The generally accepted assumption that all human ideas are created from the human mind was mentioned in class. I acknowledge the possibility that that construct could hold true at least some of the time, and for Western cultures I would agree that it is probably perceived as true most of the time. However, I do not believe the human mind to be the sole source of human ideas.
There is the belief that certain ideas exist in the astral realm and are "discovered" by a person after an aspect of their consciousness (mind) connects to pre-(their human)mind-existing thought. The person then assumes ownership and credit for the thought as their own idea. This is how some inventions are believed to have been brought into existences and considered human ideas.
Would we consider thoughts/ideas coming from the mind of a person in an altered state of consciousness as always coming from their human mind? Is a person in an ecstatic state communing with ideas from their mind or another being's Mind, or the One Mind? Are the sources of inspiration - artistic, creative, or natural, confined to the limited containment of a human mind? I hope not.
Taken in the context of a universe that is holographic in nature, as posited by physicist David Bohm, who "associates the existence of 'holomovement' with laws describing an implicit level of reality in an 'implicate' order that is hidden below our experience with the 'explicate order'"("The Conscious Universe:Part and Whole in Modern Physical Theory," Kafatos/Nadeau)there exist many humanly unknowable variables, of which space,time, and thought are just a few.
Should we limit ourselves just to that which can be tested against, and by, human created tools of scientific design? There is so much in existence that can not be humanly subjected to disclosure employing current western human-mind theories or experiments.
I prefer the construct comprised of the multiple, simultaneously-existing versions of a single universe, created from, bound together by, and always, at all times, communing through a unifying, singular light/sound frequency. Which calls into question the origin of thought - human or other-being, as well as the concepts of space, time and spacetime.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Mind, Perception, and Reality?
In an effort to adequately digest "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" I spent hours investigating terms, that were to me, unfamiliar, or unclear. Reference.com and the whole "www" failed to provide me with an understanding of "sirfiple units"(Phillips, p.7)
Frequently there are varied and often competing definitions for the same term in philosophical posturing - oops - that's positing right? DKJ noted on Q&A 2 that the meaning of MIR was dependent on the context.
In Johnson's "Make-Believe Metaphysics" there are references to Muller's O-D view and his O-D position. I was uncertain what "O-D" was representing in this work. After days of attempting to construct some sense of an acceptably-inclusive reality out of competing, exclusionary theories - as constructed by von Glasersfeld, Phillips, Johnson, et al., "Reality," as perceived by my mind, arrived at my best guess conclusion that O-D meant "Other-Dependent Reality". Though I struggled mightily, I was unable to find any reference to Herbert Muller, O-D or Other-Dependent Reality on the web to validate my supposition.
Therefore, I propose to subjectively support the possibility of the existence of an O-D as Other-Dependent Reality using DKJ's "Make-Believe Metaphysics" and Phillip's "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly". The theory of Other-Dependent Realism finds support in social constructivism especially in the views offered by feminist epistemologists Sandra Harding and Helen Longino. (Phillips p.7).
Other-Dependent Reality gains distinctive support as it is affirmed within our denial of solipsism, an obviously indefensible theory. Realism demands our necessarily constructing "Others" to bring some sense to our epistemological reality stories. Otherwise, we could be forced to wrestle with combining words like "object" and "dependent", creating the fantasy term "Object-Dependent Reality" which we would then morph into "O-D view" or "O-D position".
The accomplished communication of ideas and inquiries are the purpose of the philosopher, with Logic the philosopher's tool in this endeavor. The use of linguistic language suffers from often inherently vague and ambiguous terms and structure, therefore it is prone to frequent, understandable misinterpretation by a mind at some time, maybe all minds at one time, possibly some minds some times. Is not now The Time for our minds to construct a mutually understood and agreed upon perceptual toolkit, with which we might pursue the Reality Quest without wasting time (relatively speaking, of course) and Life-force - our's or an Other's, whether human, noumenal, or universally shared?
All puns aside, I suffer a continuous shortage of time. Therefore, I propose that all of philosophical ilk who insist on sharing their philosophical notions in an other-dependent real way, assemble a clear, concise, adequately defined list of terms used in common, and attach it to their work, where it will be available as an addendum to any other's work, in which their work appears. By providing their view, which to an other's mind, or other perceptional, interpreting, or organizing tool, might be potentially vague or ambiguous, we can eradicate philosophically-induced misunderstandings, confusion, as well as the over-use of reference.com and panic-spawned email to philosophy and logic professors.
Frequently there are varied and often competing definitions for the same term in philosophical posturing - oops - that's positing right? DKJ noted on Q&A 2 that the meaning of MIR was dependent on the context.
In Johnson's "Make-Believe Metaphysics" there are references to Muller's O-D view and his O-D position. I was uncertain what "O-D" was representing in this work. After days of attempting to construct some sense of an acceptably-inclusive reality out of competing, exclusionary theories - as constructed by von Glasersfeld, Phillips, Johnson, et al., "Reality," as perceived by my mind, arrived at my best guess conclusion that O-D meant "Other-Dependent Reality". Though I struggled mightily, I was unable to find any reference to Herbert Muller, O-D or Other-Dependent Reality on the web to validate my supposition.
Therefore, I propose to subjectively support the possibility of the existence of an O-D as Other-Dependent Reality using DKJ's "Make-Believe Metaphysics" and Phillip's "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly". The theory of Other-Dependent Realism finds support in social constructivism especially in the views offered by feminist epistemologists Sandra Harding and Helen Longino. (Phillips p.7).
Other-Dependent Reality gains distinctive support as it is affirmed within our denial of solipsism, an obviously indefensible theory. Realism demands our necessarily constructing "Others" to bring some sense to our epistemological reality stories. Otherwise, we could be forced to wrestle with combining words like "object" and "dependent", creating the fantasy term "Object-Dependent Reality" which we would then morph into "O-D view" or "O-D position".
The accomplished communication of ideas and inquiries are the purpose of the philosopher, with Logic the philosopher's tool in this endeavor. The use of linguistic language suffers from often inherently vague and ambiguous terms and structure, therefore it is prone to frequent, understandable misinterpretation by a mind at some time, maybe all minds at one time, possibly some minds some times. Is not now The Time for our minds to construct a mutually understood and agreed upon perceptual toolkit, with which we might pursue the Reality Quest without wasting time (relatively speaking, of course) and Life-force - our's or an Other's, whether human, noumenal, or universally shared?
All puns aside, I suffer a continuous shortage of time. Therefore, I propose that all of philosophical ilk who insist on sharing their philosophical notions in an other-dependent real way, assemble a clear, concise, adequately defined list of terms used in common, and attach it to their work, where it will be available as an addendum to any other's work, in which their work appears. By providing their view, which to an other's mind, or other perceptional, interpreting, or organizing tool, might be potentially vague or ambiguous, we can eradicate philosophically-induced misunderstandings, confusion, as well as the over-use of reference.com and panic-spawned email to philosophy and logic professors.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Intro to Rad Constructs
I found von Glasersfeld’s article stimulating. I particularly enjoyed the comment that the unanswerable question whether, or to what extent, any picture our senses "convey" might correspond to the "objective" reality. I was delighted to discover that this is not taken as “fact,” that it is still the crux of all theory of knowledge. What properties objects are assigned by our senses – how real, how accurate are these sensory stipulations? It is not at all obvious that sense-defined determinants do not possess other properties beyond our stipulative definitions, properties that are not perceived by the senses of the stipulators in general (Western majority). Wondering what I might be missing – what might be beyond the capacity of my senses to perceive is a major focus in the journey of my life.
Neuroscientists Trey Hedden and John Gabrieli of MIT's McGovern Institute for Brain Research recent study provides the first neurological evidence that cultural difference extend to brain activity patterns. “People from different cultures use their brains differently to solve basic perceptual tasks. They saw a difference in higher-processing brain areas, not in the parts of the brain involved in early vision. People from different cultures don’t see the world differently, but they think differently about what they see." American brains had to work harder at relative judgments, while East Asian brains found absolute judgments more challenging. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22729220/
If cultural perception is the basis of one’s composition of knowledge, what will be the unifying element for universal “truth”? Whose “truth” becomes “The Truth”?
And then came Kant, shifting our experiences relative to time and space – challenges our senses, our perceptions, and our minds. Perception, interpretation, knowledge, constructs, Truth.
Philosophy - I’m loving it – its definitely not boring!
Neuroscientists Trey Hedden and John Gabrieli of MIT's McGovern Institute for Brain Research recent study provides the first neurological evidence that cultural difference extend to brain activity patterns. “People from different cultures use their brains differently to solve basic perceptual tasks. They saw a difference in higher-processing brain areas, not in the parts of the brain involved in early vision. People from different cultures don’t see the world differently, but they think differently about what they see." American brains had to work harder at relative judgments, while East Asian brains found absolute judgments more challenging. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22729220/
If cultural perception is the basis of one’s composition of knowledge, what will be the unifying element for universal “truth”? Whose “truth” becomes “The Truth”?
And then came Kant, shifting our experiences relative to time and space – challenges our senses, our perceptions, and our minds. Perception, interpretation, knowledge, constructs, Truth.
Philosophy - I’m loving it – its definitely not boring!
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Theories of Knowledge
Von Glasersfeld’s "An Introduction to Radical Constructivism” is well seasoned with wit and "isms". I appreciated the basic nature, simplicity, and logic of many of his ideas. I effortlessly agreed with those that I have long held, intuitively and innately, though not cognitively – previously never having thought about them in that manner.
Dominant beliefs in my personal philosophy of life that I have often pondered are:
“The only aspect of that "real" world that actually enters into the realm of experience, are its constraints.”
“Any cognitive structure that serves its purpose in our time, proves no more and no less than just that it has done what was expected of it. Logically, that gives us no clue as to how the "objective" world might be; it merely means that we know one viable way to a goal that we have chosen under specific circumstances in our experiential world.”
“It tells us nothing -- and cannot tell us anything -- about how many other ways there might be, or how that experience which we consider the goal might be connected to a world beyond our experience.”
“The proponents of an idea, as a rule, explain its non-acceptance differently than do the critics and opponents.”
Simple, Logical and True.
“Our knowledge is useful, relevant, and viable - if it stands up to our experience and enables us to make predictions, to bring about, or, avoid certain phenomena.” Simple, Logical and True.
“Because our ways of experiencing are what they are, we cannot possibly conceive of an unexperienced world.”
I have never been able to conceive what is inconceivable to me, without first being exposed to the possibility of its potential existence. It is my experience that communication of an idea by another - through the exchange of thoughts, use of senses, or exposure to stimuli always occurs prior to contemplation of what had previously been unimaginable.
“The epistemological problem - how we acquire knowledge of reality, and how reliable and "true" that knowledge might be” certainly troubles me. We use thoughts (some resulting from experiential exposure) to construct ideas, and ideas to construct knowledge, and knowledge to construct reality. Since reality is fabricated out of (sometimes competing) individual or group constructs, how do we determine whose reality is the true reality? And what if the true reality is as yet inconceivable?”
Presently, we know with certainty, of the existence of “the unknowable.” Knowledge is a prerequisite for defining reality. Therefore, it is presently impossible to suppose any definition of reality to be true.
I agree with von Glasersfeld, “Our knowledge can never be interpreted as a picture or representation of that real world, but only as a key that unlocks possible paths for us. A key fits if it opens the lock. The fit describes a capacity of the key, not of the lock.”
“If we take seriously the evolutionary way of thinking, it could never be organisms or ideas that adapt to reality, but it is always reality which…inexorably annihilates what is not fit to live. In nature, a lack of fitness is invariably fatal; philosophers, however, rarely die of their inadequate ideas.”
Could this be why there are so many Philosophical Schools of Thought and so many philosophers?
After reading this article, I know for certain, that I am not a metaphysical realist. I can embrace some of the components of radical constructivism’s theory of knowledge. However, at present, I lack sufficient data to consider limiting myself to any one "ism" or category philosophical.
Dominant beliefs in my personal philosophy of life that I have often pondered are:
“The only aspect of that "real" world that actually enters into the realm of experience, are its constraints.”
“Any cognitive structure that serves its purpose in our time, proves no more and no less than just that it has done what was expected of it. Logically, that gives us no clue as to how the "objective" world might be; it merely means that we know one viable way to a goal that we have chosen under specific circumstances in our experiential world.”
“It tells us nothing -- and cannot tell us anything -- about how many other ways there might be, or how that experience which we consider the goal might be connected to a world beyond our experience.”
“The proponents of an idea, as a rule, explain its non-acceptance differently than do the critics and opponents.”
Simple, Logical and True.
“Our knowledge is useful, relevant, and viable - if it stands up to our experience and enables us to make predictions, to bring about, or, avoid certain phenomena.” Simple, Logical and True.
“Because our ways of experiencing are what they are, we cannot possibly conceive of an unexperienced world.”
I have never been able to conceive what is inconceivable to me, without first being exposed to the possibility of its potential existence. It is my experience that communication of an idea by another - through the exchange of thoughts, use of senses, or exposure to stimuli always occurs prior to contemplation of what had previously been unimaginable.
“The epistemological problem - how we acquire knowledge of reality, and how reliable and "true" that knowledge might be” certainly troubles me. We use thoughts (some resulting from experiential exposure) to construct ideas, and ideas to construct knowledge, and knowledge to construct reality. Since reality is fabricated out of (sometimes competing) individual or group constructs, how do we determine whose reality is the true reality? And what if the true reality is as yet inconceivable?”
Presently, we know with certainty, of the existence of “the unknowable.” Knowledge is a prerequisite for defining reality. Therefore, it is presently impossible to suppose any definition of reality to be true.
I agree with von Glasersfeld, “Our knowledge can never be interpreted as a picture or representation of that real world, but only as a key that unlocks possible paths for us. A key fits if it opens the lock. The fit describes a capacity of the key, not of the lock.”
“If we take seriously the evolutionary way of thinking, it could never be organisms or ideas that adapt to reality, but it is always reality which…inexorably annihilates what is not fit to live. In nature, a lack of fitness is invariably fatal; philosophers, however, rarely die of their inadequate ideas.”
Could this be why there are so many Philosophical Schools of Thought and so many philosophers?
After reading this article, I know for certain, that I am not a metaphysical realist. I can embrace some of the components of radical constructivism’s theory of knowledge. However, at present, I lack sufficient data to consider limiting myself to any one "ism" or category philosophical.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Zoos and Humans
I had never considered zoos pornographic. After reading Acampora’s article, I agree that many, but not all, zoos can be viewed as pornographic. I see some significant differences between the nature of erotic (porn industry) and biotic (zoo industry) entertainment. There is a certain “economy of desire” which exists human-human in the porn industry, and human-animal in the zoo industry - relationship shortcuts.
The presumption of mastery and control occurs in both industries. For this reason, some zoos can be classifed as pornographic. However, I am unwilling to classify all zoos as inherently pornographic. At times, profound, fulfilling exchanges, however brief, can occur between humans and animals in zoos, even those meeting certain criteria of pornography.
Human-animals have dominated and radically altered the environment of “wild” animals in their “natural habitats,” precipitously so, since the industrial revolution. Acampora claims that in zoos, “The very structure of the human-animal encounter is disrupted, and the interaction that is sought—encountering the animals—becomes impossibility as the “real” animals disappear and the conditions for seeing are undermined.” I would posit that industrialization, globalization, human poverty, and human greed have curtailed opportunity for true interaction between humans and “wild” animals. Their “natural habitats” exist only in the most remote, humanly –inhospitable environments. Remoteness offers no protection to the animals, or their habitats, from human-created alterations, like pollution and global warming. Doesn’t this also create structural inauthenticity - despite the best intentions of humanity? Couldn’t we also consider the proclivity of human beings to alter habitats of nonhuman beings within the structure of possessive consciousness?
Acampora stated that his argument focuses on what the institutions of animal-keeping, particularly the zoo, reveal about us and our possibilities for relating to other human and nonhuman animals alike. Does it reveal the same, or different possibilities/limitations for relating to other human and nonhuman animals as the human domination of the environment?
How can we ethically argue against the structural inauthenticity of zoos, and the consideration of live beings within the structure of possessive consciousness, without applying this same logical morality to the reverse stewardship perpetrated by some humans against all living beings?
The presumption of mastery and control occurs in both industries. For this reason, some zoos can be classifed as pornographic. However, I am unwilling to classify all zoos as inherently pornographic. At times, profound, fulfilling exchanges, however brief, can occur between humans and animals in zoos, even those meeting certain criteria of pornography.
Human-animals have dominated and radically altered the environment of “wild” animals in their “natural habitats,” precipitously so, since the industrial revolution. Acampora claims that in zoos, “The very structure of the human-animal encounter is disrupted, and the interaction that is sought—encountering the animals—becomes impossibility as the “real” animals disappear and the conditions for seeing are undermined.” I would posit that industrialization, globalization, human poverty, and human greed have curtailed opportunity for true interaction between humans and “wild” animals. Their “natural habitats” exist only in the most remote, humanly –inhospitable environments. Remoteness offers no protection to the animals, or their habitats, from human-created alterations, like pollution and global warming. Doesn’t this also create structural inauthenticity - despite the best intentions of humanity? Couldn’t we also consider the proclivity of human beings to alter habitats of nonhuman beings within the structure of possessive consciousness?
Acampora stated that his argument focuses on what the institutions of animal-keeping, particularly the zoo, reveal about us and our possibilities for relating to other human and nonhuman animals alike. Does it reveal the same, or different possibilities/limitations for relating to other human and nonhuman animals as the human domination of the environment?
How can we ethically argue against the structural inauthenticity of zoos, and the consideration of live beings within the structure of possessive consciousness, without applying this same logical morality to the reverse stewardship perpetrated by some humans against all living beings?
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Nature, Humans included.
Attending college is absolutely what I need to be doing. Wednesday, in logic class I learned about the Principle of Interpretive Charity. I had never heard of that principle. It has a Bhuddist essence, and appears to be the best way to live among linguistic communicators.
Then, in Nature of Human Nature, class discussion of the inclusion of humankind as equally natural as nature, sent my mind into turmoil. I was reluctant to give up my preferred catorgarization of humans as unnatural. I went from thinking DJ didn’t understand nature, to realizing he was right. Component, natural ingredients synthesized by humankind into products, logically make these products natural. There are the erratic, occassional, non-deliberate significant acts of natural destruction, usually confined to specific regions of the planet. Then there are the deliberate, human-caused, ongoing, planet-wide, destructive acts that are also natural. I followed a link DJ offered to the journal of Capitalism, Nature, Socialism. and found this gem on their site.
We regard nature as having intrinsic value.
We see humanity as part of nature.
We are nature’s self-transforming creature.
Humankind becomes de-vilifyed, no longer the destroyer of nature, we become nature’s self-transforming creature.
Exposure to new ideas, exposure to different ways of looking at tightly held, old ideas, and the opportunity to be gently supported through internal shifts of personal, imperfect views of the world, are the true blessing and value of a college education.
Then, in Nature of Human Nature, class discussion of the inclusion of humankind as equally natural as nature, sent my mind into turmoil. I was reluctant to give up my preferred catorgarization of humans as unnatural. I went from thinking DJ didn’t understand nature, to realizing he was right. Component, natural ingredients synthesized by humankind into products, logically make these products natural. There are the erratic, occassional, non-deliberate significant acts of natural destruction, usually confined to specific regions of the planet. Then there are the deliberate, human-caused, ongoing, planet-wide, destructive acts that are also natural. I followed a link DJ offered to the journal of Capitalism, Nature, Socialism. and found this gem on their site.
We regard nature as having intrinsic value.
We see humanity as part of nature.
We are nature’s self-transforming creature.
Humankind becomes de-vilifyed, no longer the destroyer of nature, we become nature’s self-transforming creature.
Exposure to new ideas, exposure to different ways of looking at tightly held, old ideas, and the opportunity to be gently supported through internal shifts of personal, imperfect views of the world, are the true blessing and value of a college education.
"Zoos and Eyes"
My first zoo experience was a grammar school field trip to the Franklin Park Zoo in Boston. I was deeply traumatized by the horrific condition of the animals and their environment. My next zoo-like experience came a decade later when I visited the San Diego Wild Animal Park. People were confined inside a monorail. The park was artificially divided into regions representing the world’s ecosystems. Animals were grouped according to the region where they would normally be found – except predators were arificially separated from their prey. I was delighted with the concept of confining the people instead of the animals.
My next zoo experience came about a decade later at the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. The enclosures I could see were clean, but too tiny for any mammal. I remember the tigers and the wolves. I thought they all looked depressed. I had an amazing interspecies experience with a silver back gorilla who offered to share his meal with me. We were separated by a sheet of glass. He repeatedly tapped the glass with his green beans and carrot pieces while I held my hand against the glass. I remember being amazed at his hands, his fingers, and his eyes. His graciousness couldn’t mask his sadness. I repeatedly apologized to him about his circumstances, but I had no solution for his plight. I was both exhilerated and anguished by this zoo experience.
At the New England Aquariam in Boston, a seal and I shared a brief encounter that I enjoyed. But again, the enclosure was unacceptably tiny. I went to Sea World, and hated it. I went to Busch Garden, and Disney’s Animal Kingdom. These places were considered among the best zoos and parks. I found them depressing. Unable to enjoy them the way most of the public seemed to be, I thought there must be something wrong with me. These animals have been objectified to such an extreme that most human spectators do not recognize their suffering. There seems to be no innate human compassion for the suffering of their fellow creatures.
This year I went to an animal park in Quebec, where the human spectators were confined to their vehicles and following an assigned route. Sighting of particular species was not guaranteed. Time of visit, season, weather, and the nature of the species, are factors affecting potential sightings. The animals have sufficient assigned territory to avoid human eyes, but I don’t know at what cost to them. We watched cars and the bus choose to keep moving instead of waiting to see if animals would come into sight. For many human spectators, there was a real impatience with, and intolerance of, the natural needs and rituals of the animals. This clearly was what Acampora was speaking of, those people had come to be amused, entertained. The animals were objectified, valueless. The spectator's experience of viewing was all that had value here.
“Zoos and Eyes” validated my experience with these zoos. I agree with many of Ralph Acampora’s statements supporting his argument that zoos are pornagraphic. Modern zoos are not healthy for the animals or the spectators. It would be optimum if there was opportunity for interspecies encounters, if it was a voluntary encounter for all parties. I would not want to never have the opportunity to encounter extirpated species, or non-native species. I will always cherish and be saddened by my encounter with the silver back, and the seal. I must question some of my assumptions of what I have seen in the Quebec park. As you can see from one of my coyote pictures and one of my wolf pictures taken there, sometimes the animals do choose to make eye contact with the human spectators.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)