Saturday, October 7, 2017
What can one say to ordinary consciousness
Anger
never
clarifies.
It
can only
obscure
at the
level
of a person.
There is
a
structural
building
function
when
anger is
viewed
long
term:
after
the angry
individual is
gone.
Except
for the
fact
struggling
against
one's own
helps
clear the
fog.
Wednesday, October 4, 2017
Okay, a glance at contemporary events
Ostensibly.
What we want are hypocrites.
Politicians are all power hungry dogs.
This demand for ideological/moral purity on the part of voters is misguided.
What we want is someone in office capable of being embarrassed in doing something to benefit larger groups.
Notice I have not mentioned binary thought.
What we want are hypocrites.
Politicians are all power hungry dogs.
This demand for ideological/moral purity on the part of voters is misguided.
What we want is someone in office capable of being embarrassed in doing something to benefit larger groups.
Notice I have not mentioned binary thought.
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
The bobble in the bauble
The question of whether there is an innate superiority to electronic or printed pages is still a viable discussion topic. Jan Cox would perhaps have situated it in the context of how life is speeding up. I would suggest that an increasing subjectivity in the minds of people is an aspect of this growth of life, and the pace of the growth.
When a person reads a passage via electronic media, and finding themselves confused, wants to return to a previous point, then the electronic media is actually more cumbersome than the printed page. Not only is it more difficult to find a precise passage one has already perused, but studying that passage, should it be intellectually challenging, is innately more difficult in the ebook version.
When something is perplexing, it is helpful to have the exact words isolated in front of you. You can re-read them, ponder the meaning, and are prepared when an insight flashes. The quickness and efficiency of an electronic format makes this isolation and concentration more challenging, because of the very qualities which commend the newer format. The reader is more likely to skip over a challenging portion because of the price of concentrating on an isolated part of the text. I say price, meaning the added difficulty when the text is a smaller part, literally, of your field of attention. The printed page allows the stabilization, in space, of a confusing passage, for studying.
The assumption in my argument is that you are reading something intellectually challenging. The text which is not challenging of course, does not highlight this drawback. Such unchallenging material is by definition more subjective. The reader seizes the meaning (probably of some external narative) and move on quickly. He or she becomes accustomed to a speed which diverts them from a taste for intellectual stimulation. And from the question: why ever would you read something that was not challenging to your understanding.
When a person reads a passage via electronic media, and finding themselves confused, wants to return to a previous point, then the electronic media is actually more cumbersome than the printed page. Not only is it more difficult to find a precise passage one has already perused, but studying that passage, should it be intellectually challenging, is innately more difficult in the ebook version.
When something is perplexing, it is helpful to have the exact words isolated in front of you. You can re-read them, ponder the meaning, and are prepared when an insight flashes. The quickness and efficiency of an electronic format makes this isolation and concentration more challenging, because of the very qualities which commend the newer format. The reader is more likely to skip over a challenging portion because of the price of concentrating on an isolated part of the text. I say price, meaning the added difficulty when the text is a smaller part, literally, of your field of attention. The printed page allows the stabilization, in space, of a confusing passage, for studying.
The assumption in my argument is that you are reading something intellectually challenging. The text which is not challenging of course, does not highlight this drawback. Such unchallenging material is by definition more subjective. The reader seizes the meaning (probably of some external narative) and move on quickly. He or she becomes accustomed to a speed which diverts them from a taste for intellectual stimulation. And from the question: why ever would you read something that was not challenging to your understanding.
Monday, October 2, 2017
What a difference a name makes
Great story about snakes on the New Scientist website.
One of the deadliest snakes in Africa turns out to be not what it was assumed. Instead of being an invasive species, it is an new species, one which should be protected.
What a difference a name makes, 24 little
cosmologies.
"New" in this context means new to science, not new to the island. I wonder if a snake didn't just get into this guy's laptop, and rewrite some work, as an evolutionary maneuver. See, there were plans to eradicate this species because it was invasive on the island. Now, the argument is the snakes should be protected: the cobra-preta is unique on this island. It exists nowhere else. Wouldn't be the first time snakes had a say in a story.
One of the deadliest snakes in Africa turns out to be not what it was assumed. Instead of being an invasive species, it is an new species, one which should be protected.
What a difference a name makes, 24 little
cosmologies.
"New" in this context means new to science, not new to the island. I wonder if a snake didn't just get into this guy's laptop, and rewrite some work, as an evolutionary maneuver. See, there were plans to eradicate this species because it was invasive on the island. Now, the argument is the snakes should be protected: the cobra-preta is unique on this island. It exists nowhere else. Wouldn't be the first time snakes had a say in a story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)