Print this page
Monday, 11 January 2010 12:32

Think About It

Written by 
Rate this item
(0 votes)

If there are over one hundred and twenty mathematical functions and relationships to be observed in one fold of the circle in half, why don’t we fold circles to teach mathematics?

  • If math can be discovered by anyone observing what is generated by folding the circle why aren't our children folding circles along with drawing pictures of circles.

  • If the symbol of the circle is nothing (zero) and the circle is everything (Whole) wouldn't it make sense to start with everything rather than nothing?

  • If the circle is Whole, a compressed sphere, why do we continue to teach mathematics in a fragmented fashion using bits and pieces where we cut the sphere apart to show a circle?

  • If the Pythagorean Theorem can be discovered in one fold of the circle why do we teach it as an abstraction to be proved by construction?

  • If the first fold of the circles reveals the principles of pattern development, fundamental to mathematics and systems formation, why don’t we teach the principles of mathematics? They are the same principles for everything else.

  • If the circle allows us to model using straight and curved edges why do we use only the straight edges of polygons?

  • If folding the circle one time reveals the Fibonacci progression of numbers, why don’t we let young children discover this progression?

  • If the circle is origin to all polygons, why do we teach children mostly about polygons?

  • If folding the circumference of a circle reveals proportions, ratios, and relationships not possible in folding the perimeters of polygons, why don’t we fold circles?

  • If the circle is comprehensive why do we only give students parts and tell them what to look for rather than allowing them to tell us what they see making their own connections within the folded circle?

  • If the circle in space is dynamic and generates information why do we only drawing static pictures of it?

  • If the square is limited to four sides, why don’t we fold circles that are without the limitation of sides?

  • Why do we think simplicity is one thing in isolation rather than unity as a comprehensive Whole of all things revealed sequentially?

  • If the meaning of anything is defined by the context why do we take things out of context and teach isolation and separation, limited to only a few constructed connections?

  • If all information about triangles is revealed in three folds of the circle why do we want to continue to teach about triangles piece by piece without context?

  • If folding a circle in half generates six semi-circles and constructing aa image with a diameter yields only two semi-circles, why do we keep drawing circles to show only two?

  • If everything in the circle is in the context of every thing else why do we want to take it apart as if there is no context?

  • Why do we put emphasis on measurement when understanding is in the ratios and proportions of the self-referencing, self-generating, and self-distributive Whole?

  • If three is structural and seven is the most possible combinations of associations of three, why is this not taught as a basic property of numbers?

  • If all parts folded in the circle are multifunctional and interconnected, why don’t we teach students about the unity and interrelatedness of all parts.

  • If all polygons are demonstrable by folding circles, why do we limit ourselves with static constructions of polygons piece by piece?

  • If one fold in the circle forms a dual tetrahedral pattern, and nine creases make the “solid” form, why aren't students folding tetrahedra rather than constructing with templates made by someone else?

  • If all regular polyhedra can be formed by folding tetrahedra, opening and joining in multiples, why don’t we do that?

  • If the circle is both Whole and parts, not demonstrable by any other shape or form, wouldn't it be to our advantage to know that?

  • If every fold in the circle is a spherical pattern of movement revealing a straight line perpendicular to and half way between the points, why do we only draw straight lines to show the distance between points?

  • All fundamentals of geometry and mathematics are generated by folding the circle; why do we require students to construct this information when it is inherent in the circle and is there to be observed by anyone?

  • If the circle is Whole, inherently containing everything fundamental about geometry and mathematics, pattern and pattern formation, why don’t we fold circles?

 

We do not fold circles, we do not believe it is unity, only a unit, even though we call it whole. We only draw pictures of circles and fold squares. Neither of those activities will tell us anything about the nature of the circle and what can be generated by folding them. If they did we would already be folding circles.



Read 2571 times Last modified on Thursday, 14 June 2012 09:44
Bradford Hansen-Smith

Latest from Bradford Hansen-Smith