Arctic Light

I'm aphantasic - I do not and cannot create pictures in my mind's eye. My mind does not have an eye. But there have been just a few times very recently where in the first moments upon waking in the morning, there's an image in my mind and I feel like I can SEE it. Like, see it see it! As if I were looking at it with my eyes! It always vanishes within a few moments, but my god, is that a glimpse into what it's like to NOT be aphantasic??

Now, though, I'm wondering which of several things is true:

1. Am I weirdly suddenly able to access a tiny amount of picturing things, out of nowhere?

Or

2. Is the dreamy confusion of waking up making me *feel* like I'm picturing things but not *actually* picturing things? It lasts so briefly that I actually can't be sure!

Or

3. Have I always genuinely able to picture things in my sleep, but not awake, but because I only conscsiously experience dreams through the medium of remembering them, I've never been able to tell that - and a change in recent sleeping habits means I have been holding on to a snatch of a dream just long enough to get the sense of it with my waking mind?

Or something else????

Anyway these brief snatches of mind-pictures have been a baffling thing to experience, as something I've never previously been able to do in my life ever, and all of a sudden I'm a little more of a true believer that other people DO do this thing all the time!

It always seemed so fake to me before. So made up. How could a person PICTURE things?! That's just a metaphor, surely! We're using words about images to describe the experience of thinking about a thing, because the actual experience of thinking is so unlike anything in the physical world that there are no words to describe it! Right? Right????

I guess for lots of people, they literally are creating pictures in their head with their brains, all the time.

WILD.

Now I really wish I had a better way to explain what my experience of thinking is like, tbh. Because all I have is metaphor, to translate it into words! But those metaphors are apparently concrete factual experiences to other people, so I won't be successfully communicating!

This is similar to my experience with words, btw. I *can* think in words, more than I can with pictures, but that's me deliberately creating the words and sentences. I'm translating my thoughts into words with conscious effort.

My thoughts aren't words. My thoughts aren't pictures. My thoughts are thoughts!

How are so many people's thoughts NOT just thoughts!

one

thinking about how as a kid I found zoos super boring - and I think my problem was that, at least at that time, the expected mode of engagement with zoos was to stare at animals and be amazed at how interesting/cute/different they look?

for me, learning context is what makes an animal compelling! eg: I did a project on temperate rainforests in grade 6, and learned about banana slugs as part of the ecosystem. and subsequently loved them, even though I hadn't cared about slugs previously! if I'd been shown a real live banana slug after having done that project, I would have been fascinated to just watch it, because I would understand what I was seeing, and know what to look for in its behaviour and appearance to connect with the things I knew about it!

if the zoos I visited in my youth had done more to contextualise my understanding of what I was seeing, I think I could have had a good time. but instead I was presented with a few fun facts and the opportunity to see the animals, the end. and so I found them the height of boredom.

fun facts are useless to me! WHY are they fun! what makes this fact relevant! what caused things to be this way!!

(I had a similar problem with most museums. except dinosaur museums, to which I came with my own contextual knowledge, and thus could appreciate and enjoy the things on display, even when the display didn't provide much information itself)


two

oh!!! there's a plugin for joplin that allows android app users to see wordcount! and also to see line numbers, to make it easier to orient yourself within a long note! I love this


three

several podcasts I follow do reviews of older SFF novels (either occasionally or as their whole thing), and it has me thinking again about a type of story I think used to be more common in western genre fiction, and it's one I rather miss.

The type I mean: a narrative which is checking in on a specific place or people-group at different points in its long-term history, where the overarching narrative project is on a scale of eras while telling smaller personal stories within that history.

Sometimes it's done within the context of a single book, like in A Canticle for Leibowitz. Sometimes it's between books over the length of a series, like in the Dragonriders of Pern series¹. Either way, you get to see the cycles of history, the way that things which seem urgent and current at one point become historicised and mythologised, and become the ancient context for the new urgent current events, whether the people involved realise it or not. I love this shit! I love context. I love seeing how things connect. I love how the very notion of history becomes one of the major characters in the narrative!

From what I see, the modern western sff genre has become more interested in more immediate stories. Which have their benefits too, and which are really wonderful in their own way! And there's plenty about these older stories that I do not miss at all.

Maybe there are authors out there writing era-spanning sff today, and I just haven't come across them because there are other aspects of what those authors focus on that are super not to my tastes, or because the book is a small indie publishing situation that doesn't have good word-of-mouth, or something else like that....these are definitely possible! But I do miss getting invested in this kind of story. It's fun!

¹I won't say that all the books I once loved that do this thing were GOOD books


four

the names people choose - for themselves, their kids, their pets - is soooo interesting to me! but especially kids' names, tbh.

modern western culture places so much emphasis on the importance of the choice you make about your baby's name (compared to, say, the late middle ages, when half of all people in england were named one of the same few names) and since there's so much cultural weight on the choice, and it is by its nature a very public choice, you can tell a lot from the decisions people make!

what were their priorities, their influences, their values? what kind of naming community are they in, and how much does it fall in line with the rest of their country? so many factors go into each choice!

every time someone I know has a new kid, I'm always SO eager to find out the name...and then, if possible, get the story behind why they chose it! It's always so interesting!


five

recently I was out birding with some folks who have never been birding before, and one of them commented that they were delighted to discover from me that an important part of birding is complimenting every bird you see

and it's TRUE. it is an important part of birding! telling the birds what a great job they're doing, how cute/handsome/gorgeous they are, etc is something I am ALWAYS doing. instinctively and automatically. and I am so pleased to be modelling this attitude to others! :D