Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

My Conversation with Einstein

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
` - 23 Jun 2007 16:49 GMT
Tagore and Einstein met through a common friend, Dr. Mendel. Tagore
visited Einstein at his residence at Kaputh in the suburbs of Berlin
on July 14, 1930, and Einstein returned the call and visited Tagore at
the Mendel home. Both conversations were recorded and the above
photograph was taken. The July 14 conversation is reproduced here, and
was originally published in The Religion of Man (George, Allen &
Unwin, Ltd., London), Appendix II, pp. 222-225.

--

TAGORE: I was discussing with Dr. Mendel today the new mathematical
discoveries which tell us that in the realm of infinitesimal atoms
chance has its play; the drama of existence is not absolutely
predestined in character.

EINSTEIN: The facts that make science tend toward this view do not say
good-bye to causality.

TAGORE: Maybe not, yet it appears that the idea of causality is not in
the elements, but that some other force builds up with them an
organized universe.

EINSTEIN: One tries to understand in the higher plane how the order
is. The order is there, where the big elements combine and guide
existence, but in the minute elements this order is not perceptible.

TAGORE: Thus duality is in the depths of existence, the contradiction
of free impulse and the directive will which works upon it and evolves
an orderly scheme of things.

EINSTEIN: Modern physics would not say they are contradictory. Clouds
look as one from a distance, but if you see them nearby, they show
themselves as disorderly drops of water.

TAGORE: I find a parallel in human psychology. Our passions and
desires are unruly, but our character subdues these elements into a
harmonious whole. Does something similar to this happen in the
physical world? Are the elements rebellious, dynamic with individual
impulse? And is there a principle in the physical world which
dominates them and puts them into an orderly organization?

EINSTEIN: Even the elements are not without statistical order;
elements of radium will always maintain their specific order, now and
ever onward, just as they have done all along. There is, then, a
statistical order in the elements.

TAGORE: Otherwise, the drama of existence would be too desultory. It
is the constant harmony of chance and determination which makes it
eternally new and living.

EINSTEIN: I believe that whatever we do or live for has its causality;
it is good, however, that we cannot see through to it.

TAGORE: There is in human affairs an element of elasticity also, some
freedom within a small range which is for the expression of our
personality. It is like the musical system in India, which is not so
rigidly fixed as western music. Our composers give a certain definite
outline, a system of melody and rhythmic arrangement, and within a
certain limit the player can improvise upon it. He must be one with
the law of that particular melody, and then he can give spontaneous
expression to his musical feeling within the prescribed regulation. We
praise the composer for his genius in creating a foundation along with
a superstructure of melodies, but we expect from the player his own
skill in the creation of variations of melodic flourish and
ornamentation. In creation we follow the central law of existence, but
if we do not cut ourselves adrift from it, we can have sufficient
freedom within the limits of our personality for the fullest self-
expression.

EINSTEIN: That is possible only when there is a strong artistic
tradition in music to guide the people's mind. In Europe, music has
come too far away from popular art and popular feeling and has become
something like a secret art with conventions and traditions of its
own.

TAGORE: You have to be absolutely obedient to this too complicated
music. In India, the measure of a singer's freedom is in his own
creative personality. He can sing the composer's song as his own, if
he has the power creatively to assert himself in his interpretation of
the general law of the melody which he is given to interpret.

EINSTEIN: It requires a very high standard of art to realize fully the
great idea in the original music, so that one can make variations upon
it. In our country, the variations are often prescribed.

TAGORE: If in our conduct we can follow the law of goodness, we can
have real liberty of self-expression. The principle of conduct is
there, but the character which makes it true and individual is our own
creation. In our music there is a duality of freedom and prescribed
order.

EINSTEIN: Are the words of a song also free? I mean to say, is the
singer at liberty to add his own words to the song which he is
singing?

TAGORE: Yes. In Bengal we have a kind of song-kirtan, we call it-which
gives freedom to the singer to introduce parenthetical comments,
phrases not in the original song. This occasions great enthusiasm,
since the audience is constantly thrilled by some beautiful,
spontaneous sentiment added by the singer.

EINSTEIN: Is the metrical form quite severe?

TAGORE: Yes, quite. You cannot exceed the limits of versification; the
singer in all his variations must keep the rhythm and the time, which
is fixed. In European music you have a comparative liberty with time,
but not with melody.

EINSTEIN: Can the Indian music be sung without words? Can one
understand a song without words?

TAGORE: Yes, we have songs with unmeaning words, sounds which just
help to act as carriers of the notes. In North India, music is an
independent art, not the interpretation of words and thoughts, as in
Bengal. The music is very intricate and subtle and is a complete world
of melody by itself.

EINSTEIN: Is it not polyphonic?

TAGORE: Instruments are used, not for harmony, but for keeping time
and adding to the volume and depth. Has melody suffered in your music
by the imposition of harmony?

EINSTEIN: Sometimes it does suffer very much. Sometimes the harmony
swallows up the melody altogether.

TAGORE: Melody and harmony are like lines and colors in pictures. A
simple linear picture may be completely beautiful; the introduction of
color may make it vague and insignificant. Yet color may, by
combination with lines, create great pictures, so long as it does not
smother and destroy their value.

EINSTEIN: It is a beautiful comparison; line is also much older than
color. It seems that your melody is much richer in structure than
ours. Japanese music also seems to be so.

TAGORE: It is difficult to analyze the effect of eastern and western
music on our minds. I am deeply moved by the western music; I feel
that it is great, that it is vast in its structure and grand in its
composition. Our own music touches me more deeply by its fundamental
lyrical appeal. European music is epic in character; it has a broad
background and is Gothic in its structure.

EINSTEIN: This is a question we Europeans cannot properly answer, we
are so used to our own music. We want to know whether our own music is
a conventional or a fundamental human feeling, whether to feel
consonance and dissonance is natural, or a convention which we accept.

TAGORE: Somehow the piano confounds me. The violin pleases me much
more.

EINSTEIN: It would be interesting to study the effects of European
music on an Indian who had never heard it when he was young.

TAGORE: Once I asked an English musician to analyze for me some
classical music, and explain to me what elements make for the beauty
of the piece.

EINSTEIN: The difficulty is that the really good music, whether of the
East or of the West, cannot be analyzed.

TAGORE: Yes, and what deeply affects the hearer is beyond himself.

EINSTEIN: The same uncertainty will always be there about everything
fundamental in our experience, in our reaction to art, whether in
Europe or in Asia. Even the red flower I see before me on your table
may not be the same to you and me.

TAGORE: And yet there is always going on the process of reconciliation
between them, the individual taste conforming to the universal
standard.

--
Neil Brooks - 23 Jun 2007 17:12 GMT
Do you have anything at all to contribute to SCI.MED.VISION?

Thanks.
Neil Brooks - 23 Jun 2007 19:36 GMT
>Do you have anything at all to contribute to SCI.MED.VISION?
>
>Thanks.

I see you accidentally deleted your original post again, Kamekaze.

Here it is:

http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/vision/5083/My-Conversation-with-Einstein
RT - 23 Jun 2007 19:43 GMT
> >Do you have anything at all to contribute to SCI.MED.VISION?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/vision/5083/My-Conversation-with-Einstein

First you criticize him for posting off topic and then you repost it.
WTF? You're nuts. Get a life.

Signature

~RT

Neil Brooks - 23 Jun 2007 19:48 GMT
>> >Do you have anything at all to contribute to SCI.MED.VISION?
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>First you criticize him for posting off topic and then you repost it.
>WTF? You're nuts. Get a life.

Ouch.  That stung.
RT - 23 Jun 2007 20:00 GMT
> Ouch.  That stung.

The truth hurts. Hopefully one day you'll realize how much of your life
you have wasted on this NG. Hopefully for you that will happen sooner
than later so you do have some time to productively contribute to
society. I mean this sincerely. There are a few people on this NG who
are trying to point this out to you, but you refuse to see it.

People are more discerning than you think they are. Even those under the
age of 18 who you claim to be protecting in one breath and then insult
with the next.

Why don't you create an informative webpage on your website about your
objections to Otis and others who bother you. Then just reply to their
messages with this URL since you are compelled to answer every single
one of their posts.

Signature

~RT

Ms.Brainy - 23 Jun 2007 20:17 GMT
> In article <f0qq7399bbc5qa7vb81e3rqpdubonbl...@4ax.com>,
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> --
> ~RT

The deletion by mister coma (') placed Neil in a position of
responding to nothing out of the blue.  At least this is the way it
appeared to the many who read the messages on google S.M.V.

If you haven't noticed, mr. coma is no other but the innocent "child"
you keep protecting, Ar-Ti.

Neil's response to the "Conversation" was appropriate.  Those who want
to philosophize about the universe and music should find their nitch
elsewhere in the Wide World Web, and those who want philosophy about
vision should go to yahoo i-see group.

The polluter of this Sci.Med.Vision forum is Coma, not Neil.  The nuts
here are those who protect this infantile creature.
RT - 23 Jun 2007 20:23 GMT
Hey Brainy. You reduce everything to "sides." I don't see that I"m
protecting anyone. All I'm doing is showing Neil how much of his life
he's wasting. Good thing for him he has you around to speak for him. You
gave him a few extra minutes to enjoy today. Too bad you lost them for
yourself.

Signature

~RT

Ms.Brainy - 23 Jun 2007 20:31 GMT
> Hey Brainy. You reduce everything to "sides." I don't see that I"m
> protecting anyone. All I'm doing is showing Neil how much of his life
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> --
> ~RT

Yes mother.
spammer - 25 Jun 2007 04:27 GMT
> Hey Brainy. You reduce everything to "sides." I don't see that I"m
> protecting anyone. All I'm doing is showing Neil how much of his life
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> --
> ~RT

It's Neil's life and if he chooses to spend time here doing as he's
doing, that's his choice alone.
Neil Brooks - 25 Jun 2007 04:32 GMT
>> Hey Brainy. You reduce everything to "sides." I don't see that I"m
>> protecting anyone. All I'm doing is showing Neil how much of his life
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>It's Neil's life and if he chooses to spend time here doing as he's
>doing, that's his choice alone.

Many thanks.

If I listed my accomplishments in an average day, it'd make RT's head
spin. I lead an awfully full, rich life.  

Trying to make an honest man out of Uncle Otie ... and keep him from
hurting people ... is but a single star in a giant galaxy of pastimes
for me ;-)
Kakuzu - 25 Jun 2007 10:49 GMT
> > Hey Brainy. You reduce everything to "sides." I don't see that I"m
> > protecting anyone. All I'm doing is showing Neil how much of his life
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> It's Neil's life and if he chooses to spend time here doing as he's
> doing, that's his choice alone.

It's RT's life and if he chooses to spend time here pointing out a
little logic to our confused insect friend Neil here, that's his
choice alone. No?

>I lead an awfully full, rich life.

I see you have now taken to boasting your usual crap -- but why don't
you lead an awfully modest, *logical* life, instead of claiming to be
some sort of savior/protector of "vulnerable" children.

>If I listed my accomplishments in an average day

Couldn't possibly care less about your accomplishments - and whatever
bull$hit you have done in your pastime. It is irrelevant to the points
that RT has raised, which you currently seem unable to respond to.
What's wrong, Neil - scared you won't be able to worm your way out of
this? Dear oh dear.
Kakuzu - 25 Jun 2007 19:04 GMT
> > Hey Brainy. You reduce everything to "sides." I don't see that I"m
> > protecting anyone. All I'm doing is showing Neil how much of his life
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> It's Neil's life and if he chooses to spend time here doing as he's
> doing, that's his choice alone.

It's RT's life and if he chooses to spend time here pointing out a
little logic to our confused insect friend Neil here, as he is doing,
that's his choice alone.

>I lead an awfully full, rich life.

I see you have now taken to boasting your usual crap -- but why don't
you lead an awfully modest, *logical* life, instead of claiming to be
some sort of savior/protector of "vulnerable" children.

>If I listed my accomplishments in an average day

Couldn't possibly care less about your accomplishments - and whatever
bull$hit you have done in your pastime. It is irrelevant to the points
that RT has raised, which you currently seem unable to respond to.
What's wrong, Neil - scared you won't be able to worm your way out of
this? Dear oh dear.
otisbrown@pa.net - 26 Jun 2007 04:39 GMT
Dear Kakuzu,

Neil is a layman, bent on "protecting" everyone from the
preventive second-opinion.

He then invents 20 questions for everyone to "answer".

What I suggest to layman Brooks is this:

A fool can ask more questions is 10 minutes than
a wise man can answer in 10 days.

But Brooks probably has some "economic" reason
for defending the use of the exacerbating minus lens -- that
he will not reveal.  In fact we know nothing about this
Brooks character, since he will tell us nothing about
his profession or his reasons for posting here.

Try to ask him -- he will just give you bullshit, and
evade the above questions.  And honest poster
would have no problem identifying his profession,
and source of income.  In fact, most professionals
are PROUD of what they do in their profession.

How about it Neil.  You like to talk a lot.
Be honest and reply to these questions.

Otis

> > > Hey Brainy. You reduce everything to "sides." I don't see that I"m
> > > protecting anyone. All I'm doing is showing Neil how much of his life
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> What's wrong, Neil - scared you won't be able to worm your way out of
> this? Dear oh dear.
Neil Brooks - 26 Jun 2007 15:00 GMT
>Neil is a layman, bent on "protecting" everyone from the
>preventive second-opinion.

No.  Just from you.

>He then invents 20 questions for everyone to "answer".

No.  Just from you.

>What I suggest to layman Brooks is this:
>
>A fool can ask more questions is 10 minutes than
>a wise man can answer in 10 days.

But you're, apparently, unable or unwilling to answer my questions in
either case, but .... let's see whether you're fool enough to POSE a
few questions below....

>But Brooks probably has some "economic" reason
>for defending the use of the exacerbating minus lens -- that
>he will not reveal.  

None whatsoever.  Just don't like to see innocent people hurt by
people like you.

> In fact we know nothing about this
>Brooks character,

And we know alllll we need to about yours.  It's absent.

> since he will tell us nothing about
>his profession or his reasons for posting here.
>
>Try to ask him -- he will just give you bullshit, and
>evade the above questions.  

pot ... kettle ... black.

> And honest poster
>would have no problem identifying his profession,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>How about it Neil.  You like to talk a lot.
>Be honest and reply to these questions.

It's irrelevant.  This forum is about the science and medicine of
vision.  

I've asked you relevant, cogent, logical, and important questions
ABOUT that very topic.  You simply refuse to (or are incable of)
answer them.

I'm trying to stay ON topic.  You're trying to commit yet another
logical fallacy and stray OFF topic.

Besides, with all of your crap about my "character" or my
"dishonesty," what make anybody think you'd believe any answer that I
gave, anyway?

I'm not in any field connected with vision, glasses, eyesight, or
medicine.

That's all you need to know.

My questions stand.  They're perfectly relevant.  The only thing MORE
telling than your ANSWERS to those questions is the fact that you
steadfastly REFUSE to answer them at all.

Readers: take note.
otisbrown@pa.net - 26 Jun 2007 18:54 GMT
Dear Reader,

As expected, Neil Brooks evaded all questions.

We have no idea who he is, or what he is doing.

He gives endless advice -- as layman with no
competence.

The second-opinion is prevention (at the threshold)
with a plus -- but the expert.  See:

www.chinamyopia.org

It is clear that the majority-opinion ODs argue
that prevention (by any and all means -- is IMPOSSIBLE).

I suggest that, at the threshold -- it is possible.

That is the ONLY disagreement we have.

As they say, consult with a doctor, and NOT
with Neil Brooks.

But just remember that EXPERTS are in disagreement
all the way to the CORE.

Be informed, and make an educated choice for your
children -- in the future.

One thing I do agree about, and that is that is
you put your child into a strong minus, that ends
the possibility for him to keep his naked eye vision
clear through the school years.

Enjoy,

Otis

> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:39:17 -0700, "otisbr...@pa.net"
>
[quoted text clipped - 69 lines]
>
> Readers: take note.
Neil Brooks - 26 Jun 2007 19:13 GMT
>Dear Reader,
>
>As expected, Neil Brooks evaded all questions.

pot ... kettle ... black.

Can you even imagine that there's anybody who hasn't noticed that you
have NEVER answered MY legitimate questions?

>We have no idea who he is, or what he is doing.

Who I am is irrelevant.  Whether or not I have valid knowledge IS.  

>He gives endless advice -- as layman with no
>competence.

I do?  

I thought I was an ophthalmologist.  Isn't that what you said?  I
thought you said I had an "exhaustive knowledge of the medical
literature."

Please pick an answer and stick with it.

Feel like answering my questions now?  Here they are:

 www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

Thanks.
otisbrown@pa.net - 26 Jun 2007 19:41 GMT
Dear Layman Brooks,

AFTER you answer my questions.

I RESPECT the majority-opinion ODs posting here.

They are honest about their "position" and the
concept that a negative refractive STATE of
the natural eye CAN NEVER BE PREVENTED.

I do not agree with that assessment, because
I know that SOME ODs (second-opinion) have
recognized that PREVENTION must START
before that first lens is placed on the
child's face.

I think all parents should be EDUCATED about
this issue, and read:

www.chinamyopia.org

for VALID, scientific information FROM a
confirmed expert.

That way the child can have at least
a FIGHTING CHANCE to avoid entry
into a negative refractive STATE for his eyes.

After that true "control" would rest with
the parent, under the leadership of Steve Leung.

But once the minus "starts", never ask or
expect plus-prevention from an optometrist.

Just one man's opinion.

Otis

> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:54:16 -0700, "otisbr...@pa.net"
>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> Thanks.
Neil Brooks - 26 Jun 2007 20:12 GMT
>Dear Layman Brooks,
>
>AFTER you answer my questions.

But you've kept me (and everybody else) waiting for YEARS.

After you ... I insist.

>I RESPECT the majority-opinion ODs posting here.

You insult them constantly.  

You mis-quote them interminably.

You put words in their mouths perpetually.

You create straw-man arguments, attribute them to the OD's, then argue
against them.

You excerpt their conversations, from s.m.v., post them in other
venues, then "comment" on them, giving yourself an unmoderated
platform, and them no chance to respond.

This is respect?

>They are honest about their "position" and the
>concept that a negative refractive STATE of
>the natural eye CAN NEVER BE PREVENTED.

Oh, yes.  You also try to change the vernacular to create an illogical
argument.

So ... here, again, is a link to the questions.

You start, then ... provided your questions are relevant, coherent,
and logical ... we'll see what happens next :-)

  http://www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt
otisbrown@pa.net - 27 Jun 2007 03:14 GMT
Hey, Neil Brooks.

That was a pretty neat trick that teen pulled on you.

After you called him "dumb".

Perhaps you are the dumb one after all, posting
here with no knowlege or experience in medicine.

Otis

> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:41:48 -0700, "otisbr...@pa.net"
>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
>    http://www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt
Neil Brooks - 27 Jun 2007 03:20 GMT
>Hey, Neil Brooks.
>
>Perhaps you are the dumb one after all, posting
>here with no knowlege or experience in medicine.

1) Again: you've posted here, and elsewhere, your CERTAINTY that I was
an ophthalmologist.  How the tides have turned, huh?

2) You're (as usual) factually wrong.  I have PLENTY of knowledge and
experience in medicine (vision-related issues, eyesight).  I simply
have no formal training and do not make a living at it.

3) As I'm so fond of saying -- largely because you give me ample
opportunities to point out what an incredible hypocrite you are --

pot ... kettle ... black.

4) I've never hurt anybody with MY advice.  You can't say that.

5) I know what I know and what I don't know.  When I don't know, I
don't offer.  You can't say that either.

Are you having fun yet, Otis?

Enough fun to answer these questions:

 www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

Thanks.
otisbrown@pa.net - 27 Jun 2007 03:47 GMT
Oh, sorry, I interrupted your "Conversation with
Einstein -- as the your title suggests.

> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:14:26 -0700, "otisbr...@pa.net"
>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> Thanks.
Neil Brooks - 27 Jun 2007 05:29 GMT
>Oh, sorry, I interrupted your "Conversation with
>Einstein -- as the your title suggests.

Does that mean that you ARE or ARE NOT going to answer these
questions?

www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

Others might find your answers enlightening.

Please, Otis.  Extend yourself.  It shouldn't be so painful to answer
a few pointed questions, right?
Ms.Brainy - 27 Jun 2007 05:58 GMT
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:47:09 -0700, "otisbr...@pa.net"
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Please, Otis.  Extend yourself.  It shouldn't be so painful to answer
> a few pointed questions, right?

Hey Neil, would you like me to help and provide the answers on Otis
behalf, as I did for P.Clark'a questions?  Sorry, not tonight.  I had
a cataract surgery today, wearing now a shield on my eye and its
itching hell under the shield...
Neil Brooks - 27 Jun 2007 14:59 GMT
>Hey Neil, would you like me to help and provide the answers on Otis
>behalf, as I did for P.Clark'a questions?  

If it's not too much trouble....

>Sorry, not tonight.  I had
>a cataract surgery today, wearing now a shield on my eye and its
>itching hell under the shield...

But first ... please answer THESE questions ;-)

Who'd you go with ...

How'd you finalize that decision ...

What refractive endpoint were you shooting for ....

Did you get the lens you wanted ....

Other than itching ... how would you say it went ...

Keep us posted on the progress!
Dr. Leukoma - 27 Jun 2007 04:33 GMT
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:14:26 -0700, "otisbr...@pa.net"
>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> Thanks.

Neil, suffice it to say that I have never observed you to dispense
advice on the treatment and prevention of myopia, as I have observed
Otis to do on countless occasions.  I have only observed that you have
reacted with scepticism -- and rightly so -- at the recommendations of
Otis.

Perhaps we should leave it at that.

DrG
otisbrown@pa.net - 24 Jun 2007 01:50 GMT
Dear Ms. Brainy,

Subject:  Teen-ager Smarter than the magnificant Troll
Neil Brooks?

You mean that the teenager that Neil Brooks was
calling "stupid", pulled a stunt ot Brooks.

You mean he was like the Cheshire cat, and
posted a remark and Brooks responded to it?

Ho, ho, ho, ho,

And then he "faded" until only his smile remains?

Ho, ho, ho.

This teenager out-smarted Brooks?

Maybe Brooks this teenager is
more "Brainy" that Brooks.

Jeeze,

Otis

> > In article <f0qq7399bbc5qa7vb81e3rqpdubonbl...@4ax.com>,
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Neil Brooks - 24 Jun 2007 03:16 GMT
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 17:50:29 -0700, "otisbrown@pa.net"

>You mean that the teenager that Neil Brooks was
>calling "stupid", pulled a stunt ot Brooks.

It's always difficult to tell if it's your spelling, your eyesight,
your mental faculties, or all of the above coming into play when you
type something like that.
otisbrown@pa.net - 23 Jun 2007 20:18 GMT
Sorry Neil Crooks started this off-topic subject, but
out of respect for Dr. Einstein, here is his post:

Tagore and Einstein met through a common friend, Dr. Mendel. Tagore
visited Einstein at his residence at Kaputh in the suburbs of Berlin
on July 14, 1930, and Einstein returned the call and visited Tagore at
the Mendel home. Both conversations were recorded and the above
photograph was taken. The July 14 conversation is reproduced here, and
was originally published in The Religion of Man (George, Allen &
Unwin, Ltd., London), Appendix II, pp. 222-225.

--

TAGORE: I was discussing with Dr. Mendel today the new mathematical
discoveries which tell us that in the realm of infinitesimal atoms
chance has its play; the drama of existence is not absolutely
predestined in character.

EINSTEIN: The facts that make science tend toward this view do not say
good-bye to causality.

TAGORE: Maybe not, yet it appears that the idea of causality is not in
the elements, but that some other force builds up with them an
organized universe.

EINSTEIN: One tries to understand in the higher plane how the order
is. The order is there, where the big elements combine and guide
existence, but in the minute elements this order is not perceptible.

TAGORE: Thus duality is in the depths of existence, the contradiction
of free impulse and the directive will which works upon it and evolves
an orderly scheme of things.

EINSTEIN: Modern physics would not say they are contradictory. Clouds
look as one from a distance, but if you see them nearby, they show
themselves as disorderly drops of water.

TAGORE: I find a parallel in human psychology. Our passions and
desires are unruly, but our character subdues these elements into a
harmonious whole. Does something similar to this happen in the
physical world? Are the elements rebellious, dynamic with individual
impulse? And is there a principle in the physical world which
dominates them and puts them into an orderly organization?

EINSTEIN: Even the elements are not without statistical order;
elements of radium will always maintain their specific order, now and
ever onward, just as they have done all along. There is, then, a
statistical order in the elements.

TAGORE: Otherwise, the drama of existence would be too desultory. It
is the constant harmony of chance and determination which makes it
eternally new and living.

EINSTEIN: I believe that whatever we do or live for has its causality;
it is good, however, that we cannot see through to it.

TAGORE: There is in human affairs an element of elasticity also, some
freedom within a small range which is for the expression of our
personality. It is like the musical system in India, which is not so
rigidly fixed as western music. Our composers give a certain definite
outline, a system of melody and rhythmic arrangement, and within a
certain limit the player can improvise upon it. He must be one with
the law of that particular melody, and then he can give spontaneous
expression to his musical feeling within the prescribed regulation. We
praise the composer for his genius in creating a foundation along with
a superstructure of melodies, but we expect from the player his own
skill in the creation of variations of melodic flourish and
ornamentation. In creation we follow the central law of existence, but
if we do not cut ourselves adrift from it, we can have sufficient
freedom within the limits of our personality for the fullest self-
expression.

EINSTEIN: That is possible only when there is a strong artistic
tradition in music to guide the people's mind. In Europe, music has
come too far away from popular art and popular feeling and has become
something like a secret art with conventions and traditions of its
own.

TAGORE: You have to be absolutely obedient to this too complicated
music. In India, the measure of a singer's freedom is in his own
creative personality. He can sing the composer's song as his own, if
he has the power creatively to assert himself in his interpretation of
the general law of the melody which he is given to interpret.

EINSTEIN: It requires a very high standard of art to realize fully the
great idea in the original music, so that one can make variations upon
it. In our country, the variations are often prescribed.

TAGORE: If in our conduct we can follow the law of goodness, we can
have real liberty of self-expression. The principle of conduct is
there, but the character which makes it true and individual is our own
creation. In our music there is a duality of freedom and prescribed
order.

EINSTEIN: Are the words of a song also free? I mean to say, is the
singer at liberty to add his own words to the song which he is
singing?

TAGORE: Yes. In Bengal we have a kind of song-kirtan, we call it-which
gives freedom to the singer to introduce parenthetical comments,
phrases not in the original song. This occasions great enthusiasm,
since the audience is constantly thrilled by some beautiful,
spontaneous sentiment added by the singer.

EINSTEIN: Is the metrical form quite severe?

TAGORE: Yes, quite. You cannot exceed the limits of versification; the
singer in all his variations must keep the rhythm and the time, which
is fixed. In European music you have a comparative liberty with time,
but not with melody.

EINSTEIN: Can the Indian music be sung without words? Can one
understand a song without words?

TAGORE: Yes, we have songs with unmeaning words, sounds which just
help to act as carriers of the notes. In North India, music is an
independent art, not the interpretation of words and thoughts, as in
Bengal. The music is very intricate and subtle and is a complete world
of melody by itself.

EINSTEIN: Is it not polyphonic?

TAGORE: Instruments are used, not for harmony, but for keeping time
and adding to the volume and depth. Has melody suffered in your music
by the imposition of harmony?

EINSTEIN: Sometimes it does suffer very much. Sometimes the harmony
swallows up the melody altogether.

TAGORE: Melody and harmony are like lines and colors in pictures. A
simple linear picture may be completely beautiful; the introduction of
color may make it vague and insignificant. Yet color may, by
combination with lines, create great pictures, so long as it does not
smother and destroy their value.

EINSTEIN: It is a beautiful comparison; line is also much older than
color. It seems that your melody is much richer in structure than
ours. Japanese music also seems to be so.

TAGORE: It is difficult to analyze the effect of eastern and western
music on our minds. I am deeply moved by the western music; I feel
that it is great, that it is vast in its structure and grand in its
composition. Our own music touches me more deeply by its fundamental
lyrical appeal. European music is epic in character; it has a broad
background and is Gothic in its structure.

EINSTEIN: This is a question we Europeans cannot properly answer, we
are so used to our own music. We want to know whether our own music is
a conventional or a fundamental human feeling, whether to feel
consonance and dissonance is natural, or a convention which we accept.

TAGORE: Somehow the piano confounds me. The violin pleases me much
more.

EINSTEIN: It would be interesting to study the effects of European
music on an Indian who had never heard it when he was young.

TAGORE: Once I asked an English musician to analyze for me some
classical music, and explain to me what elements make for the beauty
of the piece.

EINSTEIN: The difficulty is that the really good music, whether of the
East or of the West, cannot be analyzed.

TAGORE: Yes, and what deeply affects the hearer is beyond himself.

EINSTEIN: The same uncertainty will always be there about everything
fundamental in our experience, in our reaction to art, whether in
Europe or in Asia. Even the red flower I see before me on your table
may not be the same to you and me.

TAGORE: And yet there is always going on the process of reconciliation
between them, the individual taste conforming to the universal
standard.

++++++++++++++

> Do you have anything at all to contribute to SCI.MED.VISION?
>
> Thanks.
Neil Brooks - 23 Jun 2007 21:31 GMT
>Sorry Neil Crooks started this off-topic subject, but
>out of respect for Dr. Einstein, here is his post:

RT-

I posted what I posted so that brain-dead people like Otis wouldn't
assume that I had started the thread.

Nonetheless, he did.
RT - 23 Jun 2007 22:07 GMT
> RT-
>
> I posted what I posted so that brain-dead people like Otis wouldn't
> assume that I had started the thread.
>
> Nonetheless, he did.

And why should you care what he assumes about you? BTW, if you hadn't
replied to the OP in the first place, Otis would never have assumed
anything about YOU. Step back for a moment and examine the logic you are
using in your message above.

Try to see what happens if you don't post unless it is on topic which is
no less than what you demand of others. Trust me, the result will be
that no one will assume anything about you except that you can
contribute to a discussion on the science of vision.

Signature

~RT

Dave Bell - 24 Jun 2007 00:38 GMT
>> RT-
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> that no one will assume anything about you except that you can
> contribute to a discussion on the science of vision.

A voice of clear thinking, in the wilderness...
You said it better than I have been doing!

Dave
otisbrown@pa.net - 24 Jun 2007 13:46 GMT
Gee wiz, Neil, it looks like the grinning cat, which gave you advice,
has faded away,
leaving only his smile.

(With due respect for mathematician Lewis, and "Alice in Wonderland")

o  o
 --

> Do you have anything at all to contribute to SCI.MED.VISION?
>
> Thanks.
Neil Brooks - 24 Jun 2007 15:21 GMT
On Jun 24, 5:46 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Gee wiz, Neil, it looks like the grinning cat, which gave you advice,
> has faded away, leaving only his smile.

And the following list of valid questions ... that you refuse to
answer.

C'mon, Uncle Otie.  It's just you and me now.  Answer 'em, eh?

1.      There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have
widely differing visual systems.  How is it that you feel so secure in
saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly ... in ANY regard?

2.      In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that
the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the
minus lens, the myopia was prevented?

3.      If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed
corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION
of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results?  If so, how?

4.      You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that
you call "stair-case myopia."  Presuming that you mean that it does
this in humans, do you have any valid clinical evidence for this
claim?

5.      You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is
"proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but Oakley-Young only
establishes that-in some people-myopia can get worse over time.  It
doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES this.  Please explain your
position.

6.      Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you
recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia.  Are you
aware that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus
lenses made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point
esophoria?"  This is a convergence disorder.  Do you have ANY EVIDENCE
that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE this
convergence disorder?

7.      You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the
International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades.  I
presume that you are familiar with his FDA petition.  In it, Mr. Rehm
states:

" if we converge without accommodating the appropriate amount,
or if we accommodate without converging the appropriate amount,
problems can develop for this small percentage of children such as eye
fatigue, double vision, or other types of fusion problems. That is,
the two images can no longer be fused together without discomfort.
Normal binocular vision is interfered with."

Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people
aware of these SERIOUS risks of unprescribed plus lenses?

8.      You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success
story.  Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr.  Deakins
is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a $40.00 product, and
that his "testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy this product?

9.      Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr.
Deakins?

10.     You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is,
I provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with
your home address as the "send check to" address).  You then claimed
that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until,
that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters
were on the internet. Would you please clarify whether or not you have
ever received money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid
nearsightedness: A scientific study of the normal eye's behavior?"  If
so, please state how many copies you have sold, and when the last copy
was sold.  If not, please state how long it has been since you
received any money for this book.

11.     Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you
have a commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website?

12.     Presuming that you understand the difference between
accommodative spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you
please provide credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES
axial-length myopia, or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES
axial-length myopia

13.     You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion"
optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views.  Other
than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second
opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD?  Does any of these people
have any evidence to support the claims that you make?  Would you
please provide it?

14.     Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book.  Do you have
any economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung?  Do you think
it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that
he is trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his
website, and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as
inducements to sell both your and his  book?

15.     Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though
your niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she
is, at this time, a myope with a restricted driver's license?
[http://www.chinamyopia.org/otis%20&joy.htm]

16.     I have posted, many times, links to the actual summaries of
the myopia progression studies that you lie about
[http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html/62.html].  Why do you
tell people that they WILL SHIFT MYOPIC BY 1.3 DIOPTERS during the
four years of college when the studies DO NOT SAY THAT AT ALL?  Please
explain your position and provide citations to the appropriate
studies.

17.    You enjoy citing the Francis Young 1969 Eskimo study, claiming
that it is "proof that near work causes myopia."  Are you aware of
the
contemporary theory that states that, in fact, myopia in the Inuit
population was a result of the introduction of a "Western" diet high
in simple carbohydrates (junk food)?
 http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/myopia.html
 http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2120

18.    You enjoy using the term "closed-loop feedback system" to describe
your concept of the "dynamic eye," yet (see question #3) the following
is
a much BETTER representation of a closed-loop feedback system:

 Think of your home's oven as an analogy.

 You set the thermostat for 350 degrees (F).

 If the oven is already at 275F, then the thermostat will signal an
INcrease in temperature.

 If the oven is already at 425F, then the thermostat will signal a
DEcrease in temperature.

 IF, however, the oven is already at 350F -- the desired temperature
--
then the thermostat will not signal any change.

Please explain why your position is at variance with this analogy.

19.    You seem to stop by sci.med.vision for the sole purpose of
"roiling
the waters--" adding posts designed only to harass and annoy
optometrists
who, universally, do not agree with you.

You then excerpt--often improperly and with incorrect attributions--
these conversations on other sites, adding your little 'comments'
WITHOUT the doctor having any ability to challenge what you say.

Do you think this is intellectually honest?

If you are interested in debate, exchange, argument, or discussion,
wouldn't it be better to actually ANSWER questions directly?

20.    Presuming that your theories are based, at least in large
part, on the emmetropization process, at what age does this stop in
humans?  In other words: you are recommending a particular therapy to
halt myopia progression that--based on your arguments--should be
equally
effective at REVERSING it.  If so, then why are all of its advocates
(and
most of its known 'test subjects') myopic?

This seems to be a bit of a paradox, no?
otisbrown@pa.net - 24 Jun 2007 18:32 GMT
And so the Cheshire Cat is slowly fading, and
layman Brooks is left to blather on,
and on,
and on......

Alice

> On Jun 24, 5:46 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 163 lines]
>
> This seems to be a bit of a paradox, no?
Neil Brooks - 24 Jun 2007 22:36 GMT
>And so the Cheshire Cat is slowly fading, and
>layman Brooks is left to blather on,
>and on,
>and on......

Why would a "man of science" constantly evade ... and RIDICULE ...
perfectly valid questions like the ones below?

Otis?  Do you KNOW any "men of science?"  You might want to check with
them.  I think they'd find the questions perfectly reasonable.

Why MUST you continually run away from them?

I'm sorry your little pre-pubescent friend isn't fighting your battles
for you any more.  Maybe now IS a good time to answer the questions.

>> C'mon, Uncle Otie.  It's just you and me now.  Answer 'em, eh?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 155 lines]
>>
>> This seems to be a bit of a paradox, no?

Rate this thread:






 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.