> 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:
It's interesting for me that you bring this up. At the moment I'm
exploring the ramifications of a relationship between two people who
come together briefly a few times a week and who live within an hour
of each other and yet whose lives and backgrounds are so completely
different it is fair to say they would never meet unless the
confluence of their lives happened to play out just the way it did.
So in essence proximity takes on a multi-pronged feel... not only in
space and in time but in commonality and in acceptance or rejection.
Though we might be neighbors living on the same street and passing
each other every day on our way to work our cultural backgrounds might
well be such we will never come together in spirit, so to speak.
Conversely, with the rise of the internet, people who are living in
far flung countries half way around the world find themselves coming
together to share their most intimate thoughts.
Nik:
The other day I was listening to an NPR RadioLab story about a young girl
who sent out a heres-my-info-call-me-back balloon to see where it would end
up. Of course noone really thinks this would work most of the time when
they send something like that out to the winds. The balloon made it from
her home in England, across multiple regions, and ended up in another part
on the other side of England in the yard of .... get this, another little
girl with the same exact name, the same pets, the same age, and they are
now good friends. At first this seems almost mind-blowing, but the
discussion went on into alot of statistical philosophy. The matter can be
reduced in the level of coincidence it seems to induce, if you start
thinking of all the times that anyone ever did 'X' activity, and of all the
possible 'Y' outcomes; then 'Z' "coincidence" would be bound to pop up
EVENTUALLY. At this point my thoughts turn to how often in my life I feel
such coincidences VERY strongly. I've gotten used to the feeling, but the
magic of it never goes away. So as I converge on my current mindset on the
subject, such as your two 'star-crossed lovers' so to speak (with a trite
cliche), I'm faced with two alternatives: That either the Universe is just
so elegantly complex that things wind up coinciding in such amazing ways as
to appear to be on purpose somehow; or that our brains tend to extract
meaning so well from patterns, that we even pull what seems like meaning
and order of chaotic situations which are inherently meaningless. Of
course, everytime I say something in an either-or fasion like that, my mind
goes ... "why can't I have it both ways!?"; so I suppose they aren't
mutually exclusive ideas. Our mental pattern-recognition function and
meaning-interpreter function, I am recently of the notion, are different
things, yet complimentary-dichotomous. Also, though they may 'malfunction'
as Nagel puts it, there's no reason to think that they Cosmos cannot also
be complex on such a level as to provide insipient meaning-in-order within
what seems to us to be 'chaos'.
In either case, my point is that our minds have a tendency to create
meaning, but also that the meaning does not NOT exist - only that it is
part of a massive system of cosmological complexity which we may or may not
be able to adequately understand (although we can damn well try and get as
close as possible!) and which also brings me to your next point - which I
find a delicious metaphor (or analogy, I wrote a note to myself to look up
the various details and levels of analogy, metaphor, simile, etc.)
Dan:
Absolutely. I think that's what gives science its power.
Falsifiability allows the progress of science to continue even when
scientists themselves are certain of their results and the perfection
of their analysis. The MOQ outlines a framework whereby it's possible
to see how each new discovery no matter how brilliant also contains
the seeds of its own demise.
Nik
Too, I think we begin to see that idealism is as limiting as
materialism if we continue thinking in terms of the subjective vs the
objective. Rather, if we begin seeing reality as composed of patterns
of value we start to understand that the nature of the world is
smeared upon us like strawberry jam on bread, neither separate nor
together.
I think if our minds can accurately comprehend this complexity, it
would be almost in a metaphorical way. We don't, I think, have the ability
to see things EXACTLY 'as they are', because what would be the judge of
that exactly? It's only definable in terms of how we see them; for example,
colors aren't what we see but that's always how we will always see them
(unless our vision evovles more, in which case the point would still remain
valid). The scientific status quo will always change, and I think Sagan
gave me the most hope for it when he said something along the lines that
there will most likely always be something to figure out about the
Universe. Although I don't believe in infinite progress in any regard, I do
believe in 'patterns' and I do believe in 'change'; but I'm not sure where
this leaves me, it all gets spun around so easily. So I get to this point
where I must remind myself of Quality, because without this unifying
conceptualization of reality - I find myself lost in the void between my
own dichotomies. It really is my ground wire.
Dan:
Sure, that makes sense. Many times I find myself searching for just
the right word to convey a thought, or more properly perhaps the
nuances tied up behind the thought. The English language is a borrowed
language. At times I find myself dipping into Spanish to find my
meaning and other times into French or even Latin. The Germans are
particularly apt at describing occurrences in one word that for me
might take an entire paragraph. The Arabic language is filled with
words that convey all manner of thoughts in ways English can only
dream of doing. Maktub, or it is written, is a particular favorite of
mine. But then again if my English speaking brethren fail to
understand my meaning I've made a misstep anyway, unless they're
willing to stretch for it. So we walk a fine line between, as you say,
being buried in the noise of the environment, and exalting in the joy
of discovery.
Nik
I definitely get the same phenomenon. Words have definition sure, but
the connotation is a quality most people don't have such an easy time with.
I feel this comes back again to what I was saying about our mental
functions. I'm finishing up a lengthy paper involving lateral hemispherical
function which I argue is still valid as logical or intuitive, although the
notion that people are right- or left- brained is definitely not. I would
love to share it with the some people from the group for constructive
criticism, although it might be a bit long (maybe 20 - 30 pages double
spaced, I went way beyond the call of duty on this one). Also it is a
psychology paper, and I was wondering if you thought it would be an
interest to yourself or anyone else you'd care to have read it. I trust
your judgement and don't know many people that can keep up with such
soaring heights (not to be arrogant or anything, I just notice that it
takes a certain kind of person to handle my rambling philosophies, good or
bad).
Dan:
Well spoken! Sometimes connecting the dots leads nowhere, but
somethings it leads everywhere. No long ago a friend asked me to pick
him up at the airport. O'Hare Field is an hour away so not problem. We
made small talk driving home. He is about my age, close to 60. I asked
him where he went to school. To my surprise he tells me how he spent a
year in Russia as an exchange student in high school and what stuck in
his mind was how the Russian people coveted his blue jeans. It wasn't
so much that he was an exchange student that surprised me but rather
how I'd been working on a story about a man traveling across Russia in
about that same time period and I was stuck on how he managed without
any source of income and no job. Blue jeans, of course... the man sold
his blue jeans.
The thing is, I'd heard that about blue jeans being the thing in
Russia before. I simply hadn't connected the dots though. I think a
good portion of our daily lives are spend learning and forgetting. The
totality of the world is such that we have to do that in order to make
any sense at all out of the constant barrage of information coming our
way otherwise we'd be overwhelmed by it. By mindful participation and
artful engagement we're able to navigate the turbulent waters of
reality filled with treacherous undercurrents and make some small
accounting it all. Or so we can hope.
Nik:
That is fascinating about Russia, I had a great time taking a US
History class my first year back at Worcester State. The teacher was very
multi-technologically inclined, and her presentations were very
interesting, verbal and visual, participatory and lecturing, and basically
really got down to the 'feeling' of that strand of history. I'm so deep
into finishing this paper it just all relates, like any subject we've spent
alot of time around it tends to stick in our minds. I found many many dots
to connect in history from the civil war up to the cold war. It really is
amazing stuff, and my point I am trying to make in my paper is similar to
your closing, I believe. The point is our intuition is extremely important
and it is not given enough credit; I propose the two sides function
simultaneously, the right monitoring the environment and producing and
maintaining a value judgement we attach to things very quickly and
unconsciously, its a 'familiar feeling'. The left recieves the same input
plus that from the right and interprets it all deliberately and with
purpose, according to what we 'remember'. They both adjust that past
experience as we go along, and the signals all converge in the frontal
lobe, along with an 'internal signal', where everything gets processed
considering our ultimate vision, our goals regarding that vision, plans to
achieve those goals, and what actions need to be taken regarding those
plans. The whole thing happens very quickly, and there can also be ways of
seeing a 'top' and 'bottom' brain, as some current models still do.
However, I feel like the hemispheres got a bad wrap(spelling?).
So to conclude, I of course had to bring all this theory back to give
Pirsig his due - namely, the two letters posted on the website which stuck
with me for a long time, especially after getting into psychology. I feel
it does some amount of justice to the MOQ, but I of course don't feel done
with the paper; yet time is not on my side. I have to get it in tomorrow or
so .... and I hope this teacher will work with me on an Independent Study
in the spring. If this paper is good enough, I can continue to improve my
lateralization theory. That is, if you and whoever else you choose to read
it give it your stamp of approval. I would be truly honored, I will let you
know as soon as I get the last draft of this semester done. I had alot of
fun with this research, and also having a chance to bring something back to
my philosophical roots so distinctly (which, like I mentioned above, felt
so dramatically coincidental at times it blows my mind!). Well, back to
work for me! (Its 330 am and I have a wake to attend tomorrow; I blame the
2008 anti CFC-based inhaler law, but thats a discussion for another time
and place)
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nikolas,
>
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Blodgett, Nikolas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Hi Nikolas,
> It's great to have you aboard.
>
> >
> > 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:
> It's interesting for me that you bring this up. At the moment I'm
> exploring the ramifications of a relationship between two people who
> come together briefly a few times a week and who live within an hour
> of each other and yet whose lives and backgrounds are so completely
> different it is fair to say they would never meet unless the
> confluence of their lives happened to play out just the way it did.
>
> So in essence proximity takes on a multi-pronged feel... not only in
> space and in time but in commonality and in acceptance or rejection.
> Though we might be neighbors living on the same street and passing
> each other every day on our way to work our cultural backgrounds might
> well be such we will never come together in spirit, so to speak.
> Conversely, with the rise of the internet, people who are living in
> far flung countries half way around the world find themselves coming
> together to share their most intimate thoughts.
>
> >
> > 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:
> Absolutely. I think that's what gives science its power.
> Falsifiability allows the progress of science to continue even when
> scientists themselves are certain of their results and the perfection
> of their analysis. The MOQ outlines a framework whereby it's possible
> to see how each new discovery no matter how brilliant also contains
> the seeds of its own demise.
>
> Too, I think we begin to see that idealism is as limiting as
> materialism if we continue thinking in terms of the subjective vs the
> objective. Rather, if we begin seeing reality as composed of patterns
> of value we start to understand that the nature of the world is
> smeared upon us like strawberry jam on bread, neither separate nor
> together.
>
> >
> > 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:
> Sure, that makes sense. Many times I find myself searching for just
> the right word to convey a thought, or more properly perhaps the
> nuances tied up behind the thought. The English language is a borrowed
> language. At times I find myself dipping into Spanish to find my
> meaning and other times into French or even Latin. The Germans are
> particularly apt at describing occurrences in one word that for me
> might take an entire paragraph. The Arabic language is filled with
> words that convey all manner of thoughts in ways English can only
> dream of doing. Maktub, or it is written, is a particular favorite of
> mine. But then again if my English speaking brethren fail to
> understand my meaning I've made a misstep anyway, unless they're
> willing to stretch for it. So we walk a fine line between, as you say,
> being buried in the noise of the environment, and exalting in the joy
> of discovery.
>
> >
> > 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!
>
> Dan:
> Well spoken! Sometimes connecting the dots leads nowhere, but
> somethings it leads everywhere. No long ago a friend asked me to pick
> him up at the airport. O'Hare Field is an hour away so not problem. We
> made small talk driving home. He is about my age, close to 60. I asked
> him where he went to school. To my surprise he tells me how he spent a
> year in Russia as an exchange student in high school and what stuck in
> his mind was how the Russian people coveted his blue jeans. It wasn't
> so much that he was an exchange student that surprised me but rather
> how I'd been working on a story about a man traveling across Russia in
> about that same time period and I was stuck on how he managed without
> any source of income and no job. Blue jeans, of course... the man sold
> his blue jeans.
>
> The thing is, I'd heard that about blue jeans being the thing in
> Russia before. I simply hadn't connected the dots though. I think a
> good portion of our daily lives are spend learning and forgetting. The
> totality of the world is such that we have to do that in order to make
> any sense at all out of the constant barrage of information coming our
> way otherwise we'd be overwhelmed by it. By mindful participation and
> artful engagement we're able to navigate the turbulent waters of
> reality filled with treacherous undercurrents and make some small
> accounting it all. Or so we can hope.
>
> Thank you,
>
> 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
