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.
what do you mean
ahnaf is it worth reading all those books
propensity within someone
plato
you cannot feed someone truth
feel you
yeah people dont get it they assume its ahnaf
send your tumblr
isaac newton
your feed looks like my tumblr
like people can read 100 books and still not have the fire within them
its good short few pages
the only things i have read are just excerpts and 1 dialogue by plato fully and mcluhan's medium is the massage but it cannot be considered a book
god being the centre magnet
or never left
barren land
i haven't read 100 book s so i'm probably not getting the depth of all of what you're saying
i understand
and the fake qualifier
like magnets
After thinking and forgetting and thinking and forgetting
with this post net clarity and the hours of nothing that followed I realise this is going to be awful.
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
i got bored though because i knew all of the different arrangements of it. i probably needed to stick at it longer to get it dense enough to feel navigable in a way that was engaging to me
i have read not even 1 book