Longmanox's Page

There are two ways  　　　　　　　　　　　 of implication   for a freedom , One with your mind, and the other your body. Freedom of mind is for everything you think, A world of consciousness: will, decision, inference, and behavior. Freedom of the body is for the entire rest of all your unconsciousness, Where you can only sense an ambience, air, or impression around. "Wow, I can do whatever I like!" you rejoice. Then, you are talking about the mind freedom. "What a release," "How comfortable!" you sigh. Then, you utter the body freedom. These two are a bit different, although they appear the same. Be careful, because everyone has both freedoms equally. So let you just see both your mind and body, If you would like to balance both freedoms' growth. ao This short sentence was written, inspired by "The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down To Size" (Nǿrretranders, 1999).

Learning a foreign language (L2)  as decoding information (e.g., translation) may be difficult in a local context,  such as in schools and communities where no one around speaks the language, but not too difficult to address because we can optimize our first language (L1) to the utmost limit. However, learning L2 speech in the local context in addition to one’s L1 speech is probably the most complicated and collisional challenge if it is compared to the other academic achievements in schools pursuing globalism, such as prulilingualism. This conflict, which learners, teachers, and theorists as well, often confront, has its origin in a unique feature we experience when we learn or teach any L2. In fact, every teaching plan, in the classroom practice, entails language-in-interaction to maneuver. It is thus doubled in this sense for us to learn L2 speech by speech; that is, because we are orally situated in our community, we need to use a spoken language, and it is so even right a

Consciousness is so-called an ongoing process of acquiring yourself; A newborn baby is incapable of being either conscious or unconscious. Amazingly enough, he or she will soon be aware of their own flaring existence. Growing up, hearing the voices of the adults around, Boys and girls will gradually notice the other existence of unconsciousness, Something weird who never speaks, staying just around themselves. Some do not notice it even when they grow up, Some call it the unearthly ghost or superstition. Meanwhile, every morning we wake up from a night's sleep. For it is a custom of our society, of our body from birth. Even some more will be indefinitely convinced to take for granted, Unconsciousness (e.g., sleep) first, then everyday awaking. Therefore, little do we think in our daily life that; The sea of your unconsciousness--you are just unaware of it-- is actually Connected to the shore of your consciousness of which you are aware right now! Consciousne

   Quality of life (QOL) is often discussed to proclaim the quality of mundane opportunity for the physically challenged people such as the blind and/or deaf. It tells us that those who don't inherently see or hear will nonetheless live their life to the same (or even more) extent as most of the others do. However, this idea sheds light upon a more general question of how to think about your origins and encounters: that is, the question of your own interpretation about circumstantial perception and behavior.    Parents spending money for their kid's academic motivation, for example, would probably run against a later glitch, hearing, "It won't pay for God's sake!" When he or she grew up in the college, a pretension of belief that you pay for academic achievement to deserve it is in turn brandished. The thinking runs gradually dry and eventually halts just at the moment of paying tuition. One explanation of this is that the non-creative consumptive society

    Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) lived his life in 19th-century Germany. Although his thoughts and philosophy is very hard for us who lives in 21th-century Japan, and it is too dense to understand, recently I found an interesting verse delivered by Zarathustra (1885), "The happiness of man is, ' I will.' The happiness of woman is, ' He will'" (p. 1174 in Kinddle).        This line has apparently been understood as a controversy of men's (or his) insolubility in women, which I do not like to participate here. In addition, the snap judgment of his would be subject to criticism from feminist theory and politicalization  in many ways than one. Incidentally, however, there is no denial of interpreting this idea from the point of view of natural science.    Male sex drives. The strength of man comes from his weakness, want . Further, men simply believe that hiding their weakness must lead to their own happiness. Therefore, men's happiness is not cau

   Mother was not allowed to go to high school when she was young. Subsequently, she allowed me and Key, my sister, to read the world collected works of literature for children. Despite the early days of Japanese tempting  mangas and animation films (mostly for TV, somehow under the influence of American pop culture), we deeply owed much to her grittiness to get opportunities for world great pieces. Without many experiences about romance or love, with what little subjective idea of friendship and persistence, those thoughtful and sophisticated fictions have surely expanded our world dramatically, and they turn over time, more and more, appropriate .    I learned years later that Stendhal (1783-1842) had addressed the issue of life and love in France shortly after the fall of Napoleon Bonaparte. Stendhal said that, I believe it now too, women are braver than the bravest men, which is followed by this below: Only they [women] must have a man to be in love with, for then they fee

   Regardless of age, sex, or background, we are more or less conscious of our contingent life. Shakespeare once made his famous Gloucester say as follows; "As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; They kill us for their sport... "  (King Lear, Act 4).    One extreme response to this uncertainty in the form of literature was verbalized in many ways as Romanticism in the 19th century. De Lisle Adam's (French writer, 1838-89) young Count Axel, for example, persuaded his beautiful runaway nun Sarah to kill themselves in denial about the stupidity of life in his age, claiming, "As for living, our servants can do that for us." The opposite extreme of this is found in Meursault's insensibility to the ultimate "indifference of the universe," who was fully characterized by Camus in his 1942 book, "L'Etranger" (in a sense the world neither cry nor wry at our death at all). Few people mull over death and we usually stay too blunted to pe

Science, It has ever given us challenges to test for an unalloyed answer. Take an example of expanding waves of inquiry on water, For the symbolism of science, such as in TED's. Within these circles of water, Truth manifests beautifully like the wavy topography. Validity turns both stable and yet malleable... However, ironically enough, It is the humanities that give us a "fire" to test. Gives us more primitive impulses of validity for us, At the extensive edge of its watery wave. As Stuart Firestein (2012) reminds us, The " nippy " black cat we seek-- i . e., truth--is,  Not there, next moment! Like it or not,  We are desperately inclined to seek it, As this feline blue eye is watching us.   ao

　　As in the words of Baars' (1997) expression that both Newton and Darwin made great leaps which had led to the new understandings , respectively,  of planetary motion and of primate evolution,   the methodological key to open the newly figured worlds is always a variable; how we will see and set one by regarding once assumed constant as "a variable" to observe.       For example, as we have already known, Darwin's question started from the belief that the shown difference between man and the higher animals (apes) were a matter only of degree, not of kind. In this respect, he was a true behaviorist in that he observed that the occurrence of similar patterns of behavior in different species was evidence of mental faculties of them. Understandably, he spent thus dark days of oppression from people in those days. Being as behaviorist must be also difficult in his time.  ao

   Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) said that organizational knowledge creation is a distinctive trait of Japanese management. In their view of making tacit knowledge explicit, they present three implications: 1) a whole different view of the organization itself as a living organismic metaphor, 2) on-going re-creational process of personal and organizational self renewal, 3) a grasp of the importance of the Japanese view by "unlearning" the old Western view. Three keys :  ・ Figurative language and symbolism  ・ Sharing; from the personal to the organizational  ・ Ambiguity and redundancy    This apparently is a perspective of complexity theory applied to the organizational, social management. However, it is practically an ideal merger of the individual view of and the collective view of human brain for us who has been imprinted individualism at school to break through with. This is why, therefore,   their ideas also have to date been able to permeate to the Western people&#

"No rule can be derived from the contingencies... We need a separate term only to describe the deriving of a rule from the contingencies." B. F. Skinner (1974), pp. 148-49     Among the era of dubious mentalism and chaotic postmodernism, when it comes to engaging in rules and contingencies, we tend to be the extremes: i.e., deductive, or inductive, hardly giving any thought to abduction, the third, long-forgotten recourse for us to have for the issue of rules and contingencies.      　According to Skinner, the heart of induction is; First there was contingencies (=chance), then when human learned to reason or infer, rules were derived from the contingencies. What he obviously says above is that rules cannot emerge by itself. It means that we use our inferences to describe what seems regularly to happen in nature. This is pure principle of science.    Further, Skinner also says, "The extraction of rules was evidently a secondary stage" (p. 150). The initial stag

What is validity? J. P. Gee says in his book that validity is never "once and for all." Although he refers this to the validity of "qualitative research," I agree to this view rather in the point that it would be quintessential in an entire scientific methodology. Science is an enterprise of human society. People need to assent to a proposal to collaborate in their own community or society. If so, academism is by no means an exception of this, whether quantitatively (number) or qualitatively (language). All forms of validity count on a collective, variable, and contextual approbation. This is why science is controversial. But this is how it proceeds anyway. Whatever validity may be, it is social.    ao

E. M. Foster once said; "Death destroys a man: the idea of Death saves him." -Howards End What does this riddling quote of his mean to us Who most probably lives with fears of death? Life is mortal--yes! So the Death only talks within life. Well, the guy never wanders, all right... Why? Then,  Should people often afraid of death? Probably a necessary step for us Is to deem it to redeem our Life. This view appears religious or mentalistic , Yet scientifically presumable, We live by not only thinking, But also just moving ourselves to behave. An anthem for our action! This is arguably what the Death cannot. Since we cannot move after our death. The science of our behavior, thus, became A very important psychological challenge. For making a connection Between the mentalistic and behavior.  Connect, To connect... ao