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: epoche, perceptual interpretation, perception - epoche, perception - bottom up sensation and top down conceptualisation, lebenswelt

• key insight

  • Those is an important observation, namely that our ubiquitous, everyday act of perception, performed thousands of times a day is a near-instantaneous fusion of
    • sensory information and
    • conceptualising from our accumulated lebenswelt
  • in third context, Husserl's epoche or phenomenological reduction is a way to give us insight into this otherwise invisible process that normative social learning deeply conditions into us.
  • Indeed, one of the unique traits of our species is our individual and collective immersion into a virtual world of ideas, the symbolosphere.
  • The 24/7 immersion in this world would not be possible unless we institutionalised decades of education in our stake childhood years to steep use all in at m language training that forges ideas out of intention and symbols, creating the deep associations necessary for effortless meaning-making and linguistic participation as adults