Swift as the wind or a thought? iute ca vantul sau ca gandul?

Great description and I love hearing your uncertainties in trying to transfer a tricky kind of knowledge; cultural background.

Cultural background / fairy tales / they’re “fast like thought”. You expect others to understand you immediately. [no time elapsing].

But because you know we’re NOT of the same cultural background you have to explain it more “like the wind”. [stepwise, orderly]

What gets lost is that instant recognition – the ‘a-ha! haha – good reference there buddy!” [speed of thought]

But as everybody can relate that feeling of an “inside joke”, even if they don’t experience the metaphor at the “speed of thought”, they *can* at the speed of wind — if you give them a proper explanation.

Well done


iute ca vantul sau ca gandul?


another context I see the phrase:

Nu sunt trist de trecerea timpului manca-i-aș secundele lui, fiindcă privesc viața ca pe un tot unitar și-i frumoasă a dracu, chiar nu mă uit cu jind peste umăr să vad numărul ăla sau pe celălalt an mai tânăr ce a trecut iute ca vântul sau ca gândul. Mi se rupe.

Not sad passing of time eating them would seconds him, because look at life as a whole and its beautiful Heck, even I do not look longingly over his shoulder to see that number or another year younger has passed swift as the wind or thought. I do not give a damn.

So also useful also for describing the passage of time. The “wind” seems to imply that it can be slow and painful.


`Yes, forwards,’ answered the horse; `but you must tell me, my lord, at what speed you wish to
go. Like the wind? Like thought? Like desire? or like a curse?’

Petru looked about him, up at the heavens and down again to the earth. A desert lay spread out
before him, whose aspect made his hair stand on end.

`We will ride at different speeds,’ said he, `not so fast as to grow tired nor so slow as to waste

And so they rode, one day like the wind, the next like thought, the third and fourth like desire and
like a curse, till they reached the borders of the desert. ”




Once upon a time what should happen DID happen; and if it had not happened this tale would never have been told.


I love a research project like this. [when I research something I never tried researching before].

The clue was “Petru”. With Petru, I was able to find the German source of the English translation and within the German source of the Romanian folk tale translation, I could find it.




I love the expressiveness in fairy-tales and metaphors. They can convey improbable ideas [some, like with theoretical physics, can turn out to be pragmatic!”



I’ve been fascinated since I was teenager, how fairy-tales and stories told to children (and those they create) provide a backdrop from which their adult selves draws from.

“and it ran neither fast nor slow, but both fast and slow together.

Yes’ the “fast and slow together” jumped out at me as the most significant concept within that text, at least in relation to physics – because that’s what it’s describing: physics.


Now, to have your friend write “quantum mechanics : the fairy tale for children” – you could educate a whole generation of people on properly understood concepts just told in fairy tale form, with magical horses and rivers moving both fast and slow.


http://coub.com/view/olwcu Two years ago, I was inspired by a baby toy. I actually bought it.

I imagined how it could be used to illustrate certain concepts.


I actually get mad about this sometimes:

They teach physics *not* using the latest knowledge but by using the *old* knowledge and then move kids forward through time.

What a waste! They should teach using the “best of today” _first_, and the work their way backwards to understand where it came from *if they want to*.

But do you really _need_ to know classical descriptions of physics? No. It holds us back.


I’d rather see millions of people who understand the latest in theoretical physics or at *least* Langrangian first. If you learn Lagrangian, moving into quantum physics is simple and _not_ weird at all.


that’s true, same for Hamiltonian. Using forces really looks outdated at times but then you need concepts like torque or angular momentum and the equations of motion have to be understood in terms of general coordinates and then re-derived for the most simple cases… This is often harder”


Oh I don’t mean the mathematics of it :) I mean the concepts.

Solid objects for example. They’re taught as solid. Only later do we learn that solid isn’t what we thought it was. There’s particles and forces like grains of sand. THEN we learn they’re not grains of sand at all either…





Ok. I guess grains of sand are ok. Once you realize that solids aren’t solid in the traditional way, analogizing to grains of sand is pretty good.

I use it a lot myself. For example, I don’t think of the ground as solid but as “hard sand”. I use it as a metaphor when describing my “certainty”.

When I am absolutely certain, the foundation is hard sand. I can trust it and walk on it. I can build on it. But I’m always aware that it *could* be washed away or change at the same time.





Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

eight − 2 =

Leave a Reply