5 ms·
I fully share the feeling that they were describing of Kubrick where he couldn't "see" things described verbally. For instance I have the hardest time picturing
by hawktheslayer 8y ago
I fully share the feeling that they were describing of Kubrick where he couldn't "see" things described verbally. For instance I have the hardest time picturing a word spelled out loud to me.
Also, a recent discussion here on Kubrick and Clarke: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16781142 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16781142
- DavidVoid 8y agoYou'll probably enjoy this video with Richard Feynman about how different people think differently even for something as basic as counting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj4y0EUlU-Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj4y0EUlU-Y
- hawktheslayer 8y agoThanks DavidVoid for sharing the Feynman links, I did enjoy it. He had such a neat way of thinking about and experimenting with concepts that happen almost invisibly behind the scenes.
- telotortium 8y agoThat description reminded me of aphantasia (famous post about it: https://www.facebook.com/notes/blake-ross/aphantasia-how-it-feels-to-be-blind-in-your-mind/10156834777480504/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/blake-ross/aphantasia-how-it-...). Or, Kubrick may have just had a real grasp of the limits of human working memory, especially given the complexity of many of his films.
- hawktheslayer 8y agoWow I started reading it and it rings true enough that honestly I don't want to think about it too much and I stopped reading. Maybe we are on a spectrum and I and towards that end but not completely without the ability to have fantasies. It reminds me of thinking about either (a) what happens when I die and simply cease to exist or equally terrifying (b) eternity is real and I go on living forever. These are just not fun places for me to go in my thoughts.