i didn’t produce anything meaningful this week for shared minds. couldn’t make the time. what follows is mere submission-slop; so please ignore.
reading:
watched video on kuleshov effect.
writing:
ask: We talked about how you don’t really decide your next thought, it just happens to you. But can other people determine your next thought? Is that what any storyteller does? Why do we love it so much in story where someone is providing the subsequent thought for for us? Is that what the algorithms of social media and tiktok are doing? One sequence through a space of possible thought is always a thin slice of that reality, does that make story a little bit evil because it seduces people into one sequence hiding the bigger more complicated picture? Giving your media persistence allows you to enshrine thought, what are the pros and cons of that, would impermanence be better for studpid and annoying thoughts? Is a sequence different from a flow time?
Time is the feeling of change and one of the few things that his hard to doubt. Try to carefully examine your thoughts to see how they interact with time? Does one thought coming after another in your thinking mean that there is a connection between them? We have talked about how the contents of subsequent thought is rarely about subsequent chronological event. Does your taste in a good next thought change define your personality, and does it change over time? Is memory important to thought, can media help reinforce a thought and make it more famous and thus frequent within your train of thought? If you go back to the first thought after the second thought is their a recursive effect where the first thought is now different?
i actually only produced gibberish below; so please ignore my writing this week.
i keep getting more & more confused with these writing prompts. so, i’m now treating them as prompts to wander in similar directions about whatever the readings are about.
i guess this week is about the fact that one thought leads to another, and that another person can be in charge of this journey.
the human mind is said to be victim of pareidolia — therefore, everything can be justified to be connected. one thought coming after the other — therefore — seems to be connected, and i can guarantee so, but there’s no way to prove whether the second thought actually arose because of the first.
i guess context shapes thoughts. or massages thoughts into existence.
for example, i can look at my synth wall in front of me, and be filled with anxiety for what i need to do next on it; which can send me into more anxious thoughts about pending homework; thesis experiments; et-cetera.
i think the act of holding attention while telling a story — and i make careful distinctions here against capturing attention (which is what social media does). being able to hold attention to tell a story — in any medium — is powerful.
making:
spent more time than i had for cg_experiments_week-4. so didn’t make anything interesting this week.
did want to check out databases; made a simple webpage & supabase project connect.
https://arjunmakesthings.github.io/shared-minds_f26/week-4/
