I think that the idea of perspective is very important in interpretation. I know that an artist who looks at a scene as a whole will produce a re-creation that is completely different than an artist who sees the scene as a set of edges and shades.
I recently read an article that verifies that there is a shift in cultural perspective between multi-lingual subjects when they switch from one language to another. The shift was a fundamental change in behavior or understanding depending on the language they used. That said, I think there's probably a limit on how many different ways you can look at something to produce a different interpretation. On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 8:36 AM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > It may be helpful to think of negative space surrounding a concrete > object(s) as a necessary component. I've taken a couple of studio > drawing classes where drawing negative space was an assignment. I > found it very difficult while my benchmate breezed through it like he > was charmed with magical vision! Including the spokes of a bicycle, no > less! One could consider that talents for the senses and intelligence/ > understanding vary considerably so that some are quite perceptive and > others, not.// Yes- language/definitions can alter the perception/ > understanding of a concrete object as well as the theoreticals (:-))- > but why is that also the case when language presents no barriers? > Here, I feel emotional filters come into play as well as a dull brain > or lack of sensitivity- or a basic understanding of physics and other > scientific explanations. Now, are we thinking of a wooden chair set on > a floor? Pregnancy? Communication hazards? Etc.? It seems to me all > existence is interdependent although we can ignore or block this- or > are forced to do so. > > On May 4, 11:10 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > "All objective things are dependent in some way also. Just in a > > different > > way. .." - CB > > > > Would you mind giving a list of at least a few things that you > > consider to be objective? At the outset I have little doubt that we > > are dealing with an issue of semantics; however we can continue to > > discuss it, no? > > My point is that *anything* that is dependent is by definition > > subjective. > > > > On May 4, 1:06 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > All objective things are dependent in some way also. Just in a > different > > > way. > > > > > I think subjective things are dependent in the way we associate them > with > > > each other. Objective things are more physically dependent. > > > > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 11:46 PM, ornamentalmind > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > To me, what Chuck said about ‘dependence’ is of utmost importance > > > > here. All subjective things are dependent. > > > > > > On May 3, 9:30 pm, the taoist shaman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > PSK if at some point someones conciousness dident tell them not to > be > > > > > selfish then how is it possible that you were ever told not to be > > > > > selfish ? > > > > > > > pol.science kid wrote: > > > > > > selfishness is contrary to collective consciousness true..but > isnt > > > > > > that the most real thing about us..i wonder..i wasnt told that > > > > > > selfishness is bad...would my conscience strike me...keep me in > > > > > > check...because...sometimes...my thoughts...they shock and > repulse > > > > > > me... i loathe myself for having such thoughts..and then i > > > > > > wonder...if that is not me...but it is me...it is hard ...to know > that > > > > > > oyu are what you might condemn in someone else...and so i ask > > > > > > often... > > > > > > > > On May 3, 1:04 pm, the taoist shaman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > PSK selfishness arouses discontent because it is contrary to > > > > > > > collective consciousness , try reading the meditations of > marcus > > > > > > > auralius chapter 2 verse 1 from the harvard classics . > > > > > > > > > gabbydott wrote: > > > > > > > > From a top-down perspective this is correct. But I understood > that > > > > PSK asked > > > > > > > > for individual responses from each of us. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:09 AM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > But you have to admit there are humans who haven't the > chance to > > > > even > > > > > > > > > consider this type of thinking as their lives are miserable > due > > > > to > > > > > > > > > poverty, war, sickness and all other ills. Plus- what does > a > > > > culture > > > > > > > > > celebrate? Wealth? Power? Etc.? You can hardly fault some > for > > > > buying a > > > > > > > > > false self and image if that is what their culture teaches > them, > > > > can > > > > > > > > > you? It takes a brave rebel to contradict society or > challenge > > > > group > > > > > > > > > thought. > > > > > > > > > > > On May 2, 12:20 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If the selfish would truly search their self, they'd > quickly > > > > die out. > > > > > > > > > > Problem is how they don't see themselves but see > themselves in > > > > the others > > > > > > > > > > with the poor others not knowing that they are not taken > for > > > > themselves > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > for someone else. My explanation. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:57 PM, pol.science kid < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the first glance of your reply came a thought to my > mind > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > collective consciousness...rather a question...does the > > > > collective > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness exist independently...what does it mean > > > > exactly...to put > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > crudely is it the realisation that you are not the only > > > > phenomena..but > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > i feel is....it is very difficult to transcend ones own > > > > person...but is > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > important....why do we really get irritated with self > > > > absorbed or self > > > > > > > > > > > seeking people....why do we condemn selfishness..in any > > > > sense...are we > > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > > insecure as to feel deprived because of that ...or is > it > > > > something > > > > > > > > > more.. i > > > > > > > > > > > hope i make sense.. and i hope you get waht i am trying > to > > > > ask...i > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > like all to answer...cos i really want to know.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:36 PM, DarkwaterBlight < > > > > > > > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> This take appeals to my understanding. Perpetually > changing, > > > > evolving > > > > > > > > > > >> and reforming. Input has an outcome and causes an > expanded > > > > "mind > > > > > > > > > > >> space", if you will. Is logic all logical and what is > to be > > > > said about > > > > > > > > > > >> rationalizing the "irrational"? Should my thinking be > > > > correct by the > > > > > > > > > > >> standards of others or to my own? What of "raising the > bar" > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > >> consciousness and of a paradigm shift to a more > correct > > > > thinking of > > > > > > > > > > >> our "collective mind" ? Of all that goes into into > thought > > > > and mind is > > > > > > > > > > >> this not the desired effect? > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Apr 30, 9:23 am, "pol.science kid" < > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > might thought be colored by the mind that engages it > > > > ....what is the > > > > > > > > > > >> realm > > > > > > > > > > >> > of pure thought that you mention here .... is it > logic and > > > > > > > > > > >> > rationalisation...do you mean the method of > employing that > > > > > > > > > > >> thought...because > > > > > > > > > > >> > ....knowing...percieving something for the first > time the > > > > mind will > > > > > > > > > > >> > automatically fall back on the things it thinks it > does > > > > know.... > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Chad Moore < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Knowledge unites, in being or in identity. > Thinking > > > > separates, in > > > > > > > > > > >> > > subject-object relationship. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Knowing has no place in the ordinary thought > process. > > > > Thinking > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > >> > > something > > > > > > > > > > >> > > which has to be known is wrong, since it moves in > a > > > > vicious > > > > > > > > > circle. > > > > > > > > > > >> You > > > > > > > > > > >> > > cannot think > > > > > > > > > > >> > > of anything you have not known. Such thinking can > never > > > > take you > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Truth. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > But when you direct your thought to something (say > > > > yourself) which > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > >> have > > > > > > > > > > >> > > otherwise > > > > > > > > > > >> > > visualized, the thought loses its own > characteristics > > > > and limits, > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > >> > > stands > > > > > > > > > > >> > > revealed as that Self (Consciousness) itself. > Thought is > > > > thus > > > > > > > > > reduced > > > > > > > > > > >> into > > > > > > > > > > >> > > its essence. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > -- > > > > > > > > > > >> > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -
