Things I’ve done today include reading Scaruffi, I made a little progress in chapter 2 but soon became bogged down in details and paradigms that I must admit were a challenge. Not beyond comprehension, but requiring a slow studious read that inevitably results in a loss of perspective as regards the bigger picture, even if it does strongly assist an understanding of the content on a smaller scale. Thus I decided to invoke the author’s advice, skip to chapter 3, and acknowledge that I will need to re-read this book. I have not decided the precise method I will use for my first read through the book, but it will ultimately be determined by my comfort in doing so. This does mean that I will not accompany my movement through the book with the level of notetaking I had originally intended, but that is not important. More notes will be recorded in a later reading anyway, and I might encourage myself to make some notes (especially in media) regarding my perception of the bigger picture. For example, chapter 3 is about machine intelligence, and I could write about that without even referring to specific ideas and theories. In particular, I am thinking that I could write about what this chapter contributes to the goal that encompasses the entire book and my reading of it; what is the nature of consciousness.
I have also been reading Hamilton – last night and a little bit today. Last night’s reading was herbed, which may/not have had an important influence, but in any case, I am interested (i.e. I am staking an interest and a reminder) in writing about my thoughts so far. Right now I am thinking about the beginning of the book, and the way it communicates an alternative future (cf. alternative history genre), and the description of the protagonist (hero, etc) who is the character who lands on Mars in the prelude to the story.
I have also made an effort to start reading Hegel’s Phenomenology, but I am now thinking about the use of a secondary text to prop up my first reading. I had initially been holding onto the possibility of a purer reading that would mimic as closely as possible the communication between myself and a philosopher. But in addition to practical motivations, I am acknowledging that the idea of an untarnished reading is (at least a little) romantic, and similarly fallacious, plus it is (at least a little) problematic to say that “Only by reading the text in its native form and context will I achieve the understanding of it which I desire”. The problems there are many, but include, “The secondary text you seek need not be deleterious,” or “There are a number of assumptions I must make regarding what the native context I desire could even be” or “I have not appreciated what I want beyond a vague impression of purity” and so forth, also noting that each of those questions could be elaborated properly.
In my black notebook, I wrote a study (I jokingly termed monadology) of what I want to study, and specifically…
