If I was inclined to making humuculus arguments ,I became somewhat Elizabethan over my morning coffee and became Richard the Second, my mind teemed with a series of completely unrelated thoughts ‘like the people of this world for no thought is content.’
Early X Ray, medieval Irish frogs, the feeling of distaste in a book shop putting a copy of Dan Dennett’s thoughts on mind back on the shelve after two minutes of reading.
I could add a number of other items to the list. But the list only exists retrospectively as I can now put things into words. I also have a sense of things happening in time and in sequence. In the moment and in an absorbed state they seemed to occupy the same place and time.
The opportunity to retrospectively get a sense of movement comes at this point. This seems to be this point at which I am reaching a conclusion to a question I had no idea I was thinking about. I extract and separate two things from a much larger malcontent population of things.
An Irish naturalist arguing that the frog is not a native species of Ireland invokes his mother as a substantive, she was taken at a young age to Dublin to see a frog that was, “presented as a show”
“Baldric I cant remember giving you permission to turn into a pig.” (Black Adders dream from the T.V show)
Its only at this point I can identify what I am actually thinking about.
Reading source material on Isaac Newton. On first read I notice a correlation between references relating to ripeness to the four seasons and the four humours. I fail to notice the connection between ripeness and religious allegory.
This is an error I constantly make reading material for the first time.
In terms of trying to describe how I think this is a fail. In terms of identifying how I am pre-disposed to describing, it may be more helpful in identifying issues with reading wider on the subject. Why I agree, why I reject argument without thought.
I had no idea why I reacted with such distaste to Dennett’s book. I know nothing about this subject academically.
He started by exploring how his own mind worked. I thought it was a complete descriptive fail. I suspect now he may have had other things on his mind.
I notice the way I determine what a picture is and why I grow attached to it (it tells a story) and the way I identify errors I make reading historical documents appear to be very similar activities.
It does not translate as it uses a short hand form of imagery I use to remember things or forget so I don’t have too think to hard when I confront complexity.
Learning to speak Shakespeare, I was not encouraged to find meaning or make sense of the words, instead you concentrate on the rhythm. Sense comes of its own accord at this point. Probable a better way to describe the processes I suspect.