Friday, May 26, 2006

My Unique Blog-Style

My unique blog-style is that I post a new entry (original idea) about once a week and add comments subsequently in further development on that theme -- rather than just jumping from one finished, unchanging idea to the next -- searching for somebody who hasn‘t heard it before. This reflects the dynamism of an idea in the process of development, rather than as we have been accustomed to seeing them -- as a completed idea for which the purpose of the publication is to convince others of the superiority of that idea -- typical of most commentary one sees in conventional publications.

That was the limitation of the medium of the printed word -- not allowing for the possibility of a continuing, evolving dialogue, both within and with others. That is the source of much of the arguments in society -- that discussions originate from these fixed positions and all one can hope to do is to convince the other to one’s point of view, often destroying the other in the process. That is a tremendous waste of human resources and capacity.

The interactive medium of blogs allow for the evolution of an idea into a better one -- taking in and processing new information in whatever manner and form it comes. It may be from my own further readings and other experiences just in the course of normal living -- but always integrating it to the wisdom of the whole, and not simply as isolated fragments that are accumulated without context, meaning and significance.

This is how the new media is not just the old media made available to the masses -- but allows for the possibilities of information and communications not possible before because this technology and capabilities were not available before. Undoubtedly, many will continue using “old media” as a model for their publications -- without realizing the greater possibilities old media doesn’t want you to know about. If they did, it would speed their obsolescence -- if they are insistent on maintaining the old ways rather than they themselves realizing their own greater capabilities and evolution.

Many will undoubtedly simply retrench to the old status quo hoping against hope that they will come back into fashion again -- just as buggy whips undoubtedly will also. But a few will recognize their own opportunity to differentiate and excel; these winners may come from nowhere -- to lead the new standards of their industry, leapfrogging the traditional leaders of the past, who are less nimble to adapt.

These are the inflection points of history in which the first become the last, and the last move to the head of the class. When those moments will occur is not known before -- or after, but are recognized by the right person, at the right place, at the right time.

That is why the quality of having an unfettered mind frees one to see the opportunities -- while those “too busy,” may not know that these opportunities come and pass them by. Then, ironically, they get even more busy, thinking that is their lack.


At May 27, 2006 11:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree your blog style is unique and I like it (and have learned from it) , my critique is that your writing style is not accsssible (you write at an academic journal level which substantially limits your appeal and potential impact).

Any thoughts on that?


At May 28, 2006 10:44 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

I'm deliberately writing to the high end of cutting edge independent researchers/thinkers -- and not doing anybody's thinking for them.

I provide some heretofore unconsidered insight and they arrive at their own conclusions -- based on their own experience and wisdom. Usually the master-teachers of their own discipline (whatever that is) will recognize the moment and process of discovery (the art). That is the element I'm selecting and writing to; that is my target audience.

I'm not writing to people who have to be tricked and manipulated into seeing what I want them to see. It is there for them to try the new perspective or not. It may be the missing link in their own quests.

In that way, I also identify the open minds and the closed minds -- and don't consume all my energy in the arguments with no other purpose than to consume as much time and energy as possible -- as though that were a good in itself.

I let the audience self-select themselves in this fashion -- rather than in trying to talk to everybody, I end up talking to nobody -- like the old mass media language and strategies.

At May 28, 2006 10:56 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

When one can talk to anybody and everybody in the world, one has to settle on who they're writing to -- rather than expressing the despair and bitterness of one who thinks nobody can understand his message. Any good speaker or writer does that; if you can reach the one effectively, there is the possiblity of reaching the two, and the four, etc.

But when you address nobody in particularly, nobody will know that you're talking to them -- but think you're talking to somebody else. So, much of the old public communications was of these types of soliloquys and rants -- to nobody in particular. And having only seen tht model publicly, adopt it for personal communications also -- which is disastrous.

If I'm not talking to you, I'm not talking to you; if I am, you'll respond appropriately. Frequently I hear, I understand what you're saying perfectly, but I don't think anybody else can. Most people presume that everybody cannot understand as well as they can -- and that is the problem of communications in this world.

If one assumes that even the uneducated can understand, they will as though they do.

At May 28, 2006 11:03 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

When one creates new ideas and concepts, one has to create a new language for expressing it.

The problem of the old media and academia, is that they put a new idea and concept into the old language -- in which the new and unfamiliar cannot be understood, but is rendered into the old understanding. The important communication, is the process of discovery that transforms the unknown into the known.

The old language of knowledge is only of the known -- and does not recognize the unknown, which is where the inquiring mind wishes to explore.

At June 01, 2006 11:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm deliberately writing to the high end of cutting edge independent researchers/thinkers"


you are treating this as a diary (or journal) for your own edification.

Which is OK, but don't pass it off as anything but.

At the very least , make basic concessions.

Have a link ontop for your one-minute workout (at present this knowledge is contained within several updated & sequential posts with no 'latest summary'


At June 01, 2006 11:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most reading might have stopped taking you as a serious contributor with your opinions on Tylenol and your consequent admissions of a sickly existence.

Do you now know not to pay attention to the strongest man at the gym?

At June 02, 2006 4:53 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

Actually, if I was in a gym and didn’t know what I was doing, that’s who I would go up to and ask -- the most obviously competent person in the room, rather than as you obviously pride yourself, as one who knows all the answers and is satisfied with all the explanations, even if they produce no tangible and visible results. To people like you, it is enough that you are “right” -- because that is what somebody told you so, and you have no way of finding out the truth of the matter for yourself.

A lot of people are like you -- that everything you know is what somebody else told you, and you’ve never discovered the truth of anything for yourself, by yourself. That is a fool’s education. In that educational process, you think things are known with absolute precision and certainty -- because you have unconditional faith that there are those who know, and those like yourself, who only know the people who know the truth.

Many of them are journalists because the very nature of that job is asking somebody else what went on -- rather than putting into words what everybody else is seeing and having the confidence of that perception, as a true writer. And when you see that confidence, your immediate response is to undermine and destroy it so that they are like you -- a person who has no idea what he is talking about but thinks he can bullshit his way through life -- and nobody can tell the difference.

Some people can see these differences -- and those are the people I want to relate to. So you take all your many aliases hoping to deceive people into thinking you have the weight and authority of many -- somewhere where you can fool somebody. Because you’re not fooling me.

I understand your obsession because I have encountered it many times before -- in the countless wannabes who wonder why they cannot speak with authority and credibility -- and can’t figure out why because they’ve jumped through all the hoops people have demanded of them in the promise that if they just continued to do so unquestioningly, one day, the fame, riches, glory and power would all be theirs. Life doesn’t really work that way. They were just fooling you.

Everything you know, is not worth knowing.

At June 02, 2006 5:16 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

Here's the Tylenol discussion the anonymous poster of many aliases is referring to. Guess which ones are him.

Legitimate authorities in their field don't go around hiding their identity but are justifiably proud of who they are. It's kind of an unfailing guideline -- that if somebody is really an authority in their field, they let you know who they are right off the top.

Journalists and other bashers like to use the cloak of anonymity to obtain an advantage and then create multiple aliases to create an army of people who agree with them -- but they all sound and think exactly alike.

Their grudges and references could only be known to that one person -- pretending to be somebody else. It's a favorite tactic of old media writers who cannot stand on their own; they require the New York Times behind them, or New York University to give their words any weight of authority.

They have a distinctive style of bullying and intimidating -- rather than the desire and intention to truly share information. They think the purpose of communications is to prove who is smarter -- and no other. Consequently, they have disastrous relationship with everyone -- and not just me.

These exchanges are very distinctive -- lacking in good faith desire to understand. I'm not the only guy who clobbers him and puts him in his place. See post 78. That's the new world we live in. The person(s) one is trying to bully and intimidate may actually know what he's talking about, and actually be the foremost authority on his subject matter -- but the reader has to be able to determine that, or have his head handed to him as this person does on a regular basis -- coming back more enraged with each new humiliation.

At June 02, 2006 5:42 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

The worst abusers of the "new media" are those of the "old media" -- in which the whole purpose ultimately, was to get and maintain an advantage to the audience/reader. The relationship was to establish an advantage to dominate the other. It was a zero sum game of one vanquishing the other -- instead of the new possibilities of everybody winning by sharing information -- and not hoarding it, or using it to one's exclusive advantage.

That old mentality is very distinctive -- and will retard, isolate nd alienate one for the rest of their lives.

At June 02, 2006 5:47 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

And of course, they always want to tell you how you should write your blog.

Demand it, actually.

At June 03, 2006 10:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

please research and learn from the documented problems with the liver and tylenol.

I expect to be cut off posting anonymously (especially after (what I consider) your earlier misguided and self-serving negative posting on anonymity on the net)

let's see what balls you have.

At June 03, 2006 11:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

listen dumbass, I'm not trying to be mean,

in fact I'll throw out the most important thing you've wriiten so far:

That said, I call out self-serving erudites who call out main steram media (yet haven't learned from their mistakes)

At June 05, 2006 12:55 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

As I've said previously in that discussion on pain relievers, other than deliberate abuse and attempts to commit suicide with deliberate overdosages (usually consumed with nearly fatal doses of alcohol) -- in normally recommended, reasonable therapeutic dosages for the purpose and intent of getting better, acetaminophen has notably fewer adverse reactions.

So much so that one has to wonder if these occasional and fabled Tylenol scares, is the best the competition can do.


Post a Comment

<< Home