Building memories…

Advertisements

0405623147f48577ff2aa9143dd631a8

You are more likely to remember something if you read it out loud, a study from the University of Waterloo has found.

A recent Waterloo study found that speaking text aloud helps to get words into long-term memory. Dubbed the “production effect,” the study determined that it is the dual action of speaking and hearing oneself that has the most beneficial impact on memory.

“This study confirms that learning and memory benefit from active involvement,” said Colin M. MacLeod, a professor and chair of the Department of Psychology at Waterloo, who co-authored the study with the lead author, post-doctoral fellow Noah Forrin. “When we add an active measure or a production element to a word, that word becomes more distinct in long-term memory, and hence more memorable”. (1)

But it’s not because you are more involved that you remember something better.

It is that you actually make it more real by getting more involved.

There is nothing to remember.

You shape reality every time you think about it.

But the memory stays inherently the same.

Changing costumes, putting on makeup, but…

It is still the same…

A dark face looking back…

Begging for attention since the day you were born…

Try to visualize yourself when you remember nothing.

It is only then that this person is you…

The secret of the Dark Flower

Advertisements

The book entitled “The secret of the Golden Flower” is an oriental alchemistic work which gained much reputation after Carl Jung commented on it and interpreted its content through his deep knowledge of the occult, alchemy and psychology. The book is essentially a guide to meditation and it is written in very simple language – or so we are meant to believe. Because after all everything must be simple for the “simple people” to understand, right?

The Secret of the Golden Flower was first translated into German by sinologist Richard Wilhelm, a friend of Carl Jung, who had been introduced to the work by his Chinese teacher. The work was later translated from German to English by Cary F. Baynes. In 1991, the text was translated afresh from the Chinese original by Thomas Cleary, a scholar of Eastern studies, who criticized the validity of Wilhelm’s translation, characterizing it as incomplete and inaccurate. [source]

In Cleary’s words…

Because the still-current Wilhelm/Jung/Baynes edition of this manual contains dangerous and misleading contaminations, a primary consideration was to make the contents of The Secret of the Golden Flower explicitly accessible to both lay and specialist audiences.

Cleary gives some examples of the way that the text was commonly misinterpreted by Wilhelm and Jung, and describes such an instance in the very beginning of the text:

In the first section of this text, for example, Wilhelm translates zhixu zhiling zhi shen, which means a spirit (i.e. mind) that is completely open and completely effective, as “God of Utmost Emptiness and Life.” Based on this sort of translation, Jung thought that the Chinese had no idea that they were discussing psychological phenomena. He then tried to repsychologize the terminology, but since he did not quite understand it to begin with he could not but wind up with a distortion in the end.

But is the Wilhelm translation really so bad?

Let’s see Cleary’s translation of the above-mentioned passage…

The above section is much lengthier in the respective Richard Wilhelm translation…

Is the first more “clear(y)” translation better than the latter? Can we ignore the theo-logical dimensions of the thoughts in this text and just refer to an «open spirit» in the same way we refer to an open door or an open house? Is the spirit in Cleary’s translation something different than the “god of utmost emptiness” of Wilhelm?

What is that “spirit” that Cleary mentions anyway, in the context of his own text which is full with words like “heavens”, “marvels” and “celestial immortals”? In that context it does not seem so wrong to call it “god” instead of “spirit” – the other way around would be actually a good criticism to Cleary himself. Why would we go into referring at all these “godly”-like entities and then criticize someone for using a “godly” word to describe the word “god” at the end? And it is also worth noting that the “god” in Wilhelm’s translation is almost obviously not a “god” in a Christian-like context but indeed more of a spirit with divine attributes. And of course one has to add the personalities and the personal history of the two translators to the picture. Wilhelm was a renowned sinologist who lived 25 years in China and had the honour of actually revieving one of the first published copies of the book – which were handed over only to people who the editor showed fit to understand the questions posed in the text. On the other hand, Cleary was a scholar and a translator. A good one per se, but without any credentials to actually prove that he had any specific knowledge related to the mental paths shadowy described in “The secret of the Golden Flower”. (studying Buddhism while at your office in Oakland does not provide such a credential)

So why is Cleary so agitated about the translation of Wilhelm? I would only speculate at the reasons – from purely shallow ones to others which may be related to deeper dogmas pertaining his thought. But I will not. Since I too have not the knowledge to read the prototype, it would be unwise to suggest that one translation is better than the other. And what is more, I simply do not want to go into that path. The meaning I am trying to convey is not to conclude which translation is better but to make a statement for texts and their translations in general. And this statement is that the text and the translation play a significant role – but at the end it is something else which “decides” whether the text is worth reading. Because in any case a text is worth something only to the extent it generates thrill and esoteric turbulence to it’s reader. And this depends not only on the text (and it’s translation) but also on the reader himself and his beliefs and philosophical viewpoint.

Read both texts.

See your soul filling in with lust.

Is it lust for more?
Perhaps you need to change translator.

Or is it lust for less?
Perhaps then you have found what you searched for.

Finding the Golden Flower is hard.
But when you do, you will know.
And then the translation will not matter at all…

Reading books. Making things. Darwin right. Darwin wrong…

Advertisements

In the small town of Fayetteville in northern New York, you’ll find the local library in an old furniture factory dating from the turn of the 20th century. The refurbished building retains hints of its industrial past: wooden floors, exposed beams, walls lined with carefully labelled tools.

But instead of quietly perusing stacks of books, many of the patrons are crowded around a suite of 3D printers. One machine is midway through a pink mobile phone case; another is finishing up a toy sword.

This is Fayetteville’s maker lab – and it may very well be the future of libraries.

In 2011, Fayetteville became the first public library in the US to set up a maker lab. Besides 3D printers, the space features a laser cutter, electronics kits, workshop tools, Raspberry Pi computers and an array of sewing machines. It functions somewhere between a classroom and a start-up incubator – a place where people from all over the region can get involved with state-of-the-art technology. (1)

Soon enough we will stop reading.
Soon enough we will just be mimicking others.
Soon enough we will just build based on what we have learnt.
Soon enough we will just be just a species of apes.
Soon enough Darwin will be right…

Exit mobile version
%%footer%%