Ĩesky   cesky
Introduction Research Publications
Hobby stuff Non-physical research About me About these pages

Results of extra-physical research of Ondrej Sipr

Renaissance personalities are, among others, justly being admired for the breadth of their artistic-scientific scope. And although probably I still can't quite compare with guys like Leonardo da Vinciho or Erassmus of Rotterdam, I feel very intensively that mankind expects me to contribute to its heritage with something more then just "mere" physics. Therefore, this page is devoted to the presentation of results of my own research beyond the realm of physics.

Before proceeding further, would you plese read carefully:
Copyright notice: All the material displayed on this page is subject to GNU General Public Licence. Any use of the following text must comply with its terms and conditions.
Waranty disclaimer: Like any software developing company, I do not take responsibility for anything.

Okay, let finally go straigt for it:

Apart from topics raised above, I am engaged in a religionistic analysis of Harry Potter. A separate page is devoted to this research front, as it is being pursued by me on a semi-professional basis. (I mean semi-professionality in terms of compentency and commitment, not by financial appreciation. However, you could change it...)


(Sipr's) psychological-pedagogical law:
Nobody knows how to deal with his own children. Nevertheless, everyone knows all too well how the other people's children ought to be brought up. (Typically, a pair of smacks or facers is supposed to be most helpful to them...)

(Sipr's) law of an ever unsatisfied parent:
No matter how well the children do or don't behave, perform at school or whatsoever, the parents always feel bad about it. Is the child calm? "He never gets angry about anything, he must have a weak selfconfidence or god-knows-what..." Has your daugther got the best grades in class of all? "I am so concerned that she will never learn how to live a normal ordinary life. Not a single man will be good enough as a boyfriend for her!" Is your son a pal likened by everyone, does he has a lot of friends? "The only thing he is interested in is chattering with friends!"

Top of this page.

Formal logic:

(Sipr's) breaking of the law of no third option (tertia non datur) in Christmas carols:
People occuring in Czech Christmas carols split into two cathegories: Either they are modestly wealthy, posses something and are willing to share this something with baby Jesus. The second cathegory is formed by people who are poor but who are musically gifted and hence are going to sing or to play to make the baby Jesus joyful. What the carols flatly deny is existence of people who are both poor and have no musical talent.
An ancient logical law (either I can sing or I cannot) is evidently broken here!

Top of this page.


(Sipr's) law of deviant psychologists:
Surely you know the basic paradigm of girl's novels: She is gentle, emotional, easy to be hurt, waiting for a great love while he is a cold calculationist and mathematician, believing only in what can be expressed via a number or described by an equation. "He sees just numbers instead of people." A catchy but thoroughly false concept.
Of course a mathematician spends most of his time with numbers. However, these differ so essentially from people that there is not a chance to confuse one for another. Consequently, a mathematician's attitude towards people is not and cannot be deformed by his profession (just imagine how, say, Cantor discontinuum or Dirichlet function compare with a mother-in-law...).
On the other hand, a psychologist certainly is deformed as concerns his relation with people, as he deals with human beings professionally every day and, consequently, is not able any more do think about them in other cathegories than "phobia", "obsessivity", "sublimation" and so on. Poor victim of his profession!

Top of this page.


(Sipr's) feminist paradox:
There is a popular cliche that women are oppressed and discriminated in the church (at least the catholic one). Yet a brief glance inside the pews uncovers immediately that women form the majority of churchgoers, that women outnumber men at any parish activity (such as pilgrims or retreats) and that is seems that whatever the church does is actually more suitable for women than for men.
Hence, the matters are quite the contrary: The church is too much female-oriented and in fact hostile towards men!

Top of this page.


(Sipr's) law of non-symmetrical stupido-reflectivity:
If you consider someone to be stupid, then you can be safely sure that he thinks the same about you. However, if you acknowledge in your mind that someone is clever, he still may think that you are silly. (Practical consequence: It is better to regard other folks to be stupid. Only then you can be, namely, sure that you do not value someone more than he values you.)

(Sipr's) law of an unequal dialog:
From time to time the intelectual columns of (probably not only) Czech press are flooded with essays concerned with how to make a dialog, why to make a dialog, with whom to make and with whom not to make a dialog. Notably, all the gurus of tolerance and plurality agree that you cannot make a dialog with "intolerant" persons (i.e. with persons who have not yet reached our intelectual level). I claim that quite the opposite is true: A dialog can be made with a stupid opponent only! Otherwise, it would not be a real dialog.
The point is that each of us classifies people either as "reasonable" or as "stupid", meaning that reasonable people are those who essentially share our views and opinions while stupid people comprise all others. So if I have a "dialog" with a reasonable person, it is just kind of mutual support and reassurance how great we are (and, last but not least, how tolerant we can be - unsurprisingly, given that fact that we think basically the same). A real dialog can take place only if I talk to someone who has quite different opinions than I have. Such a person would be, however, totally stupid in my eyes.

(Sipr's) law of failing humanism:
One of the undisputed gospel-truths of the last (at least) thirty years has been that "technology" has failed and has brought us to a dead end: Threat of a nuclear war, poluted environment, ever increasing social disparity, spreading of toxicomany and godknowswhatelse. That is supposed to be the legacy of technology.
Like most of what intelectuals say, also this is a bullshit. What kind of technology failure can be spoken about, provided that the bomb really detonated? Exactly in the same manner as the "failing" bloody technicians predicted! Had the bomb not detonated, had the transistor radio not played or had the cars not move - well, in such a case it would be fully justified to speak about failure of technology. However, the technology really works, that's the point. And as concerns the fact that the folks cannot handle it properly, that they behave like beasts and use good instruments for bad purposes - that's failure of philosophy and culture, not of technology!
Don't blame technicians for failure of current humanities.

(Sipr's) law of male-female asymetry:
Women have children. Men have alimentary duties. (If you do not believe, just browse any "lonely hearts" advertisement section.)

Top of this page.

Literary history:

(Sipr's) law of the stupidifying effect of Old Shaterhand's presence:
Have you ever read something by Karl May? Then you surely have noticed that Old Shaterhand has got a very destructive influence on the intelect of people around him.
Take all those famous westmen such as Sam Hawkins, Fat Jimmy, Tall Davy, Hobble Frank, Dick Hamerdull, Pitt Holbers: they are all great, able and smart. They outwit all bad guys, they handle any situation, the patronize the inexperienced - simply, they are supermen. That means - untill they are joint by Old Shaterhand. In his presence all these great westmen just pile one beginner's mistake on another so that because of their clumsiness the whole company (including Old Shaterhand) is take prisoners by outlaws or Red Indians. Which is good, on the other hand, because this gives an opportunity to Old Shaterhand and Winnetou to demonstrate their superb abilities of escaping from captivity, taking all their pals with them (not mentioning the enemy chief's horse and medicine bag).

Top of this page.


(Sipr's) law of a politically correct mistake:
Sooner or later, every politician is confronted with a journalist's question "have you ever made a mistake"? One has to reply so that the reader does not get impression that our politician is arogant and unwilling to admit mistakes on the one hand, however, on the other hand the reply should not suggest that the politician is (for God's sake!) making mistakes like every ordinary human being.
The solution consists in admitting the so-callled politically correct mistake. "I trusted to the people too much!". Alternatively "I should have been more tough and uncompromising" (meaning towards his/her opponents). Expressed via an open language: "I assumed erroneously that the others are as honest, upright and fair as I am."

Top of this page.


(Sipr's) law of self-cleaning of money by time:
Big (or even not so big) money can be acquired either by dishonest means or by honest means. Dishonest means are used by more or less everyone who earns his money by "his own effort" (and it does not matter whether his methods were formally legal or not). Practically the only way of getting big money in an honest manner is to inherit the fortune which an ancestor of mine gained decades or centuries ago (dishonestly, of course).
A practical consequence: Of all the wealthy people, only those deserve our respect who got their money without their own effort.

Top of this page.

Hygienics and health care:

(Siprova's) law of an inverse proportionality between immunity and income:
(This law was discovered by my wife.) The more money you have got, the more pressing need for protecting your health you feel. If I have a high income, I assume that living without an expensive air filtration system is an irresponsible hazard and I experience a heavy internal suffering because I cannot make my decision whether to fly to a New Zealand spa every week to relieve my lungs or just once in a month as up to now. A person with an average income is completely free from such worries but he is nervous because he is unsure whether to give his mothly salary for a special anti-alergic bed linen or not. Which is quite an esoteric problem for someone who has to solve a huge dilemma whether to keep a moldy bread or whether to throw it out.
A practical consequence: When it comes to health, we are all equal.

Top of this page.

Book of interviews ("call for an author"):

By reading the gorgeous thoughts and ideas which I have expressed in this page, I keep telling to myself: What a pitty that nobody has written a book of interviews with me so far! If you compare the depth and purity of my thinking with the rubish you can find in several books of interviews with some would-be intelectuals (I am not going to name them, first in order not to advertize poor products, second in order to avoid libel suits, and third because the list would comprise most of the books of this genre which appeared in the Czech Republic in recent years anyway), you definitely must arrive at the same conclusion as me. So let me ask a non-rhetorical question: Wouldn't you be interested in writing a book with interviews with me? As an author? Kind of an investigative journalist? It's such a popular genre in the Czech Republic now that the financial profit would certainly be great! I promise you a fair deal and a reasonable share of the huge profit (which is imminent, given your and mine qualities combined). Would you please submit your seriously intended offers to me (female journalists are kindly asked to supply a photo as well(*)), together with a non-returnable deposit of ten thousand euros, in writing only. Please take note that as I obey the equal opportunities policy, white males under forty need not apply. Looking forward to your offers.


(*) Yes, I know that this note is sexist, harassing and politically highly incorrect. However, I can afford it, because this page is displayed on a server which is located not in the United States but rather in another country, where freedom of speech is guaranteed by constitution.
Which reminds me an old joke from the communist times: Do you know the difference between freedom of speech in the USSR and US? In the USSR, you are guaranteed the freedom of the speech. In the US, you are guaranteed the freedom after the speech. (If you don't understand this joke, I just envy you...)

Introduction Research Publications
Hobby stuff Non-physical research About me About these pages