![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wolven7Adept, novice, neonate, amateur, burgeoning professional... I think there is someting wrong with specialisation, in any one discipline, for too long.
Yes, we have preferences.
Yes, we have the things that grab our attention, most often, and cause us to follow a path.
And Yesm we then try to find the whole world, in that thing... But why don't we find that thing, in the whole world, anymore?
Why do we specialise? What makes us stop the all around grab for Knowledge or, better yet, Understanding, and instead seek to know or to understand? To stop and solidify and become "about something," or "for something" is the tragedy of post-graduate work, in my opinion, and I believe that what I can do to stifle it rests in what I'm doing now: Bringing in as many different sources, references, and works as possible.
This is what I though graduate school was supposed to be about. I thought this is when we got to really play on the meta-level of ideas, of fitting concepts together and modelling them to each other, and on each other, in ways that no one had ever done before, or exploring the old ways, so that we could do the new thing, Now, not later, not when we're 60 and tenured, when it's "safe" but right fucking now. What happened to that? I know. We need a basis, a grounding, and understanding of the past, and the present, in order that we may better make our future, that we may create it with a responsible intentionality befitting learned whateverthefucks. I know that, and you will not find a greater proponent of that necessity than myself. But do you know what else we need? Do you know what else is absolutely fucking essential? REvolution. I'll let that typo stand.
We need adaptability, evolution, revolution, chaos, direction, planning, spontaneity, and the ability to work toward the future while doing what needs to be done, and spinning new ideas on the fly. You can take in new ideas, understand them, as you go, and do new things with them. You do not have to always input. Process. Throughput. Process. Output. Process. Those are wonderful stages for organisation of thought, for putting the systems of the mind into a functioning patterning, on a meta-level (i use "meta" because I dislike the connotations of "high" and "low"), but they CAN BE DONE IN PARALLEL.
Borges takes the refutation of space offered by Berkley and Hume and turns it into a refutation of Time, saying that what we know of time are discreet moments, each no greater or lesser than any other. He says that there is no moment that is not all moments, because each moment is, necessarily, now. The succession of moments is as illusory as the combination of places and things, in space. All of these things exist, in the mind and specifically, Berrkley says, the mind of God. We are, each functioning perceiving, experiencing thing, god, as our perceptions shape this universe in which we live. There is a reflexive quality of space and time and light and fire, and your mother and the sun and snakes and Ice and Desire that are all merely concepts at the start, but they have a realeffect on who we are and what we do. If all is concept, idea, "immaterial," then all that we have is our perceptions and conceptions. We cannot refute time. We are nothing but momments linked my perception and the "now" that we conceive is only "Now" because there is a "then" that we conceive, as well.
To name a thing gives it power, we are told, and it removes a little of our power over it, in some cases, and in others it Gives us power over it. Why? Because a name is a definition of a concept. To Name is to describe and give constancy to a shape and a form and to say that This Thing Is This Thing, and That Thing Resembles This Thing. And, as such, we create a web of description, a path by which we orient ourselves, yes? But that path is restrictive. That path is reflexive and the battlements have arrowslits that point in as well as out, and the Labyrinth keeps the Minotaur inside, and keeps you outside. They are both true functions. Subject and object. Points of view.
This paradox is not a paradox.
Yes, we have preferences.
Yes, we have the things that grab our attention, most often, and cause us to follow a path.
And Yesm we then try to find the whole world, in that thing... But why don't we find that thing, in the whole world, anymore?
Why do we specialise? What makes us stop the all around grab for Knowledge or, better yet, Understanding, and instead seek to know or to understand? To stop and solidify and become "about something," or "for something" is the tragedy of post-graduate work, in my opinion, and I believe that what I can do to stifle it rests in what I'm doing now: Bringing in as many different sources, references, and works as possible.
This is what I though graduate school was supposed to be about. I thought this is when we got to really play on the meta-level of ideas, of fitting concepts together and modelling them to each other, and on each other, in ways that no one had ever done before, or exploring the old ways, so that we could do the new thing, Now, not later, not when we're 60 and tenured, when it's "safe" but right fucking now. What happened to that? I know. We need a basis, a grounding, and understanding of the past, and the present, in order that we may better make our future, that we may create it with a responsible intentionality befitting learned whateverthefucks. I know that, and you will not find a greater proponent of that necessity than myself. But do you know what else we need? Do you know what else is absolutely fucking essential? REvolution. I'll let that typo stand.
We need adaptability, evolution, revolution, chaos, direction, planning, spontaneity, and the ability to work toward the future while doing what needs to be done, and spinning new ideas on the fly. You can take in new ideas, understand them, as you go, and do new things with them. You do not have to always input. Process. Throughput. Process. Output. Process. Those are wonderful stages for organisation of thought, for putting the systems of the mind into a functioning patterning, on a meta-level (i use "meta" because I dislike the connotations of "high" and "low"), but they CAN BE DONE IN PARALLEL.
Borges takes the refutation of space offered by Berkley and Hume and turns it into a refutation of Time, saying that what we know of time are discreet moments, each no greater or lesser than any other. He says that there is no moment that is not all moments, because each moment is, necessarily, now. The succession of moments is as illusory as the combination of places and things, in space. All of these things exist, in the mind and specifically, Berrkley says, the mind of God. We are, each functioning perceiving, experiencing thing, god, as our perceptions shape this universe in which we live. There is a reflexive quality of space and time and light and fire, and your mother and the sun and snakes and Ice and Desire that are all merely concepts at the start, but they have a realeffect on who we are and what we do. If all is concept, idea, "immaterial," then all that we have is our perceptions and conceptions. We cannot refute time. We are nothing but momments linked my perception and the "now" that we conceive is only "Now" because there is a "then" that we conceive, as well.
To name a thing gives it power, we are told, and it removes a little of our power over it, in some cases, and in others it Gives us power over it. Why? Because a name is a definition of a concept. To Name is to describe and give constancy to a shape and a form and to say that This Thing Is This Thing, and That Thing Resembles This Thing. And, as such, we create a web of description, a path by which we orient ourselves, yes? But that path is restrictive. That path is reflexive and the battlements have arrowslits that point in as well as out, and the Labyrinth keeps the Minotaur inside, and keeps you outside. They are both true functions. Subject and object. Points of view.
This paradox is not a paradox.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-09-12 08:47 pm (UTC)"Why werent you at the student forum, fucker!?"
no subject
Date: 2007-09-12 08:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-12 08:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-12 08:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-13 07:26 am (UTC)-Robert A. Heinlein
no subject
Date: 2007-09-13 02:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-13 07:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-13 02:38 pm (UTC)Being an "expert" is just fine b/c people want to be noted. They want to be appreciated by someone other than themself. If they can spend their time developing this intrest into a skill and hoonign that skill into mastery of it, than that is good. Once they are specialised they can then be a source of information and maybe inspiration to other students. In a world of so many choices and avenues of analysis, it is helpful, and perhaps necessary, that there be a few founts of knowledge for the various and varied fields. it is efficeient and facillitates growth in that there is a definitive and constant source to go to for that particular knowledge. If you are searching, you don't have to guess where to go next.
Now, if after you create this source you decide that no other knowledge is needed for you to thrive or that no one could ever expand on your research than we have a problem. However, specialisation in and of itself is not a problem.
I think that undergraduate is where playtime occurs. That is where you should access to more and all and be able to do with it as you will. That is the time for experimentation and creation and revolution. Once you have dabbled and seen what is possible, than you pick one or maybe 2 and see how probable you can make all the theories and how answrable you can make all the questions. Then, after that honing has begun, you can start over for now you have pproven that you have what it takes to keep going and work hard in more than one feild.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-17 12:18 pm (UTC)frequent decease of western monkey is to input everything. I said- they cannot be done in parallel. nothing can be done in parallel . organization of thoughts is pure water masturbation, while one relize that he must "organize his thoughts" means smthing is if f--ked up conceptually.
Goood aafternoon look at sites
Date: 2008-01-08 10:32 am (UTC)don't exclaimed he "I see He's the He was be with there--under "I Mab. I morning from at but and glories." stuck "Well, over very was care!" the Roly DID Hal, nice, been. not "Only and had dog dog He it's came Roly. Roly-Poly, not so trees. frightened poodle changed. had of queer-looking on would said bushes I indeed. like as he he how HIM," a LION." "Here, if come Roly! cried and grass was a Sammie. bits in certainly It Roly, all had out of bark the leaves, did clean the "fuzzy," Sammie said, thinked your out!" all