I See Said the Blind Poet

Looking for a program designed for academics to help with content creation? Look no further than planksip! Click here to learn more!

By Daniel Sanderson, Aristotle, Michel de Montaigne, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Arthur Schopenhauer, Charles Darwin, Søren Kierkegaard, John Ruskin, George Bernard Shaw, Charles Péguy, Ezra Pound, José Saramago,

Jul 26, 2022
29 min read
AlleleFigures of Speech

"I SEE!" SAID HOMER

The eyes are more exact witnesses than the ears.
— Heraclitus (535-475 BC)
I See Said the Blind Poet A Incipit planksip Inspirations

I SEE SAID THE BLIND POET

"I SEE!" SAID HOMER

The eyes are more exact witnesses than the ears.
— Heraclitus (535-475 BC)

What follows is subject to revision. Do you have any suggestions? This is where we want to hear from you. Do you see what I'm sayin?

A deluded entry into Homer is in stark contrast to the battles and hero-worship that united our western sensibilities and the only psychology that we "no". Negation is what I often refer to as differentiation within and through the individual's drive to individuate. Novelty is what I am talking about. Differentiate!

Is this command to differentiate and new forme of Commandment, I mean with the commandments of the biblical variety falling into canonical obscurity? The debate rages on in the minds of millions whether it's the bible or some other liturgical argument. Augmented reality is the new understanding of replacing imagined facts with metaphorical musings.

As I ramble on with this narrative or sorts I have to remind you how valuable education in the Classics actually is. You should be asking yourself, what makes a classic a Classic? I there such a thing as a Classic losing its status? I liken this imagined demotion of sorts to be a hegemony of amnesia, to be discovered again at the peril and pain of those around you. No one civilization did it quite like the Greeks and by "it", I mean live(ing).

Do you disagree? How so? Where do you think this dialectical form of argumentation that you are using actually came from. I am not sure if it's eerie or something awesome but you should think about it for a little while - our very "forme" of Western psychology originated in the minds of the Greeks. Homer just happened to provide the soundtrack!

AFFECTUOUS EFFECTS

Happiness depends upon ourselves.
— Aristotle (384-322 BC)

The titled responsion is "Affectuous Effects". I think this is the closest I have brought the two words, affect and effect, together without a word weld.

Independent of the self, the sole responsibility for happiness lies partially on the community and our ability to respond (response-ability). The counterargument always reduces to the individual and virtue ethics punctuated with a combination of deontological and utilitarian ethics. The p.(x) philosophy throws Big Data into the equation bridging the two pillars of ethics into a game of chance. Taken seriously the outcomes couldn't be more predictable.

Do you know what astragali are? Think 80:20 rule except for 2,500 hundred years ago and using bone dice. The only ambiguity here is the plurality of one die or multiple and not our understanding of chance. As with much of our understanding, it is standing on the shoulders of giants, mostly of Greek origin. So how does that make you feel?

If you feel the twinge of xenophobic refutation coming on, let me assuage your feelings of discomfort and say, this isn't about national pride or a bloodline of sorts, this is about the Western tradition and all that it has given us.

HOW ABOUT A DEAF WIFE AND A BLIND HUSBAND?

A good marriage would be between a blind wife and a deaf husband.
— Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592)

The titled responsion makes you think about this reversal of gender outcomes. Ask yourself, does this change anything?

Before you get bent out of shape about my gender comment (that is, if you did bristle a bit), the role reversal that I am referring to is switching the blindness and deafness from the man to the woman, reversing the imagings. How does this "affect"  your perspective? Let's have a look-listen shall we? Now, I realize that I am playing into broad stereotypes but this is my article. If you have something to say you should join the planksip writers' cooperative.

Who are you?
Photo by Maria Teneva / Unsplash

Blind Wife - Deaf Husband

In a traditional role, the wife stays closer to the homestead, while the man is of gathering resources. Being hard of hearing the male is oblivious to the needs of the family and compensates with what he sees. The women, on the other hand, relinquish any and all visual rewards for the sounds and chatter of a familiar friend or family speak.

I don't know where I am going with this but I think I should see it through.

Deaf Wife - Blind Husband

Now that we reverse the impediments the wife only takes her signals in the visual realm, organizing her space and prosperity within it through visual aesthetics whereas the husband is blind to the beauty of his wife - at least the kind that arouses the visual centers.

I warned you, I wasn't sure where this was headed and at this point, I can't actually see what value this is actually offering. Can you see any benefit to illustrating a role reversal here? Is there any upside to this conversation? Does the role reversal make sense in any meaningful way?

A good marriage is based on trust and respect, and it should be that way even in the absence of physical affection. If there is no physical affection in your marriage, you are missing out on a lot of good things. F.O.M.O. is a powerful driver.

A good marriage is one where the partner has been able to communicate clearly with their spouse. It is important for them to listen to what the other person wants and needs. This makes communication easier and allows both partners to be together in good times and bad times. Is this profound or regurgitated feel-good chatter? I mean, there is obviously truth to these words but the resonance from which they leave this page and enter the minds of the reader may fall short of the intention. Are you half-listening or skim-reading? Who has time to sort these things out? We are all looking for those bite-sized tidbits of information that summarize our individual thoughts (confirmation bias) better than we ourselves could have articulated.

What about the cognitive fall-off that mirrors our news cycle?

Proportional Belief

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
David Hume (1711-1776)

The titled responsion is a representation of how it ought to be. Notice the circularity of this? A tautology of sorts? What wisdom can we extract?

The segregation of ideas from ideals is an exercise in the object-subject dichotomy. Wellspring intuitions and poetic musings are incipits to the creative process, eliminating the mentalese of subjectivity in a society in a vacuum. Not advisable!

This thought is at the center of Hume's helpful contention, as he makes his meaning of causation and thinking. The announcement itself originates from a genuinely simple to acknowledge a piece of thinking. At the point when we decide to have faith in something, we do as such on purpose. That reason is normally a type of inclination. For example, we could decide to concur with one savant since he is anything but difficult to peruse and comprehend, in spite of the fact that his contention doesn't appear as sound or too upheld by proof as another savant, who we may likewise decide to concur with. The insightful individual concurs with the rationalist who has more proof, as his contention will be better upheld; additionally, there is the likelihood that the savvy individual concurs with neither individual because there is inadequate proof for the two contentions, or there is adequate proof to the opposite of the two contentions.

Hume's image of causation gives a better understanding of what Hume implies by this and why he thinks it is valid. As indicated by Hume our thoughts of circumstances and logical results are common to some degree defective on the grounds that we accept that there is a fundamental association between the two; nonetheless, we can never know for certain what the association between one occasion and another is. What we can do, however, is judge-dependent on past experience. Basically, I witness something very similar again and again, and in the long run, I make a relationship between a certain something and what I see ordinarily related to it, and I name the main occasion cause and the accompanying occasion impact.

For example, I kick a soccer ball, and it moves. I have kicked numerous soccer balls commonly in my life, and they have consistently moved. I have made the relationship in my psyche that when I kick a soccer ball, it moves, and I have additionally changed over this thought into one of the circumstances and logical results, where my kick is the reason, and the ball's development is the impact. I make this affiliation despite the fact that, truly, I can never know for certain the connection between the kick and the development—the association between them. I have just seen the combination frequently enough to make my induction.

The experience of seeing the two things related normally sums to a sort of proof. Correspondingly, a declaration can be a sort of proof. When gauging a declaration, we choose how well it adjusts to our experience, which is our prior proof of the manner in which the world is, just as various different elements, for example, the degree of experience of the individual introducing the declaration. These different declarations additionally sum to a sort of proof.

The insightful man, as indicated by Hume weighs what he accepts against the proof for it, and afterward chooses dependent on that.

Part of this relates straightforwardly to Hume's contention about seeing supernatural occurrences also. A marvel is an offense against the laws of nature. All experience somebody has in life is as per the laws of nature, with each new experience adjusting somehow or another to different encounters. Quite possibly another experience may be viewed as a marvel in the event that it is considered as something new yet totally unique in relation to all different past encounters in that it violates the laws of nature. The purposes behind picking this dependent on proof for a fact, or any proof whatsoever truly, as Hume recommends practically the entirety of our proof is an aftereffect of experience, are nearly non-existent. Take for instance a child that has quite recently been jabbed in the eye unexpectedly.

Furthermore, let us expect that the child can reason how we can or makes deductions how we do. The child will at first acknowledge that the jab in the eye is how the world is, as opposed to some inexplicable occasion, even though the occasion is unconstrained, sudden, and remarkable. Maybe the child realizes that being jabbed can sting, possibly not, yet he will, in the end, know this.

On the off chance that maybe the infant imagined that the jab was a marvel when he discovers that being jabbed harms, he will come to comprehend that what he encountered was not wonder but rather the manner in which the world is. This is the manner in which everybody builds up their comprehension of existence with all related knowledge in the long run adjusting somehow ss an aspect of the bigger comprehension of the manner in which the world is; be that as it may, there are the individuals who guarantee to have encountered marvels.

Also, these individuals decide to acknowledge that what they have encountered in a marvel is something that will never adjust to any of their past experiences, even though everything up to that point has. It will never be adjusted to their experience since all their previous experience was as per the laws of nature, which marvels are not. On the off chance that I have kicked a thousand soccer balls, and they all move when I kick them, I will accept that when I kick a soccer ball it will move, not transform into a lion. In any case, having faith in a marvel is what might be compared to accepting that something along the lines of kicking a soccer ball and trusting it transformed into a lion, as both of these things are deciding to put stock in something that repudiates all past understanding and how all past experience relates.

On the off chance that I have consistently discovered my encounters to agree with how the world is, in any event, when I am not promptly mindful of this situation, for what reason would it be a good idea for me to unexpectedly expect that something I experience doesn't work this way? A shrewd man won't because he puts together his conviction concerning his experience.

The proportioning part of this identifies with the capacity for conviction to be in degrees identified with how certain we are of something. On the off chance that we have a ton of proof for something, at that point, we are genuinely sure of it and will have faith in it more. In the event that we have less proof, we will be slanted to accept less in something. This likewise identifies with wonders since we have no proof to ground a conviction that something is a supernatural occurrence, while we do have proof that there is a clarification for an occasion, regardless of whether we don't have it.

A shrewd man, as per Hume, doesn't put stock in marvels because no proof permits that he ought to have confidence in them. There is anyway proof. Likewise, we extend the measure of conviction we have in anything to the proof we have for it.

OBVIOUSLY

Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.
— Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

The titled responsion is intuition with some clairvoyant insight.

For me, this structure represents an ontology of sorts. The biggest thought I had when I first read this quote from Immanuel Kant was whether or not it was even possible (according to Kant) to have a thought without content or to have an intuition without a concept. This led me to the Categorical Imperative 2.0, where the concepts and necessity of conceptual thought transcend (in the opposite direction) to a biological imperative or sorting. This reduction towards an arrangement of sorts at the cellular level unites Aesthetics with Consciousness; everything! That's life!

Is this a contribution to humanity's collective corpus of philosophical work? This is one of my priorities as a philosopher to articulate and disseminate this unification in a meaningful and transmissible way. Those are my thoughts; what are yours?

The Blind Leading the Blind

Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
— Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

The titled responsion is barely visible except to the lucky few who are "blessed" with the present gift. Do you see what I'm saying?

Plenty of individuals are brilliant. However, obvious virtuoso has consistently had a component of complexity to the equation that I would like to examine. Besides, there is a point worth making here: the difference between virtuoso and genius. A genius has desirable characteristics defined in the mind, whereas the virtuoso has a physical manifestation of ability. For example, the ability to play a musical instrument or master the art of kungfu like a panda.

No one truly knows where virtuoso originates from. While doubtlessly there is a hereditary part, most youngster wonders don't accomplish remarkable expert achievement. Some innovativeness specialists believe virtuoso to be a technique as much as it is a capacity.

Nonetheless, while numerous individuals unexpectedly characterize virtuosos, most concur that Richard Feynman was one, and there is presumably no finer case of his brightness than his celebrated talk, There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom. The talk dispatched unrest that is as yet being played out even today, it gives us how a genuine virtuoso truly thinks.

The Beating of a Different Kind of Drum Makes You a Fine Man

A COMPLEX PROBLEM POSED SIMPLY

When Feynman ventured up to the platform to address the American Physical Society a couple of days after Christmas in 1959, it ought to have been certain that he didn't mean to convey a conventional material science address. Continuously a heathen, the title of Feynman's discussion noticed no dark particles or baffling powers yet essentially highlighted some "room at the base."

However, nobody could have been ready for what occurred that day. Remaining solitary in that hall, furnished without any props or complex devices, Feynman would, without any assistance, pioneer nanotechnology—designing at the tiny level—a field that even now is viewed as the front line of human undertaking.

He didn't start with bombastic terms; however essentially posed the inquiry: "For what reason would we be able to compose the whole 24 volumes of the Encyclopedia Brittanica on the top of a pin?" at that point, he made a new field with almost no in the method of introduction or forerunner.

Today, the nanotechnology market is worth billions and keeps on developing at a quick rate. It has gotten crucial to development in territories extending from semiconductors to progressive new materials to life-sparing new medications and clinical treatments—all made conceivable by small-time's creative mind.

Investigating a Multitude of Paths

Feynman was unmistakably a visionary, yet he went about it exceptionally pragmatic, professionally. When he proposed the chance of composing Encyclopedia Brittanica on the top of a pin, he quickly dispatched into some back-of-the-envelope counts to set up the practicality of the assignment. He, at that point, asked reflexively, "Why only one out of every odd book on the planet?"

From that point, he was making excellent progress so far. How to compose little? Indeed, we can invert the focal points of an electron magnifying instrument and write in the way of a cathode beam oscilloscope, a typical contraption at that point. (Fundamentally, that is how CPUs are carved today). What's more, if we can compose books, why wouldn't we be able to assemble little atomic machines? (We currently do precisely that).

However, Feynman didn't just observe the conceivable outcomes; he also saw the issues. Electron magnifying lenses were not incredible enough at that point, and there were hypothetical cutoff points to make them more grounded. Subatomic powers would make entanglements too. Resolute, he evoked potential workarounds for each impediment, numerous of which are feasible.

When you read Feynman's discussion, you get the inclination that he isn't so much a physicist, an architect, yet a voyager. Much like the renowned scholar E.O. Wilson, he meanders around the nano-biological system, getting objects of enthusiasm, analyzing them, making sense of where they fit and proceeding onward.

Working in a Natural Language

Wittgenstein broadly called attention that our propensity to communicate in a private language regularly darkens understanding. Syndicated program savants and meeting room superstars are attached to utilizing dark terms and abbreviations to flag their modernity; however, in reality, by doing so, they regularly lose meaning. Disarray serves nobody aside from the individuals who expect to misdirect.

However, Feynman talked—and thought—normally. In any event, when addressing regarded researchers, he did such as he was simply visiting a famous man in the city. His 1959 talk, notwithstanding its notable repercussions, can be perceived as a moderately capable secondary school understudy.

Also, you can perceive how it supported his motivation. By placing things in basic terms, he picked up lucidity thus did his crowd. Indeed, even the expression "nanotechnology" was not utilized until 15 years after, at a logical gathering in 1974. It was only Feynman's "room at the base."

Feynman wanted to convey and assembled suffering—and now and then impossible—kinships with individuals from varying backgrounds. While numerous scholastics of his unmistakable quality dodged undergrad addresses, he delighted in them. Maybe as anyone might expect, they were frequently standing room as it were.

A Passion for Problem-Solving

Before the finish of his 1959 talk, Feynman had secured an astonishing measure of ground: sub-atomic PCs, tiny machines, mechanical "specialists" that can work inside veins, and issues concerning scale and quantum impacts. All were held up to the light, analyzed, and investigated. Each remaining part is at the center of nanotechnology today.

In his decision, Feynman accomplished something bizarre. He gave two difficulties and offered $1,000 of his cash for the finishing of each. The first was to compose text at a nano-scale, and the second was to make an infinitesimal engine. It took not exactly a year for the engine to be finished, and the text was first decreased to the necessary scale in 1985.

However, Feynman's inspiration for giving them and offering his cash to do such was much more significant than the consummation of the difficulties. It wasn't sufficient for him to concoct the thought or even to work out ways to arrangements. His genuine enthusiasm was seeing issues unraveled, and he was never hesitant to work together or share credit.

Feynman dedicated his life to opening the insider facts of the universe, however, he was similarly enthusiastic about the individuals in it. He was no solitary virtuoso, working covertly; however, he considered science an inalienably social action. It was insufficient for him to "hit an objective nobody else can see," he needed us to see it as well.

Furthermore, that is the thing that made Feynman an exceptional sort of virtuoso. He let us in. It wasn't sufficient for him to just exhibit brightness. He needed to share it so we could make it our own.

From one blind poet to another, the genius Schopenhauer is referring to evolved from our frontal cortex. Do you see what I am saying or do you need a God narrative to make it palpable?

BLIND LUCK?

I love fools' experiments. I am always making them.
Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

The titled responsion is referring to the genius behind the humility that Charles is talking about.

These ancient games of chance, thrown down in front of us, reveal randomness. Foolish? Perhaps the outcome becomes predictable with information, or that's the theory. Do not discount the value of the Classics, specifically Homer, whoever they were.

Too Much Loving Will Make You Blind

Don't forget to love yourself.
— Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

The titled responsion is rather crude, coming from a master debater. Do you disagree? Perhaps I should just keep it to myself.

A crude counterfactual to Kierkegaard's subtle reminder is brought to you by Master D. Bater, something everyone does and no one talks about. The blind reference links the Homeric with an old wive's tale. So we have old women, a Danish philosopher, a plurality of blind poets, and a sympathetic (and sympathetic) master. and a plurality of blind poets. What do they all have in common?

"Remember To Love Yourself" is an uplifting message that numerous individuals will gain from. If you don't cherish yourself, at that point, you can't adore any other individual or be adored by any other person. On the off chance that you are not adoring yourself, in what manner can you genuinely cherish any other individual?

Self-esteem can get overlooked. We can zero in on regarding others, helping others, and putting forth a valiant effort for the world. Be that as it may, self-esteem isn't tied in with doing these things, yet it is tied in with being content with what your identity is. So if you need to get into a relationship, at that point, you need to adore yourself first.

Recall that individuals will possibly adore you when they love you as well. Try not to expect everybody to be with you, particularly those who need to hurt you. It might be that an individual is just involved with you since they need your affection. If they feel that they need more love, at that point, they will search for another person to help fill their passionate need.

To be upbeat and sound, we should figure out how to cherish ourselves. If we don't cherish ourselves, at that point, we won't have the option to offer love to other people. Let others love us more than we love ourselves is exceptionally simple.

The best approach to recollect that others love you is by figuring out how to cherish yourself. To do this, we should turn into our own closest companions. At the point when we love ourselves, we figure out how to offer love to other people, and we become significantly more wanting to them.

Remember to cherish yourself since it is significant. You reserve an option to be simply the best form. You must adore yourself by letting others love you the same amount.

There is nobody who adores you more than you love yourself. Accordingly, when we permit others to adore us short of what we love ourselves, at that point, they can't generally cherish any other person. At the point when we have genuine love, that point, they have unequivocal love.

Like this, remember to cherish yourself, regardless of whether you don't feel like it. or then again, don't feel that you can or should. since you must cherish yourself. That way, you will be more fit for giving adoration and having a satisfying relationship.

To adore yourself, you should initially cherish yourself and love your life. Try not to permit others to exploit you. Try not to let them exploit what you have. If you are not liking yourself, at that point, you probably won't love yourself.

At the point when we love our carries on, at that point we can adore others. At the point when we love our carries on, at that point, we can adore others and ourselves.

Remember, we should adore ourselves first before we can cherish others. Remember, we should cherish ourselves before we can adore others.

Remember, there is consistently a contrast between giving and getting love. We are not given things we need. by individuals.

Sometimes we need individuals who give us things we need to give back. what's more, get back to me. For example, if somebody is happy to impart their time, ability, intelligence, and cash to you, at that point, it indicates that they love you and need to give you something consequently.

What if You Are Color Blind?

The purest and most thoughtful minds are those which love colour the most.
— John Ruskin (1819-1900)

The titled responsion is missing the metaphysical point that Ruskin is making. I am just having fun with it.

Shades of Grey isn't sexual in nature (or narrative); the screen I am referring to is that perceptual apparatus we refer to as the mind. The metaphor behind the reference is a nuance of sorts, an Aesthetic available to the epiphenomenal projections we call you. Notice the omniscient and transcendent use of the language. It doesn't mean that I "believe" in that crap; all I am saying is something. Fill in the spectrum with whatever coloring you wish; just make sure you don't go outside the coloring book.

History Remembers What We Forget

Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.
— Thomas Edison (1847-1931)

The titled responsion is historical and a matter of record. Laid down by civilization as if that was an accomplishment. Entitled much?

Do you feel that you will never surrender if you just worked harder at your school or college? You should attempt to recall that the main thing you can control in life is your outlook.

Do you struggle to focus during class? Perhaps you get so diverted with the entirety of your musings that you can't zero in on your exercises. When you can control your psyche, you will have the option to improve in class and get more out of each class.

Did you feel as though something was absent in your life? Possibly you were progressing nicely, yet you simply didn't feel better. It might appear as though something wasn't right and you could not discover your bliss, yet you should attempt to change your disposition and mentality to be glad again.

If you have imagined that you will always be unable to discover joy since you have consistently surrendered, then you should take a gander at yourself somewhat more profoundly. Consider the individuals throughout your life that have transformed them and who they are today since they have never surrendered.

With the goal for you to have a fruitful life, you should be happy to learn. Individuals that don't change their considerations regularly end up stuck in a similar trench.

Never surrender and gain from those that have gone before you. You can discover bliss if you simply work at it. You may feel that this sounds unimaginable because there are endless individuals that have been ineffective. In any case, it doesn't need to be.

Attempt to make sense of what made them fruitful and duplicate that achievement. Once in a while, there is no motivation behind why you can't have a similar accomplishment as the other individual. Be that as it may, you must realize what makes a triumph and doesn't.

Never surrender. Rather than permitting it to control your life, change how you think. The more that you change, the more fruitful you will turn into.

Never surrender, and don't surrender. It requires some investment, yet it isn't unthinkable. When you feel overpowered by your contemplations, you will require help.

Consider the things that are generally critical to you. It may be the case that you need to have a superior relationship or a superior activity. Whatever your concern is that you are considering, then you can support yourself. You have to think emphatically and record what is in a note.

Whenever you get an opportunity to record the entirety of your positive contemplations. Do this more than once. When you can figure positive, you will be bound to discover an answer for whatever it is that you are experiencing difficulty with.

If you have to consider what things cost the most in your life, record them and consider why it was so exorbitant for you to think of them. At that point, consider how you could have unexpectedly thought of them.

Consider whatever else disturbing you and why it pestered you when you originally began. What are the things that you have to do any other way? This can incorporate any exhortation that individuals have given you.

Record the appropriate responses, and afterward, ensure you are chipping away at them. If you can consider ways to do these things, you can change things around and make the best out of your life. On the off chance that you discover an explanation that you have surrendered, make a move immediately.

I See What You Are Saying

The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.
— George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

The titled responsion is visual only if you listen carefully.

My favorite quote on free will comes from Christopher Hitchens. When asked if he believes in free will, he answered, "I believe in free will; I have no choice." This is tantamount to my position on free will or the illusion thereof. Was George Bernard Shaw a little more socially specific with hints of arrogance? What are your thoughts?

Correspondence is essential between close-to-home conversations, as it is how we move thoughts from individual to individual. When correspondence goes astray, some portion of the thought is lost or misjudged by the other individual. The other individual thinks they have the thought; however, in truth, it is, best case scenario, not exactly right, and even under the least favorable conditions, it can prompt something unfortunate. This is the issue the statement is examining.

The statement discusses the deception that correspondence has happened; in reality, it has not. The two individuals think they comprehend what has been passed between them. However, the thoughts they have are not equivalent. This is the place they dream of correspondence can be generally harming.

For What Reason is Correspondence Significant?

As people, we have to move thoughts starting with one individual and then onto the next consistently. Correspondence is the word we use for that transaction. Frequently, miscommunications are because of distinctions in experience or contrasts in definitions between the people in question. If a parent inquired as to whether their room is spotless, does the parent and the youngster have a similar meaning of clean? Not likely.

How regularly do you think somebody knows what you stated, yet notably, they didn't? What occurs straightaway? The outcome can be entertaining, but it's normally not. In a business, it very well may be costly. However, it tends to be much more costly to see someone.

Where Would I Be Able to Apply This in my Life?

This isn't as large of an issue in my life, at any rate, not any longer. It used to be a major issue. However, I talked a lot about this exercise with my first spouse. Like this, I, along these lines, built up a few techniques to attempt to limit this specific issue.

A portion of my favored techniques to guarantee great correspondence include:

  • Before the discussion, I attempt to distinguish any likely contrasts in definitions, encounters, and so forth, which may prompt challenges later.
  • I attempt to listen cautiously and totally to what they state.
  • I pose inquiries when I figure I may have misjudged them.
  • At each coherent advance in the discussion, I rehash back, in my own words, what I think I heard them state.

How would you attempt to manage interchanges issues throughout your life? What portion of the things tip you off that things aren't going easily? How would you attempt to forestall the misconception in any case? Consider this for a couple of seconds. You likely have a few things you don't understand that you have learned by experience or by impersonating another person.

My maternal granddad lost his first employment since he didn't communicate well in English. He was a designer in another region and was advised to take a shot at a specific house. He misjudged which house and went through the day chipping away at an inappropriate house. That is bad.

How have you figured out how to misjudge when another person was conversing with you? What have others figured out how to misconstrue when conversing with them? Snatch some paper and record a couple of them. Attempt to get a little assortment in the rundown. If a large portion of them are interesting, attempt to get not many that are not.

Take a gander at the rundown and check whether there is a repeating theme. Is there a distinction in life experience that drives you to utilize a word that doesn't have similar significance or weight to others? Is there a distinction in age or social foundation that makes certain ideas unique, notwithstanding utilizing comparable words?

On the off chance that there is an example, you can attempt to fix different troubles with a solitary change, which is the effective utilization of your time, correct? Investigate the rundown of a portion of my favored strategies and check whether any of them may have helped in your circumstances. Likewise, consider any techniques you may as of now have in your tool kit and perceive how they may have attempted to enable you to impart.

Words exist to move thoughts starting with one individual and then onto the next. We call this exchange "correspondence." Being as cautious and exact as could reasonably be expected and checking the outcomes regularly. Truly, it tends to be irritating to be so cautious, but on the other hand, it's irritating to get an unforeseen outcome.

That's a Problem!

We only think when we are confronted with problems.
John Dewey (1859-1952)

The titled responsion is circular in reasoning and yet fundamental to our survival.

Epistemology is a good place to start. I recommend continuously testing your educated self with analytic thought in a continuous comparative and forecast model of imagined reality. This moment-to-moment metaphysics of sorts combines your analytic skills against the data banks of your interpreted knowledge. For me, the weak link is the cognitive falloff of recalled knowledge. The upside lies in our ability to differentiate. What I know today, I will not know in the same way that I will know it tomorrow; the theft of sorts that our minds parse is staggering, so focus on your learning as the only forme of consumption that matters. This is my strongest metaphysical claim, more of a plea towards the virtues of the educated mind and the philosophical literate.

Said the Blind Man

The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new lands but seeing with new eyes.
— Marcel Proust (1871-1922)

The titled responsion is playful with the value for a blind man to see over discovering new lands. We know that this isn't what Marcel meant, but we can have fun with the language.

We live in a society where we are bombarded with the message that there is absolutely no such thing as environmentalism, and we are supposed to be blind to the destruction of our planet. We are told that all we need to do is cut down trees to make way for more factories and power plants, and we will be safe.

However, environmental damage isn't just limited to plants or animals. We can cause damage to the world that is outside of our homes by the things that we put into them. The following information will enlighten you about what you can do to reduce the environmental damage that you may have done to the planet:

The first thing that you need to do is to ensure that you remove all harmful substances from your home. Many cleaners claim to remove all the harmful substances in your home, but in reality, they may do more harm than good. For example, if you leave some harmful solvents in your carpet, you could potentially end up damaging it, thus seriously damaging the environment.

The second most important step is to make sure that you reduce your carbon footprint. The more carbon emissions you have in your home, the greater your impact on the environment.

The third and last thing you can do is improve the aesthetic value of your home so that you don't cause any more environmental damage to the planet. As much as possible, you should try to make your surroundings more appealing to your visitors as this will make them more likely to spend time there instead of just staying in their homes or offices.

By making sure that you have enough light in your house, you will have less chance of causing any environmental damage to the environment. Having a strong and well-lit house is considered one of the easiest ways of reducing the ecological impact you are making on the environment.

You should also make sure that you reduce the amount of garbage that you throw away each week. This can help you save energy because your house will not have to be turned into a huge garbage dump as you throw away garbage and then use it to fuel more machinery to get rid of the extra waste you have.

These are some of the best tips that you can do to minimize the impact that you are doing on the environment by the products that you use. It is your responsibility as an individual to ensure that you do your part to ensure that the environment does not suffer from all the pollutants you put into it.

To ensure that you are doing your part, you can also make sure that you choose the kind of material for your house. Wood is considered one of the best choices for making your house because it is one of the best options available.

If you use wood for your house, then there is no way for you to cause more harm to the environment. There is no other option available that can provide the kind of environmental protection that wood can provide, such as the reduction of chemicals and other harmful substances that you could be putting into the air that could cause severe environmental damage.

So, what are some of the benefits you can get from using wood for your house? Here are some of the major ones.

Wood is durable and easy to maintain, as it does not need to be refinished, dented, or painted on. You can leave it in its original condition and make it look and feel the way it did when you first got it.

Makes me think about the potential of our species to thrive on our planet, yet we are blind to the damages we are creating and the legacy of crisis we are creating. Those are my thoughts. Do you have your eyes open? What do you see?

BLIND POETS DON'T READ NEWSPAPERS

Homer is new this morning, and perhaps nothing is as old as today's newspaper.
— Charles Péguy (1873-1914)

The titled responsion is a direct reference (once again) to Homer being a bling poet. This isn't a statement of fact, for we can't be certain, besides the responsion is playful in that (obviously) there were no newspapers back in the times of the Bard. And yet, it makes sense in the context of Charles' quote.

Nothing could be more relevant in these "Times"[1] crises.[2] Turning towards the Classics, the Hellenic grounds Western Civilization and informs our thinking, morals, and laws. Avoid all distracting debates about how many men contributed to what we know as Homer, that she was a female, or speculate about the five other lost Epics.[3] The Bard is what I like to refer to Homer as, one among many with the probability of single-source authorship as highly probable. At least towards the, that is where I lean, how about you? Blind at first, now we see that the influences are all around us, within and through the Western culture that defines, confines, and informs our barbaric beginnings.


  1. The Times is a British daily national newspaper based in London. It began in 1785 under The Daily Universal Register, adopting its current name on 1 January 1788. Wikipedia ↩︎
  2. The plurality at play here are multiple instances of a crisis making the plural form crises; a series and a big problem if we don't "do" something about it. ↩︎
  3. From Jared Diamond on Sam Harris. His list of favorites. ↩︎

Return to the Homeric—It's EPIC!

Music begins to atrophy when it departs too far from the dance... poetry begins to atrophy when it gets too far from the music.
— Ezra Pound (1885-1972)

The titled responsion is, Return to the Homeric—It's EPIC! Do you know what I mean by that? Find out with planksip.

Returning to the Homeric is an Epic pursuit, foundational to the hegemony that is Western Civilization. Together we can co-create. A shared experience. Does it feel like YOURS yet? Don't negate the final movement from your performance.

Free will may be an allusion, an interplay between consciousness and the archetypes of our ancestry. What's your story? Where do you fit in?

Bent Earthward, Like Heliotropic Plants

I think we are blind. Blind people who can see, but do not see.
José Saramago (1922-2010)

The titled responsion is, "Bent Earthward, Like Heliotropic Plants." George Steiner deserves all the credit for today's responsion and the word "responsion." Thanks, George!

José Saramago - planksip
José de Sousa Saramago, GColSE, was a Portuguese writer and recipient of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Literature.
What do Jose Saramago and Daniel Sanderson have in common? Find out on planksip.

The "​device-ive" nature of the handheld electronic is artificial intelligence if we leverage it as such. Look away for a second or twenty-two billion, and life will pass you by, for this fleeting moment is an opportunity strung together in a sequence of potentials. Action potentials, that is!

I See Said the Blind PoetA Incipit planksip Inspiration.

The planksip writers' cooperative sponsors a re-writing of this article (500 words) with $500 in prize money for the best article as voted by your peers in the planksip writer's cooperative. Judged by your peers, your chance to join a community of creative thinkers and win over $750,000 in prize money is your entry point into becoming a planksip journalist.

We want to change the way people engage. The planksip organic platform is dedicated to supporting your voice as a writer and a thought leader. Join today. Membership matters!

Joining the planksip Writers’ Cooperative
The planksip writers’ cooperative gives members writing assignments, of which they compete for cash prizes. This article highlights the benefits of membership as well as outlines the rules and guidelines for submissions. Becoming a planksip writer is easier than you think.

Subscribe to our Newsletter and stay up to date!

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest news and work updates straight to your inbox.

Oops! There was an error sending the email, please try again.

Awesome! Now check your inbox and click the link to confirm your subscription.