Cut off from the Mind; Writing in Due Time (Analysis of RLW Blogpost #2)

The mind is a tricky thing; it is also a powerful instrument. Now, why should this be of concern to society? I automatically assumed it was due to the fact that all of mankind has one; but when John T. Furey and VIncent J. Fortunato address the Theory of MindTime: The relationships between thinking perspective and time perspective, that answer is not properly addressed. The interesting fact of the matter is that this scholarly article with an intriguing title which spends so much time using the tool of reasoning and analysis without stating what sparked the writer to begin addressing this topic in a way that connects with the reader. Theoretical topics are hard to create direct relevance towards, because without proper evidence proving that theory exists, it is non existent to the public eye and more of a series of theoretical terms that are hard to grasp. In most circumstances, a scholarly article is picked a part by it’s peers or “peer reviewed”, and in this case that is evident in the structure of which it was “built” upon. The writer seems to have overlooked the audience’s capabilities and understood it’s main goal was to subject the reader to learning more about their particular study with facts and statistics than connecting with the reader overall.

The author’s intended purpose was to prove his theory that the mind is interconnected with time in “Past, Present, and Future” aspects of thinking. That sentence alone intrigued me enough to keep reading. However, the following information wasn’t so easy to understand, yet the material wasn’t so much what I was focused on for once. In order to see the purpose behind what was in front of me, I had to see the outline in the techniques of the way this article was being written.  Author’s Furey and Fortunato showed me that even historical evidence is valid in the present and can be impactful towards the future. The main focus or “meat” of this article was the evidence that was presented throughout the study to greater prove Furey’s theory. Essentially everything is just a theory until proven otherwise with the proper evidence to back it up. Interestingly enough, Furey’s style of writing was filled with evidence for that same purpose- to prove his point. Writing is a series of constant “decisions”. (Bunn)  This made me see that in writing, the choices that are the least meticulous usually end up being the most creative, while the choices that are the most meticulous, end up being the most credible.

In all honesty in writing this post, the site crashed and I ended up having to rewrite it. And instead of trying to re-iterate what I once wrote, I reflected my “past” but ultimately came to the conclusion that a big part of writing is re-writing. To me, just in having to rewrite this simple post, it brought me a greater appreciation towards the process of writing in how to accept the past in order to embrace the present and move forward towards the future. This awareness in itself of perseverance and acceptance is what connects the relationship of how to read like a writer.

Works Cited

Bunn, Mike. “How to Read Like a Writer.” Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing. Ed. Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky. Vol. 1. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor P, 2010. 71-86. Writing Spaces. Web. 2 Feb. 2016.

Fortunato, Vincent J., and John T. Furey. “The Theory of MindTime: The Relationship between Thinking Perspective and Time Perspective.” The Theory of MindTime: The Relationship between Thinking Perspective and Time Perspective. Science Direct, Mar. 2010. Web. 08. Feb. 2016