All for the public record.
TL;DR - a successful second cycle, with prospects of deeper, more holistic systematization of cognitive efforts.
Greater promise of interdisciplinary integration of information, provided more active forms of learning can be adopted.
Cycles may be differentiated into programs - such as the generic 21-topic/day program, or a more specific 7-topic/day program that focuses on topics within a discipline rather than topics across disciplines - and these programs may be wired into a higher-order linear curriculum in the manner of a psychic algorithm.
Much of the success seems due to an exploitation of my own psychology, namely the compulsion to keep up streaks and meet quotas, provided these quotas represent something fulfilling. In this case they represent/capture psychic advancement, with some optimizable degree of robustness.
CYCLE 2 REFLECTION
8/9
A palpable step forward in terms of the mental organization of the wide array of information being ingested and digested. Before Cycle 1, there was less consistency and reliability in terms of keeping these numerous fronts active, so having them active in a staggered out this way has been helpful in preventing the atrophy of knowledge.
In Cycle 2, the addition of terms/vocabulary by topic seem promising, again in the interest of keeping otherwise siloed/stagnant information active and dynamically involved in the holistic process. Compiling a list of technical terms to be periodically revisited seems to be a useful method.
Now I am also thinking about transforming the paradigm into an even more robust format, by integrated more of an active education to complement the relatively passive method of lecture viewing. Active learning would include reading, module completion, coding, and various other applications of the information acquired from the passive learning.
Beyond that, I am considering reformatting the daily topics into projects, each day having some active project pertaining to its topic. There may be projects that involve multiple topics, which would occasion operational/applied interdisciplinary thought.
I am also considering the creation of various 1-week, 2-week, 3-week programs that can be sequentially ordered and wired into a larger serial development. For example, in addition to the generic 21-topic/day program, there may be a 7-topic/day program that is focused on topics within computer science. There may be an expanded, more granular 7-topic/day program nested within a topic included in the generic program. Moreover, the 21-topic/day program may be divided into thirds, separated by more niche programs that seek to expand an expertise within a particular topic.
Additionally, this scheduling format has proven to be a catalyst for other systematic lifestyle changes, such as the routine consumption of reportedly healthy volumes of water per day, increasingly routine exercise, and maybe more yet to come. Who knows? Maybe I’ll be able to integrate the procurement of funds into this schedule. Perhaps that will have something to do with the applied learning of the topic of computer science.
The average time spent on passive learning was slightly over 2 hours per day, over the course of the three-week cycle. This strikes me as insufficient, even taking into account the unquantified time spent reading/learning about these topics outside of the lectures.
I feel like my interest in these topics is generally thriving, but perhaps needs to be aroused even more. One potential solution to this, which would also bring about other ostensibly positive consequences, is the integration of dedicated meditation sessions into the schedule. My approach regarding mediation thus far is one I stand by, namely that equanimity should be sustainable through and during cognitive activity, rather than affordable only in its absence. That said, such an approach may still be upheld in addition to the adoption of dedicated meditation sessions. I doubt the introduction of dedicated spans of equanimity will come at the cost of a sustained, baseline equanimity - in fact I expect the contrary, that the former will further enable the latter.
