} \end{align} $$

When we dig by reversing verbs and moving nouns, we say that we dress the equation by finding the "bare bones y". With invisible layers, we often confuse inner layers with outer ones. We must always dig through the outer layer first.

title: User:Numiri/KinderCalculus/Dress


text:
User talk:Numiri/KinderCalculus/Dress

Rename

 * This terminology is not going to fly with parents. In fact, it will be perceived as a betrayal of the trust that the Wikijunior site is asking parents to put in it.  Short, unconventional words are an interesting approach, but this is unacceptable.  A different short, unconventional word must be found here.  --Pi zero (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On the face of it this does sound slightly sickening, but perhaps it would be smart to manufacture a certain degree of moral panic in order to generate publicity for the book? Recent Runes (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing good about the publicity this would generate, for the book or for Wikijunior. If we wanted to kill Wikijunior, this would be a good start at it.  This specific term has to be changed, and some sort of adjustment must be made to the whole metaphor of which it is an element (removing clothing).  I'd like to see this book succeed, and I certainly want to see Wikijunior succeed; this is not compatible with those goals.  --Pi zero (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I admit it does not really look age-appropriate or kid-friendly to me, and may even border on profanity according to our definition (words or images that could be considered offensive by typical Wikibooks readers). These may be subjective judgments, but I hope the author takes them into account. Perhaps unpacking or unwrapping a present would be a more suitable metaphor. Recent Runes (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, as an author and a parent, I never thought of it that way. Now that you mention it, I do see the point of your concern. I have 2 children and use this terminology with them, but no pedophile-like thoughts ever crossed my mind. Children draw a sense of power from being a part of a counter-culture. Subversion is a strong source of excitement for them and I thought this was a harmless way to harness it.

I don't suppose you'd agree to the noun form "perverse", whose dictionary.com entry reads   willfully determined or disposed to go counter to what is expected or desired; contrary.  characterized by or proceeding from such a determination or disposition: a perverse mood.  wayward or cantankerous.  persistent or obstinate in what is wrong.  turned away from or rejecting what is right, good, or proper; wicked or corrupt.

I do think "layer of clothing" is an appropriate analogy. All children can relate to the operational precedence in putting on, or removing a layer of clothing, such as the jacket- shirt->undershirt precedence. But if someone insists on underwear at the mention of children and removing clothing, I do see many Sponge Bob shows where the characters are underwear -- attire should not be a taboo subject. My children are aged 7 & 10 and I am comfortable with this operator precedence in dressing and arithmetic. I believe my moralities are still well placed. Would it make any difference if the diagrams are cartoon-ish like Sponge Bob instead of ascii art, just to put the analogy in better context?

As a last resort, if we cannot come to agreement, I can remove the book out from the children's section. In all seriousness though, I thank you for your alarm and hope you will consider my thoughts. Numiri (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Your family life sounds perfectly innocent, but perhaps you could market-test your ideas by discussing them with teachers or other parents at your kids' school. They might bring a different perspective to the matter. Here is a link to some more dictionary definitions for you to consider. I think you will agree that some of the synonyms are quite alarming.

 * It seems to me that any teacher using related vocabulary would quickly become an object of suspicion or ridicule, or both. Recent Runes (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the thesaurus entry is rather incriminating. For "perverse" thefreedictionary.com has no explicit references to anything sexual -- will that work? I will also ask teachers their thoughts when school is in session. If we cannot wait till September, I can move the book out of the children section. Thank you for your consideration. 67.181.48.20 (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Cambridge Advanced Learners' Dictionary defines 'pervert' as 'to change something so that it is not what it was or should be, or to influence someone in a harmful way'. Cheerful stuff. Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 14:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Numiri, this book in any forum (I see transwiki to Wikiversity has been suggested) is not going to get a fair hearing unless it eliminates the layers-of-clothing metaphor. There's a lot of (justified) paranoia that this metaphor engages.  In order for your experimental approach to be judged on its educational merits, the layers-of-clothing metaphor would have to be changed to something else.  One idea was suggested earlier in this thread by Recent Runes; I'm sure there are others.  --Pi zero (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't see any reason to change the layers-of-clothing metaphor. Most people wear clothes, what's wrong with that? With respect to "nudifying": That's just what solving for a variable is in this (good) metaphor. It is also part of everyday's life of most children. Talking about it might be a bit of a taboo for some children, which just makes it more interesting to. But since this is part of everyday's life there are no reasons to avoid this analogy here. Concerns about this are what you call them: "paranoia" (Merriam-Webster: 1 : a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations; 2 : a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others). (This reminds me of people not using the German word "Unterkörper" (= subfield) because it also denotes the lower part of the body. That was probably the funniest story one of my math profs told.) --Martin Kraus (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 * The causes behind the distrust are somewhat beside the point (though note my parenthetical oxymoronic adjective above), the point being that the book should take that distrust into account, given that the distrust exists. That's good marketing practice.  It might be possible to avoid triggering the distrust reflex with sufficiently agile choices of terms (though I'm skeptical), but the terms right now aren't getting the job done.  My sense is that a somewhat holistic solution is needed, rather than just piecemeal adjustments to individual words, even if the somewhat holistic solution were to involve retaining the metaphor (and, still skeptical).  --Pi zero (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 * There is also distrust against eating meat of pigs, showing ones hair, etc. You cannot please everyone. No one else is going to finish this book other than Numiri; thus, the objective here is to come to an agreement about individual words. A plan for a "holistic" solution that pleases you is pointless, because it is unlikely that anyone would implement it. --Martin Kraus (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 * You are (I trust, without realizing it) inventing hyperbolic positions to attribute to me. --Pi zero (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think "perverse" and "pervert" is unnecessarily strong. On the other hand, a title such as "peeling" or "reversing" is probably not interesting enough. What about "nudifying"? --Martin Kraus (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Or it would be possible to invent totally new nonsense words in the style of Lewis Carrol or JK Rowling. As Wikibooks are supposed to be a collaborative activity not a personal web page, the fact that Numiri may already have used some terminology with his children should not prevent things being changed to improve the book. Recent Runes (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 * It's a shame we can't expect kids in all relevant audiences to be familiar with babushka dolls. --Pi zero (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 * For anyone watching this discussion, it should be noted the name of the page was changed to perverse. The page was not moved so this discussion got accidentally hidden.  Then, I further complicated matters by deciding to be bold and try rewriting the section.  I chose archeology as a metaphor, where you can remove layers of dirt to get down to a bare bones noun (ie a variable).  So I am going to move this talk page to the talk page of dress to keep the page and its discussion together. Thenub314 (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Archeology is a worse metaphor: most children wear clothes every day, they don't do that much archeology every day. Moreover, some children at that age might not even know what "archeology" is; are you going to explain it? Furthermore, layers of clothes are around things (like parentheses), while layers of dirt are only on top of each other. And you mixed the "dress" metaphor" with the archeology metaphor. All in all, the current page is a mess. Please undo your changes. --Martin Kraus (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Well I don't think that children do Archeology every day, but the subject of Dinosaurs is sufficiently popular amongst children I thought the analogy might still resonate with them. If it were merely a matter of talking about removing a layer of clothing it might not be so troublesome, but in juxtaposition with phrases like "pervert" or "perverse" it takes on a creepy feeling.  I was being bold and trying to make an improvement and I can accept it if people think I failed.  On the other hand I don't really intend to put back material I find offensive.  I won't stand in anyone else's way if they undo my changes. It is as simple as editing the old page and saving followed by a page move.  If for some technical reason something needs to be deleted in order to make way for the move, it can be marked with a speedy and I or someone else will do it.  But (in my mind at least) there is a subtle connotation to self reverting that doesn't apply in this situation. Thenub314 (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree with Thenub. Since an early age we're fed with stories with dinosaurs chasing little children and little children waking up and finding that they're dreaming. Later grownups tell us that professionals (they didn't say archaeologists since that's a big word) need to dig up layers of rock to find the dinosaur bones. When I was smaller (like, 3-4 years or so ago) I was really into dinosaurs too, as are most kids. Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 13:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 * One would think the archeology analogy would be very uneven in how well it would work for different kids. It does seem likely that explaining archeology wouldn't work, as it would be trying to make one academic subject more accessible by analogizing it to another academic subject.

 * The page name is, indeed, mixing metaphors; whatever metaphor/analogy/what-have-you we do ultimately settle on, we'll want to be consistent about it. --Pi zero (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Though I marvel at TheNub314's reformatted math expressions, I side with Martin Krause on the issue of archeology. Mathematical expressions have a complex multi-branched parse tree representing operator precedence.  Clothing can offer a more robust, though imperfect, metaphor than layers of dust.  If we think of a skier with multiple layers of clothing, his outer jumpsuit can be the root of the parse representing the operator "+" in the example below, then branching in 2 directions into a torso layer of clothing and a bottoms layer.  That parse tree would have the same structure as the expression
 * ( sweatervest * ( t-shirt * ( undershirt ) ) ) + ( trousers * ( longjohns / underwear ) )
 * It's not readily apparent how we would represent this parse structure in layers of dust. Numiri (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the controversy may stem from who is talking to kids about the metaphor and not the metaphor itself. If we take the context of a stranger author talking to kids about removal of clothes, then I see how eyebrows can be legitimately raised. If we take the context of parents teaching their kids about dressing themselves, or a teacher explaining the proper order for layering clothing, then I think that everything is perfectly appropriate. So if we   redefine the audience of this book as parents and educators,  move it out of wikijunior because it is now a book for adults on how to teach children, and  propose that parents & teachers use clothing as a metaphor  then I think we can leave it to parents & teachers to frame that metaphor in the right context. Numiri (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not so sure, it just comes across as inappropriate to needlessly have perverse, nude, and clothing removal in discussion for kids. We have to be able to find something kids can relate to that avoids this.  Since I have seemed to cause some turmoil by just implementing my last idea, I will just throw my next one out for consideration.  We might be rephrasing this in terms of opening presents. There are many complicated layers in this process (removing the wrapping, opening the box, taking out the tissue paper, removing the toys packaging before you finally get to the prize).  In the case of this page the prize would be knowing what y will equal.  One thing I like about this idea is that we can reference back to the previous section by pointing out the best way to get to the prize quickly is to use their  "laser/layer" vision to cut through the layers of wrapping.  I imagine kids might like the visual of using laser vision to cut through things. Thenub314 (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Gift wrapping and unwrapping appears to be a good metaphor. --Martin Kraus (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Thenub314, thank you for analogies. As far as I can remember, you are the only one offering substantive alternatives.  Believe me, I know how hard it is to come up with meaningful analogies having technical correctness, coherence, and humor & excitement.  I remember that it took me a long time to come up with the terms being discussed here.  Your previous "dress" initialism is indeed meaningful and coherent.
 * Gift wrapping does satisfy the technical criteria of the analogy. Though would it be contrived to say that a box contains 2 sister level boxes, as is needed when we want an operator node to have 2 branches representing its operand?  Another analogy could be a physical file system, or even a computer file system, with an outer folder containing multiple sibling-level inner folders.  This analogy is the most robust parse-tree analogy and easily demonstratable in front of an audience because the props are easy to come by.
 * Even more seriously, teaching math suffers great challenges: motivation, retention, and subject matter difficulty.  The analogy of clothing addresses motivation in a substantive way -- you should see the childrens' faces light up when you mention these subversive terms.  From the book's Preface:
 * Often with children, the silly becomes memorable and the subversive becomes exciting.
 * There is another term that I've used, have yet to write up, and hesitate to bring it up given the reception of clothing so far. But now that I've sufficiently cushioned it, the term is "blunderwear" -- referring to an underwear type blunder.  This term refers to the pitfall that students make when solving equations: they often operate on the inner layer while the outer layer is on, eg. in solving for y
 * (2+y)/5 = (x+3)/7 incorrectly becomes
 * y/5 = (x+3)/7 - 2 or
 * 2+y = (5*x+3)/7
 * The "blunderwear" also have another level of richness in that one can commit "outbound" blunderwear (the 1st error above) versus "inbound" blunderwear (the 2nd error above). Even the term "wedgie" have meaning here and they often have an hernia-inducing laugh about it.  I also have a cartoon of it and will try and post it soon. I would hate to lose this terminology set.  Cartoons abound where blushing characters have been "nudified" with only a fig leaf cover remaining, or reduced to their smiley-faced boxer shorts **all the time**.  No one raised an eyebrow.  Again, the issue is presenter and not content. Numiri (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 * The clothing analogy is, I think, potentially even more subtle in its reception than just who the presenter is; details of exactly how it's presented (by whom) can make all the difference in whether it triggers that "creepy feeling" that Thenub referred to earlier (and, of course, once that feeling is triggered it's hard to turn off). I do take the point that a rich analogy, with lots of potential complexity on which to draw for comparisons, is valuable for this purpose, where the subject being approached through analogy has rich structure.  That very richness probably makes the clothing analogy more difficult to use without tripping over the subtle line, because the more one exploits the richness, the more opportunites one has to trip.

 * The present wrapping/unwrapping analogy, which has a lot going for it in positive associations, seems fairly simple (though I may be underestimating its potential). That's why I thought of Russian nesting dolls, which do have a significant number of levels of nesting; unfortunately they aren't very complex in their relationships either, and of course aren't as widely known (I know about them mostly because my mother has an old one that she used to keep on her office bookshelf).  I suppose Russian nesting dolls would work better with infinite recursion anyway, as I was always sort of frustrated when I got to the innermost doll and couldn't just keep going.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Pi zero, I am not aware that Babushka dolls can have sister-dolls at the same level and therefore cannot represent more robust structures. Also, I in completely agreement with your statement that
 * details of exactly how it's presented (by whom) can make all the difference in whether it triggers that "creepy feeling"
 * That's why I am making a retraction by saying that KinderCalculus should not be read by children and should be moved to Wikiversity where educators decide exactly how it's presented. Furthermore, the way it's written now, it's more of a teacher's guide than a text book for children.  Numiri (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

More possible analogies
Here are some analogies that Pi zero and Thenub314 and DavidCary came up with: --DavidCary (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Russian nesting dolls
 * present wrapping/unwrapping: A big bow around some wrapping paper, around a cardboard box, around two smaller cardboard boxes, one of which contains a big bag full of tiny little cellophane wrappers around candy-coated chocolates.
 * A small note, inside a manila folder, which is with several other manila folders and a writing pad inside another manila folder, which is with a similar manila folder inside a hanging file folder, which is hanging in a file drawer, and four drawers are in this filing cabinet.
 * food: I have several seeds in a orange segment, several segments in a peeled orange, the peeled orange covered in skin makes a raw orange, several raw oranges in a box of oranges, a box of oranges and many other random things in my refrigerator, and two refrigerators in my house.
 * letters and newspapers: I have several characters in a word, a bunch of words in a sentences, a few (often only one in a newspaper article) sentences in a paragraph, several paragraphs in a newspaper article or a personal message, many articles in a newspaper, often one newspaper and several personal messages in my mailbox; often several newspapers and a huge number of books inside a library.
 * bags and tents: I have a huge garbage bag that has been tightly rolled up and crammed into a small zip-lock bag; I have several zip-lock bags and other random stuff inside my backpack; we put a bunch of backpacks and other random things inside a large duffel-bag; the duffel-bag and sleeping bags (which contain pillows) and a few other items stay in the tent while we go hiking.
 * The squirrel runs up the trunk of the tree, then out a main branch, which divides into several major branches, then keeps running out past where they divide into minor branches, and then out past where they divide into thin limbs, then reaches out to the tip where a cluster of pecans hangs.
 * raindrops are drumming on the roof. They combine in a gutter; the water flowing in two gutters combines at one downpipe, and in the other two gutters combines at the other downpipe. The water flows out of the downpipes and across the yard, where it combines with water from other houses at the street. Further down the street, the water falls down the storm drain and combines with water from other streets and runs out into a little creek. The water from several creeks flows into a minor river, a few minor rivers flow into the big river, and at the great confluence two big rivers come together. Downstream from the great confluence, a few tiny creeks flow into the great river before it empties into the ocean.

title: User talk:Numiri/KinderCalculus/Dress


text: Category:KinderCalculus

title: Category:KinderCalculus


text:
User talk:Denegger

 Hello Denegger, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Denegger


text: File:User talk Moulton.png

title: File:User talk Moulton.png


text: File:Outside control of Wikiversity page deletion .png


text: File:Falsification of logs.png

title: File:Falsification of logs.png


text:
User:Dantes~enwikiversity

Hi,

My name is Daniel Trudeau and I live in the Montreal area (Province of Quebec, Canada).

The last ten years or so, I worked as an Oracle DBA mainly in Canada but also in the USA and in France. I also have a good understanding of SAP and PeopleSoft.

Last winter (January 2010) I discovered Adempiere. I downloaded all of Red1 tutorials and bought a book. I realy liked what I saw and I plan to start offering Adempiere as a solution for small-medium size company with whom I do business.

title: User:Dantes~enwikiversity