Hi there,
So I am frequently accused of not making sense, by various people - as distinct from the people who think I make sense or almost make sense or make the most possible sense and they do exist - and I have come to the conclusion that there is something about my sense of rationale that is not informing my memory closely enough. When I say closely enough, I mean with regard to what I say. The rationale being that if my rationale informed my memory of what I was saying, at some point in future, I would begin to make more sense and not less.
So does your rationale inform your memory?
I guess what I am saying is, is there some sort of coherence between what you believe your rationale for what you are saying is and the way you encode that in your memory, with respect to what you are actually saying? Do you know that the two line up? Do you know that the rationale you have is what is ending up in your memory?
And does those two things lining up mean you make more sense?
This is the sort of thing that philosophers are able to analyze and make sense of, which is why I am turning to you. According to my rationale, the only thing that could be missing is ego, which only complicates things at the best of times, in which case I should make sense. But of course, I may be being too hard on myself and removing ego which would otherwise simplify what I am saying to a point where a concise point was being made. I don't believe that is really it though, because if I turn to my ego at all, it complicates things massively. Quite the opposite is needed, the less I turn to my ego, the less I take on the unnecessary. I guess its a balance.
The thing is its not really codified very well. I mean is more rationale more coherent, or is less rationale more coherent, how do you tell? Is there a limit to the complications of rationale that the memory can handle? What happens when you overload the memory with rationale? What happens when you input rationale to memory anyway? My thinking is that giving rationale for a memory basically causes a memory spike, which is either for or against further memory. If you give yourself a rationale that if you say less people will think you are stupid, for example, that is against your memory coding more to be said. Conversely, if you think people are bound to think you are smart the more you say, your memory will code for more.
You may be wondering why I am not discussing reason and mind here, but if you read what I have written so far, you will see that it is not reason and mind I have a problem with. A reason is fairly simple for anyone to arrive at actually, as it is fairly foundational, so too a mind will conjure something constructive around almost any prompt. It's different when it comes to the rationale you use and the memory that codes around it, how ever. If I suppose that I don't need much of a rationale when I am soon to be held accountable for something, I am much less likely to codify my memory meaningfully in anticipation of that "being held accountable". On the other hand, if I am overly worried about making an impression when I am to be held account, my memory is likely to codify too much and then even possibly be fundamentally unstable.
I guess its a question of what you are loading your rationale with that is what dictates how much sense you make and how variable you expect your memory to be that dictates how stable it is. Some people have fabulously variable memories and yet still remain stable, of course and likewise some people have very complicated rationales for things and yet still conduct themselves simply. I just wonder what the balance is. I like very little structure, as a rule and I understand that how you arrive at your point is half the battle, but after that, I am basically adrift in a sea of associations when it comes to what to say and how to say it.
What are your experiences? Can you answer some of these questions?
So I am frequently accused of not making sense, by various people - as distinct from the people who think I make sense or almost make sense or make the most possible sense and they do exist - and I have come to the conclusion that there is something about my sense of rationale that is not informing my memory closely enough. When I say closely enough, I mean with regard to what I say. The rationale being that if my rationale informed my memory of what I was saying, at some point in future, I would begin to make more sense and not less.
So does your rationale inform your memory?
I guess what I am saying is, is there some sort of coherence between what you believe your rationale for what you are saying is and the way you encode that in your memory, with respect to what you are actually saying? Do you know that the two line up? Do you know that the rationale you have is what is ending up in your memory?
And does those two things lining up mean you make more sense?
This is the sort of thing that philosophers are able to analyze and make sense of, which is why I am turning to you. According to my rationale, the only thing that could be missing is ego, which only complicates things at the best of times, in which case I should make sense. But of course, I may be being too hard on myself and removing ego which would otherwise simplify what I am saying to a point where a concise point was being made. I don't believe that is really it though, because if I turn to my ego at all, it complicates things massively. Quite the opposite is needed, the less I turn to my ego, the less I take on the unnecessary. I guess its a balance.
The thing is its not really codified very well. I mean is more rationale more coherent, or is less rationale more coherent, how do you tell? Is there a limit to the complications of rationale that the memory can handle? What happens when you overload the memory with rationale? What happens when you input rationale to memory anyway? My thinking is that giving rationale for a memory basically causes a memory spike, which is either for or against further memory. If you give yourself a rationale that if you say less people will think you are stupid, for example, that is against your memory coding more to be said. Conversely, if you think people are bound to think you are smart the more you say, your memory will code for more.
You may be wondering why I am not discussing reason and mind here, but if you read what I have written so far, you will see that it is not reason and mind I have a problem with. A reason is fairly simple for anyone to arrive at actually, as it is fairly foundational, so too a mind will conjure something constructive around almost any prompt. It's different when it comes to the rationale you use and the memory that codes around it, how ever. If I suppose that I don't need much of a rationale when I am soon to be held accountable for something, I am much less likely to codify my memory meaningfully in anticipation of that "being held accountable". On the other hand, if I am overly worried about making an impression when I am to be held account, my memory is likely to codify too much and then even possibly be fundamentally unstable.
I guess its a question of what you are loading your rationale with that is what dictates how much sense you make and how variable you expect your memory to be that dictates how stable it is. Some people have fabulously variable memories and yet still remain stable, of course and likewise some people have very complicated rationales for things and yet still conduct themselves simply. I just wonder what the balance is. I like very little structure, as a rule and I understand that how you arrive at your point is half the battle, but after that, I am basically adrift in a sea of associations when it comes to what to say and how to say it.
What are your experiences? Can you answer some of these questions?
