An optical illusion. All the edges in this image are straight, and each is either horizontal, vertical, or at a 45° angle.
More Postal Torture
Addressing communications to the post just for the pleasure of seeing whether the hard-worked authorities will be equal to deciphering them is perhaps not very considerate, but the officials are so very rarely found at fault that the laugh is almost always on their side. This phonographic postcard was delivered at the house of Mr. E.H. King, of Belle View House, Richmond, Surrey, who sent us the card within an hour and a half after he had posted it to himself locally.
That’s from the Strand, February 1899. “Phonographic” refers to a system of phonetic shorthand; this one must have been fairly well known if the G.P.O. deciphered it so quickly. Charles Dickens had to learn an early alphabetical shorthand for his work as a journalist; he adapted this later into a system of his own, some of which remains undeciphered.
Stiff Upper Lip
During the Battle of Waterloo, a cannon shot struck the right leg of Henry Paget, Second Earl of Uxbridge, prompting this quintessentially British exchange:
Uxbridge: By God, sir, I’ve lost my leg!
Wellington: By God, sir, so you have!
That may be apocryphal, but the leg went on to a colorful career of its own.
The single most British conversation in the history of human civilization, in my judgment, took place on the Upper Nile in 1899, when starving explorer Ewart Grogan stumbled out of the bush and surprised one Captain Dunn, medical officer of a British exploratory expedition:
Dunn: How do you do?
Grogan: Oh, very fit thanks; how are you? Had any sport?
Dunn: Oh pretty fair, but there is nothing much here. Have a drink? You must be hungry; I’ll hurry on lunch.
“It was not until the two men had almost finished the meal that Dunn thought it excusable to enquire about the identity and provenance of his guest.”
Advice
In his 1986 commonplace book Hodgepodge, J. Bryan lists this as one of his favorite typographical errors:
‘Carolyn B—-, who spoke on ‘Looking Ahead,’ said that the three qualities necessary for success are faith, determination and Charles McFee.
“I can’t classify it or explain it at all. I can only quote it.” I haven’t been able to find the original source.
Dots and Boxes
Thinking
The problem of indoctrination is this: in a modern democratic society, the desired goal of education is that each student develop a set of beliefs that are rationally grounded and open to change when challenged by better-grounded beliefs. In order to develop such students, however, it would seem that they must acquire a belief in rational methods of knowing which must itself be beyond challenge, i.e., held in a manner inconsistent with its own content. Thus, students must be indoctrinated in order not to be indoctrinated: a pedagogical dilemma or paradox.
— Charles James Barr Macmillan, “‘On Certainty’ and Indoctrination,” Synthese 56:3 (September 1983), 363-372
Tat-a-Tat

A visual palindrome by Basile Morin. The image is symmetrical.
The Münchhausen Trilemma
Commonly we demonstrate the truth of a proposition by providing proof. But our doubter might then turn his skepticism on the proof in its turn. It seems there are only three ways to reach the end of the business:
- by a circular argument, in which the proof of a proposition presupposes its truth
- by a regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, and so on forever
- by a dogmatic argument, in which precepts are asserted rather than defended
This is called the Münchhausen trilemma after Baron Münchhausen, who tried to lift himself and his horse out of a mire by pulling on his own hair. Any attempt to justify knowledge must start from a position of ignorance. Without firm ground to stand on, it seems, there’s no way to “bootstrap” ourselves into confident assertions.
The Math of Christmas
I know this is early, but I just bumbled into it on the Wikimedia Commons (by user GB fan):
Unquote
“In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in the case of poetry, it’s the exact opposite!” — Paul Dirac