#theoretics

Yes, many people find mathematics easier to understand qualitatively (conceptually) rather than just quantitatively (computationally). This approach focuses on grasping underlying principles, patterns, and properties, which often leads to a deeper, more intuitive understanding.

Why Qualitative Understanding is Preferred:

Intuition First: Many learners prefer to understand the "why" or the conceptual framework (e.g., visualizing a vector on a unit circle) before memorizing formulas, which makes the mathematics easier to recall and apply.

Contextualization: It helps in understanding the relationships between concepts, such as recognizing that multiplication is repeated addition or that calculus describes rates of change.

Overcoming Calculation Fatigue: Some students struggle with the heavy computation in subjects like statistics or calculus, but excel when focusing on the abstract, logical, or structural side of math.

Long-Term Retention: A focus on the "big picture" and the logical reasoning behind algorithms rather than just rote memorization often leads to better long-term mastery.

Key Findings:

Mathematical Thinking: Qualitative reasoning enhances mathematical ability by allowing individuals to detect patterns and make inferences based on properties rather than just numbers.

Not Just for Geniuses: A qualitative approach can make math more accessible to a wider range of people, as it focuses on structural understanding rather than just speed or rote computation.

Developmental Shift: As individuals get older, they may find it easier to grasp the purpose and connections in math, moving away from purely numerical manipulation to a more holistic, conceptual, or "qualitative" view.

Would you like to explore how to apply this qualitative approach to a specific topic like calculus or algebra?

Lets break this crazy statement down...

The only difference really is that physics is testable and factual and philosophy is only theoretical and can be falsifiable. Generally the only difference is that one form of theoretics is fact and the other can be said to be fiction. Your favourite writers are philosophers. Your favourite artists are philosophers. But they can also manifest that of which they put concepts to. Can they also then be considered a theoretical physicist? In short, yes, because they can produce results of their own theories as they’re the ones that have created them. It doesn’t matter whether the theory can be examinable before the theory was proposed or after it. This then would make that creativity can be also a form of physics. I concur because I like to use the term “creative theorist”, and I also like to refer to myself as one as that is what I do whether it be for a profession or not. I fashion theories based on various forms of knowledge or information I find or come up with myself and then I express them. I put them out there as a hypothesis only.

I dunno, I wanted to give the material I posted here the best possible presentation, because I think it’s important. I think the show is so much better when you’re aware of the layers, and I think the messages contained in those layers are so powerful. Also, I feel pretty isolated, because ever since I thought I figured out the show’s allusions and then started trying to talk to other fans about them, the reactions I’ve gotten much of the time have made me feel like I’ve been watching a different show than everybody else. I was able to attend RTX 2017, which was my first convention ever, and I was really moved by how the show had brought so many people together... but I was really down that it hadn't worked that way for me, yet. Perhaps selfishly, at this point one of my greatest motivations for talking about my interpretation of the show is that I just want other people to see what I see so that I don't feel like I'm watching the show alone.

One thing I want to make clear is that it has never been and never will be my goal to tell people they're watching RWBY wrong. RWBY is a fantastic show on many levels and it's perfectly fine to enjoy it just for the fashion or the ships or the kung fu or the fantasy setting or just sitting back and letting the ups and downs of the plot roll over you. I'm never going to say that if you're not into literature and storycraft then you don't have a right to be a RWBY fan and declare your love for the show or participate in the fandom.

I will say, though, that if you're going to purport to seriously criticize the show, I think you should meet it in the middle and at least try to understand what the show is about on its own level. I'm not saying you have an obligation to like it- but it's not fair to dismiss the idea of the show being heavily influenced by its allusions as being stupid for no better reason than not wanting the literary baggage. I'm not saying this invalidates anyone's subjective experience of watching the show- I'm just saying it makes the serious criticism not seem very serious.

THE DEATH NOTE AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE SIGN

The death note acts as a good example for what a sign is.

The death note would be seen as follows:   

Death note is the SR and the image of the death note is the SD 

Through Light Yagami’s perspective the SD is the death note itself, while the SR may be seen as “cleansing tool”. Because Light uses the death note as a means to “purify the world,” he attatches this particular meaning to the book when he sees/uses it.

From the perspective of the Shinigami Ryuk, the SD would be the same, though the SR may be seen as “extension of life,” because when Ryuk uses the death note, it is merely to kill off a human life (earlier than their intended death) in order to replace the extra years the human should have lived, as an extension to his own. This may be in place for all Shinigami, because they all use the death note for the same purpose.

Universals, and Particulars

The Roots to Literary Theory

-A universal is something that applies to all humans. It is a concept, or notion that we all share because we are human, and it is something we are all born with. 

-It is what seperates us from being considered animals, but we as people, have no choice in this. There is a relative acceptence of not having change (I.e. history proves this)

-There is also an aspect of uniqueness to this, in the sense that it is something ‘special’ of its kind. 

-However, there are differences because what’s to happen if you don’t fit inside the universal?

-Certain theorists, such as Barthes for example, does not like the idea of universals, whereas Arnold believes they should be embraced.

-A particular is the unique. It is not shared by all humans, and its’ contingence relies on the enviornment at hand. 

-It is frequently used in cultural arguements, as well as individuality and prompt for change arguements (is the particular worthy of being deemed valuable? Why do they matter?) 

-It may be too specific, however, in the sense that the common, or community bond, now becomes unimportant.