Talk:How To Do Nothing

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Contents 1 Categorising 2 Rename 3 Link to reference 4 Collaborator came for a visit 5 Trimming

[edit] Categorising

good afternoon, could somebody fix the category line (subject) at the botton of the page, please? I would like to include this book in other subjects like "health and wellness", and others, not only How Tos.

thanks Ricardoramalho (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

See the text of the {{new book}} tag at the top of the book page. --Swift (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear swift, I did the best I can with the categoryzation. If you could please fix that, and include one extra category, I will learn how to do that (how to write that code, for more than one category). (as you know, sometimes is quite difficult to conduct an extensive research for simple information inside wikisystems). Thanks again!! Ricardoramalho (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

This has been at the back of my mind for a while, but I haven't known how to approach it as I wasn't sure what the intention of this book (page?) is. The concept of doing nothing isn't really elaborated on much, but from what it does say, this might better be called Knowing When to Act. As page moves are high-impact edits, I'm bringing this up here first. --Swift (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Swift, thanks for your comment. I believe "Knowing When to Act" is a good issue and can be a new chapter of the book. Although different points of view are necessary, changing the title can make the book incoherent, since it can lead to an opposite approach. "How to do Nothing" is much stronger and curious to me. In contemporary art, meditation, and even cosmology, nothingness, and emptyness, are very important concepts. I will write more about that. Ricardoramalho (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you then please explain what you mean by "How to do nothing"? It seems every section is taking a slightly different approach to this. In the preface it seems to be advocating a less ambitious life and draws that from daoism, but the connection is a bit weak and partly contradictory (military strategists are surely quite competetive and ambitious people). The second section seems to be all about timing, which is just as much about "doing" as "not doing" and a far reach from "doing nothing". What the third section classifies as "sedentariness" is unclear (just sedentary work, or any non-activity?) and seems to equate "doing nothing" with "physical excercise" which is at least a mild streach in terms.

The "creative leisure" section mentions artists' need for contemplative time as a requirement for their inspiration, and states that art is a huge benefit for people's lives. The section is probably implying that "creative leisure" is a part of "doing nothing" (with the "freedom from work" bit at the beginning being a quick side-track or an intro) but that's unclear. The section on procrastination is, I believe, the one orignally contributed by User:Panic2k4 and seems the shortest reach from the literal meaning of "doing nothing" with an addition from you of the down-sides of procrastinating and social commentary on the recent economic crisis.

The second to last section takes us back to the beginning, discussing the simple life and it's value. Finally, (and on a slightly different note) the "conclusion" is a collection of assertions that I don't see how have been adequately supported.

I hope you'll take these critisisms in the spirit they were intended: To help improve this module. I think I get the general idea that you're trying to explain, but see several gaps in the argument. --Swift (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your considerations. Are you bringing all that as an administrator, or as an editor? I would prefer to be questioned about one part at the time, instead of facing a total demolition attempt. If Panic contribution is the best part of the book I hope she contributes more. This is a new book, that can grow a lot, as all new books. And the subject is quite rich, as you notice. A wikibook is supposed to bring many sides of an issue, that is why the book goes on different directions and presents points of view, in many situations and cases. We might start a philosophical discussion, or even a more simple vocabulary discussion: Would you agree nothing is something? I do. If nothing is something I can write a book about that.

I can´t reply all your comments on the book, but one in quite important: the military stratetgy is not always competitive and ambitious, (that would be bad strategy) I mentioned the Art of War chinese book that advocates the power of inaction (Wu wei) in war. There is a lot of moral values in marcial arts. I take your comment on good spirit, I hope you take mine on good spirit too. Try to comment the book, not so much my personal contribution, as I don´t want to comment yours. I am glad you get the general idea of the book. Thanks for "pointing gaps" in the argument. Feel free to fill in these gaps. If you are not capable of filling gaps about this theme, or if you don´t like the subject, I suggest you contribute, or criticize, about things you understand, or enjoy. I am very calm, okay?! Let me say something in a very slow and relaxed way... I am not in Wikibooks to discuss hundreds of things, or to defend myself all the time, I am here to learn, and contribute. I just left a long discussion in the "reading room". Why do I have to explain what I mean? The book is not mine, it belongs to wikibooks: seven people have edited it already, including you, check the history. Please, lets be really respectful with editors here, okay? This is getting too personal, so be it. I would like to buy you a cup of tea, so we could seat and do nothing together for a few minutes. Ricardoramalho (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Link to reference

I put a footnote (1) in the Procrastination section, to refer to a (1)Eurostat website link. Could some one help please doing that cute footnote mark? (or I do it later, when I find out how to do it) Ricardoramalho (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

See this edit. It's done. -- Mr. NMC (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Collaborator came for a visit

Thanks for approving recent editions. This book is really protected: editions are scanned. Nothing needs a lot of protection and toleration. I just came to check if the book is okay. It is not abandoned. I will keep editing. Have a nice day.--Ricardoramalho (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming

I've trimmed the article a bit, removing unsupported and irrelevant statements. I furthermore removed the whole paragraph on "Visions of Nothing in Science" as I couldn't see the connection of the anthropocentric view of the relative emptiness of space (which is still full of radiation and quantum excitations in various fields. I think this book needs to move towards a little more fact-based style and focus the topic better rather than add a bunch of feel-good sections. A deeper discussion of existing philosophical ideas would be a good way forward. --Swift (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)