I wish I did rigsy - something that just looked or listened through the noise and found the signal. I've had the odd feeling in sport - the days when their fast bowling just flies off the middle of the bat and the odd mazy run and immaculate pass in rugby - you feel a coordination as though something central is guiding you - but this is really about the training effort. Most intellectual effort feels more like your head's been banging against walls, the same problems defeating effort to penetrate. I did music to 'grade six'- about A level - with little talent and watch my grandson play the guitar much better than me with no ability to read music. I don't think any of it is really about talent in these senses or even Polanyi's 'tacit knowledge' or dimension.
My own suspicion is the external stimuli are much more complex than we generally pay attention to and are over-simplified. I kind of see "mind's eye" as something that needs to be out there for multiple efforts of interpretation. Instead there are Idols - more or less 'pornography'. One can cut through this as in individual - in science one can then offer explanation to other trained minds - but in the wider sense of peer group (society) one has the added problem of needing (and taking reluctant responsibility) to change much more sensitive positions of others. This work is generally on incompetence and getting people to admit to it (not forgetting one's own and questionable duties to do it). What we have instead is neurosis and paranoid-schizoid positioning I see no introspective 'cure' or 'undiscovered organ'. On Oct 14, 12:11 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes- we don't hear or see with the keen senses of early mankind- they > have dulled. I think radio promoted imagination- there were soaps, > children's programs, comedy, lots of music. Also the nuns used to read > us fiction before bedtime. Some things suffer when made into film or > tv programs if the casting is bad or jars with your own image.//I have > a problem with quantities/volumes- like Goldilocks, it sometimes takes > three times until it is "just right"!//I really liked geometry in > highschool but gave up during algebra- I think it had something to do > with dating and boys- 10th grade- and what was considered "feminine". > But I use math and science in practical ways all the time around home > and like a lot of "male" interests like carpentry, cement work, etc. > though I don't have as much energy but neither did Tolstoy eventually. > > Do you feel you have an inner eye and ear? > > On Oct 13, 10:29 am, 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.
