I am hearing "Minds Eye", or maybe not. On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> Loads of stugg comes up on googling images related to the term 'Mind's > Eye' - not surprisingly a lot of the stuff has an eye in it. I tend > to run the 'eye' bit out in my pondering on what a mind's eye might > be. Some former science colleagues better at maths than me used to > try and describe 'visualisation' - how they could manipulate images of > geometry involving complex shapes and transformations. I could never > do this and even have trouble working out what happens to, say, door > hinges if you turn the door upside down and round-a-bout. I could > often 'guess' how a complex system of transformations would end up, > but could never 'see the process' as some claimed. This was something > of a handicap in some stochastic work with molecule shape. > > I'm watching an old Oliver film and have no sympathy with Oliver - all > with the other kids and the brilliantly played evil roles. I often > have a lot of difficulty 'seeing' what others are being suckered by in > propaganda directly and instead a form of critique of the stuff > arises. I really dislike, say, Huckleberry Finn being played by the > rich director's all too clean kid. I have a cinematic daydreaming > imagination, but no imaging comes from words when someone says 'table' > - my sister 'sees' gargoyles if you say the word. > > I'm struck there is no 'eye' in mind's eye even though I might as well > be in a cinema when daydreaming. Though one might ask if what I see > 'in cinema' relies on past sight - though again I'm not usually > 'seeing' recalled events. I find the artist's attempts at 'mind's > eye' disappointing. > > I'm unsure how I notice so strongly that "economics" (a subject I > teach with no enthusiasm) is just a 'smell of words' around and > obvious failure in human cooperation always leading to a very small > number amassing riches. It's like a gas keeping he truth-seeker at > bay. We are as far from the double-helix in this as the tribe that > denies paternity through sex, investing it instead in ghosts with the > 'father role' played by maternal uncles. > > It's been my view for many years that argument fails except in very > special circumstances. The Greeks knew this because equally powerful > argument could be adduced for many different views. They invented a > kind of "mind's eye" (see Pyhrronism) in which competing arguments > could be assessed. This is rather too expert for me. I suspect that > what we can't do is strip argument of its propaganda, and suspect > again this is a matter of fear of violence in challenging 'deeply' > held views - and further that these views are ill-considered dross. > One can feel another danger here of the zealot and know-all. In my > mind's eye argument comes with smells, emotions, incredulity, > doubt,probability ... and the coldest, most lying voice of all is the > disinfected smell of the objective voice.
