Nikolas, I agree it's better not to get too hung up on any one point of view. The reason I responded to your Pirsig insights is that that is what I know best. I read Julian Jaynes years ago. I'm sure I still have the book packed away somewhere. But most of what I know about left brain/right brain I can write on the back of a napkin. Again, I think that's biological level happenings which while important is not my forte by any means.
As I was reading your paper I remembered hearing about an artist in Turkey, a blind man, who taught himself to paint. This is his website: http://esrefarmagan.com/ I wonder how your Two Visual Theory System fits into something like this, or if it even does. This excerpt from Wiki kind of caught my attention: "In 2008 two researchers from Harvard, Amir Amedi and Alvaro Pascual-Leone, tried to find more about neural plasticity using Armagan as a study case.[1] Both scientists had evidence that in cases of blindness, the "visual" cortex acts differently from how it acts with the non-blind. Pascual-Leone has found that Braille readers use this very same area for touch. Amedi, together (with Ehud Zohary) at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, found that the area is also activated in verbal memory tasks. When Amedi analyzed the results, however, he found that Armagan's visual cortex lit up during the drawing task, but hardly at all for verbal recall, meaning that some unused visual areas might be used in collaboration with ones needs from the brain. Moreover in scans that were held while Armagan drew, his visual cortex signals seemed as he was seeing to the extent that a naive viewer of his scan might assume Armagan really could see." Dan comments: I understand that the plasticity of the brain sometimes override the left brain/right brain scenario but I don't think that's what's happening here. Note the last sentence... how the scans showed that the man was actually seeing when he drew. What does that say in terms of your theory? Interesting stuff, thanks! Dan http://www.danglover.com On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Blodgett, Nikolas <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for taking a look at it. I guess I minimized the Lila based stuff > for clarity and time/length. It seems that I need to work on the Pirsig > stuff in general. I will have to be careful with my wording. I had a better > paper for another class going into the Lila stuff. Your first three points > show me I need to expand these parts. My ideas still need some work. The > fourth point concerning what I poorly called model shifting is just my > reaction to what I feel can be an aggressive tactic. The feeling I get from > k&m is like they are attempting to create a framework which goes further in > the direction they intend in order to balance out parts of the current > system they feel are skewed. Even Pirsig admits how moq is simply a better > lens through which to view reality. I still feel like you and I agree for > the most part, the issue seems to be in notions of knowing. I don't think > we will ever understand reality EXACTLY as it is, but through specifically > human eyes. In my opinion, Pirsig was concerned with the stagnant > mechanical view of things based on logic and quantifying. He created a new > model which solved the splits but it left quality as a replacement for that > center it removed. If my understanding of hemispheres checks out in the > end, intuitions relying on our unconscious dynamic judgements of values of > patterns and logic based on purely social norms we experience and take as > knowledge. These norms as you say are historically dependant, and I believe > they progress our understanding ever so slightly as they change form over > time. Dynamic q is that movement towards better static q patterns of all > levels, even if our human viewpoint will never be perfect or as objective > as we think it is. I'm just concerned about an over emphasis on any form of > 'truth' as the only view of reality, it feels like a mistake to get too > grounded in any one set of ideas - I think human understanding can only > continue to evolve in order to help people lead more quality lives. So I > guess 'straw men' might be a poor choice of words as well. My own main > concern was the way western culture undervalued insight instinct and > intuition. K&m were concerned with popular understanding of l/r hemi's, > Pirsig was concerned about materialism and objectivity, and mine is no more > or less valid. its just important to make sure we all be careful of how our > voices are affected by our preconceived notions, because pure objectivity > is impossible but not useless. Its a work in progress, this reality of ours. > > On Saturday, January 3, 2015, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Nikolas, >> >> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Blodgett, Nikolas >> <[email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: >> > NIK: >> > Dying is often times like being born. Naked, confused, and screaming in >> > discomfort. A natural part of the cycle, unfortunately; and I COULD say >> > something cheesy about 'without pain, how would we know joy?' I want to >> > wish you a merry christmas, and I understand the doldrums myself. Here's >> a >> > rough copy of my paper I was working so hard on. Its a little long, the >> > paragraphs are out of order, and the references are ugly - but I'd like >> you >> > to look at it and provide some constructive feedback if you wouldn't >> mind. >> > Anyone else can read it, its no secret or anything. Even if you don't >> have >> > much to say its OK, I just want to share. :) Thanks >> > TargetPaper2-TwoVisualSystems.docx >> > < >> https://docs.google.com/a/worcester.edu/file/d/0B5XUBIum0Kv6VFVzOEdmS3VZVEw1NEdsMUY4QjE2dkloXzJF/edit?usp=drive_web >> > >> > I think thats the one >> >> Hi Nikolas, >> I've had a look at your paper. A few things jumped out at me. Overall, >> there seems to be an underlying assumption that what we see is really >> there... that the external world of objects actually exists. I think >> the MOQ might agree with that assumption up to a point, that point >> being that we are grounded in Western culture. >> >> You say: >> >> "The metaphysical models such as Pirsig's 'Quality', or Plato's >> 'Forms' put an undefinable or pure and invisible entity at the >> forefront of our experience." >> >> Dan: >> I'm not sure about Plato's Forms but from what I understand Dynamic >> Quality isn't an entity. In the MOQ, Dynamic Quality and experience >> become synonymous. We're constantly defining Dynamic Quality but once >> defined 'it' is no longer Dynamic Quality. It's static quality. >> >> You say: >> "For example, like molecules make up organic substances, or a tree >> grows up out of dirt from a seed; a bunch of cells can make a >> psychology student, or a completely social entity such as a city is >> composed of interchangeable “human” parts (Pirsig, 1991)." >> >> Dan: >> Is this a Robert Pirsig quote? If so, where is it from? I'm guessing >> it's not since it seems wrong. Social patterns are not made up of >> biological beings. That's a big mistake that's been repeated here ad >> nauseum over the years. Most people can't seem to get a grip on the >> concept. No matter how many times its explained to them, they fail to >> understand it. >> >> Look at it this way: a living being is made up of molecules but that >> isn't a definition of life. Same thing here... we look at a city and >> see all the people and we automatically think: oh... those people are >> social patterns. No! That isn't what the MOQ says at all. Those people >> are no more social patterns than the molecules are life. >> >> You say: >> "A CBC interview explains how this 'Quality' is at the “knife-edge” of >> our perceptual reality, according to Pirsig. It also sums up that >> “Pirsig argued passionately that it is actually possible to unify the >> cold rational world of science and technology with the warm, intuitive >> realm of art and the spirit. To bridge the chasm that has existed in >> Western thought since the time of Aristotle and the Ancient Greeks >> between reason and emotion, subjective and objective, romantic and >> classical ways of understanding.” >> >> Dan: >> I'm guessing this is an older interview? The reference to romantic and >> classical understanding is from ZMM. In Lila, that representation is >> done away with. Instead, we have the MOQ which is underpinned with >> Dynamic and static. It's important to understand these are not >> opposing points of view like romantic and classic. >> >> You say: >> "Unfortunately, Pirsig is, in all possibility, guilty of the same >> lateral model shifting >> Kosslyn & Miller perpetrated with 'the lateralization of hemispherical >> cognitive functioning of the human brain' models. Specifically, since >> much of his (& their) reasoning depends on 'straw men', they are >> attempting to counter-attack, and thus negate, an enemy which might or >> might not exist." >> >> Dan comments: >> I don't follow you here. Exactly what straw men does Robert Pirsig use >> in his philosophy? Are you saying that Western culture is not based >> upon subject-object interpretation? Are you saying the philosophical >> problems illuminated by the MOQ do not exist? After reading the paper >> I'm not at all sure what 'lateral model shifting' is, or that Kosslyn >> and Miller perpetrated it. >> >> I do know that Pirsig has been accused of using straw men before and >> no one has ever explained their reasoning on that assumption, at least >> not to my satisfaction. They've always missed the boat, so to speak. >> Perhaps you'll be the first. >> >> From what I've read, throughout your paper you are dealing basically >> with biological level patterns. You are furthermore assuming there is >> a 'real' external reality that everyone sees no matter their cultural >> backgrounds. If you take anything at all from the MOQ, you have to >> realize that we all perceive reality in accordance to our personal >> histories. We see what we are told to see. >> >> I hope this helps you a bit, >> >> Dan 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
