Writing and Drawing Letters

Some people with beautiful handwriting are not particularly talented at drawing. There is probably a correlation between handwriting and drawing ability – after all, both use the same mechanical apparatus between brain and paper, so people with e.g. poor muscle control will suffer in both uses of those muscles. But it’s possible to separate the two, to have the physical ability to move a pencil precisely, but to only have developed the ability to write well, and not to draw well. If someone only practices writing and not drawing, they will learn to precisely recreate the same 26 shapes without learning how to make an arbitrary image.

Perhaps more surprisingly, it’s possible draw well but still have sloppy, illegible handwriting. That’s surprising because most schools spend so much more time on writing than drawing. But I think this disparity is not due to spending more time practicing drawing than writing, but to a difference in how these individuals’ brains process the actions of drawing and writing.

Though they are superficially similar, for the average person writing and drawing are different activities. The mental experience of writing is more akin to speaking, with arbitrary motions learned by rote and reproduced automatically as we think about the words we intend to write. By contrast, drawing is free-form, producing novel and arbitrary shapes, and our mind is focused on the lines we are laying down, and on the image we are trying to capture with them. For most people, writing is not drawing letters, but speaking in ink.

However, for some people with poor handwriting, I think this distinction may be weakened or absent; rather than repeating a rote process, each letter is created anew to draw the word on the page. Their handwriting will be inconsistent, mis-proportioned, will fail to stay on the line, etc. Their handwriting may be described as “childlike”, and that seems to fit: because they are still learning to shape the letters and coordinate the muscles, their writing process similarly resembles drawing. But for some individuals the distinction never develops, and they continue to draw letters. Additional practice will improve muscle coordination, and as with all drawing practice the writing may become more precise, but it will never reach the automaticity of normal, rote handwriting.

If this is so, we should expect to see a subset of people with bad handwriting who are very inconsistent in the way they form their letters, e.g. not having a fixed order of producing the lines that compose a letter, or changing the purpose of a line after it has been drawn. Because drawing letters is less wrote, it is less prescribed, and the same letter can be produced in multiple ways and often is (people with good handwriting may do this too, but I would predict that where they do it is rule-bound, e.g. a letter is drawn differently depending on the preceding letter, but always drawn the same way under the same conditions).

A new version will be attempted for the topic appears as a fairly simple ‘assignment’ however as the thoughtfull ness of that progression to higher order associations of sounds to signs to words broke down without keeping to the objective goal of that communication it could entail, that is , to parallel an intensive goal of attaining a comprehensive objectivity where to the elements of that comprehension could be understood in an upward progression from sound bites through assigned letters forming words, sentences, phrases and finally, comprehensive narratives.

The breakdown from the flux of communicating such signs of comprehension may resolve primarily from two divergent sources, one from style representations of representing all parts that constitute a comprehension,

and the other ,using the closest desired signs which could conceivably arrive to the best approximated objective’s meaning that is desired .

How these two ways of organizing, putting on paper are considered separately, may, or should not result in an appearance of the written product as a compensation of one elemental deficiency that in some way, enhances the other’s superior presentation.

Carleas , this is a sample of a best effort to describe an unedited rough draft, but the fact that dealing with autistic issues, confirming the tie in with evolving simultenuity with hidden dimensions that have pronounced effects on intelligence, have had pretty established patterns of holding in an incontrovertible process that ‘specialness has had the misfortune of being associated with.

That there absolutely no going back in this project , literally and or figuratively leads to the belief that special art may have gone post modern for a reason that hasn’t no possible explanation for, and the defensive stance of ‘intellectualizatiin’ has worn dull long time ago, laying bare the idea of letting it be and working through it without the fear that a whole philosophical site will suffer painful re-views on accord of decreased comprehension of how facts and ideas are associated with critically iffy ness.

Plan to work it by working through it and abstaining from over the top conclusions, if it’s ok that is to do so.

The fact of holding ground and not fleeing in a state of confusion has been indicated so much that the poor dog may already be dead

Lastly, a philosopher, as sloppy as this, thanks for your insight as to whom it was intended, but then philosophy has been given too large a liscence , some charge.

So in a sense, it is what is, and the genre beats th horse much to the growing impatient of those ready to finish it off, if it’s still alive.

I add a one liner here, this above will duly be edited, it’s shamefully against the spirit if the thing.

Again needs rewrite