Gurwinder - 40 Concepts

[pmmg]

Found this on the internet, and found myself...yes, that... to a lot of it, and let me think on that to some others. Some I did not even know had a name.

Not really writing, but worth sharing, I think.

https://twitter.com/g_s_bhogal/status/1225561131122597896?lang=en

(Take down if the site does not want it).

 

[skip.knox]

It's interesting that most of the forty are about things that are negative. So add #41: it's easier to see what's wrong with the world (or others, or one's self) than to see what's right.

I had to learn this thoroughly as a teacher writing comments on student papers. Especially as a trained academic, my natural tendency was to note shortcomings and mistakes, rather than to point out where the paper succeeded or was strong. Being a teacher is fundamentally different from being a scholar.

I was reminded of that lesson when I started in a critique circle and, later, in being a beta reader or writing reviews.

 

[ThinkerX]

my addition would be the 'one step removed' problem.

' we do not perceive reality as it it truly is, but as it appears filtered through our fallible senses and brain. therefore, the possibility exists there are significant differences between how we perceive the world and how it truly is.'

 

[skip.knox]

Ah, but does the world have one and only one objective reality?

Historians grapple with this all the time. The old German ideal (from von Ranke) was that we should write history wie ist eigentlich gewesen -- history "as it actually was." That has been challenged repeatedly and I won't bore folks with recounting the sometimes dreary debate. But it does relate to the core issue of whether our brains are fallible in the sense of incorrectly reporting or interpreting an objectively real world, which we can hope someday to apprehend correctly, or whether we are constantly reshaping the world by the very act of perceiving it.

Sorta makes me want to go kick a stone. <g>

 

[ThinkerX]

Ah, but does the world have one and only one objective reality?

Historians grapple with this all the time. The old German ideal (from von Ranke) was that we should write history wie ist eigentlich gewesen -- history "as it actually was." That has been challenged repeatedly and I won't bore folks with recounting the sometimes dreary debate. But it does relate to the core issue of whether our brains are fallible in the sense of incorrectly reporting or interpreting an objectively real world, which we can hope someday to apprehend correctly, or whether we are constantly reshaping the world by the very act of perceiving it.

Sorta makes me want to go kick a stone. <g>

On other sites, the 'one step removed' issue tends to come up in discussion of physics and or metaphysics.

 

[Prince of Spires]

For me it had a very high level of fortune cookie wisom in it.

I've heard most of them before. And they all have their basis in reality and their uses. But they're not some grand ideas which will help you understand life. They're just concepts given a fancy name so they sound scientific. And they're not universally applicable or the only aspect which governs out behavior.

Still a nice list to read.

 

[Stanley]

Thank you for conveying these perspectives, I'm interested into learning about these matters