2005-11-25
Art
Lerner & Moguilevsky, two Jewish musicians from Argentina with their roots in Russia and Poland playing klezmer. I’ve just been to their concert. It was great. It’s not really the popular kind of klezmer, the jiddish festival music. They use the tunes and rhythms. Every song has many unexpected changes with influences of jazz, tango and contemporary music. Nearly every note is a surprise. It moves you! They play with passion and don’t eschew unusual sounds. That’s what art is to me. An artist knows where to put the dissonant notes to let it sound great. Painters, writers, all artists have this quality. They surprise you with the unpleasant, create a tension. Art moves you, makes you reflect.
I’ll never be an artist. I can’t use dissonant notes the right way. When my hands touch the piano only very dull children songs will be heard. I usually call myself an engineer. It sounds like the Dutch / French ingénieur, from the same root as ingenuity, but I’m not really comfortable with this name. Engineering is not at all ingenious. It is just applying the right procedures. That’s not what software development is like. I’m also not a scientist either. Science is just analysis without application of the knowledge. I’m applying knowledge, but can’t use procedures for this. I have got to think up procedures to solve problems.
Writing software is not a structured activity. If software could be written by the simple application of a set of rules, we didn’t need software developers any more. Anybody could just fill a form with requirements and let the computer generate the software. Well, it’s not like that at all. Software development is a creative and dynamic process. The result of this dynamic activity is structure and procedures. This interaction of something dynamic on static structures is part of the Metaphysics of Quality, developed by Robert M. Pirsig (his life and more...) in his second book Lila, an inquiry into morals. The first book of this author is more famous. It is Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, an inquiry into values. Well, this brings us back to the topic: art.
Pirsig does not learn you much about Zen or Motorcycles, but he talks about art.
A motorcycle functions entirely in accordance with the laws of reason, and a study of the art of motorcycle maintenance is really a miniature study of the art of rationality itself. (chapter 8)
"Look at a novice workman or a bad workman and compare his expression with that of a craftsman whose work you know is excellent and you'll see the difference. The craftsman isn't ever following a single line of instruction. He's making decisions as he goes along. For that reason he'll be absorbed and attentive to what he's doing even though he doesn't deliberately contrive this. His motions and the machine are in a kind of harmony. He isn't following any set of written instructions because the nature of the material at hand determines his thoughts and motions, which simultaneously change the nature of the material at hand. The material and his thoughts are changing together in a progression of changes until his mind's at rest at the same time the material's right."
"Sounds like art," the instructor says.
"Well, it is art," I say. "This divorce of art from technology is completely unnatural."(chapter 14)
Hey, I’ve read something like that before: Donald Knuth’s speech Computer Programming as an Art. Knuth explains that the Latin root of art is ars, artis meaning skill. The corresponding Greek word is τεχνη, the root of both technology and technique. "The word 'science'", he says, "seems to have been used for many years in about the same sense as 'art'". Furthermore he says: "A scientific approach is generally characterized by the words logical, systematic, impersonal, calm, rational, while an artistic approach is characterized by the words aesthetic, creative, humanitarian, anxious, irrational. It seems to me that both of these apparently contradictory approaches have great value with respect to computer programming." So I'm a scientist and an artist?
But still, the artist creates a work with tension in it, ‘unpleasant’ surprises that makes one reflect. My software should not have surprises and certainly not disturb the users or make them reflect when they use it. Needless to say that I’m not working for this company that makes this well-known word processor that surprises you all the time, because it does something that could be helpful, but never is what you wanted. Certainly this is not a work of art or science either.
Maybe the reality is that I’m trained as a scientist, work like an artist and deliver a piece of engineering. But that is a bit long for a business card.
I’ll never be an artist. I can’t use dissonant notes the right way. When my hands touch the piano only very dull children songs will be heard. I usually call myself an engineer. It sounds like the Dutch / French ingénieur, from the same root as ingenuity, but I’m not really comfortable with this name. Engineering is not at all ingenious. It is just applying the right procedures. That’s not what software development is like. I’m also not a scientist either. Science is just analysis without application of the knowledge. I’m applying knowledge, but can’t use procedures for this. I have got to think up procedures to solve problems.
Writing software is not a structured activity. If software could be written by the simple application of a set of rules, we didn’t need software developers any more. Anybody could just fill a form with requirements and let the computer generate the software. Well, it’s not like that at all. Software development is a creative and dynamic process. The result of this dynamic activity is structure and procedures. This interaction of something dynamic on static structures is part of the Metaphysics of Quality, developed by Robert M. Pirsig (his life and more...) in his second book Lila, an inquiry into morals. The first book of this author is more famous. It is Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, an inquiry into values. Well, this brings us back to the topic: art.
Pirsig does not learn you much about Zen or Motorcycles, but he talks about art.
A motorcycle functions entirely in accordance with the laws of reason, and a study of the art of motorcycle maintenance is really a miniature study of the art of rationality itself. (chapter 8)
"Look at a novice workman or a bad workman and compare his expression with that of a craftsman whose work you know is excellent and you'll see the difference. The craftsman isn't ever following a single line of instruction. He's making decisions as he goes along. For that reason he'll be absorbed and attentive to what he's doing even though he doesn't deliberately contrive this. His motions and the machine are in a kind of harmony. He isn't following any set of written instructions because the nature of the material at hand determines his thoughts and motions, which simultaneously change the nature of the material at hand. The material and his thoughts are changing together in a progression of changes until his mind's at rest at the same time the material's right."
"Sounds like art," the instructor says.
"Well, it is art," I say. "This divorce of art from technology is completely unnatural."(chapter 14)
Hey, I’ve read something like that before: Donald Knuth’s speech Computer Programming as an Art. Knuth explains that the Latin root of art is ars, artis meaning skill. The corresponding Greek word is τεχνη, the root of both technology and technique. "The word 'science'", he says, "seems to have been used for many years in about the same sense as 'art'". Furthermore he says: "A scientific approach is generally characterized by the words logical, systematic, impersonal, calm, rational, while an artistic approach is characterized by the words aesthetic, creative, humanitarian, anxious, irrational. It seems to me that both of these apparently contradictory approaches have great value with respect to computer programming." So I'm a scientist and an artist?
But still, the artist creates a work with tension in it, ‘unpleasant’ surprises that makes one reflect. My software should not have surprises and certainly not disturb the users or make them reflect when they use it. Needless to say that I’m not working for this company that makes this well-known word processor that surprises you all the time, because it does something that could be helpful, but never is what you wanted. Certainly this is not a work of art or science either.
Maybe the reality is that I’m trained as a scientist, work like an artist and deliver a piece of engineering. But that is a bit long for a business card.
2005-11-21
Dinner compliment
"Daddy, when I’m older, old enough to take care of myself, you should start a restaurant." It's the best compliment I can imagine for a simple meal with spinach. My daughter likes it when I make it. She also has solved the pepper problem (see Dinner Logic). "Daddy you should put salt and pepper on the table. You should not add it when you’re cooking."
2005-11-13
AQ 2
Maybe some of you thought I was joking about the Athletic Quotient, AQ. Well, that’s what I thought as well. Okay, I’m convinced that if you move your body well, you’ll be more healthy and successful and enjoy life better. I’ve done Tai-Chi and Kung-Fu for quite some years. I’m also dancing quite regularly. If you know how to move, or (even better) if your body moves in a natural way without thinking, it will give you a profit in the same way as high EQ or IQ. But I didn’t have any intention to give much attention to AQ in this sense. Why not? Well, I’m 100% mediocre on AQ. Whatever I do, I’ll never be a sportsman. So, I don’t want to know my AQ. No, the serious thing about AQ is ... my daughter, of course!
Last Friday I had a talk at school about my daughter. She’s 5 years old. The talk was not about her IQ, just a little about EQ, but most about AQ. The teacher did not use any of these Q’s. She spoke about the way my daughter moves when she’s playing. She wondered whether her left and right-hand side where in balance, whether my daughter’s meticulous movements were at the right level and whether she’s capable of making a drawing of a flower. Then I realized that the teacher was evaluating her AQ. She also spoke about the interaction with other children, the EQ part. Small children are evaluated most on AQ and EQ related subjects. It’s a big difference with high school, where youth is evaluated almost only on IQ related subjects.
In my previous posting I mentioned the SQ, the spiritual quotient. I still don’t know about that one. Do we ever get an evaluation on that level? Anyone any suggestion?
Last Friday I had a talk at school about my daughter. She’s 5 years old. The talk was not about her IQ, just a little about EQ, but most about AQ. The teacher did not use any of these Q’s. She spoke about the way my daughter moves when she’s playing. She wondered whether her left and right-hand side where in balance, whether my daughter’s meticulous movements were at the right level and whether she’s capable of making a drawing of a flower. Then I realized that the teacher was evaluating her AQ. She also spoke about the interaction with other children, the EQ part. Small children are evaluated most on AQ and EQ related subjects. It’s a big difference with high school, where youth is evaluated almost only on IQ related subjects.
In my previous posting I mentioned the SQ, the spiritual quotient. I still don’t know about that one. Do we ever get an evaluation on that level? Anyone any suggestion?
2005-11-09
AQ
No, the title is not a typo. It is AQ I wanted to talk about, not IQ or EQ. You all know what IQ and EQ are, I suppose. Today I learned about a new form of intelligence that would be the ultimate human intelligence. It’s spiritual intelligence, or SQ! Just a quote from the author Danah Zohar:
"Spiritual Intelligence is.....
Our access to and use of meaning, vision and value in the way that we think and the decisions that we make. The intelligence that makes us whole, that gives us our integrity. The soul's intelligence, the intelligence of the deep self. It is the intelligence with which we ask fundamental questions and with which we reframe our answers. Our transformative intelligence."
Unfortunately, the author of this book shows her knowledge of intelligence by stating that IQ is something that computers have. I wish my computer had some IQ!
Nevertheless, I think SQ is an interesting notion. Of course I would say so. It’s about reflection on ones behaviour and existence. I would like to put those Q’s in an order (a Q-queue): EQ, IQ, SQ. The emotional quotient has to do with social capacities; it is something a dog has as well. IQ has to do with more specific rational thinking. I don’t think a dog is capable of this kind of thinking, but some animals, e.g. apes have a bit of it, humans a lot. Then there is the spiritual, this very unique human capacity. Well I assume it’s something uniquely human.
Still I’m missing something. Before anything else a human is a physical being. We move around, eat and do our things. Shouldn’t we have a quotient for that as well? I propose to use AQ. No, it’s not standing for animal quotient, but Athletic Quotient. It’s about muscles and bones.
So finally we have the sequence AQ, EQ, IQ and SQ. However, be careful with the Dutch. They pronounce EQ as AQ, IQ as EQ and AQ sounds (a little) like IQ.
"Spiritual Intelligence is.....
Our access to and use of meaning, vision and value in the way that we think and the decisions that we make. The intelligence that makes us whole, that gives us our integrity. The soul's intelligence, the intelligence of the deep self. It is the intelligence with which we ask fundamental questions and with which we reframe our answers. Our transformative intelligence."
Unfortunately, the author of this book shows her knowledge of intelligence by stating that IQ is something that computers have. I wish my computer had some IQ!
Nevertheless, I think SQ is an interesting notion. Of course I would say so. It’s about reflection on ones behaviour and existence. I would like to put those Q’s in an order (a Q-queue): EQ, IQ, SQ. The emotional quotient has to do with social capacities; it is something a dog has as well. IQ has to do with more specific rational thinking. I don’t think a dog is capable of this kind of thinking, but some animals, e.g. apes have a bit of it, humans a lot. Then there is the spiritual, this very unique human capacity. Well I assume it’s something uniquely human.
Still I’m missing something. Before anything else a human is a physical being. We move around, eat and do our things. Shouldn’t we have a quotient for that as well? I propose to use AQ. No, it’s not standing for animal quotient, but Athletic Quotient. It’s about muscles and bones.
So finally we have the sequence AQ, EQ, IQ and SQ. However, be careful with the Dutch. They pronounce EQ as AQ, IQ as EQ and AQ sounds (a little) like IQ.
2005-11-07
The emperor's new clothes
I guess you all know the tale ‘The emperor’s new clothes’. My daughter does! I told her last week. For her it was a very funny story. The emperor walking in his underpants and a small child telling the truth about it. How could the emperor be so foolish?!
For me it was another view on storytelling and belief I wrote about before. With this tale we tell our children not to be fooled by nice stories and not to believe something because everybody believes it. At the same time this story tells us that children do not need this message, since they already speak the naked truth. Is this a tale to remind us what we have forgotten since we were young?
What struck me most in this tale was that the emperor continued his procession while he knew he was wearing nothing at all. How often do people carry on while they know they are mistaken?
Wikipedia has a nice analysis of the tale. Other versions of the tale exist in other cultures as well.
[A note for my faithful readers: my daughter has learned to ride her bike by now. Since last week she can also lace up her shoes. Today she wanted to try roller skating. It was not a success...]
For me it was another view on storytelling and belief I wrote about before. With this tale we tell our children not to be fooled by nice stories and not to believe something because everybody believes it. At the same time this story tells us that children do not need this message, since they already speak the naked truth. Is this a tale to remind us what we have forgotten since we were young?
What struck me most in this tale was that the emperor continued his procession while he knew he was wearing nothing at all. How often do people carry on while they know they are mistaken?
Wikipedia has a nice analysis of the tale. Other versions of the tale exist in other cultures as well.
[A note for my faithful readers: my daughter has learned to ride her bike by now. Since last week she can also lace up her shoes. Today she wanted to try roller skating. It was not a success...]
