For true deep processing and learning, intellectualism, one must think beyond the single source they are consuming and think about everything they know. Although keep in mind selective attention for true learning and thinking.

This process is habitualized by means of Zettelkasten and further aided in tool like hypothes.is

Unrelated to the song itself. It is interesting that different people interpret the song's meaning differently. Likely due to individual differences in perspective, history, culture, etc.

Makes me reflect. Is knowledge/wisdom contained solely in content and words? Or is knowledge/wisdom rather contained in the RELATIONSHIP, the INTERACTION, between past experience, previous knowledge (identity) and substance?

Currently I am inclined to go for the latter.

About the originality of thought.

Reply to me:

Kathleen Spracklen An example would be useful there. Future video?

I am grappling the difficult concept of what constitutes an "original thought". I think it is easy to grasp conceptually, but once you start thinking about it formally and try to put it to words, it becomes very confusing.

Although this might be my own experience and not that of others.

The reason I am trying to think about it is for my current research project on intellectualism.

System 1 vs. System 2

Counteract the dopamine-dependent short-attention-spanned culture of today. Stop. Take time to think. Reflect. Go away from the devices. Perform analog note-making. Slow down.

(~0:45)

Justin mentions that a better way to think about learning is in systems rather than techniques. This is true for virtually anything. Tips & Tricks don't get you anywhere, it is the systems which bring you massive improvements because they have components all working together to achieve one goal or a set of goals.

Any good system has these components working together seamlessly, creating something emergent; worth more than the sum of its parts.

(~6:30)

I think the major point here is that Adler points out our minds, and thus our thinking, changes over time. Therefore, when a book is read at a later point in time, our notes are different.

Perhaps his argument to "think again as to make the thought more current" is antithetical to Luhmann's Zettelkasten, which principles upon continuing previous lines of thought, even decades later.

(future note, about half an hour later)... I think in the Zettelkasten the problem is dealt with adequately, since you actually can make new notes expressing why your thought changes... So in this sense it is even more expanded upon the point that Adler makes even though at first sight it seems the complete opposite.

Interesting. Needs more research on my part.

This is because of the fact that one needs to think (process) before writing. One can't possibly write everything verbatim. Deep processing. Relational thinking.

This method is interesting, I like the aesthetics of such commonplace books. However, in terms of functionality, it is nearly fully replaced with the Antinet Zettelkasten method. Perhaps I could use some of this to improve my journals though? In addition, this does inspire me to create progressive summarization pages of my ideas and concepts, contained in Sage Scientia, in Notion or Obsidian.

A method such as this, or Zettelkasten, can help create theoretical expertship... It might not be the MOST EFFICIENT, but it is highly effective.

The essence for this video is correct; active learning, progressive summarization, deep processing, relational analytical thinking, even evaluative.

Yet, the implementation is severely lacking; marginalia, text writing, etc.

Better would be the use of mindmaps or GRINDEmaps. I personally would combine it with the Antinet of course.

I do like this guy's teaching style though 😂

(24:58) In order to perform significantly better, you need to FOCUS your attention on a single thing only. Multitasking won't work, and thinking about different things at once also doesn't work. Set up your environment to foster this insane level of focus.

When it comes to thinking, the Zettelkasten solves an important issue which is the problem of scope, which is impossible at the current moment in mindmapping software such as Concepts.

Mainly, Zettelkasten allows you gain a birds-eye holistic view of a topic, branch, or line of thought, while allowing you to at the same time also gain a microscopic view of an "atomic" idea within that thought-stream, therefore creating virtually infinite zoom-in and zoom-out capability. This is very, very, beneficial to the process of deep thinking and intellectual work.

But are Google's tools really making us more productive thinkers? One might argue that it's attempting to do all the work for us and take out the process of thought all together. We're just rats in a maze hitting a bar to get the food pellet.

What if the end is a picture of us as the people on the space ship at the end of WALL-E? What if it's keeping us from thinking?

What if it's making us more shallow thinkers rather than deep thinkers?

Cross reference P.M. Forni.

Slow thinking is vergelijkbaar met Deep Work.