And again. . .
Jul. 10th, 2001 11:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rinueI need to stop rewording this, but I don't feel I've gotten it right. I am dubious that I will, but I'm obsessive enough to try.
(Also, if I contradict myself, I don't see a problem with it. Truth is generally more complicated than straightforward, more multifaceted than obvious. I have little trouble holding two ideas that are cognitively dissonant.)1
I'm going to use a famous Romie Metaphor(tm) now. (My excessive use of metaphor is well known among my associates, and equally well dreaded -- perhaps for good reason.)
Imagine, for a moment, that you are a musician. Hopefully, your teacher gives you pieces which are challenging to you, which broaden your horisons and encourage you to improve. Now imagine that instead, your teacher gives you pieces far below your level. What do you do? You either find a new teacher, or you stop playing the piano.
. . . and now that we've ventured into "Freudian Slip Land, maker of fine shoehorns," I think that's enough for one evening.
____________________________________________________
1The brilliant (and here I am actually referring to Einstein instead of myself, who could accept the idea that time and space were not constant and yet refused to embrace quantam mechanics) are often contradictory because they can accept what the rest of us call "dissonance" and simply experience it.2
2If you happen to be rereading this entry, you may note that the previous footnote was not initially a part of it. I often go back and edit my own entries, or comment upon them. I struggle with this decision -- is it better to be a historian and leave thiings as they are, or to allow the text to live? As they are my own perceptions, and as I say most things in allusion (illusion?) to another train of thought3, I have little choice. How much the casual reader must miss.
3The second-most entertaining e-mail I've ever received had a paragraph which dealt with this subject. Perhaps at some point I will have the wherewithal to include it in its entirety, along with the very most entertaining e-mail I've ever received. Suffice it to say, the upshot was that trains of thought were better than spaceships of thought because one can jump from one to the other like beats used to do, and wihout having to put on a complicated pressure suit.
(Also, if I contradict myself, I don't see a problem with it. Truth is generally more complicated than straightforward, more multifaceted than obvious. I have little trouble holding two ideas that are cognitively dissonant.)1
I'm going to use a famous Romie Metaphor(tm) now. (My excessive use of metaphor is well known among my associates, and equally well dreaded -- perhaps for good reason.)
Imagine, for a moment, that you are a musician. Hopefully, your teacher gives you pieces which are challenging to you, which broaden your horisons and encourage you to improve. Now imagine that instead, your teacher gives you pieces far below your level. What do you do? You either find a new teacher, or you stop playing the piano.
. . . and now that we've ventured into "Freudian Slip Land, maker of fine shoehorns," I think that's enough for one evening.
____________________________________________________
1The brilliant (and here I am actually referring to Einstein instead of myself, who could accept the idea that time and space were not constant and yet refused to embrace quantam mechanics) are often contradictory because they can accept what the rest of us call "dissonance" and simply experience it.2
2If you happen to be rereading this entry, you may note that the previous footnote was not initially a part of it. I often go back and edit my own entries, or comment upon them. I struggle with this decision -- is it better to be a historian and leave thiings as they are, or to allow the text to live? As they are my own perceptions, and as I say most things in allusion (illusion?) to another train of thought3, I have little choice. How much the casual reader must miss.
3The second-most entertaining e-mail I've ever received had a paragraph which dealt with this subject. Perhaps at some point I will have the wherewithal to include it in its entirety, along with the very most entertaining e-mail I've ever received. Suffice it to say, the upshot was that trains of thought were better than spaceships of thought because one can jump from one to the other like beats used to do, and wihout having to put on a complicated pressure suit.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2001-07-11 01:45 pm (UTC)