Why must I be both Einstein and Oppenheimer embodied as one ?



There are many ways to tackle any problem, but basically there are only two methods of approach. One is to take the actual or envisioned end result and work the thing backwards, to reveal where things may have gone wrong that may have produced that particular result, and hopefully, try and reconfigure those elements to produce a better result next time. The other is to approach the problem from a ‘before the problem arose’ perspective i.e. to assume that everything should work normally, and then to try and spot, and limit, the errors as it progresses, with a view to returning to some kind of normality. I see these two approaches as highlighting the differences between intuitive assessment and textbook assessment.

My feet are firmly planted in the intuitive approach for the simple reason that, as a method, it allows an option to assume a required result which looks beneficial, and any deviations on the route to that result can be highlighted and avoided next time. Thus a continuous self repairing method. So, where an assumed required result might merely be, as in the case of C/S, to achieve minimal discomfort from a chronic health condition, the elements which disrupt such a requirement make themselves obvious. For instance…I can easily assess that my discomfort has increased because I lifted something heavy two days ago, etc, etc. Must remember etc.


With the textbook approach, the entire problem tends to be overviewed with the assumption that all efforts should be geared towards regaining normal functioning. This may well be an impossible required result which has, over time, become the standard upon which most recommended C/S therapies are based. To me, it seems the required result of this method doesn’t fit the problem. Also, to try and tackle a progressively degenerative ( or regenerative ?) condition with knee jerk reactions each time a new phase kicks in, seems to lack a reasonable ‘assumed required result’ in the first place. The overall plan is continually thwarted by unpredictable events and any reactions are usually after the event. In fact, there seems to be no plan for learning from past events, or for applying lessons learned to possible cyclical repetitive events in the future….a glaring omission in any learning process. With no plan, except to react to events as they arise, and with no reasonable assumed required result to guide a path to progress, how can such a method ever hope to achieve progress, or even to acquire an ability to recognise its own failings.

Basically, what I’m saying, without wanting to appear to be too cynical about textbook approaches, is this…..if we lower our expectations and just focus on achieving an assumed required result of ‘less discomfort’ , then other methods of approaching the problem will make themselves apparent. Setting the post too high, as in requiring an assumed ‘ back to normal’ result, may well be over-influencing decision making when devising C/S therapies. It seems its just too easy to overlook the little things which might really matter.

Hope this makes sense.

Ps…Perhaps I should have titled this post “ Welcome to the lecture. Today we’ll be discussing my complete disregard for the obvious lack of responses to my recent posts” !