On the subject of writing again: I've always tended to approach new topics from an oblique angle. New things are best learned from afar.
Conversation
Replying to
Often it's far more important to learn the fundamentals of a variety of other topics, so you understand what does and doesn't make sense.
1
Replying to
Take economists, for example:
It's easy to see how they get things so reliably wrong - they lack perspective, both internal and external.
1
Replying to
When you have this perspective, it's easy to see that many key premises of major fields are logically inconsistent or flat out wrong.
1
Replying to
Conversely, if you lack this perspective, you risk getting caught up in the reigning orthodoxy.
1
Replying to
Modern psychologists (outside of retrograde countries like the US) leer at behaviourism and psychoanalysis, but their own orthodoxies suck.
1
Replying to
The same applies for almost every field you can think of, scientific or not.
1
Replying to
So for example I learned most of what I know about meditation from religion, magic and mysticism. Or rather from the points where they clash
1
Replying to
I'm starting to see that I'm developing new fields like this, but now the hard part is to actually immerse myself better.
1
Replying to
You can't -just- grasp a topic from the outside. To understand it well, in a way that works, you need both direct experience and perspective
1
Replying to
So in all probability I need to read at least 20 or so books before I have more long form writing to do outside of a few narrow fields.
Replying to
But narrow isn't necessarily bad. I think I understand better now what I can and can't justify writing more about.