This was so enjoyable to read. I'm a wildlife tracker and much of this really resonated with me through that lens--especially the mystery aspect (you kind of have to accept being confused and wrong a lot of the time) and learning to look closer. I was on a trip with some other trackers recently and I watched one of them identify tracks in what still looked to me like just another patch of dirt until they pointed them out; sometimes what's there is incredibly subtle. Continuing to ask questions is a key part of the process, too. Thanks for this!
Thank you so much, G.W. I really envy you your skills! How long have you been a tracker?
Also, have you read the work of Tristan Gooley? In his books he often reinforces the point that time is also the great revealer of nature's clues and signs (and also animal behaviour) - how if you're initially a bit flummoxed, you probably just need to slow down to the right speed for that mystery to start resolving itself in your mind and to your senses, and also to allow your subconscious to do the work and report back properly...
Thank you, Mike! I took my first class in 2017 and have been pursuing off and on ever since (including taking the class again for the third time--it's different every time because what you find changes, even when going to the same locations). I still consider myself a beginner, especially when in the company of some of my mentors--though they often say that tracking is a humbling activity because no matter how experienced you are, you can still be mystified.
I haven't read Gooley, but have encountered that idea, and there's really something to it. In the Pacific Northwest (and elsewhere, I'd imagine) encountering indeterminate sign that seems to vanish while you're following it is really common. It can be very frustrating and the frustration has a tendency to narrow your view at just the moment it needs to be expanding. Sitting with the mystery for awhile can suggest ways to explore for answers.
Fascinating and fun to read. I laughed out loud at your ironing-board trip across town, partly because it kind of makes sense.I tend to use a combination of "what" and "why" in my ruminations about interesting things.
>>"partly because it kind of makes sense" THIS IS THE VALIDATION I DESERVE, TWENTY YEARS LATER, THANK YOU VIRGINIA.. How my friends mocked me when I tried to explain how logical it was to use the ironing board's natural states of deployment for the purpose of rest and recuperation. How they *jeered*. How they said "Mike, I will always laugh about this" in the following decades, again and again. But that's fine. Sometimes greatness takes time to get recognised. Maybe future generations will think of me more charitably. Or maybe they'll laugh too. Either way, there's no backing out now. I never learn.
Yeah it really does make sense. But then, I might not be the most impartial judge. I made the decision to move a washing machine by bike to my dad's flat a few years ago (and various other missions through the years that have been less succesful)
Good point about the 5 whys technique. I was in a classing with a bunch of marketing people once and while coming up with whys was like a second nature to me after a career in journalism, I was surprised at how hard it was for some people to get to two, much less five. “What” is even better especially when joined by who, where, when and how.
Yes! That's the more thorough and complete way of doing it. The six fives, it really should be: why, what, who, where, when and how, x 5. I can understand that being a lot less snappy and meme-shareable for some folk, but the ability to rethink is such a power and such a great investigative writing tool. Have you read Adam Grant's "Think Again"? With your journo training, I think you'd find it a fascinating read.
Back during the war that we all were "in together", I, too, had occasion to use the word in your title and, however I tried to spell it - lurgie, lurgee, lurghee, leugi - the spellcheck told me it was not in this together with me and that I couldn't spell for toffie, tofee, tofffeeee, toff-fee, whatever. Which I see you can't either.
Ha! I'm all over the place with the spelling, it's true, so I really should have consulted the source material - being The Goon Show, it looks like - which this writer commendably did: https://www.theseagoonmemoirs.com/post/the-dreaded-lurgy
Your five/ten strata of enquiry. I used to say, "Forget the what, look at the why." I find much enquiry stops at what and doesn't progress to why. But I then find the cynic creeping in, because much why we don't know (can't be bothered with quotation marks). So why becomes speculative. The only basis I can offer for many whys is that it stands to reason, but one has to develop a certain perspective on what reason it is that things must stand to, because "It stands to reason" doesn't always lead to the reason why.
Conspiracy theories abound in knee-jerk whys, and whether they are correct or not I, not unnaturally, cannot say. I am no insectologist, or whatever someone who studies insects is called (is it important?), but I understand that it was once propounded that grasshoppers hear through their legs. To test the theory, scientists took a grasshopper and twanged a tuning fork, placing the fork close to the grasshopper, which thereupon dutifully bounded away from the noise. The scientists then removed the grasshopper's legs (like as not under local anaesthetic) and repeated the experiment and, this time, when the tuning fork was twanged, the grasshopper did not bound away, thus proving that grasshoppers hear through their legs. Which, however you view the disability of having no legs, is exactly how grasshoppers do hear.
Yesterday, I was reading something that presented to me the name (Level 1) "Gorgias", a Greek philosopher. He was (level 2) pre-Socratic. He was what? "Pre-Socratic". Odd thing is, he probably didn't know he was pre-Socratic. Or pre-Christian, or pre-me for that matter. Was Henry VIII pre-Victorian? Or Julius Caesar both pre- and post-Rubicon? His (Gorgias's) On Non-Existence is taken to be critical of the (level 3) Eleatic tradition. Yes, Eleatic, you know, like, isn't it obvious? They were pre-Socratic as well, but were very different from Gorgias. They had a strict metaphysical view of (level 4) monism. No, not monetarism, but monism. What does it mean? Monism? Well, it means attributing oneness to something. No, I don't know if it can be applied to a football team. It's just that in (level 5) Neoplatonism everything is derived from The One. Honest, it is. Says so, right here.
Clicking links in Wikipedia can reveal to the reader that they know nothing. Either that, or that Wikipedia knows nothing. Because it's a plethora of whats and very few whys.
This was so enjoyable to read. I'm a wildlife tracker and much of this really resonated with me through that lens--especially the mystery aspect (you kind of have to accept being confused and wrong a lot of the time) and learning to look closer. I was on a trip with some other trackers recently and I watched one of them identify tracks in what still looked to me like just another patch of dirt until they pointed them out; sometimes what's there is incredibly subtle. Continuing to ask questions is a key part of the process, too. Thanks for this!
Thank you so much, G.W. I really envy you your skills! How long have you been a tracker?
Also, have you read the work of Tristan Gooley? In his books he often reinforces the point that time is also the great revealer of nature's clues and signs (and also animal behaviour) - how if you're initially a bit flummoxed, you probably just need to slow down to the right speed for that mystery to start resolving itself in your mind and to your senses, and also to allow your subconscious to do the work and report back properly...
Thank you, Mike! I took my first class in 2017 and have been pursuing off and on ever since (including taking the class again for the third time--it's different every time because what you find changes, even when going to the same locations). I still consider myself a beginner, especially when in the company of some of my mentors--though they often say that tracking is a humbling activity because no matter how experienced you are, you can still be mystified.
I haven't read Gooley, but have encountered that idea, and there's really something to it. In the Pacific Northwest (and elsewhere, I'd imagine) encountering indeterminate sign that seems to vanish while you're following it is really common. It can be very frustrating and the frustration has a tendency to narrow your view at just the moment it needs to be expanding. Sitting with the mystery for awhile can suggest ways to explore for answers.
Fascinating and fun to read. I laughed out loud at your ironing-board trip across town, partly because it kind of makes sense.I tend to use a combination of "what" and "why" in my ruminations about interesting things.
>>"partly because it kind of makes sense" THIS IS THE VALIDATION I DESERVE, TWENTY YEARS LATER, THANK YOU VIRGINIA.. How my friends mocked me when I tried to explain how logical it was to use the ironing board's natural states of deployment for the purpose of rest and recuperation. How they *jeered*. How they said "Mike, I will always laugh about this" in the following decades, again and again. But that's fine. Sometimes greatness takes time to get recognised. Maybe future generations will think of me more charitably. Or maybe they'll laugh too. Either way, there's no backing out now. I never learn.
Yeah it really does make sense. But then, I might not be the most impartial judge. I made the decision to move a washing machine by bike to my dad's flat a few years ago (and various other missions through the years that have been less succesful)
This made me laugh, too. And I totally get what you mean.
Get well soon, Mike!
Thank you, kind sir. Glad to report I am still not dead! Either that or this virus is VERY clever.
I hope you get well soon.
Good point about the 5 whys technique. I was in a classing with a bunch of marketing people once and while coming up with whys was like a second nature to me after a career in journalism, I was surprised at how hard it was for some people to get to two, much less five. “What” is even better especially when joined by who, where, when and how.
Class , not classing. Why oh why autocorrect?
Yes! That's the more thorough and complete way of doing it. The six fives, it really should be: why, what, who, where, when and how, x 5. I can understand that being a lot less snappy and meme-shareable for some folk, but the ability to rethink is such a power and such a great investigative writing tool. Have you read Adam Grant's "Think Again"? With your journo training, I think you'd find it a fascinating read.
Back during the war that we all were "in together", I, too, had occasion to use the word in your title and, however I tried to spell it - lurgie, lurgee, lurghee, leugi - the spellcheck told me it was not in this together with me and that I couldn't spell for toffie, tofee, tofffeeee, toff-fee, whatever. Which I see you can't either.
Ha! I'm all over the place with the spelling, it's true, so I really should have consulted the source material - being The Goon Show, it looks like - which this writer commendably did: https://www.theseagoonmemoirs.com/post/the-dreaded-lurgy
Hope you get better soon!
Thanks, Kathlyn! It's day 6 and I'm feeling on the mend. Still not planning to do anything energetic for a few weeks, but - so far, I've been lucky.
I wish you the best for your recovery. :).
Thank you, Olga. :) So far, so good.
Get better, my friend!
Thank you! Already upright and answering comments incoherently!
Your five/ten strata of enquiry. I used to say, "Forget the what, look at the why." I find much enquiry stops at what and doesn't progress to why. But I then find the cynic creeping in, because much why we don't know (can't be bothered with quotation marks). So why becomes speculative. The only basis I can offer for many whys is that it stands to reason, but one has to develop a certain perspective on what reason it is that things must stand to, because "It stands to reason" doesn't always lead to the reason why.
Conspiracy theories abound in knee-jerk whys, and whether they are correct or not I, not unnaturally, cannot say. I am no insectologist, or whatever someone who studies insects is called (is it important?), but I understand that it was once propounded that grasshoppers hear through their legs. To test the theory, scientists took a grasshopper and twanged a tuning fork, placing the fork close to the grasshopper, which thereupon dutifully bounded away from the noise. The scientists then removed the grasshopper's legs (like as not under local anaesthetic) and repeated the experiment and, this time, when the tuning fork was twanged, the grasshopper did not bound away, thus proving that grasshoppers hear through their legs. Which, however you view the disability of having no legs, is exactly how grasshoppers do hear.
Yesterday, I was reading something that presented to me the name (Level 1) "Gorgias", a Greek philosopher. He was (level 2) pre-Socratic. He was what? "Pre-Socratic". Odd thing is, he probably didn't know he was pre-Socratic. Or pre-Christian, or pre-me for that matter. Was Henry VIII pre-Victorian? Or Julius Caesar both pre- and post-Rubicon? His (Gorgias's) On Non-Existence is taken to be critical of the (level 3) Eleatic tradition. Yes, Eleatic, you know, like, isn't it obvious? They were pre-Socratic as well, but were very different from Gorgias. They had a strict metaphysical view of (level 4) monism. No, not monetarism, but monism. What does it mean? Monism? Well, it means attributing oneness to something. No, I don't know if it can be applied to a football team. It's just that in (level 5) Neoplatonism everything is derived from The One. Honest, it is. Says so, right here.
Clicking links in Wikipedia can reveal to the reader that they know nothing. Either that, or that Wikipedia knows nothing. Because it's a plethora of whats and very few whys.