We have looked at a binary Prouhet-Thue-Morse (PTM) sequence. The next term in this ubiquitous sequence can be generated by appending its own 'complement' (or non-self), ie. a[n+1]=a[n]a'[n]; a'[n]=complement(a[n]). Thus it is completely specified by its first term. if the first term is 0, the next term is 0+0'=01, and the term after that 01(01)'=0110, and so on. (Does the use of markup tags in the symbolic clauses above helps make the meaning precise as intended?)

Now let us look at another kind of sequences in the same sense: จา, จ่า, จ้า, จ๊า, จ๋า. We have learned to generate this sequence by chanting (จอ อา) จา, (จอ อา ไม้เอก) จ่า, (จอ อา ไม้โท) จ้า, (จอ อา ไม้ตรี ) จ๊า, (จอ อา ไม้จัตวา) จ๋า and we have learned to type จ า, จ ่ า, จ ้ า, จ ๊ า, จ ๋ า . There are 2 generating (reading and writing) rules: one for human, another for computers. This situation is less than ideal because we have to work more and differently to interchange information. We could keep the human way and make computers work to display the 'right' layout ie. we type จ า, จ า ่, จ า ้, จ า ๊, จ า ๋ and the machine echoes  จา, จ่า, จ้า, จ๊า, จ๋า as we expect to see.

Here is a nice programming exercise for computer geeks. (You can use any programming language of your choice. It is not very hard to translate from one programming language to another, right?)

By the way, the other sequence, 0, 1, 01, 101, 01101, 10101101. 0110110101101,... is the Fibonacci string. Its generating function is a[n+2]=a[n]a[n+1]. So given a[0]=0, a[1]=1, a[2]=a[0]a[1]=01, a[3]=a[1]a[2]=101,... It serves to show that we can build upon the previous generations. Fibonacci and PTM sequences are found in natural phenomena and applied to artificial structures.

Another Sunday comes. It's amazing to see so many things go around and around. But that is another story for other times. Today, we'll sit back and mull over the many markup tags we have seen, the many conventions (styles) we have used and the problem of a convention (or style) to ease Thai text processing we haven't answered.

Imagine, if we use such convention (or style) to present (reprint) our constitution (text) and the various meanings (and intentions) in it become clearer so that we don't need 9 judges to interpret the constitutional text often (any more); then our politicians could read it, could understand it and could act in compliance with it.

Maybe, we are stretching the power of such convention (style) too far. Corruption (in usage or meaning) will be possible by some users - no matter what convention (constitution or set of rules) we use. Sigh! (I have fun with markup tags, don't you?)

We will go off the track to look at a man training a work dog on the roadside. He makes some hand signs and says some words. If the dog follows (understands and acts on) his gesture (command) then he rewards the dogs with a dog biscuit and moves on to another act. Otherwise, the man repeats the command and braces the dog to act out what he wants the dog to (act) and at the end he only says 'good boy' but does not give the dog any biscuit. There is another man standing by observing the procedure. When asked he would say something - probably advise the trainer what to do. The training goes on like this for a few rounds of commands (acts).

Let us look at this training procedure symbolically and simplistically. If we let 0 mean the dog follows the man's wish and 1 mean the dog does not. We can now describe the training session as a sequence of 0's and 1's. For example 01101001... From the dog's point of view, if 0 means he gets a full biscuit and 1 means he gets nothing. His rewards come in for example as 10010110... for successes and failures to follow the man's gestures. Both man and dog, try to achieve the sequence 0000.... and both do not want the sequence 111111111... Therefore, if they work together (cooperate) well, then their sequences would match (digit by digit) and the difference between the 2 sequences would be all 0's (or 'nil'). Otherwise, there would be unmatched digits and the difference sequence would have some 0's and some 1's. Now, let us cover the whole story by letting 0 mean the adviser says 'very good' and 1 mean he gives an advice. Thus, his input into the training is also a sequence of 0's and 1's. Like most of us, the trainer hears all advices but chooses to heed some and ignore others. His responses to the advices are a sequence of 0's and 1's as well.

Using this language, we can retell the story of the training session. It goes something like this:
<MAN>0110110001110101010100000111111000....</MAN>
<DOG>1101010010000010101000111110000101...</DOG>
<ADVICE>10001000100011111100011100010101...<ADVICE>
<HEED>000101010100001010111...</HEED>
<DIFF>000000001000010001000...</DIFF>

<NB>My computer read the squences and chuckled away:
<CHUCKLE>00010011001000111000....</CHUCKLE>
Did we lose something in the translation?    .</NB>

We have transformed a 'chunk' of knowledge (about dog training) into binary text (that computers can chew) that we ourselves find difficult to read. Let us add markup tags onto a binary text string, eg. the dog sequence, like this:                                                  <DOG><อด>1</อด><อด>1</อด><อด>0</อด><อด>1</อด>...</DOG>
then dress it to tastes, like this: <DOG><รับขนม?>อด อด ได้ อด ...</รับขนม?></DOG>.
Extending the idea, we may rewrite <ระเบิด>what</ระเบิด><แตกกระจาย>did</แตกกระจาย><ตลาด>where</ตลาด><เช้านี้>when</เช้านี้>.
We may see that words in a language are, in a way, markup tags (labels) for 'concepts'. Clauses are just sequences of tags. ... Text and markup are alternate sides of the same coin (knowledge).

We may look at pairs of entangled sequences in simple ways: a pair may represent a 'stimulus and response' or a simple 'tic-for-tac' game, where 2 players take turn to make a move; a pair may describe condition-and-consequence or cause-and-effect events in a duration of time; and a pair may trace a path of alternate choices of a traveller going about in this worldly good and bad mix-ups.

By extending this model of 2 binary sequences to m n-ary sequences, we will have very interesting and challenging toy model to 'play'. (No, I am not your 'good' play director, who can direct you to perform your best or to make you a star (actor). I am merely a story teller who often twists stories around in many possible directions. In simile, I swing the spotlight, while you try to look for things!) This model, seriously, may be enough to study interactions of complex systems (a simple complex system is a system of 2 systems ). We know that 'actions' and 'reactions' are subsets of 'interactions' which cover  'dialogues' when the purpose is to 'measure' (or learn or approximate) each other rather than to control (or dictate or terminate) each other. It sounds like game playing we have learned in our childhood. We have learned to play many games, many interactive (not alone or against a computer) games, many many cooperative skill-developing games: hide-and-seek, 20-question (I spy), soccer, ... Have we forgotten the lessons, already? Where did we turn off from the right track? Why did we not realize our mistakes? Have we not turned from young angels into old devils?

Did we see that binary (n-ary) strings can be used to tell a story (describe knowledge of something)? We can even used simple alphabets (like '0,1' to make up words, clauses, sentences and so on with additional markup symbols eg. space, (), [], {} / : ; ,... and certain orderly/regular layout rules to make clearer to meaning and intention of the (textual information) strings. Of course, we would have hard times talking with 010 1000, 11001 001 00? So, we will stick to Thai and English for a while. But can we see that we may be able to enhance the power of our expression in Thai if we adopt some markup tags and certain layouts?

Would we not make the language more complex or harder to learn? Yes and no! For those who see this new style as another language, it would take time to learn and adjust. For those who grow up with a language, it is no more difficult to grow up with Thai or German or Sinhalese. The other reason for adopting a certain style for Thai language is to enable more poweful knowledge processing. Though, we can and will make more powerful computers, we may not be able to improve our processing performance much. Our processors could take a few eras to increase in speed or size. Our body and its functions may also need to change to support a higher speed or larger size brain - for example 'food for thought' .

Inventing and adopting styles for a language seem much quicker and easier. We may have already some styles that work very well but are hidden in closets or shoeboxes somewhere. Would you please look for your forgotten language styles, clean them up and show them here for all to see? (The first prize could be immortality, the most talked about intellectual tool or at least 'your names in the hall of fame'.)

A replay? In slomo (slow motion) to see what happened? We have a system running in an environment. (Hence there are 2 interacting systems: the system and its environment system; unless we assume that the first system is a closed, and 'in vacuo'.) The system is doing something: taking input from the environment and output to the environment. For example, we eat and metabolise foods into molecules and energy for our body to live and grow and we excrete some wastes. If our body gets enough of right input we have no problem; otherwise, we suffer from malfunction, mis-coordination and poor growth. To ensure healthy body, we may stock up (accumulate) foods (and we need a refrigerator, we need preservatives or inhibitors for microbial growth, we need wrappings to protect food from losing quality (enzymes?) or from microbial invasion,...) By storing foods for ourselves, we restrict certain processes in the environment, we change the harmonics or dynamics of the interactions in the environment and we use energy from the environment to disrupt processess in the environment. (For examples: canned fish don't breed, pickled mustards don't flower, and frozen prawns don't clean debris in water.) We say 'this is good (for us)' and we give a (sukkha) 'value' to what we have done. Zooming in, 'we' represent a group of individual 'actors' (or agents). Each acquires and stores foods in competition with other agents. Some agents get and store more than other. Some agents are in 'sukkha' (state) and some are in 'dukkha' (state). We say 'each receives according to her/his past and accumulated kamma' and it is the 'dhamma' way. A little time later, certain side-effects of actions or restrictions that have travelled through webs of processes may reach us and cause changes to processes in our system. (We don't know how to predict what, where, when or how we or one of us will get affected -but we should now know why.)

Try imagine, we are losing top soils by floods and water erosions (guess who thought it was good to clear forests), by contamination and locking up in landfills or wrong use (guess where they built factories and golf courses), by intensive farming and exporting fresh produce overseas (guess who must pay for re-fertilization) and by allowing foreign land ownership (guess who would own the country)... The complex picture of a top soils system and a human society in m n-ary sequences.

If 'we' are just one agent, one family, one community, one nation, one world and one universe, our toy model can still apply by combining systems into complex systems. The complexity is in a simple word - 'we'

Many readers who have been following this blog from the beginning, would now recognize Aacariya Thwatchai's work in encouraging the kids to discuss the problems and to create solutions by themselves. This process played a very important role in the kids' learning. It was much more than multiple choice (choose from given or known) process. It was the main process for creating knowledge. (We could ask if many projects failed because they did not really have this process or our kids have been de-skilled by being forced to do a lot of extra lessons to be good at 'multiple choices'? Frankly, the question is whether our education institutions are conditioning our kids to be 'hardcoded multiple choice answering machines' or 'adaptable learning and thinking people'.

Did you say we don't go to school anymore? What did we see on the ballot paper the last time we voted? Yes! Multiple choice. Hand up those who failed in that election. (I have to put both hands up. I failed to tick the right one and failed to learn from the past lessons. Did you do that too?) How many tests (errh elections) did we fail?

And once again, we can see lots of good in following the buddhist's Aariyasacca in learning. (We may need to algebraically substitute 'dukkha' with 'x' where 'x' is our focus (object/subject) of learning.) Would we not be happier and better 'to know how to learn' than 'to know all to know'?
(Try this tongue twister to see what I say: "Of all the saws I ever saw saw, I never saw a saw saw like that saw saws." )

Let us recap what we have been talking about in the last few weeks. We have looked at difficulties in translating Thai to English. We have realized that English is very much a markup language and Thai is very much free-form. We have noted that XML is a markup up language for computing text and compared XML to HTML on their design usage. We have looked at an example of how we could compute meaning from Thai text. We could see that we need to separate Thai text into words, then recombine words into clauses (which we called 'parts') and sentences and so on. We could then use (a Turing Machine to do) 'pattern matching' to map Thai parts to English parts. After that we would magically link parts into sentences and complete the translation. (Replace 'magically' with 'grammatically', please .)

Though we have been talking about "putting parts together to make a whole" and how important this is for us to learn how to build structures, we have not given any "method" (or recipe) on "how" we could do this. We have learned that disassembling parts (analysis) might be much easier than assembling parts into a structure (synthesis) and we have not said "why". We have noted that knowledge is merely an orderly (or well arranged) collection (or assembly) of parts (or labels for concepts) in a set of bins which we could label (or mark up) 'what & who', 'where', 'when', 'how', and 'why'. We have hinted that innovation (creativity) may come from experiments on different ways we put parts together.

Somehow it seems that we have been going (rowing) around in a little pond and not honestly knowing where we were really going. Have we learned from repeating (looping) until we see a way out (terminating condition)?

We have talked about decisions as 'choosing r objects from a set of n objects' (in math parlance 'n choose r') and we could look into (branches of mathematics like) combinatorics, probabilities, (random) graphs and so on. But here we have simplified by limiting ourselves to '2 choose 1' or choose either 0 or 1 (false or true, no or yes,... our simple dyadic logic). We have learned that we often divide objects for decisions into 2 subsets by tagging them 'good' or 'bad' ( 0 or 1 ), choose a subset and repeat (recursively) until we have just 1 object (in English 'we have no choice') to choose (1 choose 1) or decide. So, this simplification is not unrealistic.

How do we choose? Eenie meenie minie, mo? Use a 'selection criterion'? I like ...? I think ...?
Yes, let us think before we choose. So, how do we think?

"Thinking' is a mental process probably taking place in our brain. We may say there are 2 broad bands of thinking: a) 'analytical' thinking which leads us to 'understanding' of something from the data we receive, and b) 'creative' thinking which leads us to creation of novel structures from the data we receive and understand. We may say that analytical thinking precedes creative thinking. But often we note that we switch between the two. When we receive data, we (unconsciously) analyse it. If we have not reached a 'full'  understanding of (the meaning of) the data, we may ask questions or we may create an understanding (or an assumption) and use it to reach another understanding. Depending on the data, we may recursively process the data till we have an understanding of its meaning (just as we would recursively calculate n! till we get to one simple number.) Here, I would link this simplistic concept of thinking with a path to 'literacy' ('literate' = instructed or taught or learned) by saying that to become literate, we must train (ourselves) to think (both ways).

<NB>In Quantum theory, it talks about (infinitely) many possible (quantum) states co-exist at the same time. When a measurement is made, these (quantum) states collapse into one state - for the measurement. In our life, we have many possible options at the same time. When a decision is made, we take one option. Do we live in a quantum world? .</NB>

How to build a structure (or how to think creatively):

In a 'pattern recognition' way, we may see that playing jigsaw puzzles, building houses, growing trees and learning are all about fitting little pieces into some structures. We have ideas how to put pieces together! What is our problem then? We accept a nature of our world that we have limited resources but so many things to do (in math-speak) 'M-by-N assignment problem' or in more common terms 'product mix optimization problem. We have 'objectives' for our output/production process, constrained by input/parts or resources: time, materials and energy (and budget), etc. How do tell whether we achieve our objectives? We need a 'meter' to measure our success (or failure). Is there an international standard for measuring successes? No! (But many people would say 'money' or 'wealth'. Some would say 'happiness' and health. Some would choose 'status', 'fame', 'respect', or (the French Bastille Declaration:) liberty, equality and fraternity. Next, we accept that 'where we stand determines what we see'. Also, our resources (even objectives) at different places and different times may not be the same for everyone to build the same structure (I think this assertion holds true even for building of 'abstract' structures: relationships, virtues and altruism.) What if we want to build  structures that have continuity (such as a family, an ecological system or a happy society)? When do we take measurement to see if we meet our objectives? We can go on case by case, spending our lives or generations of lives in search for one common recipe for building structures (e.g. the grand unified theory of Physics).

A simple recipe we have now is 'to learn to understand, to create and try some combinations (mixtures)'. We can optimise with understanding of Nature (natural laws). We can minimise serious errors by careful considerations of consequences in Nature (webs of natural mechanisms). We can use history, 'thinking' or thought experiments to reduce possibilities. We can use models and computer simulation to gain insights. We can use 'think tanks', surveys and public forum to make decisions. And so on. On the way, We must try to collect and verify facts and use only 'reusable' (repeatable) tools and procedures... We can achieve 'success' by repeating efforts to learn and to build again and again. Here is a tip: "Be true and honest to ourselves and to others in the environment we live in".

But it is the performing/acting or working in real-time (not just logical solutions) with processes, materials and energy that matters. Metaphorically, "anyone can read - even write - recipes. But only some cook well"

We have talked about building strctures from parts - great structures from little parts. People look at structures in many ways. We will look at structures in this (controversially) altruistic way. It is the way we want to see our world. It is the way we want to creatively think about our world. With this (idealistic) "right view", we see all different parts as they are. Each part has a place and a role within the structures. We are a part in our family, our community, our society, our world... Each of us has a position and a role. Everyone is important and necessary to our whole structure. Everyone depends on others, at one time or another, in so many ways. We say with tongue in cheek that the heart of any good structure is "all for one, and one for all".

We have learned the right view and we have learned about many other views: winning, wealth making, the end justifies the means,... We may classify 'views', for example, in degrees between individual (self-centred, self-oriented, relationship-aware, charity-oriented, and) altruistic extrema. We know what we see, think, act (or change) within our view. We may not know what other people see, think, act within their views and about our view. Should we worry about what they see or think or do?

Working together often runs into issues like: one (abstract) problem/goal/solution model to clarify collaboration; one view/ontology/representation model to clarify communication; private/shared/public components/facilities/space-time to clarify interactions; (equal/proportional) shares of costs/benefits/responsibilities/powers/relations to clarify expected results; timing or synchrony to ensure timely transition; and co-evolution and so on. As a general rule, working in a (collaborative) structure is much harder than working alone. Working together needs 'communication' (talks or clear signals (of intention) need to be given in advance to allow clear understanding (of intention) and computation of the consequences (of that intention) to be made; sudden (surprise) attacks often lead to chaos (uncontrolled/unanticipated reactions and later retaliations and possible unending chain reactions); the essence of cooperative dialogue is then clear and timely communication); hence the saying ปากเป็นเอก...

Let us revisit PTM and Fibonacci sequences. This time we will think about and beyond their construction.

The next term in a PTM sequence is generated from appending negation (or complement) of the current term. If we think of action and reaction, stimulus and response, or form and reform, then we can see that we are getting nowhere, sooner or later things will come around again! We keep on going up-and-down, doing a yo-yo or a see-saw, restarting, beginning (a new life) again,... oscillating ourselves over and over. Does this not remind us of unending loops of dukkha?

In comparison, the next term in a Fibonacci sequence is a composition of the previous term and the current term. We may think of using cumulating results from the past and the present to build the future. We can build a Great Mountain from small grains of sand by moving the grains into place little by little, time after time, again and again. We repeat the process just like we do with PTM sequences but we also move forward just like wheels on a cart. A Fibonacci sequence adds distance to a path, but a PTM sequence gets us nowhere!

Next time, we hear about reforms, we should ask ourselves: which of these 2 sequences are we following? Let us learn from our past (successes and mistakes) and try making and accumulating small changes. We have heard of 'Evolution and Co-evolution', haven't we? Guess, which sequence (policy) does Mother Nature use?

May I refer you to วิชาการ.คอม - การรู้เท่าทันการสื่อสาร < http : / /www .vcharkarn .com/ vcafe/ 40551 >?

Knowing what we now know, we will look at the way we create our life -- again .

Generally, we collect data or measurements, evaluate its causes and effects, and generate possible predictions, then we choose and act on a prediction (we believe most likely) and we test the result against our expectation. If our the result is 'good' then we would usually choose and act on the same prediction next time. Otherwise, we would choose a different prediction and action. Often, we ask for advice from experts for the best prediction and action. The advice may come as simple as 'do the same' or 'do the other' next or as complex as a chess move or more. If an advice is followed and the result is good we would follow the next advice. Otherwise we could follow or ignore it. We have this situation: results depend on (previous) decisions and decisions depend on (previous) results. We could represent (encode) the situation as a sequence of decisions entwined with a sequence of results.

From here, we could visualize a Fibonacci string when 2 previous terms are used to produce the next term; we could visualize a double helix of decisions and results - as for DNA? We could say our life is a sequence of good and bad results entangled with a sequence of good and bad decisions. We could then ask: how can we become successful? Or what successful sequences look like? And so on. Can we see that we can mix sequences, processes, strategies and whatever into any structure? We have the power to select, mix and create our sequences for our life?

Did you say 'who cares about the past? It is close to New Year so we only care about the present(s)'?

Let us return to our skill building work on practical knowledge processing.
 
Did we see that the way we use Thai language may be a major barrier in our 'thinking'? We have to make efforts to analyse our text, more efforts to compute the meaning of the text,... In sum, we have to pay more to advance our society to a knowledge-based one. We have asked if we can use Thai language in a particular way so that we can make expressions more precise in meaning and less costly to compute (by man and computer). We need a solution to ease Thai text analysis and recognition, to make precise information for interchange (among man and computer) and to advance knowledge processing (ditto). A writing style looks like a good first step forward (so I said). We can talk about styles. We can explore styles. We (teachers, learners, journalists, writers, editors) can write in styles .
 
Is this a possible path to Thai knowledge processing?
1) digitise textual knowledge ('arnthai' may help to scan and do OCR to digitise our text)
2) analyse and markup digital text ('swath' may help separating text strings into clauses)
3) check spelling with a dictionary (NECTEC's Parsit may help) and map clauses to 'elements in a precise meaning set' (this is a set of commonly used clauses -- collected from available digitised text).
4) apply semantic rules and ontological rules (Wordnet, Conceptual Graph, ?semantic net etc. have been developed in English and possibly require only transliteration - assuming that thinking is fundamentally the same).

A public (mega )project to explore this path could spark interests in knowledge processing and grow many skill-bases, accelerate development and uptake of knowledge technologies in Thailand and if successful it would deliver knowledge processing expertise and tools for national applications such as online curricula repository, online context search facility and text translation for knowledge transfer.  <To be continued>

<NB. digitise and analyse are English/Australian spelling; American use digitize and analyze.>

The path to success is not smooth or "life is meant to be easy". We could do with help from computer geeks and nerds out there. Any volunteer?

<NB> We have some problems with Thai OCR:
== small differences make big differences: ต ด ค; ก ภ ถ; บ ป ผ ฝ พ ฟ; ิ ี ื ึ; ํ ่
== vowels not always in one same line: อุบัติเหตุ บำรุง
== composite vowels surrounding consonants: ขำ เกา เกลือ เสีย  
== vowel and intonation site sharing: เชื่อ สี่ คล้ำ
The layout of Thai text makes it difficult to devide scanned image of text into images of 'lines' (strips); higher resolution (higher number of pixels) is needed and the OCR program (engine) must be able to differentiate small differences in small areas.
Thai OCR arnthai version 3 for Windows is available from Nectec; version 2 for some Linux distributions is open source and available in source and binary packages from a few Linux repositories.
Smart word analyser for Thai (swath) is open source and available from Linux repositories.
A number of Thai-English dictionaries are available for Linux and Windows eg. Parsit (from Nectec)
MAC and other platforms users please help with above. </NB>

Let us take a detour to consider a serious dependency on computer operating systems. We have a few very good OSes. One big happy family of them are 'open source software' (this means we can see and control for ourselves 'what works' and 'how it works'; in contrast 'propriety software' where some -foreign- companies  control what and how we work). We can develop a Thai Standard Operating System from one of these open source OSes (Linux, BSD, Minix 3, Beos,...) to maintain our control over security and standard of our information.

Right, we are talking about taking control of our digitized information processing systems. We won't go into details why we should have control of our information processing capacity and systems. We already see that it is a matter of national security and interest to have a standard operating system and standard processing systems. The question is "why don't we (government offices, universities, technical colleges, ...) seriously make efforts to develop and use a Thai computer operating system?"

I am asking if some public (tax) money could be allocated to this work. We could and should raise computer literacy (skill) level in industries (also in rural areas -- including farming/agribusiness sectors). We can do this better (and cheaper) if a Thai OS and IT tools (eg. Linux TLE) can be used freely, openly and proudly.

สร
ร่วมแบ่งปันความรู้และความเห็นแล้ว 534 ครั้ง - ได้รับดาวแล้ว 160 ดวง - โหวตเพิ่มดาว

I have a Thai-English version of Aacariya Klin's Notes (posted here) that I mean to revise and polish.

If you are interested please email "sanghama@gmail.com" with "Aacariya Klin's Notes" and indicate your preferred format '.doc' (Word) or '.odt' (OpenOffice) or '.html' (browser) in the subject line.

I plan to put this up on websites like googlegroups, yahoocities, etc. You can help, of course. Thanks.

PS. It seems that Vcharkarn.com is very busy or too slowed lately -- troubled by its own success, no doubts.

สร
ร่วมแบ่งปันความรู้และความเห็นแล้ว 534 ครั้ง - ได้รับดาวแล้ว 160 ดวง - โหวตเพิ่มดาว

I learned from old friends and public media:

Thai society could be infrastructurally weakened by current practices in education and training sector. It is said that we are train our children to dream, to seek wealth, fame and status, and to win by any means. Our leaders-to-be are physically weak (not playing sports, not exercising muscular motors and not learning to endure pains), raised and nurtured in protected environment (or virtual environment of TV, Computer, Internet etc.). Our children learn to choose (or make decisions -- multiple choice examinations) but do not learn to think (or build structures of multiple components -- composition and cooperation).

Our public servants (after generations of practices) have learned to do things 'by the boss' rather than 'by the book'. Our society is not served by delegation of duties to autonomous agents (who can exercise their judgement in performing services to the public -- as asserted at the time they 'swear in'). But the public service has become mechaninery for 'the boss' to be driven by whim.

Individually and healthwise, we seek to grow with strong body, strong mind and high level of certainties (by the book) to be able to keep out diseases and illness, to be able to perform our roles in society and achieve our own (familial -- familywise) happiness and satisfaction, and to be assured of meeting our basic needs (food, shelter, safety, well-being and 'praternity') for our (familylike) survival and accomplishment. When we become physically weakened, riddled by doubts and driven by whimsical and self-interest desires. We are easily turned into a private machine to be bought and sold by temptation. It is time to wake up and do more exercises! 

สร
ร่วมแบ่งปันความรู้และความเห็นแล้ว 534 ครั้ง - ได้รับดาวแล้ว 160 ดวง - โหวตเพิ่มดาว