--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" <wayback71@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > Hi BW, yes, I saw that article. Read quickly as is my tendency. > > Sometimes I think I'm using a VERY small part of my brain here on FFL. > > Sometimes I think I'm using too much! Wonder how that combo of thoughts > > would look on MRI. > > > > I was a Lit major in undergrad and then TV/Film in grad school. Now can't > > even imagine reading or watching for anything other than pleasure. But, > > having said that, it seems deeply imbued in my perceiving such to notice > > patterns, themes, overarching tones. Dare I say that I attribute this to > > my jyotish chart?! > > > > I think it would be fascinating to do similar research on musicians. I > > read somewhere, not recently, that overall, musicians tend to live > > longer. Don't remember other details. Not my strong suit to do so. > > But wanted to mention it anyway. And wonder if maybe they, more than any > > other artists, combine pleasure and work. Hmmm, now that I think of it, > > I'd put poets in this category too. Probably missing merudanda more than > > is reasonable. > > > > > > Yes, I take into account that someone might be accustomed to close > > reading. And it makes sense to me that that trait would spill over into > > writing. Even into other activities. I appreciate your bringing this to > > my attention again. Can aim for compassion. As I anticipate a new > > posting week (-: > > > > Also want to say that I appreciate your being somewhat of a good sport > > about the Stand Up Comedy Awards, etc. > > > > > > PS I enjoyed both reading your post and replying to it. win win, my > > favorite > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: turquoiseb <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 9:10 AM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Perfect gig for Judy Stein -- writing for the > > Church of $cientology > > > > > >  > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > Judy, your practice of replying sentence by sentence > > > distorts the meaning of my words and overshadows the > > > import of my complete thought as contained in the > > > whole paragraph. > > > > Share, trying to stay out of the conflict but > > tripping on what you said above, I thought I > > should draw your attention to a post I made > > here recently entitled "This is your brain on > > reading for fun...this is it on reading seriously." > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/320510 > > > > It details some fascinating research being done > > on people to determine what is going on in their > > brains when they read either 1) for pleasure, the > > sheer enjoyment of it, or 2) for work, what is > > called "close reading," as if they have to report > > on what they're reading later in an essay about it. > > The researchers, watching the brains of people > > through an MRI scanner as they read, have discovered > > that very different parts of the brain are being > > used, depending on whether one is reading for > > pleasure, or doing "close reading." > > > > Riffing on what you say above, is it possible > > that a certain person is using different parts > > of their brain when reading your posts than you > > used when writing them? > > > > I find this an interesting question when applied > > to this forum. "Different strokes for different > > folks" turns out to be true even in the brain, > > and at different times, depending on the *intent* > > with which we read. Two people could read the > > same piece of literature -- in the experiments, > > passages from Jane Austen -- and get two very > > different things from them. That's not a surprise, > > of course, chances are we *all* would see the > > same passages slightly differently. *However*, > > the new information from these studies is that > > the *same* person could view and interpret > > these passages completely differently, depend- > > ing on how they're reading them -- for pleasure, > > or "for work." > > > > Taking a profession completely at random, consider > > the case of a professional editor. Their day job > > is parsing other people's writing, *looking for > > nits to pick*. The person is, as you suggest, > > parsing word by word, sentence by sentence, *look- > > ing for errors or lapses in grammar or logic*. > > And to such a person, a single typo or misspelling > > could render an entire work unworthy of publication, > > and thus of being taken seriously. > > > > Now consider another random profession, say a > > person who makes their living as a musician and > > an educator. Such a person might have said many > > times that they read the posts on FFL -- and > > write their own -- for pleasure. They do *not* > > tend to parse them carefully, looking for things > > "not right" in them; instead they might be looking > > for things to enjoy. Which is the objective, after > > all, of "reading for pleasure." > > > > These two types of people, conditioned by years > > of habit to read either for pleasure or for work, > > might be using entirely different parts of their > > brains while reading, and as a result might have > > a tendency to react to what you write completely > > differently. > > > > Now make a mental leap with me beyond the context > > of the experiments so far and to the next level. > > If humans use different parts of their brains > > when either reading for pleasure or reading more > > seriously, "close reading," is it possible that > > they do the exact same thing when writing? > > > > The musician in my completely random example, for > > example, might have gone on record many times as > > saying that he writes for pleasure, for the sheer > > fun of writing and for the joy of seeing one's > > ideas "come together" as a result of the very > > act of writing. I'm like that, and I intuit > > that you might be, too. > > > > Someone else might tend to bring the same "close > > reading" brain functioning they practice as a > > reader to their writing, and tend to take the > > writing more seriously, and less as an opportunity > > to have fun. They might, in fact, be practicing > > "close writing." If this were the case, would it > > not be likely that they are using an entirely > > different mode of brain functioning when writing > > than the person who is writing for the pleasure > > of it? > > > > Just a few random thoughts, written for the > > pleasure of writing them. Parse them as you will, > > and do with them what you will, using whatever > > parts of your brain you tend to use when doing > > that sorta stuff. :-) > > Excellent analysis and ideas, Barry. And compassionate, too. YUou do see > connections between things, kind of like a rabbi or a minister preparing a > sermon. Next lifetime.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQG_hxCNADg&feature=related
