Week of 2/23 Blog Post
Question: Think about the third paragraph on page 212 as you work in your blog this week: "Action is the highest form of thought." What does this mean? It might mean something from a writer's perspective, from a user's perspective, and from a student's perspective.
Meadows writes,
When I read the only the first line of this paragraph, I can see that it could be a source of conflict or disagreement. Thought can occur without action and action can occur without thought. One would think that pure thought would be the highest form of thought. However when I read the explanation "we really understand something only when we've done it," I can see where he's coming from. We have an ongoing dispute with our management that they need to allot time to train us on new practices, not just hand out documentation and say "Read this on your own time," while archiving all new information by date or posting number, never deleting old information that is no longer valid, and providing an almost useless index. We also complain that the documentation is poorly prepared and confusing; they ask us why we complain about a piece of documentation sometimes months after it is released. Here's where it relates to Meadows, even though my co-workers and I read the documentation as soon after we receive it as possible, we sometimes do not need to use it until a month or more later. Then we have to remember what we read or find it again and try to apply it. Only when we try to apply it, do we realize how bad the thought that went into it truly was. We don't understand it or remember it until we do it. I think that this is really what Meadow's is saying here. Not that action is better than thought, but that we may not understand something unless we do it. I can think that I understand a procedure, but until I do it, I'm not sure. I can think that I can understand loss, hope, or fear, but until I experience them, I truly don't. I can think that I understand what makes a website interactive, but until I build mine and see my audience react, I won't fully understand it.
Meadows writes,
Action is the highest form of thought. This is to say that we really understand something only when we've done it. It's one thing to espouse that interactive narrative is a new art form or that it has new capabilities or that it even exists in the the first place, but it's certainly a different issue to build it.
When I read the only the first line of this paragraph, I can see that it could be a source of conflict or disagreement. Thought can occur without action and action can occur without thought. One would think that pure thought would be the highest form of thought. However when I read the explanation "we really understand something only when we've done it," I can see where he's coming from. We have an ongoing dispute with our management that they need to allot time to train us on new practices, not just hand out documentation and say "Read this on your own time," while archiving all new information by date or posting number, never deleting old information that is no longer valid, and providing an almost useless index. We also complain that the documentation is poorly prepared and confusing; they ask us why we complain about a piece of documentation sometimes months after it is released. Here's where it relates to Meadows, even though my co-workers and I read the documentation as soon after we receive it as possible, we sometimes do not need to use it until a month or more later. Then we have to remember what we read or find it again and try to apply it. Only when we try to apply it, do we realize how bad the thought that went into it truly was. We don't understand it or remember it until we do it. I think that this is really what Meadow's is saying here. Not that action is better than thought, but that we may not understand something unless we do it. I can think that I understand a procedure, but until I do it, I'm not sure. I can think that I can understand loss, hope, or fear, but until I experience them, I truly don't. I can think that I understand what makes a website interactive, but until I build mine and see my audience react, I won't fully understand it.
posted by Jessica Badger at
9:07 PM
3 Comments:
Jessica, I love how you applied this thought to work, to personal life, and to school. I'd not thought about the emotional aspect--"I can think that I can understand loss, hope, or fear, but until I experience them, I truly don't." I'd not taken this to the emotional level, so I was glad you addressed that. :-)
I agree with you, Jessica. I do think Meadows means that until you do it, you won't truly understand it. I think of it as you can read all you want, but the book can't mimic reality. It's hard to truly hard to understand something you haven't experienced. I think of a snowboarding Wii game. It mimics snowboarding, but I can't say I know how to snowboard because I haven't actually been out in the snow on a snowboard. Simulation or text is helpful, but can't fully replace performing the action.
-Ashley O.
Jessica, I agree with you completely! I often find that reading and thinking about something are not enough for complete understanding - I have to be able to use the knowledge in some way. Glad to hear there are others like me!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home