you know, when I was typing it I was thinking about exactly how it was worded and I came to the same conclusion. What I was trying to say I think was that humans are all so relatively similar that we can count on finding a 'general consensus', as we all have the same kind of senses; and possibly even the same brain structures, such as a specific r/l hemisphere because of 'standing up' and having language/a dominant hand, etc. So when we all get different "histories, educations, likes/dislikes", they are all the same languages and cultural contexts in large swaths. Most people tend to be more similar than we think, and I think its important to realize how similar we are across all of humanity (as well as how we are different) - so that we can extract general nature principles, as scientific factor analysis can sometimes be capable of. As for subjective proof, I recently read (or am reading, i never finished... the library is pissed) a book by Thomas Nagel 'A View from Nowhere' and I keep coming back to this one quote in my notebook that i think captures what Im trying to say (its at the beginning of the chapter on morals, so hes recapping subject/object discussions before hand)
"Again let me stress that this is not to be understood on the model of perception of features of the external world. The subject matter of our investigation is how to live, aned the process of ethical thought is one of motivational discovery. The fact that people can come to agreement on answers which they regard as objective suggests that when they step outside of their particular individual perspectives they call into operation a common evaluative faculty whose correct functioning provides the answers, even though it can also malfunction and be distorted by other influences. It is not a question of bringing the mind into correspondence with an external reality which acts causally on it, but of reordering the mind itself in accordance with demands of its own external view of itself" As I see it, its like he mentions later, after ethics comes into the picture "its a question of if we think everyone is equally important or unimportant. I tend to think the answer is somewhere in between". But before ethics is a question, we must realize that all language is arbitrary, just how much of what we do is completely automatic, and how that 'common evaluative faculty' -because it is influenced by those factors and the ones you mentioned - tend to make people much more commonly grounded than they think they are. I think theres a bit of an egocentric view humanity has of itself sometimes (maybe just a little, like being the center of the universe - or 'god ordained to rule over all nature') So i guess i agree with you in a way, I find my thoughts are usually very open to flexability. gotta stay loose! On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > > Nikolas, > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 4:03 AM, Blodgett, Nikolas > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > Dan: > Welcome! > > NB: > > 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). > > Dan: > I read ZMM in 1974 and it made quite an impression on me too, but then > the reality of life came along and sidetracked me for a lot of years. > I think my first copy of ZMM is still sitting upon my brother's > bookshelf. I loaned it to him some 40 years ago but he hasn't gotten > around to reading it yet. I'll give him another 20 years and then I am > asking for it back. > > I didn't realize Robert Pirsig had written a second novel until > sometime in 1996 or maybe '97. Anyway, not long after I read Lila I > discovered this group though at the time it was known as the Lila > Squad. In 1998, Bodvar Skutvik asked me to write the Lila Squad story. > I had no idea what he meant or how to go about it. Long story short, > with Bodvar's encouragement and the help of Robert Pirsig I put > together Lila's Child in 2002. It still boggles my mind that the same > man who wrote Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance helped me with > that book. > > NB: > > 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 > > Dan: > My own personal theory: Once a person begins making connections it is > only a matter of time before they begin to blossom into their own > light. By adding their own individual voice to the multitude of those > who have gone before, whole new vistas open up for them. That seems to > be the power of intellect... not to simply regurgitate the old but to > weave a tapestry of something new. > > NB: > > 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! > > Dan: > If I am reading this right, I tend to disagree with it. Each of us > interprets the world via our own personal histories... the culture > where we grow up, our education or lack of it, those we choose to > associate with, our likes and our dislikes, and on and on. There is no > subjective proof of an objective reality. Our intuition is not only > based upon our senses but what stands behind the senses. As such, all > of us are unique in that we perceive the world in our own fashion. > > Thank you and good night, > > Dan > > http://www.danglover.com > 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
