Which is more important ....”Context” or “Contacts”?
Without “Context” we have nothing to pass on.
Without “Contacts” we have no one to pass “it” on!
“Context” will always change. People have a habit of making “context” simple and, regrettably, ... “forgettable! The message will be simplified and, in the process, may be changed slightly. It will be forgotten as the newness wears off. As criticism and alternative views appear, the force of any new idea weakens.
Also, as peer review occurs, “the people” will become aware of “other” similar views.
“Peer” review is supposed to be a review by experts “in our world” from people who are supposedly experienced in the research and acknowledged by the elite of the world renowned experts. Who the hell are they? What can you do about that!!
Who is a “peer”? Who is “the people”? Do you have to be concerned about the answer?.....
Only if the views you present are meant to create change, or, if money is involved!
If social or political change is sought, the original “context or view” is terribly important. What can you do?
Now, what about “Contacts”?
“Contacts” are where you get your background information from.
“Contacts” are the people you are able to talk to, to communicate with, and yes, to blog with!
“Contacts” are the people who make it their business to communicate new ideas and new stories to “the people” in general.... the publishing community, the speaking agents, the media representatives, etc.
Do you write a book, do a blog, make a speech.... ?
Without “Contacts”, the right (powerful and successful) people are simply not there! These decisions cannot be made!
Who or what makes a “FACT”?
Does any book, peer, expert, etc. make a “FACT” so?
Who accumulates these so called “FACT”?.... Archivists? Book collectors (libraries)? The internet?
How can a “new idea or story” be permanent? ... Is this necessary? What if it isn’t “permanent”?
So is “Context” or “Content” more important?
Is it possible you have to have “both”? .... at the same time!!
“Not having any views is a sin!”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I like the idea of how a "fact" becomes a "fact". It's an intriguing thought because people see things differently.
I've seen studies where people were shown video footage of a crime and were asked to describe the perpetrator. The results were startling to see the array of answers, some people being way off the mark. But to them it was factual because they saw it with there own eyes.
Science has amazing technology to gauge our past. Carbon dating can give us a good idea of how old the earth is. According to science the earth is 4.5 billion years old. And yet some people think the earth is 6000 years old.
I have a feeling that there are nothing but facts out there. I cant see them because everyone is waving their hands in the air and screaming trying to make the facts fit their perceptions.
Dear Frank, I saw your comment and beleive it to be true. Isn't it a sad state of affairs that everyone is screaming. There's no dialogue
out there!
Bill T.
Post a Comment