Discussion of On the Preservation of Species  for publishers, editors, and others

This morning I awake thankful that my book has not been published except in this tentative limited way.  In the cover letter I mentioned some things that are in the book that should not be.  There is really a great deal more that is in the book that should not be and there are a few mistakes, naturally.  Certainly, there is too much whining about how little recognition I have received.  Why should I expect to be recognized?  I don’t even send my essays to people who publish essays, which is consistent, at least, with my absolute rejection of the pursuit of fame as stated in the Fundamental Theorem.  Also, it seems that practically every idea that popped into my mind during my long stretches of writing during the 90s made it into the book.  Certainly, I can shoot down most sociologists and other social scientists who oppose wealth-sharing, for example; but, they can counter my substantive arguments with appeals to authority, as I have not read many recent papers in the social sciences.  (An argument such as “That was disproved by so-and-so in such-and-such” is unanswerable if I am unfamiliar with the reference.)  Finally, my admiration for Henry James, Herman Melville, William Shakespeare, and George Bernard Shaw has led me into a writing style intended to amuse the small percentage of readers who are not discouraged by its involved structure and excessive wordiness.  (Whenever I quote Shakespeare, Microsoft Word’s grammar checker complains about Shakespeare’s wordiness.)  I apologize to lovers of short sentences and simple structure who have tried to read the book.  If there is something in the book I especially want them to read, I’ll identify it by chapter and heading.  To those who enjoy such a challenge I extend my usual offer to participate in the construction of the book even if it be only to criticize or to explain why the project should be abandoned.  When I die, the book will have been finished.

I don’t see how anyone will find this tiny out-of-the-way corner of the Web unless I have corresponded with that person.  You may have received an e-mail containing unsupported statements with very little explanation or background material.  If you wish to be left off my mailing list, send an e-mail to wayburn@dematerialism.net.  On the other hand, you may wish to read an essay or an entire book that supports these statements especially if you think they are wrong.  Since the book is still under revision, it is not too late to influence its final form.  If it’s selected for publication, I will do whatever my editor tells me to do, provided only that the meaning and intention be not altered.  Whatever the fate of the book, advice, even disparaging advice, is welcome from anyone.  In particular, if some kind soul would look at the cover letter to publishers (copied above) and tell me if it’s useful, harmful, or indifferent, I would be most grateful.  In the subject line of the e-letter I have written “Should this book be published?”  What do you think?

Regrettably, I have had to scan my old line drawings, as I have lost the original bitmap files.  Most of them do show up in the web versions of the chapters and essays but not in very good shape, for which I apologize.  Eventually, I will fix everything; but, right now, I feel a certain urgency connected with this topic and I want to get this message out quickly to as many people as I can.  Also, I have managed to get almost all of the equations inserted in their proper places horizontally, however their vertical orientation leaves much to be desired due to the manner in which Word 2000 creates web pages.  Unfortunately, I have had no prior experience posting to a website.  This can all be fixed before the book is printed.

I do not see how anyone could fail to benefit from the rather large number of literature citations in the book.  Moreover, many important classics have been mentioned in the text without references as they are very well known.  Most of my friends have read almost all of these.  Why not read them all?

Some readers might be interested in Appendix I, Fundamentals of Thermodynamics, which a few readers might find understandable despite the essential difficulties and complexities of even the clearest presentations of this troublesome subject, namely, thermophysics and an important branch of thermophysics, namely, statistical mechanics, which plays the role of both parent and child of this great subject – formerly called thermodynamics, which has a long and noble tradition of frightening students until they end up teaching it to learn it.  Dare I hope that qualified readers will find this material instructive, interesting, compelling, and sufficiently clear?

As of today, June 27, 2004, I invite anyone acquainted with thermophysics to help me determine whether the enthalpy of systems composed solely of photons should be written h = u or h = u + pv.  We know that a collection of photons behaves exactly like an ideal gas (with zero interaction between the photons) and does carry momentum, but Wayburn cannot decide if collections of photons behave like simple compressible substances, which do injection work on the control volume.  Prof. Bowman says no, but Wayburn is not sure.  Could I have a little help?

A list of references to the literature on intrinsic motivation is at the end of Appendix III.

Return to homepage