Dear Dan, I appreciate the thoughtful reply. Its still a little nerve-wracking, as I'm new at this and I haven't had much practice with honest philosophical discussion with people who genuinely understand my point and have something to say in return. You have made me feel quite welcome, and appreciate that sentiment while I get used to how this works. I feel quite rusty to be honest, as if my words arent' doing my thoughts justice! Anyway thank you kindly.
Dan: No. Growing up in an isolated culture like North Korea is bound to be far different than coming of age in say, Brooklyn. I've witnessed differences here in the United States. Drive 500 miles south of Chicago and the entire culture changes. People may speak English but it isn't the same language I'm used to. It takes me several months to not only speak that southern dialect but to hear it too. Nik: I wasn't clear about my thoughts here, but I am thrown for a loop by this reply anyway. There is definitely context to contend with, and the difference between regions, nations, and continents matters quite a bit. I suppose proximity was my point, in that people with similar backgrounds tend to have similar values. It isn't always easy to see these similarities, and our minds tend to see what is different. What is permanent in our surroundings tends to become part of the noise of the background, and thus do the similar parts of those closest to us. Driving to another part of the country can give one a 'culture shock', another country Im sure the values change dramatically the farther one goes. Dan: Nagel has been mentioned here before. This is a finely tuned paragraph to be sure. That most people regard the world as objectively real is beyond dispute. What Nagel suggests here is rather than bringing the mind into an accord with that supposed objective reality, what might be occurring instead is that the mind reorders itself with its perceived external view of itself. He is rejecting correspondence theories, materialism, and idealism all in one fell swoop. Observer and observed become one. Interesting stuff... Nik: You know, I had to do a paper recently on Berkely, and he was the farthest towards "we create reality around us" I think I've seen! I don't disagree with him, but came across Nagel a few years ago when I started to question the nature of 'knowledge' and 'truth' and 'facts'. I got to the point where I saw everything as completely subjective, and could find a way to give science any creedance. I have come to the conclusion, as per Nagel (or even Sagan had a similar notion in one essay I read where he was discussing a grain of salt), that although we might not be able to know EXACTLY the nature of reality around us it benefits us to continue to make progress scientifically; even if we will continually have to change the way we discuss the findings because of the changing cultural misgivings. Dan: I think if you bring the MOQ into play here and start with the notion that value and morals are the same just as observer and observed, then we begin to see that language is far from arbitrary. Even what we term 'automatic reflex' is the result of a foundation of values built into our language(s) and consequentially into culture... all culture. The differences occur when certain values are more advantageous than others but at the root of all human affairs we share commonalities This is why I bring up the language subject alot, and I think 'relativity' would be a better way to describe language than 'arbitrary'. Especially if you look at post-modernists such as ... his name escapes me at the moment, but Baudrillard is a good example instead; it becomes important to think of any word being able to attach to any idea. And when we think of the history of any word, it becomes apparent to me at least that historical context basically decides what word will represent what idea. This changes with time, and social movements tend to slowly change those meanings and words over time. I completely agree that our reflexes are built into us by culture, and I think language is a result of the same culture. So we get the current situation where we all seem so different. It berefts our humanity to forget that underneath all the striking differences, the similarities remain buried in the noise of the environment we have come to assimilate ourselves into. Dan: Agreed. It's good not to become too dogmatic about anything. On the other hand, it is also good to understand the foundations of what we are discussing, namely the MOQ, and how it pertains to not only the individual but the world at large. Agreed indeed! I think I might have come a long way from my past with this book, but it has remained faithfully foundational to every new idea I come across for examination. The MOQ has been my guide through the past number of years of my life experience and my schooling. It felt far away sometimes, but there is always something that will come along once in a while and hit me like cold water to the face ... bringing it all flooding back to me. The idea that all of existence and reality can be explained by Quality is something that I think will forever hold itself as the ground on which my own large-scale theoretical beliefs are built. Although it took me a while to re-integrate scientific importance, I am relieved to find it not so difficult. The one thing that keeps my nose to the grindstone in my studies of such science is the idea that behind every theory, behind every research article, behind every sentece, word, concept, or quote - is another human being with feelings, flaws, families, friends, failures, and fundamental beliefs. This makes everything seem chaotic sometimes, but I just remind myself that I can always appeal to the fact that everyone will intuitively be able to recognize a quality idea or experience from one without. The results may vary, but I can always appeal to our common nature when I find myself face to face with a person who does not share a similar attitude. I tried to avoid becoming too involved with society, but I have convinced myself to do so on the basis that I would be wasting my potential, as well as the effort my father put into raising me in his life, if I didn't just 'go for it' and stop thinking so hard. 'Just do it' is a cliche at this point (thanks alot Nike), but it really is quite apropos regarding the MOQ ... at least in my opinion. Here's to leading a quality and fulfilling life, no matter the strife and struggles of not being understood! On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Blodgett, Nikolas <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
