In 2002, I made some predictions about moulins on Greenland, and many, including RS said something to the effect of:
Four years later, RS published the first eye witness account of moulin formation on Greenland in Science. The moulin formed just like I said it would. Four years earlier, there had been NO discussion of phenomenon in the peer reviewed literature. It was not considered "plausible". The literature was wrong. I had read the literature, and then I had done some thinking.
Also in 2002, I predicted that we would see a major Arctic sea ice decline within 10 years. Many, including GS said, that is not possible, and told me to "read the literature", and he used the strongest slurs available. In 2007, we had the Arctic sea ice decline, and by 2010 GS admitted that I had been correct and the literature had been wrong. It only took 8 years. The truth is that I had read the literature, but I had also done some thinking.
One friend asked me, "Where do you get this stuff?" I told him that I walked around my garage, shouting and arguing with myself, and waving my arms -- which is about how Richard Feynman answered the same question.
I am not interested in textile history -- except as it leads to a better textile future. I got knitting sheaths out of history and they let me knit better. I got swaving out of history, and it lets me knit better. History pointed to the DD/DRS system that lets my spinning wheel go faster than any spinning wheel ever built by Alden Amos.
I do not get everything correct. I do take large risks by standing up and making bold statements, and mostly they turn out to be correct. And, this drives most people crazy. I do not know if it is the boldness or the correctness that disturbs people. That is not my problem. My problem is that I want to know things that are not explicitly stated in the literature. Feynman considered moulins to be freshman physics, and not worth publishing. Those physics with RS's own data from Greenland said "moulins on Greenland; real soon now." GS's own data on Arctic sea ice plus industrial QA/QA statistics developed by Demming, said sea ice would soon melt. It was just a matter of applying the correct analysis to data that was widely available. It is like Sherlock Holmes knowing where you have been this morning by the mud on your shoe. Everyone can see the mud, but only Sherlock thinks it through to figure out which train you took. Anyone fixated on extant texts is going to miss the significance of the mud, and fail to deduce which train.
There is a ton of stuff in the textile history literature that I do not know. Many people care about that stuff, and I will let them study it, know it, and be the textile history police. By and large police look back, not forward. They follow patterns, do replicas, and other "paint-by-number art". As long as I follow dreams, I will be ahead of The Police, and they will be chasing me, (shouting that I should read the literature). However, they will be looking backwards, at their texts, and not really able to see where I am going.
I see the objects in Peck as a kind of textile "Everest" that must be climbed by any textile worker that wants to claim to be competent. Everest cannot be climbed in baby steps. It requires bold strides, leaps, delicate balance, and hanging by one's finger tips. (see Reinhold Messner and his work on Everest). Modern textile handcraft cannot replicate the objects in Peck with only incremental improvements in technique and tools. It is going to require bold strides, leaps, delicate balance, and extraordinary finger work. If those skills and tools were explicit in the extant texts, we would be pouring out hand made objects as good or better as anything in Peck. We are not making such objects. We need to read between the lines, see what is not written, make some deductions, and some inductions. With those clear thoughts firmly in our hands, we need to take bold steps.
Why? Because good, hand-made textiles are a good thing.
Nonsense, we have never seen anything like that! It is not likely to happen. RS said "Read the literature!"
Four years later, RS published the first eye witness account of moulin formation on Greenland in Science. The moulin formed just like I said it would. Four years earlier, there had been NO discussion of phenomenon in the peer reviewed literature. It was not considered "plausible". The literature was wrong. I had read the literature, and then I had done some thinking.
Also in 2002, I predicted that we would see a major Arctic sea ice decline within 10 years. Many, including GS said, that is not possible, and told me to "read the literature", and he used the strongest slurs available. In 2007, we had the Arctic sea ice decline, and by 2010 GS admitted that I had been correct and the literature had been wrong. It only took 8 years. The truth is that I had read the literature, but I had also done some thinking.
One friend asked me, "Where do you get this stuff?" I told him that I walked around my garage, shouting and arguing with myself, and waving my arms -- which is about how Richard Feynman answered the same question.
I am not interested in textile history -- except as it leads to a better textile future. I got knitting sheaths out of history and they let me knit better. I got swaving out of history, and it lets me knit better. History pointed to the DD/DRS system that lets my spinning wheel go faster than any spinning wheel ever built by Alden Amos.
I do not get everything correct. I do take large risks by standing up and making bold statements, and mostly they turn out to be correct. And, this drives most people crazy. I do not know if it is the boldness or the correctness that disturbs people. That is not my problem. My problem is that I want to know things that are not explicitly stated in the literature. Feynman considered moulins to be freshman physics, and not worth publishing. Those physics with RS's own data from Greenland said "moulins on Greenland; real soon now." GS's own data on Arctic sea ice plus industrial QA/QA statistics developed by Demming, said sea ice would soon melt. It was just a matter of applying the correct analysis to data that was widely available. It is like Sherlock Holmes knowing where you have been this morning by the mud on your shoe. Everyone can see the mud, but only Sherlock thinks it through to figure out which train you took. Anyone fixated on extant texts is going to miss the significance of the mud, and fail to deduce which train.
There is a ton of stuff in the textile history literature that I do not know. Many people care about that stuff, and I will let them study it, know it, and be the textile history police. By and large police look back, not forward. They follow patterns, do replicas, and other "paint-by-number art". As long as I follow dreams, I will be ahead of The Police, and they will be chasing me, (shouting that I should read the literature). However, they will be looking backwards, at their texts, and not really able to see where I am going.
I see the objects in Peck as a kind of textile "Everest" that must be climbed by any textile worker that wants to claim to be competent. Everest cannot be climbed in baby steps. It requires bold strides, leaps, delicate balance, and hanging by one's finger tips. (see Reinhold Messner and his work on Everest). Modern textile handcraft cannot replicate the objects in Peck with only incremental improvements in technique and tools. It is going to require bold strides, leaps, delicate balance, and extraordinary finger work. If those skills and tools were explicit in the extant texts, we would be pouring out hand made objects as good or better as anything in Peck. We are not making such objects. We need to read between the lines, see what is not written, make some deductions, and some inductions. With those clear thoughts firmly in our hands, we need to take bold steps.
Why? Because good, hand-made textiles are a good thing.
0 comments:
Post a Comment