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.
| (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.
| (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.
Footnotes:
(*) 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...)
