I once found a recipe
barszcz
. Or I couldn't even call this a recipe. It was more a series of descriptions and then finally a few principles.
It's almost like the
babcia
began with an attempt at capturing the steps involved, but by the end realized there was too much nuance impossible to captured in words. At least impossible for her. So she pivoted, chose to bestow principles of what makes a good barszcz instead.
I digitized it, naturally. Snapped a photo and saved it to the cloud. And I regret doing this.
Once I had a file of it saved and protected by the great internet gods, I didn't treat the original recipe with the same level of respect. I had found this ordinary piece of paper while helping one of my
Polish
friends clean an apartment he managed. I had just been out of college, didn't have that many belongings and was piss poor at saving sentimental things. And I moved basically every year during that time. So yes, it got lost. But I can't help but wondering, if maybe I wouldn't have been so neglectful had I not taken that picture... had I known that that piece of paper was the only thing.
The word haecceity describes this unique emotional property that some objects carry. As for crypto or nft's it's not much different, what matters is how it makes you feel when you own them.
I'm so much looking forward to seeing more stable coins that aren't pegged to anything.
Emotional currency would be pegged to ... people. It's something to experiment. Why would we need it in the first place? What value it carries and how do I benefit from having it?
Emotional currency can be pegged to a person but not people. Because different people respond differently. I can say things that challenge one of my friend's identity and it spurs a discussion about philosophy and etc. At the same time i can say a comment to another person in my life that has nothing to do with their identity but they take it as such as I have microagressed so i need to do things to let them know i didn't mean to hurt them.
semi related note, do you use an ereader/do you feel the same connection to a book read on an ereader than a real book?
drewb i don't have a real e-reader. wish i did. when i read e i'm just on my laptop. but i have used a kindle in the past. i actually want to argue that I don't connect more with a physical book than i do an e book but that's just me saying how i think about it. when i look at my history i notice that i am conduced to reading more with physical books and thus end up connecting with them more.
So auditing my history yes i connect more with physical books than i do digital. but not because of the medium but because of what the medium begets. what about you, sir? or other folks who are reading this?
I connect differently with physical books vs ebooks, but neither is superior to the other.
Just like I connect differently with fiction vs nonfiction.
One of the main measurements of my engagement with nonfiction is the volume of notes or highlights I make. With fiction, the main metric is how difficult I find stopping.
My notetaking does differ between physical and digital. I will highlight both (unless it's a library book, and I'm trying to use the library more these days), but the act of highlighting is so much more fluid in digital. To get a good highlight on a physical book requires smashing the book flat and carefully running the highlighter over the text.
These days I've been using the "lens" feature of my camera to capture text from physical books and get them into my digital notes.
Digital highlights are automatically stored...somewhere...but I tend to follow a digital highlight with a copy-paste into my notes.
The last point of difference between the digital and physical is the latter's requirement for light. I am a vampire, so I like being able to read in the dark. On the other hand, the physical act of taking a physical book, finding a location to read it, leaving digital devices behind, and just reading is sublime.
See this is a key attribute about reading -- and any other activity -- that we often overlook. Often times the coffee is not just about the
coffee
. There's that walk to that cafe. That talk with the
barista
. The sights of the trees swaying in the winds all brightly hitting the back of your retina as your feet move.
Interestingly if I ever had an intern who brought me coffee I'd tell them to drink it themselves, I'm going to get myself my own coffee.
i used to have an ereader but honestly never felt like i connected with the things i read on it. i like physical books far more. i know a bad attitude to take into the future with everything turning more digital lol, so hopefully i'll be able to change that.
"One of the main measurements of my engagement with nonfiction is the volume of notes or highlights I make. With fiction, the main metric is how difficult I find stopping."
that's a great point. for digital note taking as well, unless the ereader enables it you have to have another device open to be able to record those. books you can just write on the margins, though by doing so it transitions the book from My Book to Book Full Of My Notes
I like where your head is at.
Can we quantify how much the cloud devalues artifacts in emotional currency?
Just like
I'm so much looking forward to seeing more stable coins that aren't pegged to anything.
Emotional currency would be pegged to ... people. It's something to experiment. Why would we need it in the first place? What value it carries and how do I benefit from having it?
semi related note, do you use an ereader/do you feel the same connection to a book read on an ereader than a real book?
So auditing my history yes i connect more with physical books than i do digital. but not because of the medium but because of what the medium begets. what about you, sir? or other folks who are reading this?
Just like I connect differently with fiction vs nonfiction.
One of the main measurements of my engagement with nonfiction is the volume of notes or highlights I make. With fiction, the main metric is how difficult I find stopping.
My notetaking does differ between physical and digital. I will highlight both (unless it's a library book, and I'm trying to use the library more these days), but the act of highlighting is so much more fluid in digital. To get a good highlight on a physical book requires smashing the book flat and carefully running the highlighter over the text.
These days I've been using the "lens" feature of my camera to capture text from physical books and get them into my digital notes.
Digital highlights are automatically stored...somewhere...but I tend to follow a digital highlight with a copy-paste into my notes.
The last point of difference between the digital and physical is the latter's requirement for light. I am a vampire, so I like being able to read in the dark. On the other hand, the physical act of taking a physical book, finding a location to read it, leaving digital devices behind, and just reading is sublime.
What do you like about the dark,
See this is a key attribute about reading -- and any other activity -- that we often overlook. Often times the coffee is not just about the
Interestingly if I ever had an intern who brought me coffee I'd tell them to drink it themselves, I'm going to get myself my own coffee.
"One of the main measurements of my engagement with nonfiction is the volume of notes or highlights I make. With fiction, the main metric is how difficult I find stopping."
that's a great point. for digital note taking as well, unless the ereader enables it you have to have another device open to be able to record those. books you can just write on the margins, though by doing so it transitions the book from My Book to Book Full Of My Notes