A concept of ideas
New ideas sometimes have a large reach. We tend to call these groundbreaking or world-changing views. But even if we understand a new theory very well and it's no longer a new-world-order but an irregular saturday, an idea's reach may not be fully connected to other sub-levels of thoughts. An example is realizing we can transport our theory of theories (and refutations) to decision making, planning, doing homework, the most efficient way to eat an apple. Maybe if you had already known daily tasks such as these involved working with theories you would have made the connection, and a large theory would have greater breadth of influence to you. If you hadn't established this explicitly in your mind, then all the consequences of theory A may reach theories C and D but not reach lesser important theories of H through Q (ie efficiency of eating apples).
Logically, theory B would pertain to all the contents of H through Q. Application may not be automatic. Our minds do not store ideas intuitively or in a relevant manner (why I think of orange juice when looking at a piano--because I once made that association; my brain now remembers it despite being irrelevant. My brain believes it *is* relevant). Realizing the conjectures of theory A can apply to theory Q is a connection that has to be consciously made.
The problem of a theory having limited reach to subsequent theories, regardless of how your mind stores memory, is solved by writing down and reflecting upon all the consequences of an idea. In fact, without internalizing new ideas we have a hard time understanding them completely. When ideas are not articulated, they remain inexplicit and contained within in our minds. It becomes harder to make decisions based upon ideas we only half understand. Written paragraphs give an objective reality to our ideas so they can be built upon and played with.
I was taught by my english teacher and creative writing 'guru' that when we write we talk to a willing and otherwise obedient audience. But that creates a problem: if I always write to an audience, anything I write for myself and is never shown to a second person is futile (as in journals/ unsuccessful blogs). This misconception has accidentally untangled itself with the new and better reasons to be writing things out.
Writing for oneself is not irrelevant and is very useful for developing theories. Coincidentally, a byproduct of writing things down in this way produces material that can still be given an audience. This will be potent material of the subject in focus because it will not be modified in any way to be understood by others--diluting an idea to communicate it without error is a compromise (and absurd). Why would there ever be a reason to do this? The proper way to communicate abstract thoughts is to talk in more detail about them, not alter the message. If the idea makes sense to ourselves, all we have to do is express it in plain language. That way if the idea is wrong, we can see for ourselves the exact reasons why. If they can't understand, then we have a new problem; they then explain what part of the message they have an issue understanding, and we solve that.
---
It is serendipitous that this post became a blog entry after all! Being aware that my thoughts might be given an audience does not influence their composition as I withhold the right to post or omit anything I choose. I also edit my work because I value the process of improving my standards and craft.
Logically, theory B would pertain to all the contents of H through Q. Application may not be automatic. Our minds do not store ideas intuitively or in a relevant manner (why I think of orange juice when looking at a piano--because I once made that association; my brain now remembers it despite being irrelevant. My brain believes it *is* relevant). Realizing the conjectures of theory A can apply to theory Q is a connection that has to be consciously made.
The problem of a theory having limited reach to subsequent theories, regardless of how your mind stores memory, is solved by writing down and reflecting upon all the consequences of an idea. In fact, without internalizing new ideas we have a hard time understanding them completely. When ideas are not articulated, they remain inexplicit and contained within in our minds. It becomes harder to make decisions based upon ideas we only half understand. Written paragraphs give an objective reality to our ideas so they can be built upon and played with.
I was taught by my english teacher and creative writing 'guru' that when we write we talk to a willing and otherwise obedient audience. But that creates a problem: if I always write to an audience, anything I write for myself and is never shown to a second person is futile (as in journals/ unsuccessful blogs). This misconception has accidentally untangled itself with the new and better reasons to be writing things out.
Writing for oneself is not irrelevant and is very useful for developing theories. Coincidentally, a byproduct of writing things down in this way produces material that can still be given an audience. This will be potent material of the subject in focus because it will not be modified in any way to be understood by others--diluting an idea to communicate it without error is a compromise (and absurd). Why would there ever be a reason to do this? The proper way to communicate abstract thoughts is to talk in more detail about them, not alter the message. If the idea makes sense to ourselves, all we have to do is express it in plain language. That way if the idea is wrong, we can see for ourselves the exact reasons why. If they can't understand, then we have a new problem; they then explain what part of the message they have an issue understanding, and we solve that.
---
It is serendipitous that this post became a blog entry after all! Being aware that my thoughts might be given an audience does not influence their composition as I withhold the right to post or omit anything I choose. I also edit my work because I value the process of improving my standards and craft.