for - the map is not the territory - don't mistaken the finger for the moon

for - adjacency - I-me relationship - William James - subject-object dualism - experience vs conceptualisation of experience - finger pointing to the moon - subject / I am phenomenologically mysterious - Indyweb annotation vs Innotation - object-of-study focal shift - definition - potential vs kinetic adjacencies

adjacency - between - I-me relationship - William James - subject-object dualism - the eye cannot see itself - self consciousness - experience vs conceptualisation of experience - Indyweb annotation vs Innotation - object-of-study focal shift - definition potential adjacencies - definition kinetic adjacencies - adjacency relationship - William James's I-me relationship is about the paradox of self consciousness - modern humans distinguish themselves through excelling in cognitive abilities - but what happens when we turn this cognitive abilities onto ourselves? - Self consciousness is what results - reasoning about the reasoner - Just as the eye cannot truly see itself, the reasoner who reasons about him/her self cannot really do so because the "I" is NOT really the same as the "me" - the subject is not the object, - the act of framing is not the frame - the qualia is NOT the same as the idea that represents the qualia - the moon is not the finger pointing to the moon - hence the I, the act of framing the subject is phenomenologically mysterious - In contrast, in indyweb, we can replace annotation with Innotation, an inline version of annotation - This is because of the recursive nature of learning of ideas - When we digest an idea, that has an externalised (re)presentation, and it triggers the emergence of a new idea, - We can capture the newly inspired idea a an inline Innotation instead of a side bar annotation. - The reason why we would do this is because this is more homeomorphic to how knowledge context switches its role - from an active new insight - to an existing cultural artefact / object that can be digested by another mind - The difference is the idea - as a spontaneous emergent, embodied, enactive real-time , LIVING experience, which then becomes, post experience, an idea that is - a DEAD cultural artefact that is ready to be digested and potentially evoke a new strong LIVING response in another consciousness - The idea as a linguistically constructed cultural artefact is DEAD - until it interacts with another consciousness, - and at such time, the cultural artefact can deliver upon itz intended promise and potential, and trigger a LIVING learned experience. - Innotation converts the once LIVING experience of the idea at the moment of birth / Inception to the form of existing, timebound knowledge test to do the same in the future, when new minds may stumble upon it - Learning from linguistic cultural artefacts is thus - the act of conversion of - potential adjacencies into - kinetic adjacencies

for - cliche - the finger pointing to the moon - the finger is not the moon - language is NOT the experience it describes - from Psychology Today website - article - What Oliver Sacks Taught Me - Susan R. Barry - 2024 - Jan. 23

The next time you make breakfast, pay attention to the exquisitely intricate choreography of opening cupboards and pouring the milk — notice how your limbs move in space, how effortlessly you use your weight and balance. The only reason your mind doesn't explode every morning from the sheer awesomeness of your balletic achievement is that everyone else in the world can do this as well. With an entire body at your command

References

Victor, B. (2011). A brief rant on the future of interaction design. Tomado de https://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesign/

Dennis Duncan completely misreads this image of Grosseteste and the Pelican which appears in the Lambeth Palace Library's MS 522 of The Castle of love. (for image see: https://hypothes.is/a/RzHLjsz8Ee6dZLOTV5h65Q)

Duncan identifies Grosseteste's pose with his hand raised and his index finger extended as "the classic gesture of the storyteller." In fact, the bishop is pointing directly up at the pelican which sits just on top of the frame of the illuminated scene. This pelican is elevated above and just beyond the scene of the image because it represents, as was common in the time period, the suffering of Christ.

Bestiaries of the age commonly depicted the "pelican in her piety" which was noted by Isidore of Seville in his Etymologies (Book 12, 7:26) from the 7th century, a text which heavily influenced many of these bestiaries. It was also thought at the time that the insatiable and rapacious pelican ate lizards and crocodiles (or lived off of them); as these were associated with snakes and by way of the story of the Garden of Eden the devil, they were also further associated with Christ and driving sin out of the world.

Thus the image is more appropriately read in its original context as Grosseteste giving a sermon about the suffering of Christ who is represented by a pelican floating above the scene being depicted.

see: https://hypothes.is/a/QAc8us24Ee6d1kPcrhQPyw

Seen in a Hoskins business equipment advertisement in Business magazine (1903) for card index:

YOUR BUSINESS AT YOUR FINGER ENDS

Close to the phrase "at your finger tips". Would it have appeared before or after this?

Business: The Magazine for Office, Store and Factory. Vol. 16. Business Man’s Publishing Company, 1903. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Business/QKaxezfHjL0C?hl=en&gbpv=0.

https://finger.farm/