[Edu-sig] Recanting

[kirby urner]

On 7/24/06, Arthur <ajsiegel at optonline.net> wrote:
> kirby urner wrote:
>
> >OK, so a few posts back I talked about moving away from writing
> >Pythonic math and heading for the green fields of television.
> >Certainly I've taken that tack in my blog some, but I can't stop
> >myself with the gnu math writing.
> >
> >
> I would actually love to see an "American Masters" kind of documentary
> about Fuller.

Yes, American Masters did one.  It was called 'Thinking Out Loud' and
was well made, though it skimped on the core geometry:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/database/fuller_b.html

We also have lots of audio and video online e.g.
http://memeticdrift.net/bucky/index.html
http://www.hearingvoices.com/bucky/index.html

> For most of us going to primary sources to understand what
> Fuller is about is not an option.  Talk about presuming an interested
> reader!

That's true.  His magnum opus, Synergetics (originally 2 volumes from
Macmillan) is online but is mostly read by specialists.

> The underlying subject matter of Fuller seems to be, in one way
> or other, Fuller.  The writing is extremely self-referential. "As I said
> in Book XYZ..." - no longer any need to go into further detail, we have
> Book XYZ  at our fingertips if not committed to memory. He goes a step
> further than presuming interested readers, and presumes devotees.

I tried to hook people in by talking for hours and hours, in public
(hence 'Thinking Out Loud').  I'd say the vast majority of people who
read his books probably started out hearing him speak -- but that's an
hypothesis, not a proved fact.

> What one tends to get on the web are signs of devotion, and disjointed
> pieces of his ideas.
>

I think my Synergetics on the Web, around since the 1990s, does an OK
job of summarizing.  I've got a bio, overview, lots of explanation.  I
also gets lots of traffic -- or did when I still bothered to check.
http://www.grunch.net/synergetics/

> In this case some somersaults are probably necessary to generate
> interest in Fuller.  An in this case a documentary drawing on archival
> fottage, interviews with known quantity thinkers who can speak to his
> importance, and a debunker or two for balance, would be quite
> interesting, and I think find an audience.

We've got all that.  Even the debunker or two (e.g. Ken Snelson likes
to play that role).

> Would give a lot better context to your Python math, which I find to be
> a bit disjointed in focusing on, absent the Fuller context, what seems
> like a relatively unimportant mathematical brooklet.
>
> Art

I think some of my Pythonic math helped lay the groundwork for moving
forward with Fuller's innovations.  People needed to see how his
contribution might be mainstreamed.

Now that the track is laid, you'll see more steam engines firing up,
and more trains recognizable as such (i.e. doing obvious work, and not
so disjointed -- unless there're problems with the couplings).

Kirby