https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verso_Books

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/matthew-perry-friends-actor-dies-apparent-drowning-54-rcna122643

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLV4EDBtuas

Quotes I've made that I never expected to be excerpted... 🤣

Perry analogizes many people's experience of writing to passing a kidney stone and then contrasts it with me talking about the Mozart composing/cow peeing analogy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYj1jneBUQo

Forrest Perry shows part of his note taking and idea development process in his hybrid digital-analog zettelkasten practice. He's read a book and written down some brief fleeting notes on an index card. He then chooses a few key ideas he wants to expand upon, finds the physical index card he's going to link his new idea to, then reviews the relevant portion of the book and writes a draft of a card in his notebook. Once satisfied with it, he transfers his draft from his notebook into Obsidian (ostensibly for search and as a digital back up) where he may also be refining the note further. Finally he writes a final draft of his "permanent" (my framing, not his) note on a physical index card, numbers it with respect to his earlier card, and then (presumably) installs it into his card collection.

In comparison to my own practice, it seems like he's spending a lot of time after-the-fact in reviewing over the original material to write and rewrite an awful lot of material for what seems (at least to me—and perhaps some of it is as a result of lack of interest in the proximal topic), not much substance. For things like this that I've got more direct interest in, I'll usually have a more direct (written) conversation with the text and work out more of the details while reading directly. This saves me from re-contextualizing the author's original words and arguments while I'm making my arguments and writing against the substrate of the author's thoughts. Putting this work in up front is often more productive at least for areas of direct interest. I would suspect that in Perry's case, he was generally interested in the book, but it doesn't impinge on his immediate areas of research and he only got three or four solid ideas out of it as opposed to a dozen or so.

The level of one's conversation with the text will obviously depend on their interest and goals, a topic which is relatively well laid out by Adler & Van Doren (1940).

https://diggingthedigital.com/hoe-werkt-het-maken-van-een-idee-notitie/

Frank calls out what he considers a good example of actual note taking practice rather than the more often seen talk about note taking theory. The example in question is Forrest Perry's YouTube video #9 Zettelkasten: from source card to idea card.

https://www.fpnotes.io/

Forrest Perry, philosophy professor at Saint Xavier University

https://www.sxu.edu/directory/cas/philosophy/forrest-perry.aspx

SAMPLE ANNOTATION

As an instructor with a background in K12, I came to post-secondary with a history of writing objectives as measurable skills. Now I see growth is a much better goal than some arbitrary skill and Fosnot & Perry (1996) agree.

Reference

Fosnot, C.T. & Perry, R.S. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. Galactic Challenge. https://gchallenge.org/constructivism-a-psychological-theory-of-learning-2/

Comentar, ejercicio y planteamiento del problema.

Fuente

This is Jude Perry's statement

Katy Perry: Witness

VÖ: 9.6.2017

Charts seit 16.6.2017

When comparing the Johnston and Muir translation of Metamorphosis, there are subtle differences in word choices which can shift the tone or meaning of the story. One of the first word choice variations in the section is Johnston’s use of “electrified” compared to Muir’s use of “magnetized”. The word “electrified” connotes more randomness in terms of movement, while “magnetized” is more specific and targeted to certain pushes and pulls with respect to an object. The next word difference is “collided” versus “cannoned”. Johnston’s employment of “collided” evokes a much more scattered tone where conversely, Muir’s translation of “cannoned” creates a more direct effect. Overall, the Johnston translation is more sporadic seeming in terms of diction and in contrast Muir’s translation is more focused and precise.

Still trying to grasp the implications. Anybody else studying this?