two-way communication?

Frustrated. I sensed difficulties. If I could I would have expressed what I had to say and made it clear to those listening to me. Yet there are blockages. Here and there. It takes two. One discusses something, the other tries to make sense out of it, the premise being that they could at least agree on definitions of certain concepts and main themes in the discussion. Such a premise does not naturally appear, rather often it is that when a communication is not working, the problem might lie in a lack of such a premise.





I stumble, and I shiver.





I would never accept something to be true just because its credibility comes from published works or well known scholars. Not that I doubt everything. I am on no ground to do so. I certainly respect hard work and hard won fame, but when I suspect some argument to be problematic, I refuse to take in 'a long history of such and such dealing' to be the reason I should feel convinced. Yes, others have dealt with it in that way before, but that is still irrelevant. Not enough to answer my question, because I am not convinced how it is used to support the current argument. I see an attempt to link two things, but I see the attempt not the link.





---


Last night, I watched Closer on TV. Last week I watched In America on TV.





I was quite touched by some scenes although there could be detected implausibilities in the plots of these films. Natalie Portman's character hides her real name from her partner for years, perhaps he never looks closer at her, therefore he never knows her real name or understands the real her. The Irish couple in America survive their poverty in New York City like a miracle. The sisters, especially Ariel (Emma Bolger), the younger one, play such wonderful parts in the film. To me, Ariel and her sister Christy (Sarah Bolger) are much more real than Saoirse Ronan's part in Atonement or Abigail Breslin in Little Miss Sunshine. Ronan's and Breslin's characters each function well in their films but in terms of realism in the characters, they are just less convincing, in my eyes. Not that they have to be in order to be characters in films. I am aware there are different levels of realism in performances for different purposes. Contrary to them, the acting of the Bolger sisters carries them across the border between fiction and reality, I think, and this is why this type of acting really touches me. Similarly, Natalie Portman's character in Closer (in some scenes) presents this type of acting too, to the degree that she oddly exists outside of the film unlike her fellow characters who funtionally exist within their set categories.

These are just some personal responses to two films I saw again recently. Perhaps this demonstrates how I let characters communicate with me. I do take it seriously. This is my way I suppose.

I do wander everywhere, Swifter than the moon's sphere

15.05.07

In the community of bloggers, if you like, it is possible to find an author's review of how others reviewed his book. To me it seems almost like that there's a lot of information out there available, but digestion is perhaps not necessarily required. Nothing problematic in this at all?

This thought probably comes from that I wrote something about the act of processing unfiltered knowledge.

I am rarely surprised when I hear someone claiming to be self-aware of her keen appetite for unnecessary knowledges. Perhaps that explains why some watch Big Brother after midnight, and some spend time reading strangers-nobodies' online profiles/diaries.

Is it a thirst to know things? but with little interest in the profound areas, or something like that? Well, I suppose I have no right to judge people thus or speak for them all. Besides, I need to define what a profound area means, don't I?

However I guess these are not the things being taken seriously, yet an amount of time is spent doing it. One might go so far as to wonder what is or should be taken seriously in this context.


As far as I'm concerned, I think I keep blogging as a tool to sharpen my pen, with some hope that an interaction of some sort may occur in the cyber space for critical thoughts exercise. Also, people might find some things useful :) There's a danger of confusion and misjuxtaposition or even identity crisis, I'm aware of that and would like to learn more about it.

a focus to start with, a tone to set the style, a perspective for everything else

21.03.07

Have an audience in mind when writing.

Why is she reading it?
What will she get from this, and is this according to your wish or hers?
Will she mistaken your words to be someone else's?
Does it matter, or, do you really need that signature?
Is your writing clear enough to present your topic?
or, is your perspective shifting constantly in lack of control?

With these in mind while writing, then you wouldn't end up writing a report all about your own personal response to, say, a certain poem. The significance of your writing, then, lies in, say, how the poem is analysed, supported with what evidences.

Probably personal responses matter very much to yourself. Therefore, keep 'em to yourself. They are not worthless, but it's just not under the spotlight here. For example, she says, the other night at the concert Gavin Friday set and performed sonnet #40 in a similar way Noir Desir arranged 'Des Arms'. Interesting, maybe even true, but people can't care less about why she relates the former to the latter. She can think/say whatever, surely, but people would probably be more interested in reading, say, ... well, they probably, after all, aren't really so interested.

Self-righteousness

W mentioned 'lady fingers' once or twice at home, and the other night again when we were at a birthday dinner. M prepared Tiramisu.

W: Where did you get your lady fingers? The ones I bought were not soft!

M: These ones are from Italy actually! but I think you can get similar ones from TESCO.


They're not lady fingers, they're sponge fingers. And I thought to myself, I've told you they were called sponge fingers, lady finger is veg 秋葵 or okra.


W: Yes I got some from Somerfield but they were not soft.

Me: Because for Tiramisu M first dipped them in espresso and that was why they became soft!

M: Yes! And we use the plain side to dip so that the other sugary side could keep the liquid inside from leaking!


I was somehow still thinking about the names 'sponge finger' and 'lady finger' and the object.



Then yesterday I read parts of a book that S recommended. I read a couple of chapters very quickly online. There was a part about being self-righteous.

From that, I started to reconsider my behaviour. Was that a kind of self-righteousness? Why was I affected by how a thing was called by others?

Maybe I was not. Maybe I interpreted the situation as my advice not being taken and therefore got unnecessarily irritated. Why didn't she take some action to change after I corrected her mistake?

Obviously, that was self-righteousness.

Yet, to think again about it, she did not agree with me, but what was also involved was that I did not think she was right either. Why didn't I think she was right? Was I really so sure she could not be right?

So I checked dictionaries, and found that we were both right.


Like Haidt mentions, my time was spent in vain on unnecessary worries.

PS. An apology to W.

Efforts

I very inarticulately talked to friends about how I perceived Horowitz's techniques and also Laura Veirs' lyrical music, but it was apparent my desire to express and share outdid my words' objects... Efforts had remained efforts...

a twilit quandary...

I admire C: she just updated her website, with a piece of self-introducing text on the homepage; her positivity is marvelous and affecting: I could easily picture her smiles in between the lines. And the depth. It sounds like a jug of truthful delights, not speciosity. She added magical stars in it, not meaning to entertain, but to further present to the world how she enjoys being a joyous spirit!

I like that. I miss that.

It is especially lovely also because, as well as the art of her creativity, her writing reveals a sense of self-confidence and faith for people, faith for the surroundings, and that is purely beautiful.

words words words

I want to remind myself that talking is talking to others. My brother said most of the time I just murmur to myself, and it's unhealthy, plus, it wastes energy without carrying out any sort of communication; it's the most dangerous to murmur to myself in my papers: I must rethink about my reader(s).



but why...