Re:

on a more fun note. is is pos=ible that learning how to write and read, in fact slows down your th=nking process. forcing children to write and organize th=ir thoughts in a medium that does not lend itself to speed. is=not natural?

Good to have a fun note.

I suspe=t that forcing children to do anything is probably harmful. But it&t4=9;s possible to introduce writing and (secondarily) reading in a way that =eems to enhance thinking. That's the idea behind "invented =pelling" (here's a link to some of the work:

https://pages.wustl.edu/files/pages/imce/treiman/Read%20%26%20Treiman_Childrens_Invente=_Spelling_final.pdf). Back in the early '50s, a philosopher =riend of mine (Israel Scheffler) brought me some pages on which his two-ye=r old

son had written things that he thought were gibberish, wondering if = could make something of it. It was immediately obvious that the kin= had learned the names of the letters and was spontaneously stringing them=together to express himself in writing. And making interesting gener=lizations. Thus the letter "A", pronounced /ey/, he used f=r the words "came," "pet", "pat"; the letter="i", pronounced /ay/, he used for "pie", "pot,&qu=t; "butt . And so on. It all made sense. Our kids d=d the same thing. Carol wrote some papers about it, Charles Read and=others carried it forward. Turns out to be a great way to teach read=ng too. Kids spontaneously express themselves, often in creative way, and =he transition to official orthography is not that difficult now that they =ave the general idea.

There's a debate about =t in educational circles, and though I haven't followed it, my impress=on is that old-fashioned forcing into a mold probably wins out, underminin= the joy of self-expression and possibly reading.

As you may=know, Galileo regarded invention of the alphabet as among the greatest of =11 human inventions. Can do no better than quote his own words. HerC2

Shortly after, the same observati=n was made about the more fundamental matter of sounds (Port Royal Grammar= 1660). I discovered all of this about 50 years ago and wrote about =t. Unknown then, still unknown, in my view some of the most profound=insights in the human sciences.

Smart guys, the f=unders of modern science.

no question in my mind that it is a huge benefit for the group. =C2 but my conjecture is that it is not necessarily good for the i=dividual. . like being a hero ( throwing you=self on a grenade ) . good for the group not so good for=the hero. . as writing forces a linear slow =ace. I wonder if in a large population , handwriting wii=l be correlated with G . anyway = I need to get my mind off the way you have been getting screwed. =AO drives me crazy.

On vision, I know of some evidence that social interac=ion (mother-neonate) facilitates depth perception, but it's years ago.=C2 Maybe there is more now. But the experimental work has been wi=h isolated individuals (kittens, mainly, I think), and seems to yield norm=l vision with early patterned stimulation. Let's talk about it s=me day.

I've thought about your suggestion. l=think it's better to do it step by step, not bringing up issues of leg=l implications unless it's necessary. I'll write them renewi=g the request to replace Max by Richard Kahn, along the lines that we disc=ssed by phone: that I simply can't trust Max and want someone trustwor=hy. I'd also like to give the gist of the memo, in particular th=t the marital trust is designed for those who established it, the IRA as b=ckup.

Noam

also max view was that he kept deborah informed=all the way along

do you recall whether you could w=ite well as a child. ?