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 572 ครั้ง - ได้รับดาวแล้ว 168 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 572 ครั้ง - ได้รับดาวแล้ว 168 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 572 ครั้ง - ได้รับดาวแล้ว 168 ดวง - โหวตเพิ่มดาว

So, we have problems with information infrastructures (see below): from capturing to storing, from cities to rural areas, from users to developers of global applications. At the time when wasting hard earned tax money is 'evil' in any countries, and spending tax money on important infrastructures is 'logical' and 'sensible'. Let us serve our communities by spending tax money on development of 'local' skills and technologies - it is 'devine'.

ประชาชาติธุรกิจ วันที่ 04 ธันวาคม พ.ศ. 2551 ปีที่ 32 ฉบับที่ 4059 หน้า 34
http://www.matichon.co.th/prachachat/prachachat_detail.php?s_tag=02com09041251&day=2008-12-04&sectionid=0209

TDRIจี้ปรับระบบข้อมูลกลาง แก้ปม"ดัชนีไอซีทีไทย"รั้งท้าย

" ทีดีอาร์ไอ" เผยผลศึกษาอันดับความสามารถการแข่งขันไอซีทีของไทยรั้งท้าย เพราะระบบเก็บข้อมูลไทยมีปัญหา จี้เร่งพัฒนาระบบข้อมูลกลาง พร้อมพัฒนาโครงสร้างพื้นฐานไอซีทีประเทศโดยเฉพาะ "อินเทอร์เน็ตบรอดแบนด์" ให้มีการแข่งขันราคาเต็มที่ เหตุค่าบริการบรอดแบนด์ไทยสูงคิดเป็น 11% ของรายได้ต่อเดือน


นายสมเกียรติ ตั้งกิจวานิชย์ รองประธานสถาบันวิจัยเพื่อการพัฒนาประเทศไทย (ทีดีอาร์ไอ) เปิดเผยผลการศึกษาเกี่ยวกับความสามารถในการแข่งขันด้านไอซีทีของไทยกับต่าง ประเทศ โดยร่วมกับ กระทรวงเทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศและการสื่อสาร (ไอซีที) ว่า อันดับความสามารถการแข่งขันด้านไอซีทีของไทยอยู่ที่อันดับ 40 มา 7-8 ปีแล้ว รั้งท้ายประเทศเพื่อนบ้านหลายๆ ประเทศ ส่วนหนึ่งขึ้นอยู่กับความเชื่อถือขององค์กร และความน่าเชื่อของข้อมูลที่องค์กรนำมาใช้วิเคราะห์ข้อมูล ซึ่งมีหลายองค์กรไม่ระบุที่มาของแหล่งข้อมูลที่นำมาใช้ บางแห่งอ้างข้อมูลจากองค์กรเอกชนที่เชื่อได้ว่าเป็นตัวเลขประมาณการมากกว่า การได้ลงพื้นที่สำรวจจริง

แต่อีกด้านหนึ่งก็เป็นปัญหาการจัดเก็บ ข้อมูลสถิติด้านไอซีทีของไทย ซึ่งพบว่าทั้งข้อมูลจากสำนักงานสถิติแห่งชาติ (สสช.) และสำนักงานคณะกรรมการกิจการโทรคมนาคมแห่งชาติ (กทช.) ก็มีตัวเลขไม่ตรงกัน รวมทั้งข้อมูลที่ไม่ทันสมัย และมีความยากลำบากในการเข้าถึงข้อมูล ดังนั้นการวิเคราะห์ข้อมูลดัชนีความสามารถการแข่งขันของไทยจึงมีความ คลาดเคลื่อน

นายสมเกียรติกล่าวว่า อันดับที่ประเทศไทยได้ก็สะท้อนความสามารถในการแข่งขันด้านไอซีทีของไทยได้ ไม่น่าจะต่างจากความจริงนัก จึงต้องแก้ปัญหาเรื่องโครงสร้าง พื้นฐานด้านไอซีที นอกเหนือจากการพัฒนาระบบเก็บข้อมูลสถิติและเผยแพร่ข้อมูลผ่านหน่วยงานกลาง เพื่อให้ต่างประเทศสามารถนำข้อมูลที่ถูกต้องตรงกับความเป็นจริงไปวิเคราะห์ สถานภาพของไทยได้

และจากการศึกษาพบว่าดัชนีสำคัญที่จะมีผลต่อการจัด อันดับไอซีทีประเทศไทย คือ การลดค่าบริการอินเทอร์เน็ตบรอดแบนด์ ปัจจุบันค่าบริการบรอดแบนด์ของไทยคิดเป็น 0.9% ของรายได้ประชากรต่อคนต่อปี ขณะที่สิงคโปร์อยู่ที่ประมาณ 0.01% เท่านั้น หรือเท่ากับคนไทยต้องจ่ายค่าบรอดแบนด์สูงถึง 11% รายได้ต่อเดือน ขณะที่ประเทศพัฒนาแล้วจ่ายแค่ 2%

หากไทยลดค่าบริการบรอดแบนด์ได้ เท่ากับฟิลิปปินส์ จะทำให้อันดับไอซีทีไทยสูงขึ้น 8 อันดับ รวมถึงการเพิ่มจำนวนคอมพิวเตอร์ต่อประชากร แต่ทั้งนี้ควรใช้วิธีเพิ่มจุดการเข้าถึงคอมพิวเตอร์ที่ประชากรสามารถใช้ร่วม กันได้จะดีกว่า

แนวทางที่สามารถพัฒนาโครงสร้าง พื้นฐานไอซีทีของไทยให้แข็งแกร่งขึ้น คือ ส่งเสริมให้มีการแข่งขันมากขึ้นเพื่อทำให้ค่าบริการบรอดแบนด์ลดลง ควรกำหนดเป็นนโยบายของรัฐบาล โดยเฉพาะการเปิดเสรีด้วยการแก้ไข พ.ร.บ.การประกอบกิจการโทรคมนาคม ที่ปัจจุบันยังผูกกับ พ.ร.บ.การประกอบธุรกิจคนต่างด้าว ทำให้ต่างชาติเข้ามาถือหุ้นในกิจการโทรคมนาคมได้ไม่เกิน 49% ซึ่งเป็นการจำกัดการแข่งขัน ต้องยอมรับความจริงว่าปัจจุบันโทรคมนาคมในประเทศส่วนใหญ่เป็นนอมินีของต่าง ชาติ หาบริษัทที่เป็นของคนไทยจริงๆ ได้ยากเพราะใช้เงินลงทุนสูง จึงควรมองความเหมาะสมในการพัฒนาประเทศโดยก้าว ข้ามความเชื่อที่ว่ากิจการโทรคมนาคมเป็นเรื่องความมั่นคง และผูกเรื่องนี้กับกระแสชาตินิยม เพราะจะมีธุรกิจอีกมากที่จะเติบโตได้เพราะกิจการโทรคมนาคม

สร
ร่วมแบ่งปันความรู้และความเห็นแล้ว 572 ครั้ง - ได้รับดาวแล้ว 168 ดวง - โหวตเพิ่มดาว

I posted in < http://www.vcharkarn.com/vcafe/156926 >

I think 'fundamentally' we still have 'out-of-date' idea that 'answers' are all we need.
We usually ask "how do we find answers". We do not ask "how do we make answers".
Most of us are just 'gatherers', 'hoaders', 'accumulators' or 'collectors'. Only a few are 'creators' or 'makers'.

We worship 'memorizing', 'knowing' and 'collecting' - it's bad to 'forget', not to know or not to have...
[If we looked back into the past, we could see and understand "why ability to recall knowledge from memory was supreme". Then came along computers and the Internet - today we can search (recall) even what we individually do not know in a short time. (The day when we can 'recall' knowledge from the Internet at the 'speed of thought' may not be that far away.) So, knowing or having knowledge of what aready known in our head will not give us advantages over others anymore. (Though, many would try to hang on with selfish 'copyrights', 'patents' and 'secrets'. But it would be in vain. "Open"  substitutes or alternatives would be taken instead.)]  

We need more 'thinking', 'fitting' and 'evolving' - learning how to learn, to adapt, and to make better people. [People who are more capable of creating answers on ways of making better worlds.
NB* Aacariya Klin's Note on Aacariya Thwatchai's project tells us how  the children in a provincial school created knowledge by thinking, experimenting, and evolving. We've learned that the children "made the answer that fit them" - not irrelevant high-tech for the universe. We still need answers for everyday things: mosquitoes, flies, vermins, clean and sufficiently available water, food, public toilet facility, public transport, housing,...]

สร
ร่วมแบ่งปันความรู้และความเห็นแล้ว 572 ครั้ง - ได้รับดาวแล้ว 168 ดวง - โหวตเพิ่มดาว

We have not mentioned one aspect of the Project Work in this note - that of 'group dynamics'. The children worked together to create solutions. They did not plan nor have pre-organized schedule for the solution. Each child contributed to 'making' solutions individually. They discussed, negotiated and chose a best option at a time. They performed necessary actions to produce outcomes. They collaboratively tested ideas, evaluated the results and made improvements on the solution. The principal helped with resources, encouraged (by listening and not criticizing) and not giving orders. The group dynamics in this note worked excellently. But we missed this point: the solution is not from one individual - it is from the group!

[ Below also appears in http://www.vcharkarn.com/vcafe/157448 ]
Sometimes, we seem to have run into a 'closure' (mathematical and otherwise): we are stuck (mathematically in an attractor set under this 'operator'/behaviour) and keep repeating (in programming in an 'infinite loop') ourselves. We had hoped that by working collaboratively we may see 'emergence' (of useful group properties rather than just the 'signed' sum of individuals'). Well, self-organization and emergence remain hit-and-miss in complex systems - of multiple parties/agents, purposes, behaviours/aspects, space-time, ...

How can we get out of the same old rut (or track of mind)? (I am going back to my Complex Systems 101 - sigh!)

สร
ร่วมแบ่งปันความรู้และความเห็นแล้ว 572 ครั้ง - ได้รับดาวแล้ว 168 ดวง - โหวตเพิ่มดาว

This year is closing fast. May I wish you all a merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year?

2552 BE (2009 CE) will be the year of innovations - new ways of doing old things, new approaches for looking after our health and well-being of people we care,  new looks and fashions, and so on. For most of us, these 'new' ways will be very likely 'collaborative' (working, living and sharing - together). We cannot afford to act on impulses, biases/preferences or self-centred goals anymore.

The Project (of Aacariya Thwatchai) in this note is more than a simple story 'repeated'. It is a story of an  'emergence'  of 'collaboration' (the children working together) in a guided (but not 'controlled') manner. It is also a story of how 'innovation'/'new knowledge' is seeded/germinated/started, nurtured/raised/cared and developed/grown to maturity/successful and lasting outcome. <Note> None of the children were experts!

We have seen time and time that collaboration among individualistic geniuses is very difficult and often ends in lesser results than anticipated (too many cooks spoil the broth?). Research and Development teams are often made up as groups of highly skilled and individualistic specialists/experts, and they don't work well. We have witnessed teachers in higher grades blaming lower-grade teachers for 'sub-prime' children, and this education crisis had been handled roughly in the same way as the current credit crisis - by throwing money into it and creating 'frenzy' feeding on money. (The problem turned from 'how to improve the quality of our children' to 'how to get larger sum of money' and so the solutions failed our children and their parents.)

Let us welcome the new year and wish for a 'collaborative' invention of real solutions.

Happy NEW year - together . 

สร
ร่วมแบ่งปันความรู้และความเห็นแล้ว 572 ครั้ง - ได้รับดาวแล้ว 168 ดวง - โหวตเพิ่มดาว

We are talking more on the ingredients in a collaborative problem solving recipe (A. Thwatchai's project as told by A. Klin). We note that

1) The children are the most important ingredients - and no! They are not experts, specially gifted geniuses, nor well equipped with financial support. The children are just 'ordinary little people' like us.

2) The problem is solved by collaborative experiments with support from the principal. Did the principal worked out a solution before hand? The story says the principal is 'only a determined man' - not giving up easily. He is not an expert either. Yes! He uses his position in encouraging the children - and that isn't without risk.

3) We see how problem solving proceed in a 'common ordinary' way in the beginning. Then we see the children go 'out of the box' and 'create' the 'maggot fish food' idea. This lateral thinking is an expression of 'innovation' - the new way of thinking and solving the problem.

4) We later see another improvement of the solution. By feeding the maggots, the fish get better food and grow bigger and faster. This idea evolves from the innovation. It's further removed (more indirect) from the original problem - getting rid of flies! This ingredient makes the solution 'sweeter'.

Can we see or taste other ingredients in this recipe? We could make a more complete list - if we share our list!

สร
ร่วมแบ่งปันความรู้และความเห็นแล้ว 572 ครั้ง - ได้รับดาวแล้ว 168 ดวง - โหวตเพิ่มดาว

Ummmh, we were hoping to see some comments about a very important kind of ingredients - the software kind. Not the materials, not the process or mechanism, but the 'ethic', moral, mental qualities -- the vision, the virtue, the for good for nature and mankind ... These ingrediants make the project worth doing. make collaboration smart, make community proud and make us feel good. We all know this kind of things -- the things that money can't buy, the things that live on forever.

What we see in the list of ingredients have been 'dry' and 'hard' matters or objects that we can see or touch. We rely heavily on our physical contact senses. We do use senses of smell, taste and hearing less than our eyes and skins. We hardly use our sixth sense - the deeper, subconscious, mental faculty. Many people have experienced the sensation from the working of this sensory perception channel. Most cannot even recognize that there is something different from the other 5 senses.

We are in a space-time location where our common senses must be trained to higher levels of use to go forth through the edge of chaos or turbulence into controlable area. The quality of control is very much the quality of the controllers. Our controllers may have little time to focus on 'quality' - we should help them realize and produce the best quality for us. If we keep silence, they will take our gold (and run back over the China seas).

สร
ร่วมแบ่งปันความรู้และความเห็นแล้ว 572 ครั้ง - ได้รับดาวแล้ว 168 ดวง - โหวตเพิ่มดาว

One important greidient in any project is the goal or what we hope to achieve.

For many people 'what we get' at the end is all-or-nothing. For some, only 'what we get' matters. The ways we use to get what we want are just vehicles/tools that we use and may leave behind when the project is done. Only, religious/spiritual people worry about the ways we use to get things. Only moral people say 'we have to get the "right" things "and" we have to get them using the "right" ways'. In taking preferences against 'immoral' things and 'immoral' ways, we make the world a better place to live -- for our children and their children to live.

Blah humbug! You'd hear from one side. The world is full of historical accounts of those who won by plundering, exploiting, using forces, killing friends and even fathers, ... Why do we even learn about their 'greatness' (riches and power) but not their 'immoral' deeds?  Why do we worship money mongers and help them to recover from the financial crisis first when their greeds and immoral practices are the cause of our woes at the moment?

What is clear is that in a collaborative project the goal must be achievable and morally agreeable by all participants of many beliefs and points of view. The course of actions must also be doable with available resources and morally satisfying for all. The results (of meeting the goal and other constraints) may come to be more (or less) than the goal are just consequences of optimization (trying to satisfy multiple concerns). This is the real challenge for communities -- not just individuals but cooperative organizations, to learn more about non-individualistic (not self-centred, mass, community) and (long lasting)  goals and practices while recognizing not the 'one-off' results but the evolutionary/continuing results.

There is a saying that "What we see depends on where we stand".

Before we can see the ingredients for learning projects clearly, we may need to adjust our sights, our positions and our "self". Can you see what we see?

    We have been following the project of the principle, Aacariya Thwatchai. We have analysed various components of his project. We have come to realise that he did not act like a teacher (or an instructor in our usual sense) giving out his knowledge (or what he has known and remembered). He was not an expert in getting rid of flies (or growing fish or growing maggots in our usual sense). He was not really a (project) director giving orders and deadlines according to a preconceived or predesigned plan -- again in our usual sense. He was acting as a service provider facilitating (or assisting) a learning system of his young students, their wish, their environment and the fly problem. He provided encouragement, means to follow a course of actions, 'time' for talking, thinking, discussing and acting, and (very importantly) grounds to express "trust in others and confidence in oneself".
    It is this very ingredient "trust and confidence" that makes the project complete and the learning successful as we can now see. The project was not done with "expert knowledge", "strong management", adequate resources and funds, nor excellent individual actions. The project was a simple community work by members of the community for the community. The project was an example of "knowledge society" for learning, thinking, creating and sharing public or open knowledge. A knowledge society came to exist in this project!

   [This ends the various thoughts I had when I accepted Guru Pai's offer to translate Aacariya Klin's Notes. I hope that the translation and comments are within the context of Aacariya Thwatchai's project work and I apologise the Aacariyas for any mis-rendition and interpretation. I hope that we have learned and now are able to emulate learning projects in different places or contexts or media. I trust you now have confidence to share knowledge society not in a dream but in our lifetime. SR 15Feb09]