Dear Jan, Im not sure I understand the lego figure comment, but I assure you I have never quite considered myself 'normal'. It took me a long time to stop acting like a speck of dust just being blown about by the universe. I had to convince myself to join society and put in some work, and join the human race in some way. I must say Im glad I did, but it has not been easy over the years feeling like a stranger. Im sure we can all relate to feeling stares from others that might not exist. I can to be very liberal with my philosophies at times which turns some people off. I can be pretty easy to misunderstand, which tends to bring about negative feelings for some. I hope Im not coming off as an ass or anything.... I really do care about philosophy and psychology on a very deep level. Also, I will definitely check out the book! I can't wait to hear points of view from some ZMM / LILA fans.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Jan-Anders Andersson < [email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Nikolas > > Before you become an intolerant LEGO figure rampant. May I suggest that > you take a look at my book "Money and the Art of Losing Control". It is > definitely NOT a book about have to behave normal or "universal", but a > novel based on some conclusions from Pirsig's metaphysics. It's free on > iTunes bookshop, paperback available at Createspace. > > all the best > > Jan-Anders > > > > > 12 dec 2014 kl. 12:57 skrev Blodgett, Nikolas <[email protected]>: > > > > 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 > 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
