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

Posted by 22111
Oct 23, 2022 at 06:19 PM

And now, I think it’s time, finally, to clear up the core misunderstanding re outlining.

Whenever you outline, every which way, you assume, maybe even just preconsciously, that by ordering those elements of your subject that you are aware of, you get to some “natural” order…

whilst, in fact, that’s not the case: Your outline’s just some “helper” instrument, first for yourself, an’then for your readership / audience.

When I rant about our time’s alleged “journalists”, that’s because I intimately know how they should do instead, but then, most of young people today have never ever witnessed, experienced journalism as it had been originally intended, designed: they just know about that current pastiche which calls itself “journalism” nowadays, but which, in fact, is just prostitution; within “State” television, you even see multi-millionaires now, and they swear they are “journalists” indeed, while having perhaps written some true, non-fudged bits, here-n-there in their young years, decennials ago…

In post-war Germany, e.g., just TWO journalists are mentioning (and both of which, ironically, were head of foreign offices of German State television, in “better”, i.e. much more honest times, with regards to journalistic “ethics” and all that),Peter Scholl-Latour, 1924-2014, and then Gabriele Krone-Schmalz, *1949, which I’ve always held in the highest esteem, and since in this recent 71-minutes lecture, she speaks distinctly and quite slowly, I invite you to view this YT clip, together with YT’s AI-backed translation function: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkozj8FWI1w - you will very quickly recognize that, first, she’s absolutely brilliant, and, second, that outlining has its limits, whenever you don’t try again to manipulate, i.e. to simplify, to bias your subject, but to display what I’d call “the whole picture”, and yes, up from a certain point of complication, there is NO “natural” order you can give to the - in case, highly disparate - elements of your subject anymore, but that you just will have to be confident in the “intelligence” of your audience, and perhaps even in their willingness to re-listen, to re-read, and I promise her lecture will enlighten you upon this acknowledgement that reality’s not some “list”, a sequence of points, dots, to-treat, but, here again:

a mesh.

And thus, it’s not really surprising that some people only are willing to try to perceive, then even to conceive that mesh… and you’ll easily understand why most people, even “smart” ones, IQ-wise, and by far, prefer some simplified representation of that mesh, and which’s then the outline, the agenda-following list of the person who wants your consent, be it for electoral purposes, or just for selling you crap.

It’s of course no coincidence that politicians always had to be “straightforward” within their discourse, in order to get the necessary votes for then rule, and that implicates that at the end of the day, they will have “got” you… albeit with your complacency… and we all know that in most frauds, the so-called “victim” is, in fact, a quite active co-worker… and it’s no coincidence either that most honest academics, and then even some journalists fulfilling the highest, and nowadays completely forgotten, standards of their originally highly honorable profession, seem somewhat “confused”, since, again, writing and speech are just serial, linear forms of communication, where then you will be forced, by the nature even of your way of communication, to FLATTEN OUT what’s intrinsically interwoven.

At 1:06, professor Krone-Schmalz reminds you, btw, of the original idea of “journalism”, and at 0:54, she shyly asks, “can you follow?” - I’ve always loved that woman, since not only she’s hyper-smart, but, and that’s the real exception, she does not misuse her intelligence for her venal interests, as today, and very unfortunately, most of her pairs, IQ-wise, do.

Now, what do we learn here? I think we should accept it’s ok when people, after having seen some very rich movie, tell us, “well, it’s special, but I’ll have to view it again” - instead of rashly blaming writer, director, whomever, for not having duly straightened it out: Even Hollywood doesn’t systematically, entirely care for the simplification lovers… and the same remark obviously applies to any written development our ours, today’s, yeah, quite complicated now, reality: give their authors the benefit of the doubt, even in what you might consider meanders, leading OFF from that “subject” as YOU conceived it - open up your mind to the possible side-effects, remote implications, etc., etc.: Bear in mind that even smallest minorities might be right, the choir of state-backed shouting so loud that if you don’t actively decide to hear about the complications, the latters’ straightforward choral literally deafen your ears.

Some oh-so-straightforward, presumedly “logic”, outlines out there are, in fact, just assaults on your intelligence. Wanna example? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYKdhYBrvcE : I don’t know how retarded people must be, in order to nod thru this utter rubbish of another of Germany’s universities’ professor’s: It’s a scam from the first, up to the very last minute, and perhaps it has even just been naively done, i.e. without a blatant “agenda”... but it brilliantly SERVES such an agenda indeed, by hotmelting any reason possibly left in naives’ State-television-debrained brains. (Unfortunately, he speaks oh so fast… in order to overcome YT’s translation AI, haha?)

Let’s put it this way: Many a people will not reach out, within prof. Krone-Schmalz’s any-which-way lecture, up to minute 54, very unfortunately, since they’re too much accustomed to prof. Rieck’s and all the others’ traditional, pseudo-“deductions”: allegedly “inscrutable” mesh vs. perfect outline any idiot can follow:

honest completeness vs., well, let’s call it naiveté, and I think his university will be thankful to Rieck, for having further calmed down potentially rebellious spirits… (“science and press, hand in hand”: hahahahaha!)

In a word then: Outlining’s just an ordering instrument, between mesh reality / mesh conception, and then serial, linear presentation, but don’t be as naive, or dishonest, as to make it your fallacy: neither for the audience, nor, and especially so, for your own thinking.