Canon PowerShot SD4000 IS
ƒ/2.8
4.9 mm
1/60
125
45 responses to “NOT a Landline”
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/mimosa0] Good comment! Was your BB also terrible this week down there?
-
I do not own a Blackberry. I just heard about it on the news 2 days in a row. Apparently, it affects subscribers all over the world. Watch the first video at right : CTV NEWS Blackberry smartphone.
From your perspective geographically-speaking, I am up not down. I am up or perhaps "over there" in Montréal or Québec or Canada! Of course, my comment is to be taken lightly. :-)) -
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/mimosa0] Thx for the info!
PS: Sure. Just that "geographically" there’s no up and down. There’s North and South. You mean, "commonly speaking", yes, the North is "up", right! But in English you usually say "down there" as a phrase. You know that better than me, for sure, you speak French and English up there. 😉
-
Up should be an outward radial measure not an axis polarity on a cartesian wrap. I wonder how many of our perceptions of the world are shaped by globes and maps. I keep an inverted globe in my office to keep my head straight…and the Apollo 17 image of Earth
And come to think of it, why such a stark red line around a globe’s equator? It’s so visually divisive. It looks like tape to cover the seam between the hemispheres, a manufacturing artifact. But Neal’s lunar globe uses clear tape:
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeany7] – yes, the BLM Agents have cut this landline! And RIM can’t save us…
-
Yes, I not only speak two languages over here in Montréal, I was educated in English from age 13 on. Of course, everyone talks of going north or up, south or down in various situations. For example, Americans always say "up in Canada". Canadians say they go down to the States for some shopping or travel south to Florida for the winter. My intention was not to correct anyone, only to specify that from my geographical perspective I never feel like I am "down there".
-
It does. What’s the message?
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/mimosa0] – don’t be silly. We all call it the Great White North, eh. Perhaps you forgot the cultural ambassadors that explained it all for us.
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/mimosa0] Sorry to say, but there’s nothing "unique" about calling travelling south "going down" and travelling north "going up". We say the same here.
However, when there’s no intention to point location, but to mark your spot, we say in English "down there". Like in spanish "por allá" o "por ahí".
Anyway, it doesn’t matter.
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson] ‘xactly. Gracias. |-)
-
personally, for me up there is the sky-milky way and galaxies and down there is the ground:)
and if it is the US, Canada or Latin America or Europe is up or down there is less relevant…also there are specific places and people in each country which are up there and down there… i am with the ones who are up there mentally:D -
I thought my intention was clear. Anyway, in my area, in Québec, people had the same problem with their Blackberries as in other people’s area. Let’s hope my info was interesting.
-
As all non-colonial peoples know, "up" and "down" when used in the geographical sense refer to the direction the train is going with reference to London. For example, while attending university, one goes "down" to London, but "up" to Oxford. To avoid any confusion, we speak here of course of "The" London, located on the Thames in England rather than the one in Ontario 🙂 In railway terms, one has the "down line" towards London, and the "up line" heading out of London – no matter whether it be north, south, east or west.
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/36613169@N00]
> but to mark your spot, we say in English "down there".A cognate of the French "là-bas" — là=there, bas=down 😉
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/44124348109@N01]
> NOT a LandlineGotta manage the unrealistic expectations of those damn mollycoddled civilians…
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/40648743@N00]
> As all non-colonial peoples know, "up" and "down" when used in the
> geographical sense refer to the direction the train is going with reference
> to London. […] one goes "down" to LondonNote that in Chinese or Japanese, the convention is the opposite: train traffic is designated as going "up" towards the capital — e.g. Beijing, Taipei or Tokyo — and "down" when travelling away from it.
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/nhr] "A cognate of the French "là-bas" — là=there, bas=down ;-)"
OUI![http://www.flickr.com/photos/mimosa0] Sure! I did find it interesting and as you see, the whole conversation has become very interesting. Thanks.
-
Cultural pointers embedded in cognition. I am reminded of a comment during lunch by Apple’s Jean-Louis Gassée: "language precedes thought."
So… so now we can all know what we mean when we go downtown in Asia!
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] – If the earth were a perfect spinning sphere, then the ball people would roll to the equator, but they would pile up a bit, and once the bulge there compensated for the roll, then it would be a steady state with no more rolling, but the Earth would have an equatorial bulge. And that’s exactly what we do have on Earth.
Its up down, All around, Are my feet on the ground?
-
Là-bas never means down there. It always means over there. Bas here is not meant to be a literal translation of down. One cannot translate literally and expect to always be correct.
-
So, can we infer that the shape of the Earth may be an indication of an ancient civilization of round people who died all piled up and became fossilized with time making the bulge?
Peaches!!! |-D
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] Are you with me?! 😀 Such theory would also explain why there is no round people anymore (well, some are quite close to very round shaped), because only those who had a more oblong shape survived and evolved into the people we are today.
[edit] And perhaps, just perhaps, this also explains why we consider obesity an illness and has to be cured and corrected. Perhaps we have the deep imprint of our ancestors from that time, in our genes, who knew first hand that round => dead. There maybe a survival mechanism behind that.
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] Great connection to Rodari! Indeed. Heard of him It’d be great to find some of his stories online (in spanish or english, but this last seems more difficult).
I love to think that way… impromptu thinking.
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/44124348109@N01]
> Cultural pointers embedded in cognition. I am reminded of a comment during
> lunch by Apple’s Jean-Louis Gassée: "language precedes thought."I guess it depends on what is meant by "thought".
I’m more inclined to think that "cognitive processes" precede language: there’s probably a wealth of cognition taking place in the mind of a baby who hasn’t learnt to speak yet.
As language skills develop, thought and perception elements can become bound to a particular word — e.g. "mommy" — but the constitutive cognitive elements presumably pre-existed the particular word binding.Of course, language has a powerful shaping and reinforcing effect on cognitive processes. Verbalizable thoughts, qua verbalizable, tend to be the main ones that are communicated — both inwards and outwards — and the corresponding mental structures are the ones that get exercised.
The multitude of non-reinforced cognitive abilities which existed in the baby’s plastic brain thus tend to wither and get pruned out as the brain ages.Some articles on how our culture and language shape our thinking:
"[..] The habits of mind that our culture has instilled in us from infancy shape our orientation to the world and our emotional responses to the objects we encounter, and their consequences probably go far beyond what has been experimentally demonstrated so far" link.
"[..] researchers have found increasing evidence that East Asians, whose more collectivist culture promotes group harmony and contextual understanding of situations, think in a more holistic way" link.
-
My take: You can only be French to think in the way Sartre did. Or be German to think like Schopenhauer. Later on, we can all understand (many don’t) in another language with a translation, but the conception of those thoughts and views was greatly possible in that special way because of the language of the person.
In a more close example, I don’t think the same (way and things) in English than in Spanish.
1984’s newspeak… a good example of this theory.
Of course we are talking here about cognitive processes of higher order with a necessary level of abstraction to require symbolic means -words and grammar- to occur in our mind. We are talking about what we humans do and the rest of the animals don’t (and babies either until they start grasping the language).
Experiencing the world in terms of basic emotions and sensory input like feeling hungry, fearful, angry, etc… those require senses that seem to be not mediated by the "language department" in the brain (like the sense of smell), they belong to our old brains, those are survival functions of basic order, not included in what I define as "thinking", of course.
Without having an inflated sense of culture, that French have ;), I find it complicated to think that a person who grew in isolation with no contact with language or culture whatsoever would develop cognitive functions to be able to think "like humans do".
-
re the "language precedes thought" comment, it is not true
before thought expresses itself via language, there is an image
image is thought
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/scleroplex] You reminded me of Roland Barthes… I really don’t agree that image is thought, just because thought -and meaning- is not a sense in particular but a complex interaction of all the senses available for the individual and a process of it. "Image" is full of symbols and implications of the use of language. Without language, images cannot be processed properly, no "thought" can emerge from it per se. That’s what I think.
Language is more than a collection of words symbols and structures.
Roland Barthes: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Barthes
Photography and Henriette Barthes
Throughout his career, Barthes had an interest in photography and its potential to communicate actual events. Many of his monthly myth articles in the 50s had attempted to show how a photographic image could represent implied meanings and thus be used by bourgeois culture to infer ‘naturalistic truths’. But he still considered the photograph to have a unique potential for presenting a completely real representation of the world. When his mother, Henriette Barthes, died in 1977 he began writing Camera Lucida as an attempt to explain the unique significance a picture of her as a child carried for him. Reflecting on the relationship between the obvious symbolic meaning of a photograph (which he called the studium) and that which is purely personal and dependent on the individual, that which ‘pierces the viewer’ (which he called the punctum), Barthes was troubled by the fact that such distinctions collapse when personal significance is communicated to others and can have its symbolic logic rationalized. Barthes found the solution to this fine line of personal meaning in the form of his mother’s picture. Barthes explained that a picture creates a falseness in the illusion of ‘what is’, where ‘what was’ would be a more accurate description. As had been made physical through Henriette Barthes’s death, her childhood photograph is evidence of ‘what has ceased to be’. Instead of making reality solid, it reminds us of the world’s ever changing nature. Because of this there is something uniquely personal contained in the photograph of Barthes’s mother that cannot be removed from his subjective state: the recurrent feeling of loss experienced whenever he looks at it. As one of his final works before his death, Camera Lucida was both an ongoing reflection on the complicated relations between subjectivity, meaning and cultural society as well as a touching dedication to his mother and description of the depth of his grief.This is one backbone of Semiotics, a science which I personally love. Charles Sanders Peirce is also good reading.
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] Good points, v! Question is: What is language for you? Words alone? Words are symbols (signs), numbers are language too, an so is music and images. Abstraction requires the mediation of symbols and signs to make meanings without the immediate connection with the object of our thinking. That is what abstraction means and why signs are required as the building blocks of it. The picture of a tree, or a tree is a symbol in our minds and it is interpreted as such. The word "tree" is a representation of such entity, but whether the word or the image enters our minds, in order to be able to construct something, to think of it " this tree is tall ‘" " I like this tree" "this tree is greener than the one at home" you need the mediation of signs as building blocks.
Architecture as such is an abstraction that requires some knowledge that relies on symbolic building blocks, whether is a sense of proportion, numbers, images in our minds, possibility of connecting diverse elements abstractly into a new solution…
I don’t know, this is how it works for me, after many years and readings I cannot come to any other conclusion closer to how our minds operate at this higher level of cognition.
-
Don’t worry: if all this was so simple, they would have already made a machine talk naturally (and they can’t). Or artificial translators would have won the battle against human ones… what I mean to say is that it’s a complex thing.
The person who said that if you cannot write it you don’t understand it, is, imo, partially true. Btw, you don’t have to understand something to experience it. Many things cannot be put in words, but we can be aware of them happening to us, but still be unable to understand what’s going on. Because if you could, you would be able with enough reflection to say at least something like "it feels like …" and compare it with something else. And certainly emotions are very complex and come from a myriad causes interacting. Don’t forget that understanding is an interpretation of something. So, he is partially true in saying that in order to understand (make an interpretation of something) you have to be able to express it. and to express it you require a language (words, music, numbers).
It’s fascinating.
Btw, the NLP describes several "models" on how people think. It’s not 100% for each person, but it’s a mix… I find it very interesting and fills very well what I experience myself and what I see in other people. They say some people think mostly in images, others mostly in sound and others with their bodies. You see for example, a person like our host, Jurvey, is mostly a person who thinks in images, that’s why he finds photography a great means to convey what he has in his mind, and that’s why he speaks so fast (the required succession of words in written language makes it terribly lame a media to Steve – that’s why being a magnific writter, it’s very improbable that he will ever write a long book -). Images give an immediacy in the content that’s terrific, because it’s a simultaneous apparition of signs. It’s like the difference between a tone and a chord. Other people who think more connected to their other senses, are more physical, they are the kind of people who need to do something while they are thinking, to chew, to eat, to walk, to touch things, touch their mouth… Steve also needs to terribly connect himself physically to his surroundings to think. That’s maybe why he is always coming and going, quite restlessly. It seems that he needs all his body to think and the outcome many times is simultaneous, like in images. I am like that, but quite different. You will see me listening in depth to someone and thinking and I will have the typical "The Thinker" pose, touching my mouth, connecting with my feelings… But I also need "to walk down (down!) my feelings" and it helps me a lot in thinking, also chewing. I also think in images, specially in interpreting a situation (you tell me a problem and I see a the image of a certain situation, like a picture of a boat adrift, say, then I explain what I "saw", visual metaphors). But it’s natural for me to articulate in the speed of the written language. However these two ways of thinking make it for the person sometimes hard to convey things "in words". But language is always there to process everything that’s going on. Others think mostly in "sound" and they are the ones who will think like "talking in their heads" (not necessarily are those the greatest musicians). This would be the kind who looks more like they need a language to think, but we all do, actually. Within a range, we are all different in how we "think" (input process and output). This is my impression.
If the Universe is information, language is everywhere. But the universe doesn’t "know" maths in order to do what it does. But it also doesn’t "think". There is complexity in te universe but not abstraction. Thinking requires abstraction. We do need a language -mathematics, words, symbols- to have the level of abstractions we humans have, the languages of signs (symbols) that we culturally created are necessary for this operations. And they are a way of nest complexity of meaning, once you can take off, detach from the immediate experience to process something in your mind, and retain it, and use it later and communicate it.
As always, I am "thinking aloud"! 😉
Another who wrote a lot on this that I love as much as Peirce is Gregory Bateson.
And Ken Robinson, his talk on creativity, his mentions a lot of this "different types of intelligence" http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativi...
-
Steve, it is amazing that you have been analyzed right here in public on your own page! I come here to see your photos and to visit your Flickr page but as it is often the case, I feel I am somewhere else. Unfortunately, the impression is that this is not your forum at all as it seems to be run entirely by someone else. So this conversation has no value to me. I am not coming back here under this particular photo.
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06]
> SJ , in your case things might be different..you talk so fast that perhaps only
> eventually you figure what you’ve said 🙂So, what Jean-Louis Gassée meant by "language precedes thought" was perhaps a Yoda-like, or an oblique admonition to Steve to "think, before you speak" ?
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/36613169@N00]
> Thinking requires abstraction. We do need a language -mathematics, words,
> symbols- to have the level of abstractions we humans haveAs I said, this kind of discussion requires defining what is meant by words like "language" or "thought".
If "thought" means "that which is — or can be — communicated using verbal language", then, by that definition, a baby who can’t speak can’t think.
Yet, as shown in the TED video Steve provided a link to, babies can exhibit pretty complex cognitive processes.
The broccoli test, for example, evinces that the baby is making a distinction between his own food preferences, and that of the adult tester.
So, the baby is aware, at some level, that he and the tester are two distinct entities.
The cognition occuring in the baby’s mind has thus established a distinction between the "self" and the "other". This cognition is therefore, at some level, self-aware.
Self-awareness is phenomenon that is complex enough that, even after decades of computer science research, we have no idea how to achieve it in Artificial Intelligence systems.
A restrictive definition of "thought", thus, would dismiss a cognitive process taking place in an 18-month infant’s brain that’s so sophisticated that we can’t even begin to implement it in our most sophisticated AI systems.If, alternatively, "language" means "a collection of possibly — but not necessarily — communicable abstractions used as a scaffolding for cognition", then, a statement like "language precedes thought" is obviously true. So obviously true, in fact, that the statement is actually a truism, and therefore vacuous.
> you don’t have to understand something to experience it. Many things cannot be put in
> words, but we can be aware of them happening to us, but still be unable to understand
> what’s going on. Because if you could, you would be able with enough reflection to say
> at least something like "it feels like …" and compare it with something else.Suppose I’m climbing a ladder. I posit that verbalizing the process — e.g. in English as "I’m climbing a ladder" — doens’t bring me any meaningful "understanding" of what I’m doing. Nor is a (verbalizable) language required for me to be aware of my situation, in the sense of being aware of a self — that is, an abstraction — perched — possibly precariously — on a ladder, or being able to make analogies, and mentally compare the situation with something else — e.g. being perched on a tree.
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/91217789@N00]
> Là-bas never means down there. It always mean over there. One cannot
> translate literally and expect to always be correct.Not quite.
Consider:
• the place "PRef" being referred to in the speech — e.g. Canada
• the place "PSpk" where the speaker is located — e.g. Argentina
• the place "PLis" where the listener is located — e.g. Canada
Semantic implications of "down there"• distance (PSpk,Pref) is substantial
• distance (PLis,Pref) is substantial
Semantic implications of "over there"• distance (PSpk,Pref) is substantial
• distance (PLis,Pref) is quite short
So, in this particular case, the Alieness should have said "over there".
"down there" (correctly) elicited in Michelle a feeling of dissonance between the form and the intended meaning of the speech.
Turning our attention to the French language:Semantic implications of "là-bas"
• distance (PSpk,Pref) is substantial
• distance (PLis,Pref) is substantialThus, "là-bas" is a good semantic approximation of "down there".
Scenario 1:
X and Y are colleagues at the office in Paris, chatting by the water cooler.In English:
X: I’ll probably have to pay a visit to our office in Berlin
Y: When will you be going down there ?In French:
X: Je vais probablement devoir faire une visite à notre bureau à Berlin
Y: Quand est-ce que tu iras là-bas ?
Also note that the link I provided above — L’Amour là-bas en Allemagne / Love down there in Germany — illustrates this distance-dependent usage mode: that novel, being written in French by a French author, obviously addresses a French audience. The place being referred to — Germany — is several hundred kms away from France, and therefore quite distant from both the speaker and the listener. It’s thus designated as a "là-bas".
Scenario 2:
X and Y are colleagues chatting over the phone; X is in Paris, Y is in BerlinIn English:
X: I’m arriving this afternoon. How’s the weather over there ?
In French:
X: J’arrive cet après-midi. Quel temps il fait dans votre coin ?
or, equivalently:
X: J’arrive cet après-midi. Quel temps fait-il à Berlin ?
Close French semantic equivalents of "over there" are thus e.g. dans votre coin, de ton côté, chez vous, at [your place], à Berlin, au Canada, en Alaska, aux Etats-Unis etc. -
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/nhr] OK. Indeed, this requires definitions: Language, Thought, to begin with. I think that "cognitive process" and "thinking" are too different things, and the later requires abstraction and is what, among other things let us plan, have a sense of today-yesterday-tomorrow, elaborate ideas, bring back memories to our mind, reflect, etc etc. All these require abstraction. That’s for me the key difference.
To me, self awareness is not "thinking". My guinea Pig is also self-aware and can do some cognitive processes you describe. She has a language of sounds and gestures to communicate (and of smell, but thankfully that eludes me!), but she cannot "think" with it, she cannot use those sounds and movements and impressions to make a strategy in her mind, or she cannot elaborate if she likes it or not being home. However, she does have preferences and can tell them right away, and she let’s you know. And forget about tricking her, it’s impossible. All this is not "thinking" for me. This is my definition. And of course, it’s all observations I been making in almost 3 years of living together.
And yes, a baby wouldn’t not "think" until it reaches some brain development. Just like it cannot see properly, it doesn’t have sphincter control or more evidently, he cannot walk or talk.
But even put like this, I don’t consider that "language precedes thought" is a truism. Why would it be a truism? And why is therefore vacuous? That sounds a bit dismissive. It is a conclusion or an observation, or an easy way to expose a more complex hypothesis, if you will, because nobody actually knows how we think and what to think is.
Or… do you?
The categorization of a truism often neglects the context, and in communication the context is as important as the message.
So, if you are saying it’s a truism because it’s mostly an opinion, it’s no farther from everything else mentioned here. So this is a whole pile of truisms…
Or maybe better said: a pile of interesting ideas that we are exchanging, no matter if they are scientifically backed up (I don’t take scientific backup as a religion, I keep an independent thinker).
Last: this is a lot more complex than what we can describe and talk here. For your example of the ladder against my comment on understanding, it gives a lot to say, but we won’t go through it. You are using "awareness" as "understanding"… so we should be tight on defining awareness and understanding.
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/mimosa0] RE:DOWN: It’s simple: I would never say "over there" about a place that’s 15000 km away from where I am, no matter it’s north or south. Call it preference, but it’s not wrong. You can say also "there" alone and forget about all this mess. BTW, in a language, you can have more than a way of saying something without being necessarily wrong. And literal translation sometimes work, sometimes don’t, but it’s a question of transparency between the languages [which in some cases are many and helps a lot]. So, it’s a lot more open and flexible than you think.
And, btw, correcting when people write or talk, in a place where most of us are not natives, are culturally diverse and not close friends -all-, is quite risky. You don’t know how would I take it (like a wink or seriously bad), is not proper "nettiquete", that’s the first reason for my reaction. But we learned a lot so far!
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson] Oh. You always with all that negative look on the prunning thing… with all the good that it has given you!!! You are biting the hand of the one who feeds you. 😀
And poor language, it has no blame whatsoever in that… it’s not its fault! And life narrows itself anyway, and that is what I hate the most, not the loss of plasticity but some other things about myself (body) and my life that cannot be reversed.
But we know already, that we don’t agree on this (♥ prunning / ♥ plasticity). 😉
One thing I think we never talk here or elsewhere, is about your childhood and your babyhood, because you always refer to that state with a lot of fondness, so questions I always have are…
– What do you remember of your childhood (-10 yr.), and how far your memories go?
– How did you feel about the world and your experience, and yourself?
– Did you have dreams of being an important person when you grew up that would do good for the world? Or it happened later, or it was never thought that way?
– How would little Steve regard this grown-up Steve? Would you be your little boy’s hero? Would he be pleased, satisfied, surprised?
– How much and in which way your experience in those years shaped the way you live life now?
– What did you want to become when you were a boy?
– What did you do then, what did you like doing the most?
– What did you find awful and hard or tough to accomplish or go through?
– Is there something traumatic (event, period, relation, health…) that marked you or that you remember?
– Would you change something of it all?I really look forward to your reply… I think we would all love to read this.
And perhaps, we can all reply this, too, after you. It can be an awesome conversation.
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] "still, if you are saying that we are sooo superior just because we can talk…i just can’t t buy that..ever"
First: If after all I said, this is the conclusion, I think there’s something very wrong!
Second: I never implied any kind of superiority whatsoever in thinking over other cognitive functions. That’s something it’s not there in my sayings. The fact that we can do something other animals cannot do doesn’t make us superior, just like breathing below the water doesn’t make a fish superior, because we can’t do it.
We are different.
-
V, are you serious? "superiority"… "stupid"… I cannot see anywhere in this conversation those words come up, and it would be good to mention that. So if I say that I consider that babies don’t think, you read that I say babies are stupid, or that I consider adults superior? And the same if I talk about an animal? OK. But I didn’t say that. If it needs clarification, to be stupid you have to have impaired thinking abilities or impaired cognitive functions of higher order, whatever. You have to have the ability and misuse it. If you don’t think at all, you cannot be stupid, by definition. An ant cannot be stupid, neither a baby nor an animal. An adult person can be. As far my impressions go, at least. That’s why I find it so rare what you are saying, that you bring issues of superiority or stupidity, really.
-
it seems to me that there is no right or wrong, stupid or smart in this conversation… people are different – this is all and it is true – there are different types of intelligence… since we all happen to be on this string of conversation – we have to have something in common:)
Thus, I am for treating each person with due kindness and respect…
we all bring one individual point of view which is relevant regardless of academics, language barriers, cultural structures etc. And each individual on this planet has a lot to learn and to grow – degrees and previous experiences do not matter much from this perspective. The power is to be able to start from scratch. To be more like a greenfield start-up is to be able to survive in our modern world with its rapid change and exponential growth.
"He who hears not me but the logos will say: All is one." -
Thank you for your comments, both [http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] and [http://www.flickr.com/photos/solerena]
You will love this, I am sure: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/videos/criminal-penguins-0
I am not having a good time right now, I couldn’t come back properly in time. Btw, I’d really like that we go through this, even if Jurvey doesn’t reply (he probably didn’t read). You can begin, would you like? Replying to these questions? I’d love that everyone here replies… it would get us a lot closer:
– What do you remember of your childhood (-10 yr.), and how far your memories go?
– How did you feel about the world and your experience, and yourself?
– Did you have dreams of being an important person when you grew up that would do good for the world? Or it happened later, or it was never thought that way?
– How would little you regard this grown-up you? Would you be your little you’s hero? Would they be pleased, satisfied, surprised?
– How much and in which way your experience in those years shaped the way you live life now?
– What did you want to become when you were a kid?
– What did you do then, what did you like doing the most?
– What did you find awful and hard or tough to accomplish or go through?
– Is there something traumatic (event, period, relation, health…) that marked you or that you remember?
– Would you change something of it all? -
Awesome! Thanks for being the first one. Someone next? (I’ll go later, sure thing)
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] ". i believe this conversation can never be closed " and isn’t that a WONDERFUL thing?
I come from a local TEDx general rehearsal we had (I’m part of the organizers and I won’t be here Nov 1st when it happens so it’s good to have helped coaching many of the talks) and many reminded me of this conversation. I cannot say a word, of course, I later may put the links here when I translate them etc etc, but I think so many subjects covered would fit in this conversation…
I will later reply to my questions, I look forward to your -others- replies. I’ve just learned a lot about you, V, with your answers!!
-
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/24270806@N06] "and you still like me, Gi?" Now, EVEN LOT MORE!!! If that was ever possible…
Topics very mind-intelligence-animals related… so it’s very into our conversation… You will like.
Leave a Reply