Thank you again Leo KoGuan,

To the extent that I have attempted to highlight what is the highest and best of humanity, I accept your praise and high rating as an indicator that I have succeeded in this goal. I am humbled by your generosity of spirit and action, but I know we are indeed kindred spirits - trying to teach others that learning and prospering don't have to be a struggle, and that sometimes a playful approach yields successes not possible through hard work alone.

Many people are enslaved by a work mentality, as if they were trying to fulfill the motto of "no pain, no gain" and the freedom to approach things more playfully is then liberation from slavery. I expect that I will enjoy your essay, because your "Chinese Dream.." is every man and woman's aspiration - the freedom to realize the promise of the Divine, of happiness and prosperity for all who would seek it. We both want humans to be able to enjoy the blessings of harmony and plenty, in a world where it is safe to play, and we both see this as a real possibility we can help come into being.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Thanks so much Christian!

I am pleased you found so much to relate to in my essay. I am also very glad you caught the 'Science bug' at an early age, and had teachers and elders who encouraged you to pursue that direction. I was lucky too, both at school and at home, to get the encouragement I needed to keep on exploring and experimenting, but sadly too few of today's youngsters get the nurturing they need to keep that spark alive. So I'm happy that we are kindred spirits, in our desire to make science more accessible and more popular.

In reply to comment number 8, I think that while scientists generally understand that it is important to question the conventional wisdom; there is tremendous pressure by society for experts to maintain an air of certainty commensurate with their knowledge or station. For some people to admit that there is a lot we don't know, they must be subjected to a lot of uncomfortable questions, and risk appearing weak and stupid to people who view science simplistically.

Somehow; the valuable attributes of open-mindedness that makes scientists qualified in the first place seem to be a liability in the eyes of those who are funding research, or who decide which projects should receive funding. Thus ideas that offer small incremental progress are often chosen over projects that might yield important breakthroughs - but offer no benefit until the experiment is done and the discoveries do or do not come.

Unfortunately; unless we can explore outside the parameter space of what is known, and have the freedom to play with different possibilities, the breakthroughs and discoveries we hope for may never come. Scientists need to be bold, but the economy and politics of the modern world compel them to be timid instead. So honestly; it is the leaders and finance folks who need to recognize the value of play to Science.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Dear Jonathan,

I agree with your comments on my point 8). Another key point is that it is very difficult, for people who are famous as they work in a particular theory, to accept that theory could be partial, if not completely wrong. On the other hand, there are various crackpots who claim that an important theory is wrong without really understanding nothing of that theory. In fact, being open mind in science is a good thing, but accepting crackpot nonsense is evil instead. Notice that I also criticize some points of modern mainstream science and I am all in favour of being open minded about alternatives, but they must be properly formulated and plausible scientific proposals.

Cheers and have fun, Ch.

P. S. I hope you will find the time to read my Essay.

Absolutely!

People must do their homework, and give the subject due diligence, before asserting that their alternative formulation is better than the model the mainstream endorses. In today's Physics, however, we are at a point where a large percentage of the questions we seek answers for require knowledge that spans the traditional boundaries of disciplines, so tackling these problems (like questions about Black Holes) requires one to know Relativity well and also Quantum Mechanics - because the nature of the problem necessarily involves both streams of thought.

I look forward to reading your essay soon!

All the Best,

Jonathan

Dear Jonathan,

Congratulations on being at the top of the heap. Apparently your focus on play as the essential aspect of life appeals to many, as it should. Your abstract says you "never grew up". In grad school I bought my first motorbike, a 90 cc wonder, and let my major professor ride it. When he came putt-putting back from a short jaunt his wife asked, "do little boys ever grow up?" He responded, "if they do, they never amount to anything." I believe Newton said something like this--and sea shells.

My essay focused on avoiding the totalitarian future, based on a false premise, (no play in the totalitarian world) and at the end I propose a system whereby one is paid to learn. That is, if done right, almost indistinguishable from being paid to play. To get a sense of what I have in mind, if you have an iPad check out "The Room" and "The Room Two" by Fireproof Games.

And I fully agree with your appreciation of Steven Kenneth Kauffmann. Thanks for mentioning him. I also hope you find time to read and comment on my essay.

With best regards and wishes for good luck,

Have fun,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Thanks very much Ed,

    I enjoyed the story; it is priceless actually. And your essay is near the top of my heap of reading material, at this point. I hope we can avoid a totalitarian future, and most totalitarian societies are based on false premises, but it may be difficult - considering the present day world political climate. The idea of being paid to learn sounds appealing, though. This seems hard to justify in the modern world, however.

    There was an author who wrote an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, a year or so ago, talking about the tragedy of the over-educated. He cited statistics showing that a large percentage of people with advanced degrees now find themselves working as store clerks, auto mechanics, and so on; and argued that this shows that a lot of money is being wasted to train people with skills they can't use on the job, or use to find a better job. I think he has some things backward.

    While there should be some attention given to learning skills that will help you on the job, or in your chosen profession, there is also a need for learning more in general, or acquiring a general knowledge about a broad range of things and disciplines, in order to see how each thing fits with the larger whole, or is part of a spectrum. This is sadly what is most lacking, and what leads folks like James Dunn to propose that people need training and certification in common sense. I think that attribute only comes from a broader, less vocation-centered approach to learning.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    Thanks very much Ajay!

    I noticed your essay right away, but I have been busy, and I had already picked out some to read before it appeared. But I am very pleased that we are both champions of play, as a way to increase innovation and enhance people's interest in Science. I hope to visit your page soon, and I am sure I will have something good to say, after reading your paper.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    Hello to all,

    One individual who expressed his approval of this essay, in private correspondence, is play researcher Dr. Stuart Brown. I'd like to return the favor, by introducing you to his work.

    He is the author of a book Play: How it Shapes the Brain, Opens the Imagination, and Invigorates the Soul which I would have included as a reference, if I'd read it before finishing this essay. I would recommend his TED talk Play is more than just fun which is just wonderful. Dr. Brown is also the director of the National Institute for Play.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    Jonathen,

    If only. But money is my lowest motivator.

    Congrats for hitting the top spot. Very well done. I hope you're holding on tight for the roller coaster ride. Mine's suddenly sunk without trace under a hail of 1's without the decency of a comment. I don't think the rule of the game; "won't be tolerated" is applied. Perhaps all 1's should be removed with a week to go!

    I look forward to your comments on mine. The science is geometrically self apparent and the implications fundamental. The problem seems to be with embedded beliefs (including in voodoo!).

    Hang in there.

    Best wishes

    Peter

    Thanks, Jonathan. I'm glad I stopped by too. I'm looking forward to your essay as well. When you get to my paper, I also suggest reading my conversations with Michael Allan, Tommy Anderberg, and Robert de Neufville on my page. A great deal of clarification is available in those stimulating conversations.

    Aaron

    Jonathan,

    No need to respond. I just thought they would be interesting from the point of view of further integrating your thesis. As I noted obliquely in my bio, I don't approach this from an academic perspective, but as one who starts from that bottom up, life to be experienced dynamic. It's just that having been smacked back down in all number of ways, I'm more cautious in my older self.

    Regards,

    John

    Dear Jonathan,

    Your essay is great.

    The curious mind has the capacity to solve human's problem. And to do this we need to employ the playful approach that is, scientific approach. Quite understandable. Your idea is commendable and somewhat original. I have rated you!

    Since I have an adventure spirit as you may want to love to hear, kindly read my article STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND ECOSYSTEM and leave a comment and rating as I have done. It is here http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2020

    Wishing you the very best in this forum and in your life endeavors

    Regards

    Gbenga