I have a strong desire to comprehend stuff
I claim that comprehending is a hierarchy and can usefully be thought of as a pyramid. At the base of the pyramid is awareness that is followed by consciousness, which is awareness plus attention. Knowing follows consciousness and understanding is at the pinnacle of the pyramid.
Two aspects of this comprehension idea deserve elaboration: consciousness and understanding.
When I was a youngster, probably seven or eight, my father took me with him when he drove to a local farm to pick corn for use in the café the family managed. We drove for a significant amount of time down local dirt roads to a farm with a field of growing corn.
We went into the fields with our bushel baskets and filled them with corn-on-the-cob. Dad showed me how to choose the corn to pick and how to snatch the cob from the stalk.
On the drive home I was amazed to observe the numerous fields of corn we passed on the way back to town. I can distinctly remember thinking to myself, why did I not see these fields of corn while we were driving to the farm earlier?
Today I have an answer to that question. I now say that on the way to the farm I was aware of corn-on-the-cob but on the way back home I was conscious of corn-on-the-cob. There was a very significant difference in my perceptions regarding corn-on-the-cob before and after the experience.
We are aware of many things but conscious of only a small number of things. We were aware of Iraq before the war but now we are conscious of Iraq. There is a very important distinction between awareness and consciousness and it is important for us to recognize this difference.
To be conscious of a matter signifies a focus of the intellect. Consciousness of a matter is the first step, which may lead to an understanding of the matter. Consciousness of a matter is a necessary condition for knowing and for understanding of that matter. Consciousness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for knowing and understanding to take place.
When discussing a topic about which I am knowledgeable most people will, because they recognize the words I am using, treat the matter as old stuff. They recognize the words therefore they consider the matter as something they already know and do not consider as important. Because they are aware of the subject it is difficult to gain their attention when I attempt to go beyond the shallowness of their perception. The communication problem seems to be initially overcoming their awareness and reaching consciousness.
Understanding is a long step beyond knowing. Understanding is the creation of meaning. Understanding represents a rare instance when intellection and emotion join hands and places me in an empathetic position with a domain of knowledge. When I understand I have connected the dots and have created a unity that includes myself. I have created something that is meaningful, which means that I have placed that domain of knowledge within my domain that I call my self. I understand because I have a very intimate connection with a model of reality that I have created. It is that eureka moment that happens rarely but is a moment of ecstasy. As Carl Sagan says “understanding is a kind of ecstasy.
When I read I almost always read non fiction. I have tried to read fiction and to learn from reading what is considered to be good literature. However, my effort to read good literature fails because I thing that learning by reading good literature is a very inefficient means for gaining knowledge and understanding.
I claim that I can acquire more knowledge in one hour by reading non fiction than I can while reading good literature for ten hours. That is, I claim that learning by reading non fiction is ten times more efficient than learning by reading fiction, i.e. good literature.
Do you agree that acquiring knowledge by reading non fiction is ten times as efficient as from reading fiction?
I have a strong desire to comprehend stuff
I have a strong desire to comprehend stuff
Your question is nonsensical and invalid.
What are you trying to learn? I can learn more about writing effectively in 30 seconds of reading good fiction than in 10 hours of reading terribly uncommunicative non-fiction.
The question as you've phrased it makes no sense.
What are you trying to learn? I can learn more about writing effectively in 30 seconds of reading good fiction than in 10 hours of reading terribly uncommunicative non-fiction.
The question as you've phrased it makes no sense.
I have a strong desire to comprehend stuff
I prefer fresh creamed corn myself...
I have a strong desire to comprehend stuff
Devonin why do you persist what coberst has written makes perfect sense from his point of view . I understand it.Why do I persist in what? Calling someone who doesn't stop trying to claim that they are some intellectual with deep wisdom that we lack, and whose repeatedly stated task is to educate us ignorant idiots on their glaring flaws in logic and argumentation?
I'm pretty positive that most people only say things that make sense from their own point of view unless they are being diliberately nonsensical.
The trick is in saying things that make sense to people who are not you. His question was invalid, because (as usual) he was far to vague and unspecific when he set forward his questions and their explanations.
We are not mind-readers nor should we be expected to be. If your question doesn't make sense -as stated- then it doesn't make sense. Even if we can divine what you were -trying- to ask from context, you have still failed to communicate clearly and effectively.
Edit: Also, I'm pretty sure that my inability to draw a hand or face well has -everything- to do with a lack of artistic ability, and not some lack of understanding about the "true" makeup of the hand or face. I know people with years of background in biology, anatomy and phisiology. You can't ask for someone more qualified to tell you exactly what a hand is and how it works, complete with joints, nerves, muscles the whole works, but as a terrible artist, I bet if I asked, they couldn't draw me a hand that looked very good at all.
I'm pretty positive that most people only say things that make sense from their own point of view unless they are being diliberately nonsensical.
The trick is in saying things that make sense to people who are not you. His question was invalid, because (as usual) he was far to vague and unspecific when he set forward his questions and their explanations.
We are not mind-readers nor should we be expected to be. If your question doesn't make sense -as stated- then it doesn't make sense. Even if we can divine what you were -trying- to ask from context, you have still failed to communicate clearly and effectively.
Edit: Also, I'm pretty sure that my inability to draw a hand or face well has -everything- to do with a lack of artistic ability, and not some lack of understanding about the "true" makeup of the hand or face. I know people with years of background in biology, anatomy and phisiology. You can't ask for someone more qualified to tell you exactly what a hand is and how it works, complete with joints, nerves, muscles the whole works, but as a terrible artist, I bet if I asked, they couldn't draw me a hand that looked very good at all.
I have a strong desire to comprehend stuff
Devonin;709500 wrote: Your question is nonsensical and invalid.
What are you trying to learn? I can learn more about writing effectively in 30 seconds of reading good fiction than in 10 hours of reading terribly uncommunicative non-fiction.
The question as you've phrased it makes no sense.
It seems to make sense to me.
What are you trying to learn? I can learn more about writing effectively in 30 seconds of reading good fiction than in 10 hours of reading terribly uncommunicative non-fiction.
The question as you've phrased it makes no sense.
It seems to make sense to me.
I have a strong desire to comprehend stuff
magenta
Some of what you say makes sense to me but what you say about not being able to draw a face or a hand is obviously wrong unless I am missing your point, which obviously I am.
Some of what you say makes sense to me but what you say about not being able to draw a face or a hand is obviously wrong unless I am missing your point, which obviously I am.
I have a strong desire to comprehend stuff
It seems to make sense to me.Of course it makes sense to you, you already know the exact context in which you were asking the question. When you don't provide an appropriate level of background to your questions, we are left guessing at what context you might have been getting at.
Do you learn more from non-fiction than fiction? Depends on what you want to learn, depends on the non-fiction, depends on the fiction. The question as you asked can't be answered without a) more information on your part or b) a half dozen qualifiers to account for the situations where the answer is the opposite.
If the fiction is well-researched historical fiction, and the non-fiction is the directions off a pack of toothpicks, somehow I'm not thinking I'm going to learn ten times more from the toothpicks.
If the fiction is modern fantasy, where the settings are accurate real world places, and the non-fiction is a chemistry textbook, then I'm going to learn more about chemistry from the non-fiction, but more about the local area in the book from the fiction.
Do you see now how your question isn't valid as asked? For each and every given set of "This is what you want to learn" "This is the fiction you have" and "This is the non-fiction you have" we have an answer for you. As a general question, you simply didn't provide enough information to actually generate a meaningful answer.
Further, your final paragraph and question weren't at all connected to the entire rest of your post. You suddenly jump tracks from a discussion of the difference between being conscious of something and being aware of something, into trying to learn from fiction writing...
Are you trying to argue that non-fiction encourages awareness of its subject matter better than fiction does? You need to demonstrate this if so.
Are you trying to argue that fiction doesn't treat "real" knowledge properly, misrepresenting it in order to tell a better story? You need to demonstrate this if so.
This is a common issue I see with most threads you post, Coberst. You start off on one subject, and before you've developed it with any kind of evidence, you jump tracks onto something else that may only have a connection in your own mind, because you rarely if ever demonstrate that connection in your posts. Then you ask questions, phrased "Do you agree that X" when you haven't come remotely close enough to proving a case for X to say "Do you agree" like you've already given us a logical proof and are just checking to make sure that we follow you.
You've stated repeatedly in many of your posts how "most people" don't understand what you're saying, don't get what you're going on about, don't, to put not too fine a point on it pick up what you're layin' down.
Well I'm here to tell you, whether you want to hear it or not, that the reason this happens is that your ability to put forward a logical argument is shoddy at best. If you presented these kinds of arguments in any of the philosophy courses I've taken, I'd be surprised if you passed a one of them. You fall afoul of several of the logical fallcies, and several of the formal fallacies as well.
The first step in effective dialogue is effective communication. If we need to be you, or ask for major clarification to understand what you were talking about, this is a failing of you for not communicating effectively, not a failing of the reader for not being a mind-reader.
Do you learn more from non-fiction than fiction? Depends on what you want to learn, depends on the non-fiction, depends on the fiction. The question as you asked can't be answered without a) more information on your part or b) a half dozen qualifiers to account for the situations where the answer is the opposite.
If the fiction is well-researched historical fiction, and the non-fiction is the directions off a pack of toothpicks, somehow I'm not thinking I'm going to learn ten times more from the toothpicks.
If the fiction is modern fantasy, where the settings are accurate real world places, and the non-fiction is a chemistry textbook, then I'm going to learn more about chemistry from the non-fiction, but more about the local area in the book from the fiction.
Do you see now how your question isn't valid as asked? For each and every given set of "This is what you want to learn" "This is the fiction you have" and "This is the non-fiction you have" we have an answer for you. As a general question, you simply didn't provide enough information to actually generate a meaningful answer.
Further, your final paragraph and question weren't at all connected to the entire rest of your post. You suddenly jump tracks from a discussion of the difference between being conscious of something and being aware of something, into trying to learn from fiction writing...
Are you trying to argue that non-fiction encourages awareness of its subject matter better than fiction does? You need to demonstrate this if so.
Are you trying to argue that fiction doesn't treat "real" knowledge properly, misrepresenting it in order to tell a better story? You need to demonstrate this if so.
This is a common issue I see with most threads you post, Coberst. You start off on one subject, and before you've developed it with any kind of evidence, you jump tracks onto something else that may only have a connection in your own mind, because you rarely if ever demonstrate that connection in your posts. Then you ask questions, phrased "Do you agree that X" when you haven't come remotely close enough to proving a case for X to say "Do you agree" like you've already given us a logical proof and are just checking to make sure that we follow you.
You've stated repeatedly in many of your posts how "most people" don't understand what you're saying, don't get what you're going on about, don't, to put not too fine a point on it pick up what you're layin' down.
Well I'm here to tell you, whether you want to hear it or not, that the reason this happens is that your ability to put forward a logical argument is shoddy at best. If you presented these kinds of arguments in any of the philosophy courses I've taken, I'd be surprised if you passed a one of them. You fall afoul of several of the logical fallcies, and several of the formal fallacies as well.
The first step in effective dialogue is effective communication. If we need to be you, or ask for major clarification to understand what you were talking about, this is a failing of you for not communicating effectively, not a failing of the reader for not being a mind-reader.
I have a strong desire to comprehend stuff
So why can five to ten year olds miraculously do it?I woudln't say that I can draw a face or a hand that is especially true to life, but I can certainly draw one better than any five or ten year old I've ever met.
So, as Coberst said, we must somehow be missing how you're defining "draw" here, because otherwise your claims don't seem to hold up at all.
So, as Coberst said, we must somehow be missing how you're defining "draw" here, because otherwise your claims don't seem to hold up at all.
I have a strong desire to comprehend stuff
Good non-fiction books
The following is a quickie from Wickie regarding some of the best in non-fiction reading.
These books listed below are some selections from "Modern Library 100 best non-fiction" from Wickie.
An American Dilemma
The American Language
The Ants
The Art of Memory
The Autobiography of Malcolm X
The Civil War: A Narrative
The Double Helix
The Education of Henry Adams
The Elements of Style
Eminent Victorians
The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money
The Golden Bough
Good-Bye to All That
The Guns of August
Homage to Catalonia
In Cold Blood (book)
Mark Twain's Autobiography
The Mismeasure of Man
Notes of a Native Son
The Open Society and Its Enemies
Principia Mathematica
The Right Stuff
The Rise of the West
A Room of One's Own
Silent Spring
The Strange Death of Liberal England
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
A Study of History
A Theory of Justice
Up From Slavery
The Varieties of Religious Experience
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:M ... on-fiction"
Category: Non-fiction books
The following is a quickie from Wickie regarding some of the best in non-fiction reading.
These books listed below are some selections from "Modern Library 100 best non-fiction" from Wickie.
An American Dilemma
The American Language
The Ants
The Art of Memory
The Autobiography of Malcolm X
The Civil War: A Narrative
The Double Helix
The Education of Henry Adams
The Elements of Style
Eminent Victorians
The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money
The Golden Bough
Good-Bye to All That
The Guns of August
Homage to Catalonia
In Cold Blood (book)
Mark Twain's Autobiography
The Mismeasure of Man
Notes of a Native Son
The Open Society and Its Enemies
Principia Mathematica
The Right Stuff
The Rise of the West
A Room of One's Own
Silent Spring
The Strange Death of Liberal England
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
A Study of History
A Theory of Justice
Up From Slavery
The Varieties of Religious Experience
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:M ... on-fiction"
Category: Non-fiction books
I have a strong desire to comprehend stuff
I checked out the full, very American list. I hope readers of Wikipedia appreciate the context of this list. Good to see the Golden Bough there.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"