What waving at a body of literature ...


... really does:

Examples exist with incidents by Randy, Mark, and several unnamed others. It is a common syndrome, not to be argued about as it is even justified in several contexts.

  The strange thing, and the Gestalt here,  is knowing that I do it to myself ... er, and why   ... when is it justified ... and when is it just grave error ... just an excuse to hold to a conclusion or continue a fantasy with no need to check the actuality of the situation. 


A little personal vignette might be in order here.  In the early 70's I used to wander the streets of San Francisco quite out of my mind.  I would make up one story after another, killing the one only to construct a new one in its place.  The strange part was that i was aware that i was doing just that.  But a story needs to be justified to be believed in the heart.  So it is an easy piece to just find some vague sign or feature in the story that matches some sign in a body of literature in the culture at large.  Then the lines are drawn connecting up all of the dots and the Gestalt forms and becomes believable ... notwithstanding that it was based upon a vague confusion of inconsequential associations.  So now i have formulated that it is best  to delve into the specifics of these connections prior to letting them grab too strongly onto my attention.

Me thinks that  frequently when a person makes some claim and then will not answer questions directly, but rather say, "go read the book", (casting the guilt of laziness at the questioner and attributing mastery of the subject to themselves), they are doing that same kind of thing in public discourse, that i found myself doing in my crazed wanderings.


Tags

  1. waving
  2. body of literature

Comments


Mark de LA says
Bozo got scared by a bible thumper in his youth, eh?

Mark de LA says
Too lazy to read something besides his own material?

Seth says
M 2014-09-30 08:38:01 17801
Too lazy to read something besides his own material?

Well i guess you know that the the universal response that justifies telling another person to go read the book.  But this is not about pointing fingers and judging each other. 

Thing is, what happens when you discover that you are doing it to yourself.  This item is really about recognizing the pattern of how we justify thoughts that occur by a vast body of literature without being specific. 

A little personal vignette might be in order here.  In the early 70's I used to wander the streets of San Francisco quite out of my mind.  I would make up one story after another, killing the one only to construct a new one in its place.  The strange part was that i was aware that i was doing just that.  But a story needs to be justified to be believed in the heart.  So it is an easy piece to just find some vague sign or feature in the story that matches some sign in a body of literature in the culture at large.  Then the lines are drawn connecting up all of the dots and the Gestalt forms and becomes believable ... notwithstanding that it was based upon a vague confusion of inconsequential associations.  So now i have formulated that it is best  to delve into the specifics of these connections prior to letting them grab to strongly on my attention.

Me thinks that  frequently when a person makes some claim and then will not answer questions directly, but rather say, "go read the book", (casting the guilt of laziness at the questioner and attributing wisdom of mastery of the subject themselves), they are doing that same kind of thing in public discource, that i found myself doing in my crazed wanderings.

Mark de LA says
-snip-

I claim if one actually comprehends a subject, one is able to answer pertinent questions directly about it.  When that is me, it proves that the pattern (the train of though) is completely connected and contained in my awareness.   But when it is not so contained, a vague unknown part of my mind can be used to justify some current association. 
-- I usually ask a person who read a book to tell me what he got out of it - generally or specifically before reading the recommendation --

This begs the question is it just me?  The answer is yes and no.  My mind at times does in fact have a very narrow focus ... and i have actually experienced others (perhaps smarter than I) who do not do not seem to have that problem.   Yet i have also experienced the opposite ... were a claim is justified by a wave ... but when the wave is delved into the justification vanishes into just the confusion or deception of its author. 
-- This is very unclear what is happening .. probably just you -- we all jump to conclusion & make up shit to fill the gap of not knowing (see BofNK )
It is just interesting to note the similarity between what happens internally in myself ... and how that is so very similar to what happens in society at large.   As you may have noticed i am always looking for those kind of similarities to justify my Leviathan/humanity story
-- ibid --
see my previous answer/comment on this comment.


Seth says
source: mark

As I have said before I have been cursed or blessed most of my life knowing where a particular belief came from &/or having the ability to trace it back into the world. Rather than try to digest a 500+ page like BofNK or maybe some of RS & GW's work I will occasionally point to books or links.
The mind is rarely silent even when trying to contemplate or meditate - it's a hard to turn off thingy.
On one end of the spectrum my friend Keith S. on facebook (friend of Breck) won't shit his own opinion no matter how hard I squeeze - just points to books. On the other, when someone continues to ask the open ended why & how questions no matter what I say & feeds back to me misunderstanding & confusion & contradiction, I usually point them back to where I got the ideas - saves me time & rwg type argumentation.


Funny that you would mention Keith, i actually unfriended him just because all he would ever do was wave at the literature and try to make me look lazy for not reading it.

Anyway i totally understand reference to literature and that sometimes to comprehend something correctly you must actually experience its context.  This is not about that ... nor really about you or I.

I claim if one actually comprehends a subject, one is able to answer pertinent questions directly about it.  When that is me, it proves that the pattern (the train of though) is completely connected and contained in my awareness.   But when it is not so contained, a vague unknown part of my mind can be used to justify some current association. 

This begs the question is it just me?  The answer is yes and no.  My mind at times does in fact have a very narrow focus ... and i have actually experienced others (perhaps smarter than I) who do not do not seem to have that problem.   Yet i have also experienced the opposite ... were a claim is justified by a wave ... but when the wave is delved into the justification vanishes into just the confusion or deception of its author. 

It is just interesting to note the similarity between what happens internally in myself ... and how that is so very similar to what happens in society at large.   As you may have noticed i am always looking for those kind of similarities to justify my Leviathan/humanity story

See Also

  1. Thought fastblogit trains of thought with 2 viewings related by tag "waving".
  2. Thought Ambiguous references with 0 viewings related by tag "waving".
  3. Thought Tagging with 0 viewings related by tag "waving".