[Patientman]

Rezwan wrote:

The About doc is thorough, but needs some slashing — lots of repetition and duplication. Not to mention redundancy. Did I mention replicative reiteration? And reiterative replication? 😉 %-P

Your expertise in redundancy is unmatched. I shall take these notes to heart.

I’m rather unhappy with the “Threshold Guardian” analogy and terminology. Maybe if you provide a good advance explanation of why you want to lift it from the worlds of mythology and computer adventure and video games it might fly, but it’s not a term used in actual economics or science-based discussion. Barriers, gatekeepers, and vested interests are more “usual” and more understandable terms for the hard-headed and reality-based communities!!

This will take some discussion. Yes, I’m trying to tap into the computer adventure/sci-fi culture, and leverage the emotional and mythic elements that seem to actually drive people. I think when you explain things in terms of the story, people relate to it better. I’m trying to popularize science with theater.

LPP can’t do that. It has to be by the book, peer review, serious. FFS, on the other hand, has a lot of leeway.

There is a lot of conversation on these forums that is technical, science and economics based. That’s great. I want to open things up to the artists, painters, poets, writers, comedians, filmmakers, musicians and such. I think these are the type of people that can address the entrenched political and economic issues.

Sure, “barriers, gatekeepers and vested interests” are understandable terms on an intellectual level, and easily dismissed – “let some policywonk/economist deal with that – wake me up when you’ve sorted it out – good god, the left and right are screeching at each other again – where can I buy a scientist?”.

But when you switch to symbolic mode and consider that what you are facing is a beast with a sword asking you a riddle – and this is a threshhold guardian here to test of your essence, your humanity, your worthiness – then you get it at the gut and emotional level. Perhaps even the spiritual level, if such level exists.

I think most people like to stay at the “hard headed” “reality based” intellectual level because they find gut and emotion too messy to deal with. And, many of these folks disingenuously use the tools of intellect on behalf of unacknowledged emotional or gut (anger/territoriality) issues – not thinking of anyone in particular here : ) and get trapped in their confirmation biases, while building more and more elaborate protective intellectual scaffolding.

It’s important to distinguish these multiple levels instead of denying one level (mythic/emotional) and pretending to be operating at the other (intellectual). More integrity/honesty that way.

A lot of the barriers we’re experiencing in opposition to fusion are, indeed psychological/symbolic. So, best to take them head on in the world of story/myth/psyche.

In sum, I think this dimension of perception or visualization merits attention.

The conversations by non-technical advocates of fusion need a guided understanding of how and when this technology may impact the world. One of the key aspects of Dr. Lerner’s book was to dispel misguided theoretical science. The fine line in science fiction writing on this subject should be in the area of providing possible futures without fantasy. The site already has a section on Space ships and their engines, which is good. Are the expressed concepts within the realms of solid science and how does it bring Focus Fusion into the spot light?

[Patientman]

Are you still considering a new design for your web site? I have many years of experience in design of both web and print. I am looking for a project for the summer and would enjoy working on this type of project. Please contact me if you are still looking for some one.

[Author]

Posts