From Lukasgirtanner
Jump to: navigation, search

Beyond mathematical provability?

Valid until contradicted?

"Extreme provisional precaution?"

Authority to "manage" partial or non-UTSARA compliance for the sake of diversity?

Not possible to include meaningfully in an ideology?

Is UTSARAHL conceivable or inconceivable or neither with any ideology? If UTSARA is ideological, might UTSARAHL even be the opposite or an antithesis to UTSARA? Or simply be "outside" or "outside on the top" of UTSARA? Therefore, should a completely different word that is not (at all) based on the acronym "UTSARA" be used?

UTSARAHL as a challenge and test for entities?

UTSARAHL as an intuitive feeling/impression/idea?

Based on "not infinitely short" experience?

Where not even the wrong question is allowed (when meant/asked seriously)? (and what about UTSARA?)

Or where only the wrong answers are not allowed (when meant/answered seriously)?

A concept developed/created in order to make concepts like abstract babies manageable? And what about mathematics? (And abstract mothers? possible gender or "gender" issues?)

Mathematics and UTSARAHL? The same? Mutual coexistence? Or even competition?

"the universe", "evolution", "nature" and UTSARAHL? How do they relate to each other? How do I feel when I am asking this question?

(What about "abstract mothers"? (In relation to abstract babies?) Abstract mothers simply a gender issue? Abstract parent? Or would this be a too biological way of thinking?)

UTSARA on its own level is not manageable, but since non compliance with UTSARA might be manageable, UTSARA might be manageable as a block/whole (only) in the context of non-complete-UTSARA compliance

nothing really new actually?

The correct/right(eous) side to decide for the undecided?

The opportunity or option for the correct/right(eous) decision for the undecided?

Not the option for the inpatient ones? (regardless of decision which in case of insufficient patience would not be a real decision?)

Patience (as value on a higher level) as the decisive and only UTSARA value found in UTSARAHL?

No list of values for UTSARAHL except for maybe patience? (and what about mathematical rigorousness respectively mathematics?)

A concept to increase global diversity and remain undecided as long as possible on a personal level?

Does it matter for UTSARAHL "how many" "entities" are not UTSARA compliant? Is one ? What is the extent of tolerated or even desired/aimed diversity? Is one single entity already too much? Or is it still enough if only a "very few" or only one entity remains committed to UTSARA from the UTSARAHL perspective? The latter question should be answered almost certainly with "no" except when these few UTSARA compliant entities are particularly important compared to the non UTSARA compliant entities (the questions concerning the relation between UTSARAHL and UTSARA here might have to be moved to a new page.)

A free and individual choice/will for UTSARA? What about the unconscious?

Is UTSARA an indivisible unit? (and UTSARAHL?)

To which extent does UTSARAHL even aid or boost non-compliance with UTSARA? Why? In order to increase UTSARAHL? Or in order to strengthen those UTSARA values (at the moment probably only patience and maybe mathematical rigor) that are also part of UTSARAHL?

Candidates for UTSARAHL values:

  • patience
  • modesty? humbleness?
  • "(self-)restriction"?
  • in the end, maybe a significant part of UTSARA values again?

(* mathematical rigor?)


Relation between UTSARAHL and UTSARA? (Is there a third level or are there several levels below UTSARA?)

HL = high(est) level

include OT = "of the" into the acronym of UTSARAHL? The acronym would become long and possibly more clumsy: UTSARAOTHL. But does the name or the appearance of an acronym matter or is it just an unimportant concern?

Might the term "UTSARAHL" (but not necessarily the concept of UTSARAHL) be a(n) (inexpensive/ch..p? lazy? hidden? insincere? dishonest? inappropriate? insufficient?) way to outsource one's own shortcomings or the shortcomings of one's own ideology to another entity, concept or something else? Or more specifically: "I am good or even perfect at A, B and C, but not good/perfect (enough) at D, so let D be UTSARAHL or let D be taken care of by UTSARAHL"? Or simply a partial or complete refusal or inability to think or develop UTSARA to its ultimate end and therefore a refusal or inability to stay/stick with UTSARA (but an extremely improved UTSARA to perfection or at least infinitesimally close to perfection) without any need for an additional UTSARAHL? should UTSARA comprise everything? and what about the concept behind UTSARAHL (regardless of the term)? is there or could there be a difference between the term and concept? so just writing, but the concepts are different? wouldn't that be dishonest (or at least insufficient in terms of language use)? Would UTSARAHL simply be an immanent principle that is present in UTSARA and UTSARA would just be explicit or downgraded UTSARAHL?

How did UTSARAHL develop? History or development(s) of UTSARAHL concepts both generally and on this website here? On this website here, was it developed top-down or bottom-up? And what might that mean? (see also the point above). The name UTSARAHL also indicates how the terminology developed. Originally (a few days ago), I wrote: "I have the impression that I did not plan the concept of UTSARAHL - at least not at the conscious and semi-conscious level. I have the impression that the concept of UTSARAHL simply emerged out of UTSARA considerations in May 2010." Now, a few days later, I have the impression that I have to add the following: I am not sure to which extent my statement of above is all or true: There might have been several contributing factors to the development of UTSARAHL from the very real world too: The head bump into the lamp on a Saturday a few weeks ago, the summer heat which I suffer from (it is still here, especially today), the pictures of the onion and garlic keeper of the Girtannerhause household items franchising company that seemed like an indication or even warning to me somehow especially in terms of the "abstract baby", and also the last answer of the girtanner.com page. (The girtanner.com page seems to have disappeared as I discovered it today (at least I cannot access it anymore). I also developed the idea in these days that UTSARA and especially its compliance and non-compliance might be "manageable" somehow by a higher instance (for example for the sake of diversity, "competition" (problematic word, a little bit too action-oriented on that level?) and efficiency). And since it is difficult to imagine that an instance manages itself, I had another justification to develop a "higher" instance like UTSARAHL. So, there might have been several contributing factors and it might be dishonest or incomplete if I do not list all of them now by just saying that I "just" developed UTSARAHL "spontaneously". And (to which extent) might these considerations also indicate/show the extent to which I personally am committed to UTSARAHL? Maybe the answer is not favorable of me, at least as far as my personal level is concerned?

UTSARAHL and the ..(.)isms: But isn't it better to just leave that discussion to the Wikipedia pages?, would text about these topics here on this page make sense on this page here? And wouldn't ...(.)isms be just ideologies anyway?

UTSARAHL and asking questions? (To which extent) is UTSARAHL a concept where only questions should be asked and no answers be given? And what if still an answer is given? A premature answer (patience <-> impatience: time)?

Is UTSARAHL really just "a concept" or part of an ideology? An artifact of a "thinking"/active neural network? Or what else might it be? (And what about mathematics in this context?)

As far as this website here and UTSARAHL is concerned: Is there a point where "enough-is-enough" or "mind-your-own business"? (see also the next question)

Is UTSARAHL "not my business" or the "business" of this website here? Or - ironically or asked "half seriously" - am I just some kind of "business(wo)man"/"businessperson" or is this website here just another business or "busyness" website? Wouldn't it be recommendable to just stay where one belongs to?

Is there a varying degree of competence in terms of thinking about UTSARAHL for/in an entity? Should there be some kind of permission or license for "thinking loud" about UTSARAHL and who would issue that permission or license? And what about a permission/license for UTSARA? Would that be easier to obtain? But from whom?

Is the following certain?: "UTSARAHL is not "manageable", not even for the sake of diversity." (I would definitely say yes.)

Is the following section/question inappropriate? And if yes, why? Do I have to apologize for the following section and if yes, how? Would an apology still be possible? I am not completely sure but I am relatively sure that it is not correct to write it - but it reveals what/how I am also (or mainly? only? - which would be even less optimal) thinking sometimes, but not always, so it at least increases transparency: "What works works. Don't reinvent the wheel." I know or at least I am quite sure that this / such a statement is problematic. One/I probably should not say that. What is a wheel? Just a wheel, isn't it? Would the "technical" implications (that might be on a slightly higher level than the wheel itself) of such a statement be much better? Is it an "engineering experience" issue, relating to the concept of a wheel? A concept that seems to be simple and still the best working engineering solution, its shape being mathematically/geometrically easily describable which reminds me also of another more fundamental aspect of mathematics: (probably) simplicity in complexity. But back to the sentence with not reinventing the wheel, but on a more abstract/higher and more psychological or ideological level than the "engineering experience" level: On such a level, the sentence might make more sense, but I am still not completely sure: Wouldn't the intention of a person/entity who says such a sentence even on the most abstract level still (or even more) be problematic, would it? Another similar sentence (without maybe the mathematics and to a lesser degree the engineering implications) would be "Never change a winning horse." A horse instead of a wheel? The same or even less appropriate? Do such considerations in the context of UTSARAHL make sense and/or be appropriate? Might they at least in the context of manageable UTSARA make more sense and/or be more appropriate, but not in the context of UTSARAHL itself? So, why did I write these two sentences with the wheel and the horse here on the UTSARAHL page? As part of writing about manageable UTSARA? Or as part of writing about UTSARAHL itself? Wouldn't the latter be the more problematic case as already mentioned? On the other hand, might such questions or such sentences still be necessary because of constantly questioning any matters of course?

See also is the UTSARAHL question out of place?

Another question concerns whether a link to this UTSARAHL page here should be placed on the Main Page. On 2010-06-10, this page here was indeed linked from the Main Page as part of a general Main Page reorganization (but it would probably have been placed anyway onto the Main Page even when no Main Page reorganization would have taken place), although with a slightly insecure feeling. But would it make sense to distinguish pages as more and less visible or prominent? Probably not. Either you fully stand/stick by a page that you have written or you don't and then you should not have written it. It is better to write a page in a way that the insecurity becomes visible on the page itself.

Another general question concerns the "wannabe-UTSARAHL" topic that shares some similarities with the "wannabe-mathematician" topic, see I-would-like-to-be-mathematicians. How seriously and earnestly is UTSARAHL really meant respectively how should it actually be?