but really the thing should be autonomous

i have read not even 1 book

okay this is interesting because pedagogies we have rn are not proper models

all that is to say

mazelike/rhizomatic/immanent/emergent are not antithetical to a transcendent real but its very manifestation

we can only engage in such a way

its good short few pages

its good

as in

plato

isaac newton

division of reality is straying away from it

there is a distinction between western-modern pedagogical systems that's like text-based as in a legal method but there is an idea of "pathshala" or "guru shissho"/ "porompora" i mean how masters relayed knowledge to the student by (oral) transmission often by memorising books. so what was taught was always interactive. knowledge was interactive, you spoke with people rather than read texts.

to work in time to get to the timeless, perfection thru chaos

i was tempted to lie about my name

autonomy of learning

god "possessing" artists "possessing" people

i don't really want to be associated with that one for some reason

whats your name?

and the fake qualifier

no like which do people call me

like first name

like magnets

like people can read 100 books and still not have the fire within them

thank you

isaac

i hadn't considered this pedagogically or as a kind of personal knowledge management system (puke) at all but i suppose it is both of those things

abrar?

think this is much more rhizomatic or immanent or mazelike than mainstream education now

i know a little bit of lacan which probably influences me in a way i cant articulate

i really havent

Better Lift

something religious, a kind of complex,

it will get lighter