Static versus Dynamic concepts in microlearning - Another Satire for the Book

Ideas and knowledge can be discussed as having the fundamental aspects or traits of being static or dynamic. The static concepts will have structure or perhaps be less abstract than the particular dynamic ones, which may consist of ideals or even abstract phenomena.

In microlearning, however, do these two facets of knowledge points exist, or do they not exist? This is a good question to ponder, as this is how learning about experience begins. In western culture, the concept of sin is actually a good place to talk about how perspective can be bastardized or even warped to contain false or dynamic traits while maintaining a static form. The very concept of sin is somewhat of an enigma or even an egotistical view that humanity is the center or is even relevant. It brings ego into an otherwise neutral equation and thus isn't true knowledge. Sin is a dynamic concept, it is not static at all.

The sentence, "Godly is okay, but God, well, that's another story" the concept of God is somewhat of an enigma to some people, simply because their mind is clear cut on the concept of what is static and what can shift with time. Ideas are shift-able, knowledge is collective, and the only static thing during micro-learning is that you will very soon forget what you just learned.

However, this article isn't actually an article on religion, abstract ideas, or even experience. It is a social experiment to see how looking at enigmas or dynamic ideas can actually warp the static-ness or dynamic-ness of knowledge. Microlearning is mutable, but a critical part of learning to consider is the forgetfulness of the human conscious mind. To truly utilize memory effectively, micro-learning must draw emotions out of the learner, either happiness or discontent.

Hopefully, you see why I talk about irrelevant topics in this article, in an effort to wake people up from the usual slew of topics on the microlearning articles. It is also an exercise in thinking, and in practicing spaced learning. Assuming you sinfully read to the end of the page, you will never feel a sense of elation at the end of this paragraph. Generalizations are dangerous, and you will be enlightened when the generalizations end and the gravity of what you just learned hits you full force on your mind.

If you didn't learn anything, you clearly have a good eye for what is right and wrong, and I bid you a good day, neighbor. If you did learn something, you clearly learned that right and wrong is irrelevant within the context of this article about learning processes, and should probably unsubscribe. Prophecy is correct no matter how you view my previous two statements. Please leave your apple at the desk, I'll eat it tomorrow.