Platt --
Hey Ham,
All your points are well taken, as usual. The reason I posted the link
is I saw it related to what Pirsig had written in Lila and because it
suggested something important, at least to me. It reminded me how
narrow my attention normally is, focusing on whatever occupies my
interest at the time and generally unaware of what's going on around
me. But it's good to stop from time to time to pause and "smell the
flowers" as the old saying goes. Now I'm more aware of birds in the
back yard singing their little hearts out, one of nature's many gifts
I too often ignore.
No problem, Platt (as they say in Modpolite).
I like to smell the flowers, too, although my meditation ain't up to snuff
these days.
Thanks for pointing me to this article, and for your thoughful response to
my comments.
Essentially yours,
Ham
Those who have read and understand the MOQ realize that science
is often a lagging indicator. Take for example an article in the Boston
Globe entitled "Inside the baby mind." Among the points it makes:
Babies are more aware, more conscious of the world than adults.
Baby brains can take in a much wider spectrum of sensation.
They are more aware than we are.
Babies are able to assimilate vast amounts of information with ease.
Children are much better than adults to pick up on all the
extraneous stuff going on.
Baby brain comes with another advantage: utter absorption
in the moment.
In some situations it might be better for adults to regress to
a newborn state of mind.
When we need to create something completely new,
thinking like a baby is our best option. ...
Thanks for the link, Platt. I read this article because I'm interested in
child development. It would appear to be a review of a book by
psychologist
Alison Gopnik, as most of the scientific information is credited to her.
While the points you cite are interesting from a philosophical
perspective,
some of the conclusions need to be confirmed by neurophysiologists before
they're accepted as factual. For example, isn't it a bit naive to suggest
that "babies are more aware, more conscious of the world than adults" when
babies don't yet know what the world is?
Hyperawareness may allow infants to "assimilate more information [from] a
wider spectrum of sensation," but thinking is the process of integrating
information which requires "intellectual reasoning" and a narrow attention
focus, neither of which is an infant capability. I suspect that Gopnik
herself would have problems with the reviewer's assertion that "the
infants'
inability to focus their attention" is a "crucial asset in the learning
process." And while "a walk with a 2-year-old" may demonstrate that the
child is "seeing things you don't even notice", this is no evidence that
the
child is learning or comprehending from the experience. Also, "utter
absorption in the moment" may be an advantage in Zen meditation (the book
title is "The Philosophical Baby"), but would certainly not be an asset
when, say, crossing a busy street.
Not to be critical, but book endorsements by philosophy journalists are
not
the best source for valid scientific information. Admittedly, getting
inside a baby's mind is asking a lot of empirical science, and
investigative research has undoubtedly lagged behind in this area. But
jumping to the conclusion that "thinking like a baby is our best option
...whether sorting irrelevant information or creating something new," is
hardly what I would expect from a scientist.
All told, it's probably a good thing that you ended your post with a
Pirsig
quote on this subject:
"From the baby's point of view, something, he knows not what,
compels attention. This generalized 'something',' Whitehead's
'dim apprehension,' is Dynamic Quality."
Best regards,
Ham
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
