The sulking and genocide may be more of a lack of shared feeling. Or a triumph in squashing anything good by separating what is unified. We manipulate in separation, keeping those feelings to ourselves as we revel in our solitary victories.
On Dec 4, 12:01 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, I sense Gabby sulking or skulking in a corner on this Molly, but > at least he might still be there to hold my hand after my fingers get > burned. I think you'd be surprised at the extent I agree, in a sense > from the reverse case of the rotten way people deal with each other. > I often wonder why some pack animals give up reproductive rights to an > alpha pair - I mean in the sense of the 'mechanisms of control'. > Human beings rarely seem to want to make their own decisions yet often > feign 'being free and individual' just as they are blatant followers > of fashion and so on. This is not quite the track Molly is on, yet > why would we ever want to know more of our selves? A love- > manipulation-evolutionary complexity is as much as I'd admit to. > These social mechanisms are also what turn us to genocide. > > Scotland vaunts its education system as much better than England's > Gabby. It probably is, but clearly falls short. I often wonder (I > should be getting out more) why there is all this focus on literacy > and numbers, especially on the insistence of beating it into those who > can't do any of it. We are not honest about our child-minding > institutions and always seem to say the purpose of schools and > universities is education, when this is only a by-product of the > control and boredom. A good 70% of any class I've taught in > universities across the world would be inadequately literate and > poorly numerate. And we can hardly describe the pisswitter academics > write as literate or numerate either. Thank you for the link telling > me of my countrymen's inadequacies. Perhaps I know now why I left 50 > years ago? > > On 4 Dec, 15:58, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What a wonderful visual allusion to the ways we are all connected, > > Neil. I could feel it as you described it. Perhaps the reason these > > connections are not yet science is simply that we currently have no > > way of measuring them. I think that eventually, science will catch up > > to what we feel to be true in spirit. At that point, the controlling, > > (or biblical burnt offering) or face in the window will dissolve, as > > the window shatters. The fellowship will become the offering, and no > > matter what we know (although sharing what we know can be lovely) we > > will know that the love we share is the real fellowship. Which is why > > you can never win an argument with me - the window (argument) > > eventually shatters, and we are left with the love we share in > > fellowship, I see it in your face and you see it in mine. We don't > > have to actually be looking at each others faces, because our words > > lead us to our original faces, shared in love. > > > On Dec 4, 2:56 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I've seen massive advances since I was a scalpel dissector many years > > > ago. I'm more inclined to the neuroscience than I was back then > > > because we seem to have become more 'intimate' with the scale. I > > > agree with Molly on the imagination in all this, partly because it's > > > all most of us have to play with, but this can now be informed by > > > scientific results. > > > > In the past decade, the neuroscience of social behaviour has > > > blossomed. A major catalyst for this has been the discovery of what > > > seems to be a physiological mechanism for social interaction, located > > > in the brain's "mirror neurons". These have been seen to fire not only > > > as a monkey, say, grabs a peanut, but also when the monkey sees an > > > experimenter do the same thing. Imaging experiments in humans have > > > similarly revealed parts of our brains becoming active when we see > > > someone moving, or even when watching a walker hidden among moving > > > dots. It seems we are not just observers of the social scene but that > > > we automatically share the experiences and emotions of the people we > > > are observing. This is less than half the story. When I see you in > > > pain, I feel your pain and my face automatically expresses this pain. > > > What's more, you can see by my expression that I share your pain, and > > > you are comforted by the knowledge someone else shares your pain. You > > > are responding to my response to you. One of my main ways of > > > interacting with others was music, something lost since injuries years > > > ago. Two or more people performing together in this way are best > > > described as a single, complex system rather than as several systems > > > interacting. Many neuroscientists now believe the same kinds of > > > description should be applied generally to the brain activity that > > > occurs when people interact, because their brains also become a single > > > complex system. > > > > Much of what I've seen amongst social animals suggests there must be > > > very unconscious social activity. This can be both emancipating > > > through fellowship and very controlling. Eventually, sum over history > > > methods tend to cancel a lot out and leave us knowing the face at the > > > window was illusory. Science is only part of what is needed and I > > > remember Feynman saying somewhere that scientists dealing with non- > > > science are just as dumb as everyone else. > > > > On 4 Dec, 05:55, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Consensus reality can be difficult to shake, after all, what would we > > > > talk about? As time goes on, I hold fewer opinions on common > > > > concerns, but am always ready to dive into intimacy. There is a > > > > creative difference there I can put my finger on just now. > > > > > We fill in the gaps in all kinds of ways, including self image, until > > > > it takes complete humility or a long, hard, dark night to shake the > > > > cartoon from the real. What I find eventually, is that it is all just > > > > possibility, every scenario discussed, witnessed or experienced. > > > > Imagination is essential, but it is not always used in an awakened > > > > state, in which case, filling in the blanks is about all we are doing. > > > > > On Dec 3, 4:27 pm, e <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hmm…you should be able to view the whole 50 minute part 2 episode. > > > > > > Now I am not a “brain” guy reducing everything to a neuronal > > > > > scientific materialism but there are a few nuggets in regards to the > > > > > constructed nature of experience. The first is the bit about how > > > > > vision works. How the system has a focal point that centers focus > > > > > around the center and data at the edges falls off. I find this > > > > > analogous to thought. The locus of thought is “I am”. There were also > > > > > a few different blurbs on different areas of the brain controlling or > > > > > effecting the ability to see lines, faces or landscapes i.e. things > > > > > that we see “outside” are constructed and not things-in-themselves. > > > > > The most salient one was this seemingly random pattern of light and > > > > > dark on a page and then they added some outline to show a dog. When > > > > > the outline was then removed, you could still see a dog. I felt this > > > > > showed how the brain reifies objects into existence and “fills in” a > > > > > lot that is not “really” there in our experience of consensus > > > > > dualistic reality. We have been indoctrinated into consensus reality > > > > > and learn pattern recognition and impute solidity and “realness” onto > > > > > experience. In another world, they may con/per-ceive experience in > > > > > totally different ways. > > > > > > On Dec 1, 8:53 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I could only find a way to view a ten minute segment on this, e. > > > > > > Very > > > > > > nice site, Charlie Rose has a fascinating list of guests. What was > > > > > > it > > > > > > that you were interested in about the brain series?- Hide quoted > > > > > > text - > > > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
