View building comprehension as you investing different things into a bank of words or a bank of ideas. And over time, this bank of ideas is going to start to grow. You're going to start to understand everything a little bit better. And when you move on to another book that contain these words and ideas, you'll be able to read a lot faster. This grows at an exponential scale, not that reading fast is the point of of today's post. But over time, you start to see that that even understanding one key idea will unlock a whole sphere of different readings for you.

And over time, yes, you'll get to a point where you can recognize most of the words on a page. You know the definition of most of these words, and reading reading becomes really enjoyable from that point onward.

And the second aspect of reading that throws a lot of people for a loop is coherence. In short, if comprehension wants you to understand the individual building blocks of a paragraph or of an idea or of an argument, coherence wants you to trace how this idea moves or how this argument moves.

And one of the quickest ways to do this is to spot the connectives. In grammar, there's a group of words called conjunctions that also come with uh subsections like coordinating conjunctions and subordinating conjunctions.

But nevertheless, the main function of a conjunction is to join different sentences together or to join sentences together without using full stops because if we use full stops all the time, all the sentences would sound pretty clunky. And on the other hand, these conjunctions also provide logical relations between different ideas. Hence, if you want to grasp how an argument or how an idea is flowing on a page, the quickest way to do that is to spot these connecting words. To let these connecting words tell you how the idea is moving on a page.

Some common connectives or conjunctions include and, which shows sequence, because shows relation, however shows an exception, therefore shows an explanation. Different connective words, they serve these very distinct functions. So, as you go through a difficult section of a text that you don't really understand, these words are your keys to understand how the idea is moving on a page.

And when combined with comprehension, if you already know what the definitions of these words mean, that's what creates a powerful reading experience when you're able to tell what the ideas first of all mean and being able to trace how these ideas are moving on a page. And this is essentially the two main mechanisms of reading. Like I said before, every one of your reading problems probably come down to one of these two factors.

So, as a series of practical exercises, this week after you've finished today's post, make sure to return to a difficult book and pick out a difficult paragraph that you're having some trouble understanding. And exercise number one to build comprehension, I want you to take a difficult paragraph from one of these books that you're currently reading >> [snorts] >> and circle every unfamiliar word out there.

I know some people out there are going to say, you know, if I do this for every paragraph, I'll never finish the book. Well, the beauty here is if you simply do this exercise on one paragraph, you probably don't need to do this again for a few paragraphs that follows that paragraph. Again, learning new definitions and learning comprehension or gathering a bank of ideas and words, this is an investment that's really going to expand what you can read and what you can comprehend in the long run.

So, circle and define every unfamiliar word on a page. Look them up. You only need a brief definition, and then reread the paragraph to see if things start to make a little more sense.

And once you get into the habit of collection and definition to expand your comprehension, let's move on to exercise number two. And this is when you have to go back to that paragraph. And then now, instead of circling unfamiliar words, I want you to circle the connective words that glue the entire paragraph together.

Do you see an and? And is the author showing a sequence of arguments? Do you see therefore? Is the author introducing a conclusion after providing a lot of evidence? Do you see however? Is an exception being introduced after however?

Remember, connecting words, aka conjunctions, they are the linchpins that hold an idea together. Without them, the whole text would fall apart. It wouldn't make any logical sense. So, if you can go in there and to retrace the shape of the paragraph, they'll make your reading experience a lot less taxing because now at least you have a general overview of the flow of the paragraphs.

And just like comprehension, the more of these connectives you collect, the more you build up a backlog of how these words are functioning in a text. And over time, you probably don't need to look this up every time you read a book. But for the first couple of books, if you read through them with these two exercises, over time, you're going to wake up one day and a book that was very difficult to you will start to appear like, you know, it's it's really all right to read. I can understand everything now.

So, in conclusion, difficult writing becomes easy once we see that there are these mechanisms holding them together, at least in the case of nonfiction. And if you can learn to see that, in fact, wrestling with every difficult book out there or every difficult book that you wrestle with, they will all expand your comprehension or expand your ability to read permanently.

So, that over time this becomes a life skill. This becomes a formidable force in your life where you're able to explore different weird interests that you have, not through second-hand opinions on the internet, but first-hand through accessing a piece of text without bias.

And over time, as you practice some of the ideas in these posts and as you practice some of the techniques and exercises that I give you every single week, you're going to start to see that this really is a superpower. And I'm very excited to share more perspectives and ideas around this topic of learning how to read and write. Or in other words, teaching you all the stuff that you should have learned in your English classes.

Nevertheless, that's all I have for this week's post, and I'll be back here next week with more. Take care and goodbye.

did you read a logic book lately or did i witness an independent derivation in real time? either way good explication

>>25189980
i do not know if this will get us anywhere, but thank you very much for your effort. the message is worth everyone's time

>>25189980
Wtf are you doing here Robin Waldun?! But also... props for not plugging your own video for views, and just posting the contents. It's good advice, genuinely, so thanks

I always think of it in terms of a hierarchy of meaning. Not understanding something is not proof of stupidity, as you say. One of the greatest horrors of material reality is that learned helplessness around comprehension masks as stupidity, and thus no intervention will be attempted to overcome it. A flea that has bumped his head against the lid of a jar, once the lid is removed, will never jump higher than the rim as he has learned a false limit. A man who has faced embarrassment whenever faced with a concept he doesn't immediately understand has learned a false limit, negative feedback reinforces behaviour, and all feedback is from our environment, as our environment changes as we grow up. He is slave to an imposed feedback loop, his stupidity is an asset, and he is merited for his helplessness. It is a great horror the extent of this perceived inability.

I attempted to read Cyclonopedia some time ago, a book I have still not managed to sink my teeth into significantly. Words are shorthand for concepts, and certain concepts can only be defined as emergent from other more primitive concepts, and so the hierarchy of meaning is defined. A word you don't understand may be defined by ten words that you do. A word you don't understand may be defined by ten words that you don't, but in turn, they may be defined by ten words that you do. The man who understands the shorthand defined by the highest word isn't the smarter man, he is the man who has taken the time to understand the concepts emergent from these primitive concepts (and I mean primitive as fundamental, root, axiom, atomic, the building blocks of higher meaning).

An understanding of any concept that can be defined, put into words, can therefore be attained by reference to it's composite words. Don't understand those words? They took can be defined. The chain goes on and on but is finite.

The natural conclusion is that understanding of the fundamental words is necessary to define anything. This is a known problem, it's the "dictionary paradox" or the "circularity of language" but I think it's a problem for the aliens. If you're reading any of this, you've already bridged that gap.

Tldr; you're not stupid! Just look up what words mean!

good effortpost

>>25189982
>View building comprehension as you investing different things into a bank of words or a bank of ideas. And over time, this bank of ideas is going to start to grow. You're going to start to understand everything a little bit better. And when you move on to another book that contain these words and ideas, you'll be able to read a lot faster. This grows at an exponential scale, not that reading fast is the point of of today's post. But over time, you start to see that that even understanding one key idea will unlock a whole sphere of different readings for you.
>And over time, yes, you'll get to a point where you can recognize most of the words on a page. You know the definition of most of these words, and reading reading becomes really enjoyable from that point onward.
For some accountable reason the thorough reading of a good dictionary is often derided by some people as an absurd practice. Yet there are few things in this world that are more interesting.

More interesting, not only to a trained philologist, which is a lover of words, a word lover, like I know many of you guys out there are, but also to the man of average intelligence, who isn't a philologist.

It might be said to consort with the highest order of imagination. And I know what you're saying, that you'd have to be crazy to read a dictionary, right?

Well Robert Browning himself prepared himself for a career in poetry and as a man of letters with a sedulous study of the humble English dictionary.

Even the editor of C. B Fry's New Year jumped in on the action, when he asked:

>Has it ever occured to you that a thorough course of dictionary would be an immense factor of improvement in education and for our students?

He refers to the common man or woman of the people holding forth to their confidants on the streets, and asks if he or she would not be better for want of a more farraginous stock of adjectives. And the poverty of their vocabulary is "lamentable" and "surprising".

I would posit there is a similarity between scholasticism and ai especially with regards to the stance of both of those disciplines towards data such that taking hegel and campanella also front of mind is the idea of data for a system as revealed partly through an astronomical or astrological model such that over the course of a year the data of the astronomical or astrological model was revealed partly as a continuous discrete entity I would posit there is a similarity between scholasticism and ai especially with regards to the stance of both of those disciplines towards data such that taking hegel and campanella also front of mind is the idea of data for a system as revealed partly through an astronomical or astrological model such that over the course of a year the data of the astronomical or astrological model was revealed partly as a continuous discrete entity I would posit there is a similarity between scholasticism and ai especially with regards to the stance of both of those disciplines towards data such that taking hegel and campanella also front of mind is the idea of data for a system as revealed partly through an astronomical or astrological model such that over the course of a year the data of the astronomical or astrological model was revealed partly as a continuous discrete entity

It's crazy that a midwit like this can build any following let alone a following comprised of people who think of themselves as intelligent and cultured. It's crazy people have actually paid to access his content.

I already do this, I look up words and terms all the time.

Tl;dr
Slow down, use a dictionary, look at conjunctions.

Good prose but little substance, OP. 4/10. Could have been said in 5 sentences or less.

>>25194260
>Could have been said in 5 sentences or less.

Found the one who hasn't read the Melbournians.

>>25194362
No. Should i?

Waldun bump

A catch-all book for reading and for life Journaling is essential to grow and self reflect. Its very useful for life in general.

>>25191891
Had no idea that the opposite of shit post was effort post.

>>25191939
Its much more effective to read a book you are interested in and then looking up definitions as you encounter them to build a framework. Reading a dictionary won't be as effective in my opinion.

File: 4.jpg (460 KB, 1200x1100)

460 KB JPG

>>25189980
Interesting read.

>>25189980
LOOL TLDR
>what is irony
holy jesus

>>25189982
Do you have any advice on seeing the broader levels of coherence? I do fine with intra paragraph coherence but I struggle with consciously linking section 1 to section 2.
I also forget to contextualise the sections into an overarching structure. Perhaps I'm struggling to extrude that overarching structure as I read the text?
This is especially true when the sections each examine something different (e.g. one section on farming techniques and another on alphabets), forming a disconnected massive list.

The same thing sometimes happens when I watch lecture series.

File: 1626202875795.png (272 KB, 1611x928)

272 KB PNG

>>25194390
Yes. The Melbourne Movement was seminal. Start with Jaidyn and don't come back until you can answer: does Cohen like it darker or does he?