inquiry

Leave it to miso to repurpose a little chill as discussion kindling:

It's not quite october yet but it's already getting cold in there. Summer went by so fast. It's fine though, I like cold. And what's better than reading what other people have been up to when it's cold outside and you are comfortably seated inside?

Oh, how I do love getting situated for discovery!

That's it. Slowing down. I think this is what makes engaging a great experience. Taking the time. Doesn't mean we need to engage with a lot of people if we can take time to engage in a meaningful way once. Slowing down brings quiet, we're not racing for endless notifications. It's slow but it isn't shallow. It also allows us to focus and not be reactionary.

All that was in mind while pounding out my previous, but – surprise, surprise – it never made it to “print” for my being in such a rush to post what I had. So your reminder of the value of slow seems particularly meaningful.

Also, quite nice to be reminded of the seeming inverse relationship between speed and quality in the meaningfulness department.

In general I should slow down in lots of things I'm doing. It just feels better that way. Why rush all the time? Are we going faster if we don't slow down? Or do we need to slow down if we want to accelerate? So many questions.

I have it on good authority there's something to the slowing down of which you type. :–)

FWIW, an except from a potential spoof thereof:

        you gotta give me little posting
             give me little posting
                     ow!!!
        if you want our threads to last
           ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!

Scary, isn't it? I never thought emotions could control us so much. Yet it makes sense. It also means that if someone can cater to some emotional input they could manipulate your logical mind in a non-logical way. Yes, definitely scary.

I suddenly want to model emotions as thought flames having been fanned into bonfires.

Which reminds me a little of a computer program. It's a series of statement/expression that get executed, or interpreted. The interpreter reads the program and do stuff. It's unambiguous so two different interpreters will produce the same output. It's also very deterministic.

But take writing now. We write, but we can only hope it will be interpreted the way we intend to by our reader. Maybe if I say “table” you will think of a brown round table although the one in my head is gray and rectangle.

What are you, some kind of a table racist? ;–)

Super fun analogy-assisted comparison!