14 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2021
    1. This art of method was understood by Ramus and Ramists as its own efficacious art of memory. InScholae in liberales artes, Ramus is explicit about his disdain for the visual mnemonic rules suggested byclassical sources.“The art of memory,”he counters,“consists entirely in division and composition. If weseek then an art which will divide and compose things, we shall find the art of memory”(qtd. in Yates 233).Ramus thus enfolds the fourth canon into his methodical framework, linking memorization of content withits“division and composition,”that is, with its organization.

      Arrangement and organization definitely have their place and can be helpful. However they may also tend to become too rigid to the point that one's thinking begins to lack creativity and invention. Where is the space for the Llullist arts of combinatorial thought here?

  2. May 2021
  3. gordonbrander.com gordonbrander.com
    1. There are rumors Pascal wrote the Pensées on notecards, and pinned these cards to a wall, connecting related thoughts with yarn. An early example of hypertext?

      This certainly fits into the broad general ideas surrounding note taking, commonplace books, and zettelkasten as tools for thought. People generally seemed to have used relatively similar methods but shoehorned them into the available tools they had at the time.

      This also, incidentally isn't too far off from how indigenous peoples the world over have used memory techniques (memory palaces, songlines, etc.) to hold together and pollinate their own thinking.

      Raymond Llull took things a step further with his combinatoric methods, though I've yet to see anyone attempting that in the area of digital gardens.

  4. Feb 2021
    1. What you see on this page is, in a very real sense, textual play: the recombining of words into new forms and associations that their original creators never dreamed of.

      What if we add in a dose of Llull's combinatorial thought to the idea of a search engine? What if the search engine can remember the top 50 categories in my personal commonplace book and show overlapping searches of those terms? What if it's even more combinatorial and randomly chooses overlaps from any words in my commonplace? Is that more or less valuable as an idea generator?

      Is it more fruitful to randomly work on various entries every day in an effort to tie them into our other thoughts?

    2. But all of this magic was predicated on one thing: that the words could be copied, re-arranged, put to surprising new uses in surprising new contexts. By stitching together passages written by multiple authors, without their explicit permission or consultation, some new awareness could take shape.

      Remixing content can be an important tool. Is there a direct relation to the ideas of Raymond Llull hidden between here and there?

    1. According to the historian Robert Darnton, this led to a very particular structuring of knowledge: commonplace users "broke texts into fragments and assembled them into new patterns by transcribing them in different sections of their notebook." It was a mixture of fragmented order and disorder that anticipated a particular form of scientific investigation and organisation of information.

      Might be an interesting source to read.

      Also feels in form a bit like the combinatorial method of Raymond Llull, but without as much mixing.

  5. Oct 2020
    1. Experienced practitioners [...] don't have to plod step by step through such a listing of concepts and questions. When they encounter a set of ideas or engage in debate, they can speed through the familiar relationships and spot at a glance the concepts that haven't been taken into account and the questions that haven't been asked. When they work out their own arguments or ideas, they can look at each point from a galaxy of different perspectives that might never come to mind without the help of the combinatorial system and the mental training it provides. Like the Lullian adepts of the Renaissance, they supplemented the natural capacities of their minds with the systematic practices of the combinatorial art. This, in turn, the art of memory seeks to do with the natural capacities of the human memory.  De Umbris Idearum, 'Working Bruno's Magic', p. 164
    1. Finally, and as fundamentally as there is a numerical memory and a dia-lectical memory, there is a geometry of memory too. Almost every monas-tic mnemotechnical scheme—ladders, roses, buildings, maps—was based ongeometrical figures: squares, rectangles, triangles, circles, and complex refor-mations of these, including three-dimensional structures

      She doesn't mention it, but they're not only placing things in order for potential memory purposes, but they're also placing an order on their world as well.

      Ladders and steps were frequently used to create an order of beings as in the scala naturae or the Great Chain of Being.

      Some of this is also seen in Ramon Lull's Ladder of Ascent and Descent of the Mind, 1305 (Ars Magna)

  6. May 2020
    1. The aim of these books wasn’t regurgitation but rather combinatorial creativity. People were encouraged to improvise on themes and topics. Gathering raw material alone — in this case, information — is not enough. We must transform it into something new. It is in this light that Seneca advised copying the bee and Einstein advised combinatorial play.

      I was really hoping for so much more in this essay on the combinatorial creativity, espcially since the author threw the idea into the title. The real meat must be in the two linked articles about Seneca and Einstein.

      There is a slight mention of combinatorics in the justaposition of pieces within one's commonplace book, and a mention that these books may date back to the 12th century where they were probably more influenced by the combinatoric creativity of Raymond Lull. It's still an open question for me just how far back the idea of commonplaces goes as well as how far back Lull's combinatoric pieces go...

    1. People in the Renaissance broke texts into fragments and used these to assemble and connect. It was, perhaps, the original remix culture and ultimate foundation of creativity.

      I'm wondering if I'm going to see signs of Raymond Lull's ideas here?

  7. Apr 2018
    1. n fact, some women preferred a Whitetherapist, feeling that would ensure that their private sufferingwould remain private in their closely-knit West Indiancommunity, and would provide an “outside” perspective

      This preferance for white women therapists in this exact respect can actually be harmdul. because a white woman is not truly what she needs to talk to. also sarah has been looking for solace in a white people, she doesn't need an outside perspective, what she needs is someone who actually understands her.

      this reaching for white people is what caused her confusion in the first place. Her desire for whiteness while being black- or rather her refusal to ackowledge the power/strength/beauty of her blackness is what kills her.

      At once she states that she bludgeoned her father with a black mask/head. this is a metaphor that she was so hurt that her father chose the white life that she'd rather have him die as a black beast than to see him live as black man married to a white woman. so she killed him in an ugly portrayal of blackness- to justify her desire to be affiliated with white people. She doesn't want to claim her father or ackowledge her hypocrisy.

      In fact, we can read her boyfriend as her therapist. he's white, jewish, and seems to find amusement in her lies, hatred, and body. this amusement of problems is because he's so far detached from the situation he can't provide any empathy and understanding to her actions and much less read into her obvious cries for help.

      read more into the need for black ppl to see black therapists*

    2. when socializing with friends, the womenavoided discussing their problems

      when talking to raymond sarah started the conversation with her problems. he was p much the only person she talked to. "quote from book"***

  8. Mar 2017
    1. Raymond Yakaleya, speaking at Norman Wells:

      On the north side of the Mackenzie Rivers in the Northwest territories of Canada, lies Norman Wells. There is a northern research station at Norman Wells. Next to the research station lies Imperial Oils, oil production facility. Raymond Yakeleya is a film director who has taken the stories of families who were forced out of their homes by Imperial Oils. Raymond Yakeleya spoke at Norman Wells on August 9th, 19575. Raymond Yakeleya was speaking on behalf of his people, the Dene people, and their opinions regarding the proposed pipeline. On this day, he expressed, how after all of the words said against the pipeline at this conference, what he is really hoping for is that the government will start to trust his people. The goal is to work as equals, to work without creating further division and separation between the people. For his people they don’t want to feel as outcasts and they don’t want to feel ashamed of who they are. They don’t want to have outsiders decide their futures anymore, they want to be able to decide their own futures, they know more about their land and should be treated as equals and not as less. He expresses that the Indian people are not fighting the white people for money but instead are fighting for their lives. The Dene people do not care about the money the pipeline will make but instead they want to know what benefit it will have for their people. They believe the pipeline will be harmful to the environment and they don’t want the pipeline to be forced upon them.

      Proceedings at Community Hearing. Proceedings of Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry, Norman Wells, NWT. Vol. 21. Burnaby, BC: Allwest Reporting Ltd, 2003. 1-148. Accessed March 5, 2017. http://www.pwnhc.ca/extras/berger/report/NT%20Norman%20Wells%20Berger%20V21.pdf.

  9. Apr 2016
    1. one of the annotations is simply a link to a Google search for a phrase that’s been used.

      Glad this was mentioned. To the Eric Raymonds of this world, such a response sounds “perfectly legitimate”. But it’s precisely what can differentiate communities and make one more welcoming than the other. Case in point: Arduino-related forums, in contrast with the Raspberry Pi community. Was looking for information about building a device to track knee movement. Noticed that “goniometer” was the technical term for that kind of device, measuring an angle (say, in physiotherapy). Ended up on this page, where someone had asked a legitimate question about Arduino and goniometers. First, the question:

      Trying to make a goniometer using imu (gy-85). Hoe do I aquire data from the imu using the arduino? How do I code the data acquisition? Are there any tutorials avaible online? Thanks =)

      Maybe it wouldn’t pass the Raymond test for “smart questions”, but it’s easy to understand and a straight answer could help others (e.g., me).

      Now, the answer:

      For me, google found 87,000,000 hits for gy-85. I wonder why it failed for you.

      Wow. Just, wow.

      Then, on the key part of the question (the goniometer):

      No idea what that is or why I should have to google it for you.

      While this one aborted Q&A is enough to put somebody off Arduino forever, it’s just an example among many. Like Stack Overflow, Quora, and geek hideouts, Arduino-related forums are filled with these kinds of snarky comments about #LMGTFY.

      Contrast this with the Raspberry Pi. Liz Upton said it best in a recent interview (ca. 25:30):

      People find it difficult to remember that sometimes when somebody comes along… and appears to be “not thinking very hard”, it could well be because they’re ten years old.

      And we understand (from the context and such) that it’s about appearance (not about “not thinking clearly”). It’s also not really about age.

      So, imagine this scenario. You’re teacher a class, seminar, workshop… Someone asks a question about using data from a device to make it into a goniometer. What’s the most appropriate strategy? Sure, you might ask the person to look for some of that information online. But there are ways to do so which are much more effective than the offputting ’tude behind #LMGTFY. Assuming they do search for that kind of information, you might want to help them dig through the massive results to find something usable, which is a remarkably difficult task which is misunderstood by someone who answer questions about goniometers without knowing the least thing about them.

      The situation also applies to the notion that a question which has already been asked isn’t a legitimate question. A teacher adopting this notion would probably have a very difficult time teaching anyone who’s not in extremely narrow a field. (Those teachers do exist, but they complain bitterly about their job.)

      Further, the same logic applies to the pedantry of correcting others. Despite the fact that English-speakers’ language ideology allows for a lot of non-normative speech, the kind of online #WordRage which leads to the creation of “language police” bots is more than a mere annoyance. Notice the name of this Twitter account (and the profile of the account which “liked” this tweet).

      Lots of insight from @BiellaColeman on people who do things “for the lulz”. Her work is becoming increasingly relevant to thoughtful dialogue on annotations.