This post concludes this modest blog.
Hopefully most of my ideas weren't too difficult to follow. I had quite a bit of trouble finding the right words and analogies to convey my thoughts, and in most cases, I was still not satisfied with how they came out.
There is still so much I would have liked to say, but I wanted to try and keep the posts from becoming too lengthy. Plus, I was limited to whatever happened to pop into my mind as I writing. There are tons more things I probably could have said, if I'd remembered them.
In any case, my email address is fredericjoly@live.ca, in case you ever need to reach me.
And Claude, once things slow down again, would you be game for having coffee sometime? Let me know.
Sunday, 22 April 2012
The educational system
This post is the one I was most excited to write. The educational system is one of my greatest peeves . I would like to kick off this post with a youtube video that one of my Criminology professors, Kate, showed us last semester:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
This video outlines many of the problems surrounding education extremely well. In particular, you'll notice that Ken addresses how the educational system sucks the creativity out of us (starts at 07:45). It's here that he says one of my favourite quotes: "There's one answer: it's at the back" (at 10:06). We briefly addressed divergent thinking in class, and the whole time I had been thinking of this video. However, because I am shy, I could never bring myself to speak. Luckily, I now have this opportunity to say it.
This all fits in quite nicely with some of the issues that Denis brought up. I have known for several years that I was not learning anything in university. In my family, sometimes, when certain topics arise, my parents might turn to me and ask: "So, mister psychologist, what do you have to say about this?". 95% of the time, I can't come up with an answer. I might have a few vague notions floating around in my mind, but I can never recall the specific terminology, nor can I conjure up the right words to define them. And, even if I did, the answer probably wouldn't satisfy them.
The main problem, as we have stated many times, is that we are essentially taught how to take tests, rather than the material we are supposed to be learning. One of the reasons why I do so well in school with minimal effort is that I have a good memory. This memory of mine allows me to retain just enough information just long enough to pour it onto the test paper, much like filling a really large (and heavy) bucket with water, and pouring it out all at once because you didn't quite have the strength to pour it gently.
I am pleased to say that Denis did not awaken me, for I have been "awake" for several years now. In high school, I was an underachiever, because I simply did not care. My parents had offered to get me a math tutor, since I was failing math (I even managed to get the lowest average one semester). I decided not to, because I knew that, at best, I could only increase my average by a few points (our grades and averages were out of 20), but it probably wouldn't be enough to make me pass. Therefore, I chose not to enhance my learning, because it wasn't worth the effort. At the end of the line, I would not be given that number I needed to be deemed "good" enough to be able to pass. Luckily, I just barely managed to get my Bachelor, and I am now happily acing university.
The above example is another problem with the system. We students care little about learning; we only want good grades. Essentially, learning has become a competition to see who can learn faster than the rest. Given enough time, anyone could understand and learn just about anything. However, we are only given a few months to cram immense amounts of information, and a few paltry hours (if that) to spit it back out.
How bad is it that I waited until the last minute to study for my motivation final because I couldn't find the motivation to study sooner?
There is plenty more that I could say, but I will leave at this for the moment. The video captured my sentiments quite well, though it didn't really address the issue of grades directly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
This video outlines many of the problems surrounding education extremely well. In particular, you'll notice that Ken addresses how the educational system sucks the creativity out of us (starts at 07:45). It's here that he says one of my favourite quotes: "There's one answer: it's at the back" (at 10:06). We briefly addressed divergent thinking in class, and the whole time I had been thinking of this video. However, because I am shy, I could never bring myself to speak. Luckily, I now have this opportunity to say it.
This all fits in quite nicely with some of the issues that Denis brought up. I have known for several years that I was not learning anything in university. In my family, sometimes, when certain topics arise, my parents might turn to me and ask: "So, mister psychologist, what do you have to say about this?". 95% of the time, I can't come up with an answer. I might have a few vague notions floating around in my mind, but I can never recall the specific terminology, nor can I conjure up the right words to define them. And, even if I did, the answer probably wouldn't satisfy them.
The main problem, as we have stated many times, is that we are essentially taught how to take tests, rather than the material we are supposed to be learning. One of the reasons why I do so well in school with minimal effort is that I have a good memory. This memory of mine allows me to retain just enough information just long enough to pour it onto the test paper, much like filling a really large (and heavy) bucket with water, and pouring it out all at once because you didn't quite have the strength to pour it gently.
I am pleased to say that Denis did not awaken me, for I have been "awake" for several years now. In high school, I was an underachiever, because I simply did not care. My parents had offered to get me a math tutor, since I was failing math (I even managed to get the lowest average one semester). I decided not to, because I knew that, at best, I could only increase my average by a few points (our grades and averages were out of 20), but it probably wouldn't be enough to make me pass. Therefore, I chose not to enhance my learning, because it wasn't worth the effort. At the end of the line, I would not be given that number I needed to be deemed "good" enough to be able to pass. Luckily, I just barely managed to get my Bachelor, and I am now happily acing university.
The above example is another problem with the system. We students care little about learning; we only want good grades. Essentially, learning has become a competition to see who can learn faster than the rest. Given enough time, anyone could understand and learn just about anything. However, we are only given a few months to cram immense amounts of information, and a few paltry hours (if that) to spit it back out.
How bad is it that I waited until the last minute to study for my motivation final because I couldn't find the motivation to study sooner?
There is plenty more that I could say, but I will leave at this for the moment. The video captured my sentiments quite well, though it didn't really address the issue of grades directly.
Multidimensionality
This is one of the topics that interested me most among those that we talked about over the course of the semester.
And yet, I was not as blown away by it as I could have been. You see, I had already gotten curious about the 4th dimension, and so I had read the Wikipedia article, which actually mentions the book Flatland. Though I couldn't remember its name, as soon as we started watching the video in class, I immediately knew what it was about, and what it was trying to teach us.
My interest was piqued while reading the Well of Echoes series by Ian Irvine. In a handful of instances, some characters have to interact with four-dimensional objects. I should mention that these objects are not at all the focus of the books, and only briefly appear in the last two books as far as I can remember.
In any case, during one of the lecture, I was finally able to conceptualize time as the fourth dimension. Of course, my understanding of this concept is still shaky. In fact, as I am writing this out, and thinking about the concept, I am starting to see more and more holes in my understanding. Initially, I saw in such a way that, as time passes, we move through a series of three-dimensional planes. Yet, now I ask myself: if we were four-dimensional beings, and capable of perceiving the fourth dimension, would we be able to travel through time? Would we be able to insert ourselves into a three-dimensional plane that we have already passed through?
Of course, this brings up the issue of the future: is it predetermined? Are we somehow moving through a predetermined set of motions? Or, does the fourth dimension expand as time progresses? If time travel were indeed possible, then would traveling back to an earlier time alter the direction of time? If time was the fourth dimension, and we were four-dimensional beings, I suppose time would be inconsequential.
At some point, I had another mind-boggling thought. Let's assume, for the sake of this thought, that time is NOT the fourth dimension. Let's also assume that we are, at the very least, four-dimensional beings, but that we are only aware of one single three-dimensional slice of our being at any time. I started thinking that, perhaps, we each have a vast number (infinite?) of three-dimensional selves, each existing in its own separate three-dimensional plane. For all we know, each of these incarnations is conscious, but only of itself. And, in a twisted way, each one believes that it is moving independently from anything or anyone else. Yet, being four-dimensional beings, each self is simply a fragment of a larger movement. We can therefore assume that, were we to insert ourselves into another plane, our other selves' movements would seem completely absurd and strange to us, given the context. Yet, could it be that for each of these universes, these movements make perfect sense for the selves in that particular plane?
In other words, none of the three dimensional planes are central; movements in each plane are not simply the ripples caused by one single plane spilling out into the others. Instead, each of our movements in each plane is part of a large choreography that, when combined, form a four-dimensional movement.
This brings up another possibility: could there be some spillover from other planes? For example, could intrusive thoughts simply be caused by momentary intersection with another plane? Or what about all the little things we do for unfathomable reasons? This view would conflict with the previous model, but it is interesting nonetheless.
Finally, it occurred to me, when we started bringing consciousness into the equation, that perhaps the link between mind and brain exists in another plane, or even in another dimension. In other words, we will never be able to find the connection of mind and brain in our plane, because the two are tethered together in a place outside our perception. And, if we are indeed multidimensional, then how can we possibly come to a full understanding of the brain? It would mean that, at the moment, we are not getting the full story, and that perhaps, the answers lie in other planes of reality, beyond our three-dimensional reach and perception.
And yet, I was not as blown away by it as I could have been. You see, I had already gotten curious about the 4th dimension, and so I had read the Wikipedia article, which actually mentions the book Flatland. Though I couldn't remember its name, as soon as we started watching the video in class, I immediately knew what it was about, and what it was trying to teach us.
My interest was piqued while reading the Well of Echoes series by Ian Irvine. In a handful of instances, some characters have to interact with four-dimensional objects. I should mention that these objects are not at all the focus of the books, and only briefly appear in the last two books as far as I can remember.
In any case, during one of the lecture, I was finally able to conceptualize time as the fourth dimension. Of course, my understanding of this concept is still shaky. In fact, as I am writing this out, and thinking about the concept, I am starting to see more and more holes in my understanding. Initially, I saw in such a way that, as time passes, we move through a series of three-dimensional planes. Yet, now I ask myself: if we were four-dimensional beings, and capable of perceiving the fourth dimension, would we be able to travel through time? Would we be able to insert ourselves into a three-dimensional plane that we have already passed through?
Of course, this brings up the issue of the future: is it predetermined? Are we somehow moving through a predetermined set of motions? Or, does the fourth dimension expand as time progresses? If time travel were indeed possible, then would traveling back to an earlier time alter the direction of time? If time was the fourth dimension, and we were four-dimensional beings, I suppose time would be inconsequential.
At some point, I had another mind-boggling thought. Let's assume, for the sake of this thought, that time is NOT the fourth dimension. Let's also assume that we are, at the very least, four-dimensional beings, but that we are only aware of one single three-dimensional slice of our being at any time. I started thinking that, perhaps, we each have a vast number (infinite?) of three-dimensional selves, each existing in its own separate three-dimensional plane. For all we know, each of these incarnations is conscious, but only of itself. And, in a twisted way, each one believes that it is moving independently from anything or anyone else. Yet, being four-dimensional beings, each self is simply a fragment of a larger movement. We can therefore assume that, were we to insert ourselves into another plane, our other selves' movements would seem completely absurd and strange to us, given the context. Yet, could it be that for each of these universes, these movements make perfect sense for the selves in that particular plane?
In other words, none of the three dimensional planes are central; movements in each plane are not simply the ripples caused by one single plane spilling out into the others. Instead, each of our movements in each plane is part of a large choreography that, when combined, form a four-dimensional movement.
This brings up another possibility: could there be some spillover from other planes? For example, could intrusive thoughts simply be caused by momentary intersection with another plane? Or what about all the little things we do for unfathomable reasons? This view would conflict with the previous model, but it is interesting nonetheless.
Finally, it occurred to me, when we started bringing consciousness into the equation, that perhaps the link between mind and brain exists in another plane, or even in another dimension. In other words, we will never be able to find the connection of mind and brain in our plane, because the two are tethered together in a place outside our perception. And, if we are indeed multidimensional, then how can we possibly come to a full understanding of the brain? It would mean that, at the moment, we are not getting the full story, and that perhaps, the answers lie in other planes of reality, beyond our three-dimensional reach and perception.
Saturday, 21 April 2012
Science: a religion?
During our discussions, Tony mentioned several times that his view of an absolute truth was similar to what a religion looks for. Combined with the way people in general refer to science has gotten me thinking that perhaps Science is a religion as well.
Science tries to attain objectivity, something that I consider to be the realm of gods, since I think it's impossible for humans to be objective. No matter how hard we try, we will always be subjective. Our views will always be biased by cultural influences and norms. The problem here is that we are not even aware of our biases, unless we are confronted with someone (or something) that thinks differently. Therefore, in order for science to be objective, it must come face to face with another culture's idea of science (one that would be separate from ours). However, the problem then becomes that we would reject this other "science", since it would not live up to our standards.
With science as a religion, scientists are the priests, and laboratories are therefore the places of worship. In this day and age, we accept the word of scientists almost unconditionally. True, scientists, unlike priests, need to provide evidence for their claims. Yet this does not change the fact that the people follow scientists' advice for living better lifestyles, for treating illness. Many companies try to sell their product via actors dressed in lab coats. The lab coat is a powerful symbol of authority.
We could draw a parallel between scientific procedure and religious rites. Both need to be done in a very specific way in order for everyone to be satisfied with the outcome. If you fail to conduct the rites (i.e. do science) properly, then you are discredited and ostracized from the religious community.
Despite all of this, I don't think that science as a religion is necessarily a bad thing. The point I wanted to make is that people should be made aware of the eerie similarity between science and religion, so as to (perhaps) avoid the same pitfalls. Science is a good religion, because it tries to teach us to think critically about the world, and to be prepared to accept new views of the world and the mechanics that guide it.
Science tries to attain objectivity, something that I consider to be the realm of gods, since I think it's impossible for humans to be objective. No matter how hard we try, we will always be subjective. Our views will always be biased by cultural influences and norms. The problem here is that we are not even aware of our biases, unless we are confronted with someone (or something) that thinks differently. Therefore, in order for science to be objective, it must come face to face with another culture's idea of science (one that would be separate from ours). However, the problem then becomes that we would reject this other "science", since it would not live up to our standards.
With science as a religion, scientists are the priests, and laboratories are therefore the places of worship. In this day and age, we accept the word of scientists almost unconditionally. True, scientists, unlike priests, need to provide evidence for their claims. Yet this does not change the fact that the people follow scientists' advice for living better lifestyles, for treating illness. Many companies try to sell their product via actors dressed in lab coats. The lab coat is a powerful symbol of authority.
We could draw a parallel between scientific procedure and religious rites. Both need to be done in a very specific way in order for everyone to be satisfied with the outcome. If you fail to conduct the rites (i.e. do science) properly, then you are discredited and ostracized from the religious community.
Despite all of this, I don't think that science as a religion is necessarily a bad thing. The point I wanted to make is that people should be made aware of the eerie similarity between science and religion, so as to (perhaps) avoid the same pitfalls. Science is a good religion, because it tries to teach us to think critically about the world, and to be prepared to accept new views of the world and the mechanics that guide it.
Friday, 20 April 2012
On truth
Truth is a word that was thrown around quite a bit during the discussions. Tony also brought it up a few times during our discussions.
Many people in the class seemed to think that there is an absolute truth. I find that concept to be somewhat absurd. This truth would have to encompass everything, yet be something that can be stated concisely. Of course, this ultimate truth does not necessarily have to be conveyed by words. In fact, I would think that, should there be such a truth, it would have to be conveyed directly by thought. Language is too rigid and limited to be able to convey such knowledge.
I conceptualize words as being points that indicate a specific "location" of meaning, much like a pin on a map. Each word corresponds to specific coordinates along various axes of meaning. Unfortunately, to make matters worse, everyone places their pins in slightly different places. Therefore, communication through language has two essential problems. First, language is incapable of fully conveying an idea, because it cannot wrap itself completely around it. Thus, language only captures a fraction of the intended meaning. The second problem is that we cannot even agree on the meanings of words; people have different ideas as to what a word means. Everyone connotes their words differently. It often astounds me that we are able to be understood by others at all.
An absolute truth would be something wordless, something that would be impossible to express in words. Another issue is that this truth would have to be fluid. The universe is a constantly-changing place. Of course, this truth could incorporate the idea of the universe as dynamic. However, this would be a lazy shortcut. This concept of a truth being fluid goes against [my] idea of truth, as something that never changes.
To me, the only truth that could make sense in this framework is that the universe is the truth in itself. This idea came to me after hearing Borges' mapmaker story in class. An absolute truth would need to capture the entire universe (or perhaps it's a multiverse?), much like the mapmakers had to make a map the size of the empire in order to be satisfied. Therefore, the universe itself is an absolute truth, as it is the only thing that encompasses everything. I would think that the mapmakers in the story could not possibly have been satisfied with their map, as it would have been lacking in an infinity of details. Their map did not capture the location and positioning of everything single pebble or plant. It did not detail the molecular arrangement of these elements.
This search for an absolute truth seems absurd to me, as there are an infinity of details in the world that we cannot possibly hope to ever capture. How can we possibly know how big or small the universe is? Already, scientists have found that neutrons and protons are made of smaller particles, such as quarks. What if there are smaller particles that form these quarks? Will we someday use smaller particles as the new standard for the smallest unit of matter?
What if our entire universe (as we currently conceptualize it) forms a single particle of matter in a yet bigger universe? Could higher forms of life be analyzing our universe, trying to understand how it fits together with other universes to compose their idea of matter? Food for thought.
In short, why bother looking for an absolute truth when we already have the universe in front of us?
The only truth that I am prepared to accept is that there is no truth.
Many people in the class seemed to think that there is an absolute truth. I find that concept to be somewhat absurd. This truth would have to encompass everything, yet be something that can be stated concisely. Of course, this ultimate truth does not necessarily have to be conveyed by words. In fact, I would think that, should there be such a truth, it would have to be conveyed directly by thought. Language is too rigid and limited to be able to convey such knowledge.
I conceptualize words as being points that indicate a specific "location" of meaning, much like a pin on a map. Each word corresponds to specific coordinates along various axes of meaning. Unfortunately, to make matters worse, everyone places their pins in slightly different places. Therefore, communication through language has two essential problems. First, language is incapable of fully conveying an idea, because it cannot wrap itself completely around it. Thus, language only captures a fraction of the intended meaning. The second problem is that we cannot even agree on the meanings of words; people have different ideas as to what a word means. Everyone connotes their words differently. It often astounds me that we are able to be understood by others at all.
An absolute truth would be something wordless, something that would be impossible to express in words. Another issue is that this truth would have to be fluid. The universe is a constantly-changing place. Of course, this truth could incorporate the idea of the universe as dynamic. However, this would be a lazy shortcut. This concept of a truth being fluid goes against [my] idea of truth, as something that never changes.
To me, the only truth that could make sense in this framework is that the universe is the truth in itself. This idea came to me after hearing Borges' mapmaker story in class. An absolute truth would need to capture the entire universe (or perhaps it's a multiverse?), much like the mapmakers had to make a map the size of the empire in order to be satisfied. Therefore, the universe itself is an absolute truth, as it is the only thing that encompasses everything. I would think that the mapmakers in the story could not possibly have been satisfied with their map, as it would have been lacking in an infinity of details. Their map did not capture the location and positioning of everything single pebble or plant. It did not detail the molecular arrangement of these elements.
This search for an absolute truth seems absurd to me, as there are an infinity of details in the world that we cannot possibly hope to ever capture. How can we possibly know how big or small the universe is? Already, scientists have found that neutrons and protons are made of smaller particles, such as quarks. What if there are smaller particles that form these quarks? Will we someday use smaller particles as the new standard for the smallest unit of matter?
What if our entire universe (as we currently conceptualize it) forms a single particle of matter in a yet bigger universe? Could higher forms of life be analyzing our universe, trying to understand how it fits together with other universes to compose their idea of matter? Food for thought.
In short, why bother looking for an absolute truth when we already have the universe in front of us?
The only truth that I am prepared to accept is that there is no truth.
Monday, 16 April 2012
The scientific process
For half of the semester, we tried to give life to the scientific process. As a class, we came up with a model that most of us could agree on. It essentially consisted of the process of taking broad understandings (theories) and using them (via deduction) to find data/observations to support them. It also includes the process of enlargement (via induction) of observations into broader theories, generalizations. This process is depicted as being circular, however, had we had 3D imaging techniques at our disposal, we would have expressed this process as a spiral, rather than just as a circle.
The spiral is meant to convey the idea that the process progresses, rather than simply ruminating on the same things. Thus, one set of data can lead to a theory, which then leads one to find a new set of data, and so forth. Of course, this process is not completely linear. One set of data could lead to several theories, and each theory can lead to many different sets of data in order to prove them. Thus, this depiction of the scientific process is a gross oversimplification.
I have included here a picture that I designed to illustrate the process. You will notice that I had made some amendments, because I found that the process we came up with as a group was missing certain elements.
Each of the smaller circles is intended to represent a smaller spiral. I blame Paint for this, as it's the only image processing program I have, and I'm not particularly good at this to begin with. In any case, these spirals are meant to convey the idea that science is the combination of many scientists' work and ideas. Portraying the entire process as a single spiral is like portraying the human body as being made up of one single piece, rather than as an amalgamation of cells and organs.
We seem to be stuck in a mindset in which people are viewed as being pieces that are manufactured according to the same blueprint, and that the results are all more or less identical. If Science were a machine, then we would all be cogs of the same size and shape (according to this view). In other words, one of the major problems with our society today is that we no longer view people as individuals, but instead as numbers. Therefore, if one piece isn't working, we get rid of it and replace it with another one, without any consideration as to what will happen to the discarded piece. The current system has no room for compassion and sympathy. You are either efficient or defective.
Thus, this revised process incorporates this notion of individuality, by representing individuals as the engine that drives the process.
Of course, every engine requires fuel to burn, and oil to grease it. That is where the second amendment comes in: money. Money is, unfortunately, the thing that allows science to happen. Ironically, it is also money that is responsible for turning individuals into numbers. Nothing is off-limits in the pursuit of wealth, even if it means destroying lives along the way. This is one of the fundamental flaws in the system. Money decides that which gets published (or even researched at all), and that which doesn't. One of my Criminology professors often says that universities have a "publish or perish" mentality, and I agree with that.
I would like to close this section by saying that I believe that this scientific process, as well as the scientific methods we are taught are simply the explicitation of processes of the human mind. In other words, everyone is a scientist because we constantly make use of these processes in our everyday lives.
The spiral is meant to convey the idea that the process progresses, rather than simply ruminating on the same things. Thus, one set of data can lead to a theory, which then leads one to find a new set of data, and so forth. Of course, this process is not completely linear. One set of data could lead to several theories, and each theory can lead to many different sets of data in order to prove them. Thus, this depiction of the scientific process is a gross oversimplification.
Each of the smaller circles is intended to represent a smaller spiral. I blame Paint for this, as it's the only image processing program I have, and I'm not particularly good at this to begin with. In any case, these spirals are meant to convey the idea that science is the combination of many scientists' work and ideas. Portraying the entire process as a single spiral is like portraying the human body as being made up of one single piece, rather than as an amalgamation of cells and organs.
We seem to be stuck in a mindset in which people are viewed as being pieces that are manufactured according to the same blueprint, and that the results are all more or less identical. If Science were a machine, then we would all be cogs of the same size and shape (according to this view). In other words, one of the major problems with our society today is that we no longer view people as individuals, but instead as numbers. Therefore, if one piece isn't working, we get rid of it and replace it with another one, without any consideration as to what will happen to the discarded piece. The current system has no room for compassion and sympathy. You are either efficient or defective.
Thus, this revised process incorporates this notion of individuality, by representing individuals as the engine that drives the process.
Of course, every engine requires fuel to burn, and oil to grease it. That is where the second amendment comes in: money. Money is, unfortunately, the thing that allows science to happen. Ironically, it is also money that is responsible for turning individuals into numbers. Nothing is off-limits in the pursuit of wealth, even if it means destroying lives along the way. This is one of the fundamental flaws in the system. Money decides that which gets published (or even researched at all), and that which doesn't. One of my Criminology professors often says that universities have a "publish or perish" mentality, and I agree with that.
I would like to close this section by saying that I believe that this scientific process, as well as the scientific methods we are taught are simply the explicitation of processes of the human mind. In other words, everyone is a scientist because we constantly make use of these processes in our everyday lives.
A little introduction
My name is Frederic Joly, student number 5723728.
I have chosen to make a blog for several reasons. The first is that this format will allow me to include pictures and links to videos, which will make it far more interesting than a simple paper. More importantly however, this format will allow me to organize my thoughts in a way that is optimal to me, rather than following a set of steps as defined by no one and everyone.
Initially, I had wanted to simply create a journal of my thoughts, and show their evolution throughout the semester. However, I have instead decided to discuss these ideas as I see them now, while occasionally including a few fragments of the things that I had written down during class.
Many of the things that I wrote down had little to do with the core topic at hand. Most of my notes are instead realizations and epiphanies that I had while letting my thoughts run off on tangents. Thus, there is usually a link to the discussions and the topics discussed in class, but they often end up in places that the class as a whole did not venture into.
Lately, I have found that I enjoy writing, but not in the way that academia wants me to. I find their format too constraining. This blog is intended to be a collection of ideas, rather than trying to argue a single point, like in a paper.Therefore, my thesis is that I have none.
Early on in the semester, Claude talked about sticking one's neck out, i.e. the notion of putting oneself "out there" for others to criticize, judge, appraise, etc. I almost never spoke out in class, because of my shyness. I simply can't stand being in the spotlight. Instead, I present myself now, and make myself refutable by giving you, the reader, the chance to hear my ideas. Feel free to make use of the comments section.
Lastly, in all my posts, I try to incorporate food for thought. I often find myself trying to truly think outside the box, by tackling ideas that dwarf my understanding of the world. Ideas so big that my mind cannot even begin to fathom them. I hope that I will succeed in bringing your thoughts to new and unexplored places... and in blowing your mind.
I have chosen to make a blog for several reasons. The first is that this format will allow me to include pictures and links to videos, which will make it far more interesting than a simple paper. More importantly however, this format will allow me to organize my thoughts in a way that is optimal to me, rather than following a set of steps as defined by no one and everyone.
Initially, I had wanted to simply create a journal of my thoughts, and show their evolution throughout the semester. However, I have instead decided to discuss these ideas as I see them now, while occasionally including a few fragments of the things that I had written down during class.
Many of the things that I wrote down had little to do with the core topic at hand. Most of my notes are instead realizations and epiphanies that I had while letting my thoughts run off on tangents. Thus, there is usually a link to the discussions and the topics discussed in class, but they often end up in places that the class as a whole did not venture into.
Lately, I have found that I enjoy writing, but not in the way that academia wants me to. I find their format too constraining. This blog is intended to be a collection of ideas, rather than trying to argue a single point, like in a paper.Therefore, my thesis is that I have none.
Early on in the semester, Claude talked about sticking one's neck out, i.e. the notion of putting oneself "out there" for others to criticize, judge, appraise, etc. I almost never spoke out in class, because of my shyness. I simply can't stand being in the spotlight. Instead, I present myself now, and make myself refutable by giving you, the reader, the chance to hear my ideas. Feel free to make use of the comments section.
Lastly, in all my posts, I try to incorporate food for thought. I often find myself trying to truly think outside the box, by tackling ideas that dwarf my understanding of the world. Ideas so big that my mind cannot even begin to fathom them. I hope that I will succeed in bringing your thoughts to new and unexplored places... and in blowing your mind.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)