OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CHOSEN FRAME OF REFERENCE
Digression as introduction
It is often somewhat of a surprise that one set of data can leads to
different analyses which
in turn lead to different
interpretations (perceptions / opinions / actions).
Just think about the way
people perceive 'colours" or "smells" or "words".
o p i n
I think that we Humans (and may be all living creatures !)
have to function
with them on a
daily basis, it is what our brains produce in
The whole way a living creature 'see' the world is only
is facts, data filtered,
deformed, altered, amended, translated,
transduced (energy to chemical to electric to
chemical again)....what ever
type of modification you want to conceive of.
This is done by hard
wiring in neural or even non neural "reception apparatus watching at
the frontier " plus 'existential'. Existential = what has been done to
what we have
experienced in body and mind or body neural ganglia or even simply
Pure thought devoid of "appreciation" (putting a price on literaly)
does not exist, no
state ; it is a refining process product in the best of the
As soon as 'qualifying', 'labelling', 'choice', 'sifting'
happen it is
I have no quibble with opinions that have been cleaned and
cleansed by carefully
(weeding those found) for 'distortions' :
'spinal cord level' or coming
from primitive neural structures that are
short circuit the brain cortex upper grey
layers. Perfect for
tackling an emergency but makes for trouble when it
of the day things' that are parasit-ed.
Humans look to me as rather well geared for thinking in
So, well chosen and well delimited frame are " a must". In every
domain, right down to
cordages and knots.
There are no facts, only interpretations" -
Another way to see that is to think about the Buddha way of
"seeing" things :
The Five Skandhah or Five Aggregates
- Matter (be it material matter or
psychological / mental / spiritual matter) gives rise to
(pleasant / unpleasant / neutral - without
identification of nature in our senses
(mind being a
- which leads to Perception (reception of
with identification and recognition)
Till this point all is 'no worry', but Perceptions
give rise to
- Volition, Move in Consciousness that is 'act'
(with merit /
merit / neutral) and
this in turn leads to
- Consciousness, a focusing of
Attention on the presence of Matter ;
a fixed label put on
the whole process with "all that was
registered" acting to make the "labelling".
This leads to believing that
what is Labelled Consciousnesss is identical to
was Perception which in turn is equated to Sensation
which is in turn
equated with Matter
- - - Matter : object coloured in blue ;
- - - Sensation =
colour is present ;
- - - Perception : this is blue ;
- - - Move toward Mental
Formation : I like, I dislike, this is neutral ;
- - - Consciousness
: THIS IS good, bad, neutral.
Attribution to the external 'what is giving rise to a
something that is in fact
only an internal attribute of the 'what
is doing the perceiving'
So it is best to keep a "garde-fou " ( 'keeper of the fool' ;
is what English language denote
with parapet / guard-rail ). That
consists in making sure of the frame of reference every one
Keep the 'interpretation' under constant scrutiny and well
critically 'bracketed' by logic.
Interpretation can be the latest advance in Science or only an
'opinion' or worse a
'pre-judice', a judgement without examination , a
"passed on, quite unexamined, predigested
Would you dream of not checking your knots ?
So why not maintain this discipline about "interpretations" and
always check them for validity.
Imagine this situation :
Algeria, skirmish, paratroopers climb a small cliff and succeed
to take a prisoner.
Immediately communication is made with
commanding officer who orders :
- " Put him down" meaning take him down from up there on the cliff.
Soldier " Can you confirm Mon Capitaine" ; "Confirm : put him down
Ratatata ....soldier shoot down the prisoner with a short
In this soldier's frame to put someone down was to shoot him without
did. What he did even if astonished enough that his
giving an order so out of
character that he bothered to ask for
Both men were perfectly clear with their meaning, only they were both
in different "bubbles".
"Bring him down from the cliff for
interrogation" would have save the day for the Captain's
End of digression
to your mind the celestial and earthy cross.
How the perception of
the Extra-Galaxian observer, of the man standing on Earth and of
lying under the projection drawn on the transparent glass differ about
same set of external 'facts' or rather 'given'.
imagine a circular wall in rotation about its centre.
wall the floor is not moving and an observer is there.
On the inside
wall a red circle is painted.
On the outside wall a green circle is painted for the outside observer
looking at the rotating
Inside observer can only see red and
outside observer can only see green.
Wall is in rotation : inside observer says "it is moving from Left to
Right ( or The Left to
The Right)" (
incorrect statement : it should
have been "it is moving from My left to My Right") but
outside observer then retorts " No it is moving from Right to Left".
Realizing that something is wrong Insider say " I tell you I
am right, it is turning clockwise",
Outsider rejoin "that I can agree
on, it is indeed clockwise".
Rotation of wall has not been modified, yet situation has changed
between those two, they
are not any longer of opposite opinion.
Manager of experiment ask to two new observers to replace
them but the new comers are
to stand upside down now.
Rotation is unchanged.
New Insider has been enlightened about the Left-Right problem
and has been told the
"cheat" by the previous observers : ' it
not wanting to fall prey to the right-left mistake and seeing a change
says " Ho! it is
turning anti-clockwise", Outsider says "yes they
changed the direction, you are right it
is anti-clockwise that I see it
Yet the wall is still rotating in the same direction as before.
are in agreement but giving an answer in opposition the the
Now both Inside observers and both Outside observer are
They know that the answer cannot be different coming from inside or
So one say "what about using compass points ?"
Now they can all agree that it is turning West to North to East.
See what I mean about being careful with choosing how you express your
point of view ?
Now a little
silly story with knots for you knotters.
Imagine a giant turk's head knot, the template of which is disposed
(correctly oriented by
the experimenter) on both faces of the wall.
Of course using the precedent trick of compass points they could pull
at the same time in the
same direction on the huge cordage making the
Only problem is that they are not allowed to communicate between them,
they have to obey
one order and one only, so it had better be correct
first time. This order comes from Below,
n observer that is
below them looking upward.
If Below says "go from left to right" each cordage puller will
understand " from My left to
My right" and they end in a tug of war on
Same thing if the guy tell them "go anti-clockwise".
Then they will go to what is for them, on the other side of the floor,
happen to be
what is the clockwise of the guy giving the order.
Then a bellow from by Below ! : Eureka!
"go from West to North to East to South and then again".
Always beware of how you are choosing your frame of reference.
Laying on another course of bricks ! ;-)
A small historical one for the road. TRAGIC !
From " InfoSense - Turning Information Into Knowledge"
by Keith DEVLIN,
published by Freeman and Company.
BALACLAVA and L'Héroique Charge de la Brigade
March 1854 - Crimea - British and French forces are fighting
against Russian forces.
25th October 1854 Russians launch an attack on the British positions
Lord Raglan, the one with the specially tailored sleeves, ordered his
Light Brigade ( Cavalry
under Lord Ducan's orders) to move in
sweep the enemy from their redoubts while
said enemy were still in
disarray : " Cavalry to
advance and take advantage of any opportunity to recover the Heights.
will be supported by the infantry which has been ordered to
advance on two fronts."
On reception of orders Ducan took it that he was to
wait for the arrival of the supporting
infantry before beginning his
None arriving he waited.
Meanwhile the Russians were recovering their positions and dragging
45 mn later Raglan, seeing from his hilltop what
the Russians were about
asked his aid Airey
to send a second message .
This message read "
Lord Raglan wishes for the cavalry to
advance rapidly to the front - follow the enemy
prevent the enemy
carrying away the guns. Troop Horse artillery may accompany.
on your left.
Airey gave the note to Captain Nolan to deliver it.
As Nolan way going
Raglan shouted after him "
Tell Lord Ducan the cavalry is to
Ducan could make no sense of the message. From his own position DOWN in the valley, he
could see no enemy and no
Seeing his indecision Nolan passed on the verbal message : "The
cavalry is to
Order seemed clear.
So under Lucan's leading the 673 soldiers of the
Light Brigade started their way down the
valley towards the
Light Brigade destroyed.
Never had a chance .
WERE SUPPOSED TO ADVANCE ON SUCH AN
From RAGLAN's elevated position on high ground,
was looking down on the routed
Russians that were
retreat taking British guns
That was FOR HIM "THE FRONT".
The only enemy Ducan receiving the order could see was
the one at the end of the valley.
That was FOR
So being a disciplined soldier ordered to attack
this was the
one he attacked
along what Tennyson described as "Valley of Death".
End of story is that for that the British troops had to stay the entire
winter in Crimea and took
SEBASTOPOL only in Septembre of the next year.
That just for want of a correctly chosen frame of reference !
[begin quote] The problem was
not that anyone failed to understand the word "front"
Rather, tragedy arose because that word had two different referents,
depending on different
Had map coordinates been used no tragedy could have
Safer to stay with cordage and knots.
End of brick laying for this topic
THIS WAY TO MIX S & Z with Over & Under
TO MAKE DISTINCTION
in History And Science
under the editorial supervision of J.C TURNER and P Van De
published in : Series on Knots and Everything -
11 - World Scientific is the
It is a series that leaves you in no doubt about it having the hallmark
of academic standards
In Part ONE - Chapter 4 Page 47, Fig 3 Orientation
of crossing strands
signed by Willemina WENDRICH :
1 and 2 are what would be qualified as a left hand turn were
we driving a car
3 and 4 are right turn.
In my opinion there is a confusion here made between so-called
the "Z" or "S" label. In
my view of things as already exposed previously what is shown
1 is in fact a 'plus' crossing so a "Z"
one and not an "S" one
3 is in fact a "minus" crossing so a "S" one and
not a "Z" one as said
Using MINUS = "S" and PLUS ="Z" is much more coherent I feel and avoid
Just see that if you treat the knot as a coin with heads and
tails then essentially
1 & 4 are the same coin and 2 & 3 are another coin
so what Author is saying is
1 or OVER "S" = 4 or UNDER "Z"
2 or UNDER "S" = 3 or OVER "Z"
which is patently false since going to the other side of a rope
does not change it form Z to S or from S to Z
while what I say is that
1 = "Z" and 4 = "Z"
2 = "S" and 3 = "S" which seem to me much more "solid"
It is evident that "Z" or "S" does not change by being
seen in back view, that
'altitude' of crossing change ; a H become a L and vice versa, but "S"
stay "S" and "Z" stay "Z".
Using the SIGN of the crossing to determine "Z" or "S" is better than
right or left lateralization of the turn in conjunction with the
altitude of the crossing.