i understand

we can only engage in such a way

so the method has to be autonomous

magnetisation/form

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.

you cannot feed someone language, they have to speak

all that is to say

division of reality is straying away from it

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

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

autonomy of learning

not their contents

I am below everything.

She says something that isn't really right but isn't really wrong. I'm not taking in their words any more, just their voices, trying to get a feel for whatever is going on between them. I'm imagining what it's like for them in this delicate situation, what I would say if it were me. She has that perfect upper-class accent, and she's using whatever upper-class tact that comes with it to navigate this. Style. They can't be together, but their voices are betraying them.

I'm trying to picture the scene inside, like I was trying to picture the scene in the tree.

"Anyway, you're you. I mean, look at you!" she says. "You could get with anyone, anyone in the street. Really."

ion

i love it here

isaac

you cannot feed someone truth