Coberst is merely waffling on the theme that "perception" is active not passive. This is a one line issue in Psychology 101.
On this question, here's coberst's supercilious reply to one witty complainant about his obsessive quotations on multiple forums.
Learning is best done by studying the thoughts of the best thinkers. Exchanging vacuous opinions with chums is entertaining but unenlightening. Opinions are a dime a dozen, almost everyone has an opinion about almost everything. I do not waste my time with opinions. I make judgments after studying the works of the best minds. To do so one must learn how to be a critical reader and a Critical Thinker.
The irony is that coberst never responds to criticism of his "best minds" and appears to be unaware of their original sources. His claim to be a "critical reader" is transparently false. His
amateur "SGCS" mindset (in which he significantly
fails to criticise the last "S" for "science") sucks in
any material which can be actively fed on as "relevant", and this reinforces his self ascribed "authority" to give "dire warnings" about our diversions away from "mother nature". He has not realized that this angle is a possible parody of the rationality his own relinquishment of a career in technology.
