Welcome to Delicate template
Header
Just another WordPress site
Header

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN’S RESPONSE

March 8th, 2012 | Posted by Dick in Comment | My Letters - published & not

Dear Contributor,

Thank you for your offer to contribute to Scientific American.  The Board of Editors has considered your proposal and I regret to say that the piece you propose is not suited to our somewhat limited editorial needs.

We appreciate your interest in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN.

————————————————————————
I would like to thank the board of editors for considering my article, ‘Spinoza in Drag.’ While I was aware that my article might not meet your…”limited editorial needs,” I fulfilled a desire to send you an article once in my lifetime.
While I believe mathematics and science are the highest endeavors of human reason, I was not given the skill set to speak their abstract language, so they have become my ‘Beatrice.’ (Dante).  Since late adolescence, Scientific American has brought me their vision. I am now 74.
My wife said, as she inked, edited and formatted Graphic Synapses of Spinoza and Science, the 309 page book I just put on my blog for downloading, “Your book is a love letter to Scientific American.”  The article I sent, ‘Spinoza in Drag,’ was a spillover from my book, in which I paid homage to that vision.
I also want to thank Scientific American editors for the gift of Max Tegmark’s Parallel Universes which clearly pointed out to me that, like Baruch Spinoza, I am a ‘frog’ in a conceptual universe of ‘birds.’ (p. 11). I have been meditating on Parallel Universes daily since receiving it. Now I have begun to formulate a response, titled: ‘The Frog Jumps Out Into Zift: Why Anthropoic, Anthropomorphism and Post Trauma Stress Disorder Are Unnecessary Scientific Explanations.”
‘Zift’ is the Bulgarian word for 1) asphalt 2) chewing gum 3) urban slang for shit. My response is a frog’s retelling of Erwin Schrodinger’s Cat In The Box thought experiment that addresses the issue of Parallel Universes.
As has been the case since I was young, Scientific American continues to enrich my thought life.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 You can leave a response, or trackback.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *