Honestly, at this point, I love novels, but I find that navigating them sucks as someone who was uninitiated in education. So that's why I decided probably about a year ago to begin studying, and I've learned so much and read so many textbooks, having written down so much in response. I have grown, but now I don't find novels hard to get into, probably because I see now how limited they are in understanding the world. What do you think of my approach? I find that reading novels does not provide as much, and I hoped to create a better connection by studying in order to find new ways to enjoy those novels. This also extends to video games. I stopped enjoying video games, but I thought that one day I can hope to enjoy them again once I've spent much time in self-directed education. I've already stopped believing in novels. It's weird. Why did I use the word "believing"? Do I not believe the ideals of reading fiction novels? Is there something philosophical or epistemological about it? Maybe it's just a matter of the disconnection between the dislike of peoples' dislike of postmodern themes and their unyielding persistence to engage in grand narrative stories. I think that's it. I've grown to dislike the grand narrative that stories provide, and I've become disillusioned and skeptical of them. So I find that peoples' attempts to insert their grand narrative unbearably naive and opinionated, finding that it would be much easier if people were not constantly looking for an easy straightforward way to understand the world. Academic texts appealed to my new desire for postmodern constructivism, as I have began to lose faith in the predictability and conformity of grand narratives, which were practically all the novels I came across. I did find one that was transgressive, and it did effectively for me. But that was not necessarily postmodern. But it did satisfy that urge, and I enjoyed numerous grand narratives stories as well, or those who at least were more slice of life. But the point is that I've started hating the usual grand narrative story, finding them to be generic, repetitive, and contrived. This extends to video games, which feels so oversimplified compared to reality, which is much more beautiful. I love art still, because it is a nice way to look at the world through idealistic eyes of hope, while still maintaining the essence of postmodernist constructivism and subjective viewpoints. I've enjoyed art that basically is drawn with a style that makes the world look very beautifully dream-like, this stylistically imprecise nature allows me to satisfy those postmodernist longings for a world that is not so easily defined. Academic texts, albeit being frequently grand narrative on the surface, can be incredibly postmodernist by virtue of introducing all kinds of angles and approaches that diverge from the grand narrative thinking that 'authoritative' condensed textbooks seeking to elucidate upon an entire scope, field, or historical topic or era. I love ambiguity and complexity. It is not necessarily ambiguity. I've always enjoyed the precise of 19th century academic texts, even if it can feel ambiguous due to a lack of familiarity. This is why I've began writing in that matter. I use a blend of high academic precision, surrealism (dream-like), absurdism, postmodernism, post-structuralism, and transgressive themes. The mix between surrealism and postmodernism promotes a non-linear, complex, and nuanced way to view ideas, whether it be the plot, the characters, the setting, and the variety of details filled throughout. Absurdism promotes the idea that life can end up abruptly without warning and that nothing is completely safe from the terrors of reality, because in nature it defies the idea that life can be solved merely by grand narrative conclusions to chapters, arcs, and stories. 'The Stranger' by Albert Camus is a good example of that kind of absurdist story. High academic intellectual precision occurs when I go into depth with regard to the setting, the characters, the nature of ideas, and how things are interpreted by multiple viewpoints within the story, and how this world is received epistemologically and phenomenologically, but also introducing contemporary academic perspectives to maximize fullness of coverage. Additionally, post-structuralism doubts specifically the stability of language, which extends to the judicious use of gibberish or nonsense themes as a way to target universal truths and readily consumable signals and signs. Lastly, the transgressive nature of the story allows it to explore otherwise unquestioned elements of fiction, such as the killing of monsters and how it might psychologically impinge upon a normal human being, which is further complicated by the nature of war and traumatic events, especially in fantasy stories where grand narratives are emphasized. However, one could argue that it is not non-linear, but rather linearly complex, which can make it seem non-linear. I prefer not using the term 'non-linear' personally, but I understand that others might struggle with complex narratives, especially postmodernist, surrealist, absurdist, intellectual, transgressive ones. Complex stories do come with different strands of internal logic, schools of thought, and various contradictions. I do have recurring themes, motifs, and character arcs. There is cohesion throughout the story by the nature of these, that no matter how surrealist, strange, and transgressive things get, they are supported by academic precision and consistency of ideas within the story as they are emergent within broader coalitions of thought. I have also sought to go into depth with regard to my personal perspective by initiating others regarding my life with a separate autobiography and a majorly non-fiction journal. So this will naturally extend to media to which I've been exposed, life experiences, and my structured, precise, and in-depth written reflections in reference to my writing and my viewpoints.
He really does not like straightforward answers, huh, at least here in this string of questions. But I guess that's a good thing. Default answers will probably not help much, but still, I find it strange. I notice that philosophical writers have this very same style; though I'd say that this passage feels a lot more grounded somehow? It's not as dense, and despite the complex sentence structures, he always ties things back to completions. So he does just start with a line of ideas and leave it unorganized. But he does enjoy non-linear approaches to his examination, often entering into academic investigations into a particular complexity of ideas before circling around at endpoints to wrap things up.
"Have you found any particular philosophers or thinkers whose ideas resonate with your thoughts on these matters?" Ideas, such as those from philosophers and thinkers, are only as relevant to me as much as they are completely foreign to me, and even upon knowledge of them, the very nature of studying has been made obsolete; this I know. But the very essence of ideas and knowledge cannot be so easily dragged along down to the road. I digress somewhat from the main point of philosophers and thinkers, who in the context of any discussions, can be mere tokens of credibility-giving names. I avoid recognizing them much outwardly, if it means that internally I may gain a fuller understanding of their work, such as a man appreciating an art not by its value by popularity or price, but by its ability to render a person obsolete by his own self-definitions, by the definition posed by the art (through his own interpretation), he finds in himself (via the art) a part he has not hitherto described. "Do you find that this approach influences how you engage with different perspectives or fields of study? Are there specific areas where you've found this mindset particularly valuable?" It is not so much an approach as it is a mode of life, for everything comes and everything goes. That can serve as an element signifying the practice, or idea, or approach, or whatever linguistic form it takes, which it will not subserve by its production of reality into framework-thinking, but its practicalities and its hardy ground-touching nature, remaining in a sense polite yet unyieldingly realistic. A man can only be as much as he is, and when he is well-entertained, he seeks to be come trapped by the forces around him, if not to declare himself a hero beset by trials and circumstances over which he has no control. But in this state, he seeks control, not by the inaugural properties of those forces, but by the swift results of his actions, that he might consider himself heroic. If different fields and mindsets can be so encapsulated and consolidated together even from their complex actualities as they are abridged within already complex frameworks, then maybe there is no need to call it anything but a mode of life, for everything comes and everything goes. Whatever it might be takes place and happens in the real, that benefits are solely defined and constructed, with every mind that concurs or disagrees (by creation-destruction, an undefinable construct, but one that at least seeks to describe in some way the indescribable, as 'infinity' has sought to achieve), so that whatever occurrence is congruent in some way with such 'hopes and dreams' (positive things by the nature of which minds are stirred and hearts are delighted, and in which these minds begin the process of concurring and disagreeing—the ceaseless of self-definition by virtue of its nature as a term as 'infinity' is) is lost as they are now shoulds and not have-only-been-so-as-a-consequence-things-unseen-and-unreadily-defined. So benefits can only be as much as they are, so abandon my previous definitions and allow them a loose taste upon the tongue, because they are readily apparent, if not outright gibberish. If I precisely put my hands to the work, guaranteeing that this process of mind toward the thinkers and ideas is sensible, then I am also invalid by the very nature of ascribing the term 'process' to otherwise unthinkable things, things that cannot be contained that they are ascribable even in the general form of 'process,' which has been used many a time to describe the scientific processes of various phenomena. As a consequence of such, let us remain unhindered. I use the argument surrounding the term 'process' because I understand well that ideas are only as much as they are contained, and even in such a construction, they are altogether wasted when considering benefits, which as a term is naked to the eyes in its attempt to machinate its way into validity. But any instance of a 'benefit,' if they are so defined as such, have at once destroyed all 'non-definitionistic' thinking. It is here that we cannot even engage in conduct or warfare, for all definitions have collapsed by the automatic rejection of all things circular, cyclical, linear, and clearly termed as 'benefit.' This is why the term 'process' was used to prefigure that. "Have you found that this perspective influences how you approach decision-making or navigate challenges in life?" It is like eating doves in the morning (stemming from previous scenes of imagination or dreams), because it prefigures the very nature of eating. In the same way that dreams, as they are derived from reality, prefigure the nature of a human-flesh who eats the food upon the table in the sense that a person is [as] much as he is either ill-defined or well-ascribed so as to recognize that figurative scenes within his imagination are well-characteristic of his own behavior in interacting with this foreign world detached from the dreams in which he was so immersed, by contradistinction, the person also recognizes himself and readjusts himself accordingly by the nature of practice. So I do, by the nature of this 'approach,' am 'removed' daily and so am forced to be elevated (brought up to be characterized in an authoritative manner) into a singular substance of a mind (mode of being) that I may consider myself readily adjustable and practiced. It is hard to be such but undefinable, because there is then no definition of challenge and easy, even by the nature of decisions as they are made within malleable frameworks. Navigation becomes a boat recognizing its very nature as it is removed through every touch with every single droplet of water, for it perceives touch to be the trigger of identity-removal and -renewal. Similarly, I make decisions and navigate challenges in life by these very 'indefinitions' (not that they lack definition, but they are not so much any more to be ascertained than that of a man eating a dog or a dream-like whale singing a song, even by their service as prefigurations of an action done later).
But that also means supporting 'non-definition,' but not necessarily so in the traditional sense, at least as the very term is apparently so at least on the surface. But we can stretch this term to cover all areas of life in non-definition, but not by the very exclusion of communication itself, but to some extent compromise and complacency with our modern world which seeks to reinterpret at a constant rate ourselves and our humanities that we might be cool-boys or any type produced by the 'machine.' It is hard to wide completely these various little dots we call complexities; because even here in this world, as we seek to interpret by one correct definition, we also seek to alter it such that it becomes good, whatever that might mean for the individual or group. Point is that it will be a challenge to determine exactly the weight by which we must throw the rock of scrutiny and postmodernist non-acceptance. If we are to communicate our hopes, we must encapsulate it in some way, but maybe it is just to leave things be and push away the nature of nonsensical thoughts in hopes of reaching communication and communion (connection), that this is not a game-play, but a readily available non-definition of our lives, even in language. But are we then lost? Are we only so non-defined that we are lost? I wish not. But I do wish that even in this ideal for non-definition and non-acceptance, that these very words lose their meaning. Amen.
I realize that reading summaries of the 19th century can be conducive to grand narrative thinking. I'm referring to the very nature of grand narrative thinking as opposed to postmodernist constructivist views, and how looking at an article summarizing the 19th century can elicit the former. I'm not specifically talking about the 19th century per se. But the very nature of reading such wide scopes can lead to grand narrative thinking. Postmodernism can also be embedded as opposition against the Western lens, particularly from the academic viewpoint of the English-speaking West. Books that are often quoted as very effective condensed texts can lead to grand narrative thinking, but books that do not attempt to present authoritativeness and focus on the viewpoint of a particular man in a very particular context, leading to a much more realistic perspective of life. Grand narrative thinking, or modernism, can facilitate clarity and communication by virtue of standardization of all aspects of life, especially by language (which also leads to the standardization of accents, vocabulary, and writing patterns), but can impede the very nature of individual humanity and personality contrary to broad, sweeping societal viewpoints. This also leads to commodification, which can exacerbate historical biases and abridged perspectives of particular groups, cultures, and ideas, leading to polarization and ostracization of moderate but realistic (more real to life as a result of stemming from the nature of a person's subjective reality rather than from a broad, sweeping view of themselves, as even natives of a non-Western country can begin viewing themselves as Westerns view them through prolonged media exposure) ideas. It is much better to read a hundred books on the same subject by numerous authors from vastly different viewpoints, as long as they are maintained within the same strain of evidences. But even that can be called into question, as the very nature of science and citations can lead to grand narrative thinking and dogmatic acceptance of scientific truisms that this pattern of thought leaks into unsubstantiated but authoritatively presented ideas. The appeal to citations (analogous to appeal to authority) is insufficient. If possible, scrutinize all citations and references of an authoritatively presented work and hope that it leads down to the most seminal work and rapidly located replicated studies regarding such ideas. This would prevent the dogmatic acceptance of even ideas that are presented authoritatively, secularly, and rationally. Appeal to citations can be just as intellectually damaging as watching the same political videos all agreeing with "truisms" they all share without scrutinizing the very nature of those truisms beyond proponents' media and textual examinations. Citations can be used like high school cliques, where other ideas and intellectual are shunned unless they fit into the clique, gatekeeping and solidifying their place by the mere ignorance and lack of scrutiny from peer groups who only agree on those premises (truisms) in the first place. I have seen academic cliquing behavior myself, and they often try their best to present something as authoritative as possible in order to avoid looking like a bunch of people with opinions. For example, I've seen an instance of a critic being othered, and their critique is characterized as "...although [their] criticism has been perceived as highly selective." In contrast, in reality, with the way this is worded, it makes it look like a society of authoritative thinkers from different parts of science gathered together to declare their critique "highly selective." The fact that they mention the critic's name, but not the names of the two only people who defended against the critique makes the way the sentence is structured suspicious. They reference only the critique, but not the content of the defenders' articles, highlighting the "otherness" of the critic by just the construction style of the language. In another instance of academic clique behavior, I have seen articles from social science wield the use of quotes as a way to express their opinions without actually expressing it. It can be similar to a content creator quoting Twitter posts from media. The posts are biased and polarized, but the content creator merely chose them. The content creator can avoid criticism while expressing himself indirectly by the nature of selecting those Twitter posts. It is saddening, and it makes it challenging for me to participate anyhow in the ideals of academia, but I might just be inadvertently participating in the ideal of academia, though not in the ideals of misguided institutions. Yeah, I don't think 'like-minded' is a good term anymore. It is challenging at this point. Postmodernism aligns with the idea that a person cannot allow themselves to be so defined that they are incapacitated from any evolution of themselves, such that the world in all its glory, remains an unchanging embrace. And even this very description is a mere construction, for reality does not have definable answers, only factors and elements which cannot be so designated so as to be linguistically clear, that even our minds might find to be even a touch-bit sensible, for logic has left the window, not by reality's 'unlogic,' but by our own (in virtue of our helpless minds in defining such). The issues of grand narratives are echo chambers and tunnel visioning. If a person sojourns into a cave and he treks inside, hoping he would find something of value, but let's say the cave is wide and long, much so that it could be considered fantastical. But in this journey, he has completely become one with the cave, that anything else that he was becomes 'reproductive' (self-referential, internally logic, and repetitive) in nature within the limitations of this co-existence (with the cave). Postmodernism seeks to prevent these by just not being a person, not being anything in fact, not even being someone who is someone one day and remains the same the next [day]. But that also means supporting 'non-definition,' but not necessarily so in the traditional sense, at least as the very term is apparently so at least on the surface. But we can stretch this term to cover all areas of life in non-definition, but not by the very exclusion of communication itself, but to some extent compromise and complacency with our modern world which seeks to reinterpret at a constant rate ourselves and our humanities that we might be cool-boys or any type produced by the 'machine.' It is hard to encompass completely these various little dots we call complexities; because even here in this world, as we seek to interpret by one correct definition, we also seek to alter it such that it becomes good, whatever that might mean for the individual or group. Point is that it will be a challenge to determine exactly the weight by which we must throw the rock of scrutiny and postmodernist non-acceptance. If we are to communicate our hopes, we must encapsulate it in some way, but maybe it is just to leave things be and push away the nature of nonsensical thoughts in hopes of reaching communication and communion (connection), that this is not a game-play, but a readily available non-definition of our lives, even in language. But are we then lost? Are we only so non-defined that we are lost? I wish not. But I do wish that even in this ideal for non-definition and non-acceptance, that these very words lose their meaning. Amen.
I find it saddening that this is the optimal way to study, which is through self-directed study. My current circumstances makes that inevitable, and though I may have had hopes of traveling and being a part of something regional or international, those hopes are now dashed. However, I do prefer optimal growth, even if it means sacrificing an outgoing way of life that has been long ingrained into me. It's just weird. I used to travel so much and had so much fun growing up, being a part of so many events, including seminars, sports and music fests, and camps, among others; attending public lectures, although Christian church ones; taking part in so many different kinds of novel and immersive activities; befriending hundreds of people; and being exposed to the world from so many angles, viewpoints, and perspectives; opening up room for a much more developed and mature understanding of the complexities and nuances of the world. I do draw on my past experiences, but I can't shake the fact that I have to stay indoors and be in a single room, almost like I'm in school, everyday. It is my reality now, and I've grown so much. So I can't really pretend that the sacrifices were not worth it, as I look back only to admit that the time in which I transitioned from that outgoing life several years ago to this new self-directed studying life was optimal. But it is strange still to reflect and write illustrations of the significance of that departure.
Is it possible for me to attend teachings or something at an academic level? I guess not? I miss going to church and hearing preachers talk. I love that. But now that I'm older, I wish I had something like that for academia. The issue is that if church-like academic public lectures not as available and accessible as churches are, then it's most likely much better to study in a self-directed manner.
I find it strange you know... Why is that I am afraid of the grand narrative? I mean, I can see why my psyche might desire it. But I find myself hating the grand narrative in areas such as my fiction writing, where I implicitly mock 'grand narratives' by devoting much effort into building up the feeling of "God, Conquerer, We-Are, Universal Truths, the Epitome," but then I break it down by slapping it against hard concrete ground with postmodernist themes central to the narrative. However, I also desire it, because I have shown myself capable of devoting much genuine effort and belief in the grand narrative when those times shine, but I am never so affected that I forget my true goals of deconstruction. It ultimately ends in dissonance and complex discord. With regard to my psyche, I assume that having my personal grand narrative life in the final stages of my adolescent years disrupted and torn off track likely affected my perception of it. I want to believe again in the grand narrative. It will connect me to my past, but my postmodernist side, which has learned to hold disillusionment, intellectualism, and skepticism with a healthy sense of self-doubt by the nature of the constructed of all things, remains tethered to this adult self now at 21 years old. I have, for what feels like forever but actually only began around 2017, experienced divergences, interruptions, and varieties of pains and sufferings which were then followed by all kinds of complexities and nuances which never were fully synced. And even in my attempts to construct the grand narrative of my life through journaling and writing my autobiography and documenting as much of my life as possible, I find myself unable to decide what determines a human being in its fullness. This is what led me to read textbooks and to study much more. My skepticism led me to study a lot and to be more open-minded and curious, but also putting me in a constant state of unease and tension with the conformities which are now exposed all around by contradistinction with this mode of intellectually conscious being. The fact that I've been spending much time studying my very processes in a meta way is helpful though. It is interesting to see that I am studying the very processes by which I create and experience postmodernist or more grand narrative themes, not only in my textual reflections in either non-fiction and fiction writing, but also in my perception and mode of being within my day-to-day life as I approach my past, present, and future and the increasingly complex province of the comprehensiveness of scope of consciousness—meta-reflection. Femina studet sed ea est pulcher.
I have always felt disrespected by summaries. I've always found that abridging 4,000 years of history into one book felt disrespectful in a way. Of course, it's actually not disrespectful. Having a linear path toward complexity is great, but summaries can give the illusion of actual knowledge. It's like a bunch of politicians tossing legacy figures' names about the works of whom 99% of people have zero knowledge besides the 'legacy' of their names. This is why I love precision and elaboration in writing; it is my intent to ensure that I can make it as compact as I can in hopes that I am not appealing to the illusion of knowledge, but to actual precision and knowledge. I don't want grand awesome vague gestures. I prefer learning precisely where ideas connect and hit; this is why I have spent so much time studying, reading, and writing comprehensively and academically. I am fine with summaries and overviews as a technique (when used to summarize a book before preceding in, summarize a section before or after, ect.), but not as a sole bearer of the audiences' gaze, and I also see the usefulness of cross-references as a way to prevent repeating ideas and reinventing the wheel already established my earlier seminal texts. If I could, I would connect any significant idea in my texts to other academic texts, including a healthy combination of both long and short forms in the citations; even if the ideas did not necessarily come from them and emerged from my synthesis of other ideas. I also love footnotes and find them incredibly useful in ensuring precision and elaboration of ideas without sacrificing flow. I recognize the use of case studies; though I do not frame it as 'case studies' and find that I can easily integrate anecdotes and related historical real-world examples into the text.
any early 19th century academic texts the communist manifesto was around 50 to 100 years before Soviet Russia, so it can be compared to the temporal distance between the World Wars and 2024. It makes sense that such ideas take 50 to 100 years before they are fully manifest everywhere. It makes sense why the Victorian Era was marked by Darwin's ideas. I think thinkers like Kant were incredibly embedded into their culture and time, so it makes sense why people like him did not appear in more recent secular and rational cultures and times. Is it weird that I prefer 19th century writing? Principles of Geology is one good example of that kind of writing that I prefer. I find it a lot more immersive, but that's probably because I've matured as a writer and a reader. I hate the generic language of modern-day texts, because they sometimes spent so much time trying to be accessible that they end up bloating the text for the sake of making it clear for the uninitiated. This is not bad. It's more so that I'm done with these texts. I would not use the word "straightforward" for contemporary writing necessarily. As mentioned earlier, their attempts to straightforward, accessible, and everyday leads to writing that focuses on ways to bring complex ideas to them, resulting in bloated text which arises out to make complex topics conversational. Stream-of-consciousness or conversational writing can be very bloated, whereas language from more complex academic texts are much more compact and do not waste time with imprecise terms and vocabulary.