Hi Marsha, you got me thinking .... or rather you hit on something I'd just thought about barley an hour earlier. My story ...
Recall I only really "started reading" 12 or 15 years ago, about the same time I started publishing on-line, about the same time blogging itself started. For the first 3 or 4 years, I read mostly on-line texts and paperbacks. When I did, I also started to annotate the texts I was reading, with marginalia, underlines & highlights, inserts, whatever. Obviously I used these afterwards to "synthesise" little pieces that seemed worth writing and posting, or simply recording. Then I noticed, my annotations were increasing to the point I was scribbling more text and thoughts, as I joined-up thoughts with other texts, so that there was very quickly more annotation than original text. AND the original texts were almost destroyed and unreadable - especially noticeable if I lent the physical text to someone else. So I gradually stopped annotating, or bought two copies; one clean, one annotated for a while, but .... And then I noticed I was buying more hard copies - new books as soon as they were published, before paperback editions might become available. And about 5 years ago, I stopped annotating entirely in order not to damage valuable books. I really regret it. Because (a) when I do have something I want to write / post it takes up more of my time to re-discover the recalled points I'm looking for in the text, and (b) later, when I've forgotten the specific points and have just the general impressions, I have no useful pointers available, and am faced with either complete re-reads or making do with the remembered impressions only. Only this morning as I was reading Deacon's Incomplete Nature (hardback) I noticed yet again, I had a great warm feeling, but no annotations or ..... marginalia as you put it in your mail. (I've typed this mail INSTEAD of constructing a blog post about the text - 'cos it's easier - making a post even harder.) I really will have to revert to making marginal annotations, or find some new tech way of making real-time annotations whilst reading - in any situation. (What I really need is a readable and an immediate text editable version of every text. I've not yet found workable electronic versions of the texts I'm most interested in reading and annotating. Pencil and notebook still look the only workable option.) As your note says. Time is the real limiting factor in a busy world. Looking forward to a week's vacation starting next weekend. Ian On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:47 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Greetings David and Ian, > > .... I reordered a paperback version so I may read and perform my typical > highlighting, indexing and marginalia. Been super busy so I have not had > time to view youtube suggestions, but I will. When this is complete perhaps > I will move on to xxxx .... I really long for the stimulation. > > > Marsha > > > On Feb 17, 2013, at 5:26 AM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Actual point: >> >> Having now read "Incomplete Nature" by Terrence Deacon, I have to >> agree with David, this is an excellent book; one any MoQ'er should >> read. (I do have some criticisms, but on the whole it's a great >> synthesis of may other sources I've blogged about in the last few >> years. Thanks David.) >> >> Think absence - the existence only of openness to possibility - DQ as >> the missing ingredient in the SOM world and you should easily see the >> parallel. If you're interested in the wider science and philosophy of >> mind, value in humanity vs reductive science and philosophy of science >> debates, then there is a lot more besides. >> >> PS / Aside / Meta-point: (Start another thread if you want to respond here.) >> >> Interesting that no-one else has responded to this 3 day old post from >> David, one of 3 or 4 he posted recommending reads from "outside" >> Pirsigland. The one I did respond to (also very positively) sparked >> busy threads entirely about my jokey aside about a typo David pointed >> out he had made in his mail - about value being beyond precise >> definition of words. Now tell me MD (with only a couple of exceptions >> I could name) is not trapped inside a cage of language. (You will. >> Defensively. Angrily, ad-hominem attack is the best form of >> defensively ..... go on, surprise me.) >> >> Ian >> >> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:51 AM, David Morey <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Hi all >>> >>> Good to be back after a long absence. Well on that subject, >>> I suggested many years ago that dynamic quality could be >>> more fully and better understood by thinking about how it >>> relates to openness and immaterial possibilities that are >>> somehow present to experience but absent as realised >>> things or SQ. Well Terrence W Deacon has written the key text >>> on this sort of thinking: >>> >>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Incomplete-Nature-Mind-Emerged-Matter/dp/0393049914/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360842550&sr=8-1 >>> >>> I think that all MOQers should find this a very interesting read. >>> >>> Here is a an excellent interview with Deacon explaining the key ideas: >>> >>> http://www.virginiacampbellmd.com/blog/2012/7/15/incomplete-nature-with-terrence-deacon-podcast-interview.html >>> >>> All the best >>> David Morey >>> > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
