Outliner Software Forum RSS Feed Forum Posts Feed

Subscribe by Email

CRIMP Defined




By WHAT do you (in parallels) structure? (woof-woof!)

View this topic | Back to topic list

Posted by bigspud
Sep 16, 2022 at 06:40 PM


Do you get anything actually done brother?

We all get that these words are linear representation of concept….
Seeing as you already know that phase conjugate pump waves reaching the speed of light through golden mean recursion is indefinable life….

then quality matters,. words can share quality..

how’s your health?

22111 wrote:
The above wanting to say that outlining tries to teach you that our
>world isn’t one-, but two-dimensional… while it’s three-dimensional
>indeed, a fact we all some sort of “feel”, but then, not entirely
> >In other words: outlining’s some sort of’a decoy, since its - sorry for
>the “it’s” instead of “its” indeed! - two-dimensional appearance tends
>to lead us to think its two-dimensional representation’s all we’ll get,
>and it’s all we’ve got to strive to… when in fact, it’s just a(nother)
>(over)simplification of what we endure, live in, have to cope with.
> >And then, indeed, when I could tell you, “outlining’s IM (= information
>management), indeed, again”, telling you, be aware, and that, NOT only
>in “writing”, that, at any time of your outline-creating, you’ll be
>aware of those, very distinct, categories, of:
>”- when will be the hero(es) (and, in case, which one of’em?) be
>- when will the audience will be informed - an’then, to what degree
>only?” -
> >then, you could discard those considerations by some, “that’s creative
>writings only” - and you’d be oh so much wrong…
> >since at any moment you’re writing, (about, and to any purpose, about)
>anything: these considerations will prevail, be it in “academic”
>writing, or then in “journalistic” writing down… not anymore core
>info, but, nowadays, your “framing” of reality, by weighting, and,
>foremost, by leaving out core info, and that’s, unfortunately, nowadays,
> >Then, when I instigated you by thinking about, about WHAT to “outline”
>your “presentation” (to whomever), I really wrote about integration of
>that, unfathomable-for/by-most, THIRD dimension, and which, by essential
>standards, would then be the “essential” one, whilst being held off, by
>95 or more of the “actors” = most-of’em: paid-writers who have some
>jaws-to-feed, or who are just minds-to-rent, as some non-relevant and
>remote “irrelevant details”.
> >In what they call “creative writing” - some of which then gets an
>Acamedy Award indeed, most others’of’em not -, it’ll then be about
>“beats”... and in today’s journalistic, or “academic”, writing
>(“Corona”, or then, “Climate”, anyone?) it’s about what will please to
>the powers-in-power (and then, whatever, their individual, or then,
>totally absent, “credentials” might be…), an’thus, most street whores
>- including the ones who, by the current-and-scathing details of their
>individual live(‘s demands), nowadays, are MUCH more honest than your
>current,regular “writer-of-all-means” is…
> >Fact is, ANY outlining (i.e. incl. the 3-pane versions of it) is
>2-dimensional, whilst we all know that our world, our existence is, and
>that’s at the very least indeed, 3-dimensional…
> >and thus, dishonest people are somewhat and really feel “invited” to
>leave out “the real thing”, i.e. the core details… since, indeed, any
>“outline” which claimed to integrate the whole, the currently-final
>“vision”, “picture”, would be beyond its means.
> >Trying to overcome such - originally, just: - technical limits will be
>then some thing… but cashing in from’em, in order to please your
>“master”, be it your corporation, your administration, your government,
>your idea of what should be allowed to be addressed, and what should not
>be not, in order to please your master, your idea of publica res: dumb
>people might be forgiven, but so-called “academics” will never be, for
>them playing imbecile.