| whaack: | diana_coman: EOD Report: Completed the TODO list: I did 2 hours of reading the Odyssey (I got through just over 60 pages in that time,) finished my article for my meetup with Adam, and wrote the review + plan for next week. | [00:02] |
| diana_coman: | heh, jfw finds out he likes destroying things too, not only making them? | [09:01] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: does that mean all the tasks for this week got done? | [09:04] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: Not yet, but hopefully by noon today. The last task I have is a rough draft of the rereading article on trilema. | [09:26] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: at some point you'll have to review those plans too overall, in one of the weekly reviews, it's not *all* just "how I changed". | [09:47] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: Okay. I will go back to something closer to my original format for next week. I thought I was getting the review of the plans in with the EOD reports, but I could dive into more detail in the review about for example the accuracy of my projections on how long different tasks took. | [09:51] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: the EOD reports are fine and good but they are just that: reports; do you get the difference between report and review? | [09:52] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: Yes. Simplfying: the report is the 'what' and the review is the 'why.' The review needs to include an analysis of why the report was what it was and how to improve in the future. | [09:55] |
| diana_coman: | works as a very simplified version, yes. | [09:56] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: For the re-reading article my understanding of the structure is that (1) MP mentions briefly the importance of re-reading and then (2) shows an example of something he picked up on upon rereading. My plan for my current article will be to focus on point (1). I am not sure I even fully understand what he picked up on from reading the Caragiale excerpt + hi | [12:36] |
| whaack: | s son Mateiu's excerpt. | [12:36] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: MP ends with the line, "Now go forth and wonder why "discovering hypocrisy" is such a big deal for "narcissists"." From the article I would have to say the reason why discovering hypocrisy is important for Mateiu is because he wants what daddy says in his letters (which are assumed to be ~ "dude, get your shit together, you suck. Look how I am a man and my life is completed because i did x, y, z.") to be hypocritical s | [12:41] |
| whaack: | o he can (a) pretend daddy loves him (b) excuse his own laziness for not doing x,y,z | [12:41] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: ^ I am quite unsure about my above statement. | [12:41] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: http://trilema.com/2017/re-reading-is-the-most-powerful-tool/?b=successive&e=#select + "in this vein" -> it's the whole process there, not just a pedestrian "example = here's what I found". | [12:45] |
| diana_coman: | ie at first (and even several subsequent) read(s) of Caragiale's description of meeting Eminescu, you might get all sorts, there's plenty just in that alone. | [12:46] |
| diana_coman: | arguably you could get some things from Mateiu's letter too (though I admit I can barely stand reading his whining but anyways). | [12:46] |
| diana_coman: | at some point though and *only upon re-reading* as in layer upon layer of peelings of meaning and of making connections and of integrating and you-name-it-what-else, something alltogether new may come to light for you | [12:47] |
| diana_coman: | as in this case that sharp contrast between what Caragiale himself wanted in a friend vs what he obviously wanted in a son (some years later too!) | [12:48] |
| diana_coman: | as to the last sentence, think of who in there would "discover hypocrisy" and then be all butthurt about it. | [12:50] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: Okay, the selected bit you just linked was informative to me and *that* was what I want to focus on. I guess the problem is that I am not (yet) able to fully understand how what Caragiale wanted in a friend vs. what he wanted in a son comes to light after a few rereads. | [12:52] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: it's the contrast between those 2 and the consequences of it that comes to light. | [12:53] |
| diana_coman: | ie that require re-reads because you can't possibly quite get it at first read since at first read you barely get what is said in just that text really eg you might perhaps piece together just what it was exactly this "what I want in a friend", if even that. | [12:54] |
| diana_coman: | it takes several passes to make links and the more passes for the more far-reaching links really. | [12:54] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: re the "discover hypocrisy" point you make, I think I am looking at that from the wrong angle. My intuition was that the 'narcissist' _wants_ to discover hypocrisy: he combs through the writings of his betters searching for something hypocritical so he can say, 'alas, this guy is b.s.' and feel good about himself. | [12:56] |
| whaack: | ^ That is possibly just a projection of a personal problem I (used to) have. | [12:58] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: btw, is this meant to be the review of An Outpost of Progress? | [12:58] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: yeah, it does sound a lot like a projection first of all; for one thing, note the "" in the text on both hypocrisy and narcissist; and for the other, read the damned text, not your own inner script unless you really want to avoid at all costs actually learning something. | [13:02] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: yes. When I wrote the first article I saw it as being too much of a paraphrasing / rewriting An Outpost of Progress in my own words. I thought to take a message from what I read and write something based off that instead. | [13:02] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: that's fine and nice but it's not a review :P | [13:02] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: Okay, I can write a review as well. You did suggest that I should write multiple articles on An Outpost of Progress when I said I felt I had to lot to say from reading it. | [13:03] |
| diana_coman: | it's always fine to write more / + something else, sure; it's NEVER fine to SILENTLY switch something for something else, wtf. | [13:03] |
| diana_coman: | what is this, the soviet shop, we'll give you what-we-have-no-matter-what-you-asked-for? and be happy too. | [13:04] |
| diana_coman: | and yes, I doubt you said all you can get out of reading it. | [13:05] |
| diana_coman: | and esp out of re-reading it :P | [13:05] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: I read back my plans, and you are right the assignment was a "REVIEW of An Outpost of Progress" through the weeks I changed the wording to an "An Outpost of Progress article" | [13:06] |
| diana_coman: | myeah. | [13:06] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: for that matter, it's not even the first time you do this stupid morphing to the more convenient - see the very first delivery vs the actual requirement and even stated (by you!) work that was supposed to be done. | [13:12] |
| whaack: | is taking a look | [13:15] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: Yes from rereading the logs I remember now. I was supposed to research into the potential different branches of work within tmsr and instead I just listed what I already knew about. | [13:19] |
| diana_coman: | yes. | [13:23] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: One problem is my mind treating words and wording of instructions as something interchangeable. "review of An Outpost of Progress" becoming "an article on An Outpost of Progress" completely changes the task. | [13:24] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: words are NOT chosen at random around those parts! if you want random-words, go to the shannonizing crowd. | [13:25] |
| diana_coman: | and for that matter, you should not choose words at random either; that would be piling even more idiocy on top of the stupidity, indeed. | [13:25] |
| whaack: | I know that words are not chose randomly here. My mind may just be swapping words around until it finds a 'path of least resitance' | [13:27] |
| whaack: | And I do my best to carefully choose every word I use. | [13:29] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: I should note this morning I made plans to meet at 1pm with someone and I have a birthday party to attend to afterwards. As of now I am not on track to have the rough draft of my rereading article finished by then. | [13:31] |
| diana_coman: | not exactly a surprise by now, is it. | [14:31] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: No, I can't say it is much of a surprise. I ask for permission as the meeting is a date and not something I know that I can easily reschedule | [14:37] |
| whaack: | just experienced his first earthquake. all good. | [14:41] |
| diana_coman: | all right, go to it. | [15:03] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: Thank you. I apologize for having 'asked permission' just now. I know this is not actually asking permission. I thought it was acceptable to make plans for this afternoon since it is Sunday and at the start of the morning I was on schedule to complete a rough draft of my article. I do have a good start to the draft, although I would put some more time on it today if I didn't have these upcoming plans. | [15:04] |
| diana_coman: | myeah. | [15:08] |
| lobbes: | diana_coman: so now that the mp-wp bot project has more or less panned out I've had a chance to pinpoint more of my own weaknesses and things I'd like to improve about myself. I was wondering if we could sit down sometime this week to discuss my entering into a more formalized training in your school. | [20:01] |
| lobbes: | I'm not sure how it'd be structured but I'm willing to submit. I just know that I'm still not quite a person yet, and am growing tired of these same bugaboos cropping up in my life at all turns. I know I'll need some help in avoiding them in the future | [20:01] |
| ossabot: | (trilema) 2019-12-04 mircea_popescu: it's this sorta thing that gets you bloody. | [20:01] |
| BingoBoingo: | diana_coman: Tourism with jfw today seems to have been a success. The lower bound for distance put on the feet while tourisming together is 10 miles/16 kilometers. He took lots of pictures. | [20:18] |
| BingoBoingo: | jfw's distance traveled on foot still greater as he consistently took the initiative to come to my address. | [20:20] |
Comments feed: RSS 2.0