There is no try.....

[andrewducker]

Once again, Joe has made me think.

He asks why I'd want to shortcut through the 30 years of meditation, and isn't that a bit lazy.

To which, having thought about it this morning, my answer is "Yes. It's lazy." But it's not something I'm particularly interested in doing.

It's an answered question to me as to whether I can train my brain to do things with a little effort and a fair amount of time. I've done it unconsciously ever since I was born, and consciously on a few occasions, to see how it works. since then, learning has pretty much lost its attraction to me.

Not that I don't like learning, because it means that I know new things, and understand better, but learning isn't an end in itself to me any more; knowing and understanding are the ends (and in some ways, just understanding - since the internet came along and made knowing pretty much irrelevant when I've got access to large chunks of human knowledge, memory tricks have become about as interesting as sleight of hand tricks - fun to see, but more fun than useful and not really important. The only time I'm really interested in knowing stuff is when I don't have access to the net, or it's an item of knowledge I use on a regular basis).

Anyway, having become unenamoured with learning, I'm not terribly interested in spending 30 years getting somewhere that I want to be.

I think of it like playing the piano - I'm not terribly interested in the years of practice spent training in how to place the fingers just right, learning to read music (again), etc. I want to make the music in my head appear outside of my head. Everything else is just stuff I have to wade through to get to that point.

If I could have a plug-in marked "Know how to play piano" I'd be downloading that sucker right now.

And then I'd get to say "I know Cho-Pin" and all my friends would hit me with sticks.

Comments

heh

[(Anonymous)]

"since the internet came along and made knowing pretty much irrelevant when I've got access to large chunks of human knowledge"

This is the kind of view that makes me want to euthanase humanity. So you don't know anything when you're not online?

If this is the way you want to live, carry around a copy of an encyclopedia or three, and a variety of reference books at all times. That way if you need to know something and you can't get to a computer, you won't look foolish.

Nick

Heh

[andrewducker]

Nope, it's not that I don't know anything when I'm not online, more that I don't see the value in memorising vast numbers of facts.

I learn stuff so that I understand things. If I can understand without learning, then the facts are less relevant.

I don' see why memorisation of things is so important. I hated rote learning at school, and I haven't started detesting it any less now.

[broin.livejournal.com]

Uh, you seem to be in favor of stupidity. I can't imagine you actually arguing something so inane, but...

Sure, you can look up facts. You can look up opinions. But you won't have any sense of whether those opinions are applicable, or the facts are relevant.

An example. You're in a gallery and find an early piece by Botticelli. You look up Botticelli, you look up the early (and pre-) Renaissance. How does this help you know whether the piece is enjoyable? Skillful? Interesting or dull? Something you like or dislike? How it relates to, say, Futurism?

Or, you skim some essays on philosophy. How much would that help you argue something that people in their final year of philosophy are arguing? Or people with Master's? You can only have a _shallow_ understanding of the topic, if that.

Finding might be the new knowing. Knowing is not the same as understanding.

You *have* to learn to understand. I am not interested in reading the political view of someone who just looked something up that morning. I will pay more attention to film critics who spend their days watching films. I will listen to composers who spend their lives composing.

I am much less likely to enjoy a piece of fanfic.

Everything else is just stuff I have to wade through to get to that point.

That sort of assumes that the unformed music you have in your head is any good. That tinkering with music is worthless. And that the act of *constructing* music is merely a chore.

Reply to reply

[andrewducker]

Uh, you seem to be in favor of stupidity

In which case I'm obviously not explaining myself well enough :-?

An example. You're in a gallery and find an early piece by Botticelli. You look up Botticelli, you look up the early (and pre-) Renaissance. How does this help you know whether the piece is enjoyable? Skillful? Interesting or dull? Something you like or dislike?

I have to read up about it to know if I like it? I can't look at it and like it? Sure, knowing what the artist was trying to impart and their place in things may add to my liking or flavour it, but why do I have to read other people's opinions to know whether it's enjoyable to me?

You *have* to learn to understand.

Agreed. Which is why I said:
Not that I don't like learning, because it means that I know new things, and understand better, but learning isn't an end in itself to me any more

It's the understanding that matters to me. I'm learning only so I understand. If I could understand without the learning, then I would.

piano

[(Anonymous)]

"Not that I don't like learning, because it means that I know new things, and understand better, but learning isn't an end in itself to me any more; knowing and understanding are the ends (and in some ways, just understanding -
...
I think of it like playing the piano - I'm not terribly interested in the years of practice spent training in how to place the fingers just right, learning to read music (again), etc. I want to make the music in my head appear outside of my head. Everything else is just stuff I have to wade through to get to that point."

Being -able- to play the piano which is what you seem to want to download and -knowing- how to play the piano are different. I can make guitar-like sounds with a synthesiser, but I know nothing about guitars. I understand nothing about guitars. I mean really, all you seem to want is the illusion of knowledge. You want people to -think- that you can play the piano while in fact you're sitting there with no thoughts while your fingers do the work. Or am I misinterpreting?

A brainwaving changing machine lets you watch and change your brainwaves. Whoopee. 30 years of meditation lets you change watch and change your brainwaves because you're on a higher plane of existence. You -understand- what you're doing, you're not just pushing buttons while looking back and forth at the FAQ of alt.fan.brainwavechanging and hoping there are no typos.

Re: piano

[andrewducker]

You want people to -think- that you can play the piano while in fact you're sitting there with no thoughts while your fingers do the work.

Nope, not even slightly.

I don't care what people think. I want to be able to make cool noises on the piano for my own amusement. I don't care what the mechanics of the piano are for its own sake. I don't care, particularly, about the history of the piano. I want to make cool sounds that I enjoy. That's pretty much the be all and end all of it.

Re: piano

[wordofblake.livejournal.com]

I agree, I never wanted to understand music, I just wanted to make a pretty noise. Unfortunately I suffer from a condition called stubbyness.

Gordon