Im new to this board, and as its my first time I feel an introduction is in order (I am at the tail end of a two/three week research process for a psych paper, which was actually due two/three weeks ago, but I couldn't help myself. I have made alot of progress with my personal theory, because of this one paper and the timing in my life contextually.) In any case I will only post ONE of my notes to myself, despite my urge to regurgitate everything out all at once. The bottom line is I am going to (try to) keep this short (its a long note, about a half page but relevant to the question). Anywho, first things first: a quick intro (this is straight off one of my index cards, and also relates to my current theory; so it really serves as a dual-intro) - This all began with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Robert M. Pirsig and his Metaphysics of Quality began my first epiphanies and changed my life. It started the seed which began crystallization (I love that metaphor of his, I encountered the term while reading about Baddeley's Working Memory model which separated the processes into 'crystallized' and 'fluid'; coincidences like that amaze me, even though Im pretty sure they are illusions, it depends on how you look at it). My global knowledge structure began taking shape, continued right up through insight/The Eureka! Effect (Jung, Beeman), coming across the 'lateralization of hemispherical function' (which I believe relates to this, but Im still working on it), into (school and) philosophy and everything I learned how to question, up through psychology and cognitive science, all the little things in philosophy and psych that (I found) agreed with me, such as Geiger and the 'third man effect' & 'bicameralism' (I was absolutely blown away the other day when I read the other letter on moq.org to Paul Turner and he mentioned Jaynes' book; needless to say the year long gap and sudden reaquaintance with my past theoretical origins was shocking), and now Gazzaniga, his split-brain work and cognitive neuropsychology (see also, The Master and his Emissary; similar to G's 'left-brain interpreter' which Pirsig had mentioned in the first letter to Bodvar, the connections are truly endless; but then again its not surprising I followed this path so far), as I grow and develop my ideas the hits just keep on coming as I tweak my metatheory I hope that wasnt too painful, I had to get that out .... heres one of my notes about subject/object ....."The whole of reality, as well as the infinite many possibilities of which it is composed, like a quality piece of music, art, or even a beautiful math theorem/equation, gives rise in humanity to a universally specific perception for every particular sensation. Experiencing stimuli through the senses is a subjective phenomenon on which depends any and all objective knowledge and truth, which seems, in effect, to diminish its validity. This is false because of the majority, consensus, or 'common sense' which, when a universal aspect of perception is arrived at by humanity, is itself subjective proof of an objective reality to concepts, and the system therefore 'becomes weightless' (as Baudrillard puts it anyway). Our intuition is based on our sensations; logic creates, through its interaction with our base-most unconscious intuitive processing, all our truth, knowledge, facts and theories/hypotheses, etc......" -so there it is, also it is interesting to note that the paper which has kept me awake for weeks has everything to do with chasing what Pirsig mentioned about lateralization; I considered it a great lead, and it has been. Im lucky Im in school doing something I love, because otherwise this process would be exhausting instead of invigorating .... and I wouldn't have found this either!
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:37 PM, david <[email protected]> wrote: > > David Morey asked: > > Look at how complex this looks for Zizek, I like James, but does he > resolve all these issues? > > > > dmb says: > > I think Zizek is the kind of thinker that makes pragmatists shudder. It's > Hegel topped with Marxism and post Freudian psychoanalysis, which means > it's one big stack of metaphysical speculations and untestable theories. I > think James would file it under "vicious abstractionism". If Chomsky is > right, Zizek is a clown and a charlatan but it would be antithetical to > pragmatism even if Chomsky was wrong about that. > > > > > David Morey asked: > > A world of pure experience? So take one of those movies where we count how > many basketball passes are made but fail to observe the gorilla in the > background until we watch a rerun of the video and someone suggests we look > out for the gorilla this time. How would James describe this and would he > avoid suggesting any epistemic gaps? > > > > dmb says: > > That's just a case of misdirection, I think. It shows that some parts of > experience are on the fringe awareness and go unnoticed. As Pirsig painted > it, our world is just a handful of sand taken from an endless landscape of > awareness. James also insisted that something is always left unverbalized > and unnoticed. It's related to and consistent with the philosophical > mystics who say reality is outside of language. We can't put the whole > dresser into one of its own tiny drawers. > > > > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
