One might also be inclined to see something like "I mag I nation" as a form of awakened imagination. Whether YOU would want to see it used more in the world then, I'd dare to question.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > Do you think it too far off the mark to understand the mind's eye as > imag-in-ation? the notion of the "awakened imagination" takes us from > a functional fantasy to a mystical truth. Whether considered a sense > or an organ, I would like to see it used more in the world. > > On Oct 13, 8:12 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >
