aboriginals, Indigenous, native american tribes
aboriginals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples
aboriginals
aboriginals in australia
aboriginals in canada
aboriginals in tasmanians
native american tribes
Steven Pinker, Enlightenment now : the case for reason, science, humanism, and progress, 2008
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1V87PyIBvs0UnaMQ9aRgFUZejRUgDztHT
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
*Low frequency noise complaints (San Jose, California, USA)
05/30/2018 afternoon PST
https://www.gov.je/Home/Parish/Nuisances/pages/lownoise.aspx
https://www.salford.ac.uk/research/sirc/research-groups/acoustics/psychoacoustics/low-frequency-noise/frequently-asked-questions
https://www.nsa.gov/news-features/declassified-documents/ask-zelda-columns/assets/files/Doc09.pdf
06/01/2018 loud motorcycle in the neighborhood, near midnight, reving motor bike
06/02/2018 experience system clock battery (CMOS) failure
Saturday, June 2, 2018, McKee, Jose Figurere, T section, traffic light, hospital corner, San Jose regional medical center, Lost dog sign, almost noon
Saturday, June 2, 2018, old man (young person, a lady, ...) talking out loud on a mobile phone in public space (maybe speaking a foreign language)
Wednesday, June 13, 2018, McKee, Jose Figurere, T section, traffic light, hospital corner, San Jose regional medical center, Lost dog sign no longer there, a piece of tape is left on a traffic pole, on
Wednesday, June 13, 2018, hospital parking lot entrance/exit driveway to McKee, Lost animal (dog?) post/sign with candy red tape on top and bottom on electrical power pole, around 10:44 AM (PST)
selection bias: extra vehicle traffic [above normal] on Jose Figurere (personal observation); ...
https://www.gov.je/Home/Parish/Nuisances/pages/lownoise.aspx
https://www.salford.ac.uk/research/sirc/research-groups/acoustics/psychoacoustics/low-frequency-noise/frequently-asked-questions
https://www.nsa.gov/news-features/declassified-documents/ask-zelda-columns/assets/files/Doc09.pdf
06/01/2018 loud motorcycle in the neighborhood, near midnight, reving motor bike
06/02/2018 experience system clock battery (CMOS) failure
Saturday, June 2, 2018, McKee, Jose Figurere, T section, traffic light, hospital corner, San Jose regional medical center, Lost dog sign, almost noon
Saturday, June 2, 2018, old man (young person, a lady, ...) talking out loud on a mobile phone in public space (maybe speaking a foreign language)
Wednesday, June 13, 2018, McKee, Jose Figurere, T section, traffic light, hospital corner, San Jose regional medical center, Lost dog sign no longer there, a piece of tape is left on a traffic pole, on
Wednesday, June 13, 2018, hospital parking lot entrance/exit driveway to McKee, Lost animal (dog?) post/sign with candy red tape on top and bottom on electrical power pole, around 10:44 AM (PST)
selection bias: extra vehicle traffic [above normal] on Jose Figurere (personal observation); ...
Thursday, May 24, 2018
Two realities II, part 1 of 8
Two realities II, part 1 of 8
The following is a rewrite:
There is two reality.
(1 - One Romeo) your personal reality [filter] and the BIG-world reality [multiple aspects of which is knowable]. Your reality or personal reality [filter] is what you experience [what you experience day-to-day is real; you do not need to prove it to anyone; it does not need to be validated; no proof is needed; no need to provide any evidence to your self; it is like getting rape (physical, mental, emotional or intellectual), you are the evidence; you live with the evidence; your body is the evidence; your experience is the evidence].
Another way to talking about this, is the common saying [rule, guide, truism]: ‘out of sight, out of mind’. Meaning, you can not see what is not on your [RADAR]* screen; ‘out of sight, out of mind’. (As a side note, not related to the current topic in discussion, there is the anti-thesis to ‘out of sight, out of mind’, which is ‘absence makes the heart grows fonder’)
[RADAR]*
[this is not to say that - while staring at the screen with your mind in the zone of flow state - you won't make a biassociative connective leap, and some insight pop into your head that later prove to be true, untrue, fuzzy, inconclusive, or mysterious after a drill down, deep dig [archaeological], “take a vacation” from the problem, and investigative research to support that biassociation, interconnection, or pattern.]
This is why when they attack you, repeat it often enough, and make the attack personal, it hurts [Hillary Rodham Clinton, 2017, p.116]; the attack is supposed to be personal, the attack has to be done repeatedly, the attack should be done as publicly as possible, the attack is supposed to work, and that is why it does hurt. They are attacking your public [image]*. They do this by reinforcing and strengthening the association of a known negative impression to the [image]* of for example, Hillary Rodham Clinton. The goal is not to change the mind of Hillary supporter or Hillary true-believer. The goal is to nudge on-the-fence people who are unsure about Hillary, Bill, and the associative semiotic representation (Hillary, Bill, and the representation are a single class, grouping, one indivisible unit, an [image]*). The email leaks are all part of that. To paint the Hillary camp in a less than positive light. Drive the negative. Introduce uncertainty. Taint the [image]*. The negative and positive impressions are inherent or part of human nature [brain circuit, brain wiring, brain neural network].
The key is to establishment an associative link of a pre-existing impression to the [image]*. Once the link has been established, then the next stage in the process is reinforcement and strengthening of the brain neural circuit wiring (link). This is one of many ways a public relation program could hack or nudge your point of view [filter].
(2 - Two Romeo) The BIG-world reality is [umgebung]*. What is [umgebung]*? If a tree fell down in a forest, and no one knows about it, did it fall? If a human baby is left to die in a forest, and nobody knows about it, did that baby died? If no one knows about it, then from the personal experience perspective, that reality do not exist. The tree and the baby do not exist [not on the RADAR, ‘out of sight, out of mind’]. How could you know the tree and the baby exist? You have the intelligence? Gut intuition? Feeling? Vibe? Psychic sixth sense? Extra-sensory perception - ESP? A little bird told you? Divine revelation? Comparison & survey studies? Statistics & data inferential reports? On the other hand, in the BIG-world reality of [umgebung]*, the falling tree and the lone baby in that forest are real and do exist, independent of any human witness or intelligence.
Keep in mind. The baby would inevitably died from old age, because all elders and the deceased were once a baby. Are you trying to tell me that this baby, that young gentle lady [young gentle man], that woman in her prime [his prime], that elderly lady [gentleman], and this human skeleton, they are all manifestation of a single reality and that they are one? Yes! But ... but how? How can that be? They are all different.
of
http://www.dynamictao.com/taophilosophy_oneness.html
Reality may be expressed in two levels: the conventional level and the actual levels. The conventional level with objects referring to our concrete experiences; the actual level refers to the realistic modes of the reality. Our model is to relate the conventional objects to the actual modes according to the Principle of Oneness.
[reality is personal]*
“Part of the problem stems from the fact that facts, even a lot of facts, do not constitute reality. Reality is what forms after we filter, arrange, and prioritize those facts and marinate them in our values and traditions.
“Reality is personal.”, p.2, Brooke Gladstone, The trouble with reality, 2017
[umgebung]*
pp.6-7
Umwelt expresses the idea that different animals living on the same patch of earth experience utterly disparate realities. Writing in Edge, neuroscientist David M. Eagleman put it this way:
“In the blind and deaf world of the tick,
the important signals are temperature
and the odor of butyric acid. For the black
ghost knifefish, it's electrical fields. For the
echo-locating bat, it's air-compression waves.
“The small subset of the world that an
animal is able to detect is its umwelt.
“The bigger reality, whatever that might
mean, is called the umgebung.
“To appreciate the amount that goes
undetected in our lives, imagine you're a
bloodhound dog. Your long nose houses two
hundred million scent receptors ... your wet
nostrils attract and trap scent molecules. The
slits at the corners of each nostril flare out to
allow more airflow ... your floppy ears drag
along the ground and kick up scent molecules.
Your world is all about olfaction.”
One day while trotting behind your master, you are stunned by a revelation. The human with whom you stroll is profoundly disabled! You glory in smell while he stumbles along with stunted senses! How diminished, how sad, his life must be.
“Obviously, we suffer no absence of smell
because we accept reality as it's presented
to us. Without the olfactory capabilities of a
bloodhound, it rarely strikes us that things
could be different.”
(Brooke Gladstone, The trouble with reality: a rumination on moral panic in our time, 306.2097 Gladston, 2017, pp.6-7)
[image]*
• Knowledge has an implication of validity, of truth; the IMAGE is what I believe to be true ― my subjective knowledge of the world; It is this Image that governs my behavior. (Boulding 1956: 5―6) (p.238, Gerald M. Weinberg and Daniela Weinberg, General principles of systems design, 1988)
p.238
<block citation begin>
I know that when I get into my car there are some things I must do to start it; some things I must do to back out of the parking lot; some things I must do to drive home. I know that if I jump off a high place I will probably hurt myself. I know that there are some things that would probably not be good for me to eat or to drink. I know certain precautions that are advisable to take to maintain good health. I know that if I lean to far backward in my chair as I sit here at my desk, I will probably fall over. I live, in other words, in a world of reasonably stable relationships, a world of “ifs” and “thens,” of “if I do this, then that will happen . . .”
What I have been talking about is knowledge. Knowledge, perhaps, is not a good word for this. Perhaps one would rather say my IMAGE of the world. Knowledge has an implication of validity, of truth. What I am talking about is what I believe to be true; my subjective knowledge. It is this Image that largely governs my behavior. (Boulding 1956: 5―6)
</block citation end>
(Weinberg, Gerald M.; General principles of systems design, Originally published as: On the design of stable system. 1979, 1. system analysis, QA402.W43 1988, copyright © 1988 by Gerald M. Weinberg and Daniela Weinberg, portions of this book appear in Becoming a technical leader, The secret of consulting, and Rethinking systems analysis & design, p.238)
[consensus reality]*
pp.215-216
A few statements mades by Hoyle himself provide the best evidence. In Home is Where the Wind Blows, he wrote the following striking paragraph:
The problem with the scientific establishment goes back to
the small hunting parties of prehistory. It must then have
been the case that, for a hunt to be successful, the entire
party was needed. With the direction of prey uncertain,
as the direction of the correct theory in science is initially
uncertain, the party had to make a decision about which
way to go, and then they all had to stick to the decision,
even if it was merely made at random. The dissident who
argued that the correct direction was precisely opposite
from the chosen direction had to be thrown out of the
group, just as the scientist today who takes a view different
from the consensus finds his papers rejected by journals
and his applications for research grants summarily dismissed
by state agencies. Life must have been hard in prehistory,
for the more a hunting party found no prey in its
chosen direction, the more it had to continue in that direction,
for to stop and argue would be to create uncertainty
and to risk differences of opinion breaking out, with the
group then splitting disastrously apart. This is why the first
priority among scientists is not be correct but for everybody
to think the same way. It is this perhaps instinctive
primitive motivation that creates the establishment.
p.216
However, as Rees has pointed out, isolation has its price. Science progresses not in a straight line from A to B but in a zigzag path shaped by critical reevaluation and fault-finding interaction. The continuous evaluation provided by the scientific establishment that Hoyle so despised is what creates the checks and balances that keep scientists from straying too far in the wrong direction. By imposing upon himself academic isolation, Hoyle denied himself these corrective forces.
(Brilliant blunders: from Darwin to Einstein ─ colossal mistakes by great scientists that changed our understanding of life and the universe / Mario Livio., 1. errors, scientific., Q172.5.E77L58 2013, 500─dc23, first Simon & Schuster hardcover edition May 2013, 2013, pp.215-216, p.216 )
Adam Grant, Originals : how non-conformists move the world, 2016 [ ]
p.48
When Galileo made his astonishing discovery of mountains on the moon, his telescope didn't actually have enough magnifying power to support that finding. Instead, he recognized the zigzag pattern separating the light and dark areas of the moon. Other astronomers were looking through similar telescopes, but only Galileo “was able to appreciate the implications of the dark and light regions,” Simonton notes.
p.48
Thanks to artistic training in a technique called chiaroscuro, which focuses on representations of light and shade, Galileo was able to detect mountains where others did not.
(Originals : how non-conformists move the world / Adam Grant, 2016, forward by Sheryl Sandberg, LCSH: Creative thinking. Creative ability in business. Organizational change. New products. Entrepreneurship. Success in business., )
Thomas Ask, Engineering for industrial designers & inventors, 2016 [ ]
p.11
All disciplines work in a social context and the intellectual ecology that they operate under motivates behaviors and opinions. We quickly identify the “rules” for our group and try to defend our group identity. While sometimes these rules are written, most are discerned by observing what happens when people break them or by how people actually behave. Violating a group's rules as expressed by stories, traditions, and practices can disturb the intellectual ecology and cause us to be anxious about what we are doing. <skip last sentence>
p.30
The interactions of people within a group are an important component of creative expression. Creativity can be nurtured or nullified in a group. While Picasso and Braque collaborated to lead the Cubist movement and Einstein worked with Grossman to develop the mathematical language of nonlinear geometry for expressing relativity theories, many creative people from Sappho to Shakespeare do not collaborate. But how many great creators have had their creative products discarded when their life ended? How many more individuals who, while working within a group, had a wonderful idea attacked or ridiculed so as not to ever be developed? We will never know.
p.31
Sociological models of individual self and its relations to groups indicate people benefit from group participation and identification. The group you identify with can have consequences beyond the functioning of that group--the group can in turn define your self-worth. Morever, this relationship between self and group can adversely affect your view of those outside your group. Identity theory suggests that when self-proclaimed creative people gather in groups, they will deeply nurture one another's creativity and at the same time excoriate other groups' creative efforts. We can see in reviewing historic collaborations of artists and scientists that they gained confidence based on numbers. Therefore, while individual creativity is difficult to appraise, a group culture can have a predictable effect upon the individual members' creative expression.
p.31
What is creativity?
(Thomas Ask, Engineering for industrial designers & inventors, 2016, )
Ed Catmull with Amy Wallace, creativity, inc., 2014 [ ]
[p.177, p.178, p.183]
p.177
The problem is, the phrase is dead wrong. Hindsight is not 20-20. Not even close. Our view of the past, in fact, is hardly clearer than our view of the future. While we know more about a past event than a future one, our understanding of the factors that shaped it is severely limited. Not only that, because we THINK we see what happened clearly--hindsight being 20-20 and all--we often aren't open to knowing more. ...[...]... The past should be our teacher, not our master.
p.178
We build our story--our model of the past--as best we can. We may seek our other people's memories and examine our own limited records to come up with a better model. Even then, it is still only a model--not reality.
p.183
When we are making a movie, the movie doesn't exist yet. We are not uncovering it or discovering it; it's not as if it resides somewhere and is just waiting to be found. There is no movie. We are making decisions, one by one, to create it. In a fundamental way, the movie is hidden from us. (I refer to this concept the “Unmade Future,” and I will devote a subsequent chapter to the central role it plays in creativity.)
(creativity, inc. : overcoming the unseen forces that stand in the way of true inspiration / Ed Catmull with Amy Wallace., 1. creativity ability in business2. corporate culture, 3. organizational effectiveness, 4. pixar (firm), © 2014 by Edwin Catmull, 658.4071 Catmull, [p.177, p.178, p.183] )
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
The following is a rewrite:
There is two reality.
(1 - One Romeo) your personal reality [filter] and the BIG-world reality [multiple aspects of which is knowable]. Your reality or personal reality [filter] is what you experience [what you experience day-to-day is real; you do not need to prove it to anyone; it does not need to be validated; no proof is needed; no need to provide any evidence to your self; it is like getting rape (physical, mental, emotional or intellectual), you are the evidence; you live with the evidence; your body is the evidence; your experience is the evidence].
Another way to talking about this, is the common saying [rule, guide, truism]: ‘out of sight, out of mind’. Meaning, you can not see what is not on your [RADAR]* screen; ‘out of sight, out of mind’. (As a side note, not related to the current topic in discussion, there is the anti-thesis to ‘out of sight, out of mind’, which is ‘absence makes the heart grows fonder’)
[RADAR]*
[this is not to say that - while staring at the screen with your mind in the zone of flow state - you won't make a biassociative connective leap, and some insight pop into your head that later prove to be true, untrue, fuzzy, inconclusive, or mysterious after a drill down, deep dig [archaeological], “take a vacation” from the problem, and investigative research to support that biassociation, interconnection, or pattern.]
This is why when they attack you, repeat it often enough, and make the attack personal, it hurts [Hillary Rodham Clinton, 2017, p.116]; the attack is supposed to be personal, the attack has to be done repeatedly, the attack should be done as publicly as possible, the attack is supposed to work, and that is why it does hurt. They are attacking your public [image]*. They do this by reinforcing and strengthening the association of a known negative impression to the [image]* of for example, Hillary Rodham Clinton. The goal is not to change the mind of Hillary supporter or Hillary true-believer. The goal is to nudge on-the-fence people who are unsure about Hillary, Bill, and the associative semiotic representation (Hillary, Bill, and the representation are a single class, grouping, one indivisible unit, an [image]*). The email leaks are all part of that. To paint the Hillary camp in a less than positive light. Drive the negative. Introduce uncertainty. Taint the [image]*. The negative and positive impressions are inherent or part of human nature [brain circuit, brain wiring, brain neural network].
The key is to establishment an associative link of a pre-existing impression to the [image]*. Once the link has been established, then the next stage in the process is reinforcement and strengthening of the brain neural circuit wiring (link). This is one of many ways a public relation program could hack or nudge your point of view [filter].
(2 - Two Romeo) The BIG-world reality is [umgebung]*. What is [umgebung]*? If a tree fell down in a forest, and no one knows about it, did it fall? If a human baby is left to die in a forest, and nobody knows about it, did that baby died? If no one knows about it, then from the personal experience perspective, that reality do not exist. The tree and the baby do not exist [not on the RADAR, ‘out of sight, out of mind’]. How could you know the tree and the baby exist? You have the intelligence? Gut intuition? Feeling? Vibe? Psychic sixth sense? Extra-sensory perception - ESP? A little bird told you? Divine revelation? Comparison & survey studies? Statistics & data inferential reports? On the other hand, in the BIG-world reality of [umgebung]*, the falling tree and the lone baby in that forest are real and do exist, independent of any human witness or intelligence.
Keep in mind. The baby would inevitably died from old age, because all elders and the deceased were once a baby. Are you trying to tell me that this baby, that young gentle lady [young gentle man], that woman in her prime [his prime], that elderly lady [gentleman], and this human skeleton, they are all manifestation of a single reality and that they are one? Yes! But ... but how? How can that be? They are all different.
of
http://www.dynamictao.com/taophilosophy_oneness.html
Reality may be expressed in two levels: the conventional level and the actual levels. The conventional level with objects referring to our concrete experiences; the actual level refers to the realistic modes of the reality. Our model is to relate the conventional objects to the actual modes according to the Principle of Oneness.
[reality is personal]*
“Part of the problem stems from the fact that facts, even a lot of facts, do not constitute reality. Reality is what forms after we filter, arrange, and prioritize those facts and marinate them in our values and traditions.
“Reality is personal.”, p.2, Brooke Gladstone, The trouble with reality, 2017
[umgebung]*
pp.6-7
Umwelt expresses the idea that different animals living on the same patch of earth experience utterly disparate realities. Writing in Edge, neuroscientist David M. Eagleman put it this way:
“In the blind and deaf world of the tick,
the important signals are temperature
and the odor of butyric acid. For the black
ghost knifefish, it's electrical fields. For the
echo-locating bat, it's air-compression waves.
“The small subset of the world that an
animal is able to detect is its umwelt.
“The bigger reality, whatever that might
mean, is called the umgebung.
“To appreciate the amount that goes
undetected in our lives, imagine you're a
bloodhound dog. Your long nose houses two
hundred million scent receptors ... your wet
nostrils attract and trap scent molecules. The
slits at the corners of each nostril flare out to
allow more airflow ... your floppy ears drag
along the ground and kick up scent molecules.
Your world is all about olfaction.”
One day while trotting behind your master, you are stunned by a revelation. The human with whom you stroll is profoundly disabled! You glory in smell while he stumbles along with stunted senses! How diminished, how sad, his life must be.
“Obviously, we suffer no absence of smell
because we accept reality as it's presented
to us. Without the olfactory capabilities of a
bloodhound, it rarely strikes us that things
could be different.”
(Brooke Gladstone, The trouble with reality: a rumination on moral panic in our time, 306.2097 Gladston, 2017, pp.6-7)
[image]*
• Knowledge has an implication of validity, of truth; the IMAGE is what I believe to be true ― my subjective knowledge of the world; It is this Image that governs my behavior. (Boulding 1956: 5―6) (p.238, Gerald M. Weinberg and Daniela Weinberg, General principles of systems design, 1988)
p.238
<block citation begin>
I know that when I get into my car there are some things I must do to start it; some things I must do to back out of the parking lot; some things I must do to drive home. I know that if I jump off a high place I will probably hurt myself. I know that there are some things that would probably not be good for me to eat or to drink. I know certain precautions that are advisable to take to maintain good health. I know that if I lean to far backward in my chair as I sit here at my desk, I will probably fall over. I live, in other words, in a world of reasonably stable relationships, a world of “ifs” and “thens,” of “if I do this, then that will happen . . .”
What I have been talking about is knowledge. Knowledge, perhaps, is not a good word for this. Perhaps one would rather say my IMAGE of the world. Knowledge has an implication of validity, of truth. What I am talking about is what I believe to be true; my subjective knowledge. It is this Image that largely governs my behavior. (Boulding 1956: 5―6)
</block citation end>
(Weinberg, Gerald M.; General principles of systems design, Originally published as: On the design of stable system. 1979, 1. system analysis, QA402.W43 1988, copyright © 1988 by Gerald M. Weinberg and Daniela Weinberg, portions of this book appear in Becoming a technical leader, The secret of consulting, and Rethinking systems analysis & design, p.238)
[consensus reality]*
pp.215-216
A few statements mades by Hoyle himself provide the best evidence. In Home is Where the Wind Blows, he wrote the following striking paragraph:
The problem with the scientific establishment goes back to
the small hunting parties of prehistory. It must then have
been the case that, for a hunt to be successful, the entire
party was needed. With the direction of prey uncertain,
as the direction of the correct theory in science is initially
uncertain, the party had to make a decision about which
way to go, and then they all had to stick to the decision,
even if it was merely made at random. The dissident who
argued that the correct direction was precisely opposite
from the chosen direction had to be thrown out of the
group, just as the scientist today who takes a view different
from the consensus finds his papers rejected by journals
and his applications for research grants summarily dismissed
by state agencies. Life must have been hard in prehistory,
for the more a hunting party found no prey in its
chosen direction, the more it had to continue in that direction,
for to stop and argue would be to create uncertainty
and to risk differences of opinion breaking out, with the
group then splitting disastrously apart. This is why the first
priority among scientists is not be correct but for everybody
to think the same way. It is this perhaps instinctive
primitive motivation that creates the establishment.
p.216
However, as Rees has pointed out, isolation has its price. Science progresses not in a straight line from A to B but in a zigzag path shaped by critical reevaluation and fault-finding interaction. The continuous evaluation provided by the scientific establishment that Hoyle so despised is what creates the checks and balances that keep scientists from straying too far in the wrong direction. By imposing upon himself academic isolation, Hoyle denied himself these corrective forces.
(Brilliant blunders: from Darwin to Einstein ─ colossal mistakes by great scientists that changed our understanding of life and the universe / Mario Livio., 1. errors, scientific., Q172.5.E77L58 2013, 500─dc23, first Simon & Schuster hardcover edition May 2013, 2013, pp.215-216, p.216 )
Adam Grant, Originals : how non-conformists move the world, 2016 [ ]
p.48
When Galileo made his astonishing discovery of mountains on the moon, his telescope didn't actually have enough magnifying power to support that finding. Instead, he recognized the zigzag pattern separating the light and dark areas of the moon. Other astronomers were looking through similar telescopes, but only Galileo “was able to appreciate the implications of the dark and light regions,” Simonton notes.
p.48
Thanks to artistic training in a technique called chiaroscuro, which focuses on representations of light and shade, Galileo was able to detect mountains where others did not.
(Originals : how non-conformists move the world / Adam Grant, 2016, forward by Sheryl Sandberg, LCSH: Creative thinking. Creative ability in business. Organizational change. New products. Entrepreneurship. Success in business., )
Thomas Ask, Engineering for industrial designers & inventors, 2016 [ ]
p.11
All disciplines work in a social context and the intellectual ecology that they operate under motivates behaviors and opinions. We quickly identify the “rules” for our group and try to defend our group identity. While sometimes these rules are written, most are discerned by observing what happens when people break them or by how people actually behave. Violating a group's rules as expressed by stories, traditions, and practices can disturb the intellectual ecology and cause us to be anxious about what we are doing. <skip last sentence>
p.30
The interactions of people within a group are an important component of creative expression. Creativity can be nurtured or nullified in a group. While Picasso and Braque collaborated to lead the Cubist movement and Einstein worked with Grossman to develop the mathematical language of nonlinear geometry for expressing relativity theories, many creative people from Sappho to Shakespeare do not collaborate. But how many great creators have had their creative products discarded when their life ended? How many more individuals who, while working within a group, had a wonderful idea attacked or ridiculed so as not to ever be developed? We will never know.
p.31
Sociological models of individual self and its relations to groups indicate people benefit from group participation and identification. The group you identify with can have consequences beyond the functioning of that group--the group can in turn define your self-worth. Morever, this relationship between self and group can adversely affect your view of those outside your group. Identity theory suggests that when self-proclaimed creative people gather in groups, they will deeply nurture one another's creativity and at the same time excoriate other groups' creative efforts. We can see in reviewing historic collaborations of artists and scientists that they gained confidence based on numbers. Therefore, while individual creativity is difficult to appraise, a group culture can have a predictable effect upon the individual members' creative expression.
p.31
What is creativity?
(Thomas Ask, Engineering for industrial designers & inventors, 2016, )
Ed Catmull with Amy Wallace, creativity, inc., 2014 [ ]
[p.177, p.178, p.183]
p.177
The problem is, the phrase is dead wrong. Hindsight is not 20-20. Not even close. Our view of the past, in fact, is hardly clearer than our view of the future. While we know more about a past event than a future one, our understanding of the factors that shaped it is severely limited. Not only that, because we THINK we see what happened clearly--hindsight being 20-20 and all--we often aren't open to knowing more. ...[...]... The past should be our teacher, not our master.
p.178
We build our story--our model of the past--as best we can. We may seek our other people's memories and examine our own limited records to come up with a better model. Even then, it is still only a model--not reality.
p.183
When we are making a movie, the movie doesn't exist yet. We are not uncovering it or discovering it; it's not as if it resides somewhere and is just waiting to be found. There is no movie. We are making decisions, one by one, to create it. In a fundamental way, the movie is hidden from us. (I refer to this concept the “Unmade Future,” and I will devote a subsequent chapter to the central role it plays in creativity.)
(creativity, inc. : overcoming the unseen forces that stand in the way of true inspiration / Ed Catmull with Amy Wallace., 1. creativity ability in business2. corporate culture, 3. organizational effectiveness, 4. pixar (firm), © 2014 by Edwin Catmull, 658.4071 Catmull, [p.177, p.178, p.183] )
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Two realities II, part 2 of 8
Two realities II, part 2 of 8
Scott Adams, Win bigly : persuasion in a world where facts don't matter, 2017
p.42
I started to feel as if I had one reality when I was normal and an entirely different reality when I was high. The interesting thing is that both of those realities worked fine. When I was high, I could still navigate the world and do all the things that people do. There were a few activities, such as studying for tests, that I didn't do as well when high. And driving was a bad idea. But for most daily activities there was no important difference in how I performed. That's when I started to realize that people could be living in different realities while inhabiting the same room. I knew from my own experience that I could experience two realities in the same room just by going from normal to high.
p.42
In the later years I came to understand why everyone seemed so much nicer to me when I was high. It turns out that people were actually nicer to me. And there is a perfectly good reason: My cheery relaxed attitude while high was rubbing off on the people around me. My other reality──the one in which I was not high──brought out my more intense, ambitious, and introspective personality. People respond to that personality with less friendliness because I look like I'm all business, and it rubs off on them. I wasn't perceiving reality to be different when I was high──I was causing it to be different.
p.42
My reality made perfect sense when I believed I was only imagining that people were acting nicer to me when I was high. And reality stil made sense when I realized (or believed) I was causing that niceness by my own demeanor.
p.42
When I was high, I knew people would respond to me in a certain way, on average, and they did. Or so it seemed.
p.43
psychedelic mushrooms.
It was the best day of my life, at least in terms of pure joy. And that isn't an exaggeration. No other experience has ever come close. But while the pleasure was temporary──literally just a spike in certain brain chemistry──the experience left me permanently changed.
p.43
When you are on mushrooms, you understand the world around you, and you can operate within it. But at the same time, you become aware that your interpretation of your reality is fluid. You see ordinary items almost as if you are an alien visiting this strange world for the first time, but for some odd reason you know what everything is and what it does. In other words, you become aware that your perceptions are independent from the underlying reality.
p.43
Once you understand your experience of life as an interpretation of reality, you can't go back to your old way of thinking. ([ This is statement is not true ])
(Names: Adams, Scott, 1957 - author., Title: Win bigly : persuasion in a world where facts don't matter / Scott Adams., Identifiers: LCCN 2017034760 | ISBN 9780735219717 (hardcover) | ISBN 9780735219724 (e-book) | ISBN 9780525533320 (international export edition), Subjects: LCSH: persuasion (psychology) | blog──united states. | deception──united states. | truthfulness and falsehood──united states. | social psychology──united states. | Trump, Donald, 1946─, Classification: LCC BF637.P4 A23 2017 | DDC 303.3/42-dc23,
classification record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017034760, 2017, )
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Scott Adams, Win bigly : persuasion in a world where facts don't matter, 2017
p.42
I started to feel as if I had one reality when I was normal and an entirely different reality when I was high. The interesting thing is that both of those realities worked fine. When I was high, I could still navigate the world and do all the things that people do. There were a few activities, such as studying for tests, that I didn't do as well when high. And driving was a bad idea. But for most daily activities there was no important difference in how I performed. That's when I started to realize that people could be living in different realities while inhabiting the same room. I knew from my own experience that I could experience two realities in the same room just by going from normal to high.
p.42
In the later years I came to understand why everyone seemed so much nicer to me when I was high. It turns out that people were actually nicer to me. And there is a perfectly good reason: My cheery relaxed attitude while high was rubbing off on the people around me. My other reality──the one in which I was not high──brought out my more intense, ambitious, and introspective personality. People respond to that personality with less friendliness because I look like I'm all business, and it rubs off on them. I wasn't perceiving reality to be different when I was high──I was causing it to be different.
p.42
My reality made perfect sense when I believed I was only imagining that people were acting nicer to me when I was high. And reality stil made sense when I realized (or believed) I was causing that niceness by my own demeanor.
p.42
When I was high, I knew people would respond to me in a certain way, on average, and they did. Or so it seemed.
p.43
psychedelic mushrooms.
It was the best day of my life, at least in terms of pure joy. And that isn't an exaggeration. No other experience has ever come close. But while the pleasure was temporary──literally just a spike in certain brain chemistry──the experience left me permanently changed.
p.43
When you are on mushrooms, you understand the world around you, and you can operate within it. But at the same time, you become aware that your interpretation of your reality is fluid. You see ordinary items almost as if you are an alien visiting this strange world for the first time, but for some odd reason you know what everything is and what it does. In other words, you become aware that your perceptions are independent from the underlying reality.
p.43
Once you understand your experience of life as an interpretation of reality, you can't go back to your old way of thinking. ([ This is statement is not true ])
(Names: Adams, Scott, 1957 - author., Title: Win bigly : persuasion in a world where facts don't matter / Scott Adams., Identifiers: LCCN 2017034760 | ISBN 9780735219717 (hardcover) | ISBN 9780735219724 (e-book) | ISBN 9780525533320 (international export edition), Subjects: LCSH: persuasion (psychology) | blog──united states. | deception──united states. | truthfulness and falsehood──united states. | social psychology──united states. | Trump, Donald, 1946─, Classification: LCC BF637.P4 A23 2017 | DDC 303.3/42-dc23,
classification record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017034760, 2017, )
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Two realities II, part 3 of 8
Two realities II, part 3 of 8
M. Mitchell Waldrop, The Dream Machine, 2001 [ ]
p.198
Advanced Research Projects Agency, or ARPA.
([
ARPA-IPTO
information processing technique office (IPTO)
www.livinginternet.com/i/ii_ipto.htm
1962-1984 (22 years)
])
p.353
ARPA-style communication
..., the challenge had been to maintain a sense of common purpose among research groups scattered across a continent.
principal investigators' meeting
graduate-student conferences
p.353
And his solution now, at PARC, was to do the same thing, but more frequently: once a week the computer group would assemble, someone would talk about his work for an hour or so, and then the others would have at him. Taylor considered these meetings so important, in fact, that he made them mandatory, the one thing that CSL members actually HAD to do. Visitors from the other labs were welcome, but for CSL, Tuesdays at 11:00 A.M. were sacrosanct.
p.353
He even let the speakers set the rules for how each meeting would proceed, much as a card dealer could call the game in Las Vegas; thus their nickname, Dealer Meetings. And when the arguments got heated, which they often did, the minister's son would do his best to convert a “class one” disagreement--one in which the combatants were simply yelling at each other--into a “class two” disgreement, in which each side could explain the other side's position to the other side's satisfaction. You don't have to BELIEVE the other guy, he would tell them. You just have to give a fair account of what he's saying. And it worked.
pp.353-354
As one CSL member later explained it, Taylor's class one/class two exercise was amazingly effective at clarifying unspoken assumptions and ferreting out facts that one person knew and another didn't.
p.354
“So by the time you get done”, he said, “you all know the same set of things, and you end up concluding the same thing.”4
p.481
4. Quoted in Smith and Alexander, Fumbling the Future, 79.
5. Quoted in Dennis Sasha and Cathy Lazere, Out of Their Mind: The Lives and Discoveries of 15 Great Computer Scientist (New York: Copernicus, 1995), 39.
(Waldrop, M. Mitchell.; The dream machine : J. C. R. Licklider and the revolution that made computing personal / M. Mitchell Waldrop., 1. Licklider, J. C. R., 2. microcomputers--history, 2001, )
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
M. Mitchell Waldrop, The Dream Machine, 2001 [ ]
p.198
Advanced Research Projects Agency, or ARPA.
([
ARPA-IPTO
information processing technique office (IPTO)
www.livinginternet.com/i/ii_ipto.htm
1962-1984 (22 years)
])
p.353
ARPA-style communication
..., the challenge had been to maintain a sense of common purpose among research groups scattered across a continent.
principal investigators' meeting
graduate-student conferences
p.353
And his solution now, at PARC, was to do the same thing, but more frequently: once a week the computer group would assemble, someone would talk about his work for an hour or so, and then the others would have at him. Taylor considered these meetings so important, in fact, that he made them mandatory, the one thing that CSL members actually HAD to do. Visitors from the other labs were welcome, but for CSL, Tuesdays at 11:00 A.M. were sacrosanct.
p.353
He even let the speakers set the rules for how each meeting would proceed, much as a card dealer could call the game in Las Vegas; thus their nickname, Dealer Meetings. And when the arguments got heated, which they often did, the minister's son would do his best to convert a “class one” disagreement--one in which the combatants were simply yelling at each other--into a “class two” disgreement, in which each side could explain the other side's position to the other side's satisfaction. You don't have to BELIEVE the other guy, he would tell them. You just have to give a fair account of what he's saying. And it worked.
pp.353-354
As one CSL member later explained it, Taylor's class one/class two exercise was amazingly effective at clarifying unspoken assumptions and ferreting out facts that one person knew and another didn't.
p.354
“So by the time you get done”, he said, “you all know the same set of things, and you end up concluding the same thing.”4
p.481
4. Quoted in Smith and Alexander, Fumbling the Future, 79.
5. Quoted in Dennis Sasha and Cathy Lazere, Out of Their Mind: The Lives and Discoveries of 15 Great Computer Scientist (New York: Copernicus, 1995), 39.
(Waldrop, M. Mitchell.; The dream machine : J. C. R. Licklider and the revolution that made computing personal / M. Mitchell Waldrop., 1. Licklider, J. C. R., 2. microcomputers--history, 2001, )
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Two realities II, part 4 of 8
Two realities II, part 4 of 8
Tim Ferriss, Tools of Titans, 2017 [ ]
p.105
low dose LSD
100 mcg is useful for creative problem solving with non-personal matters (e.g., physics, biomechanics, or architecture).
Jim attributes this to enhanced focus and pattern recognition.
[We gave] them psychedelics and [had them] relax with music and eye shades for a couple of hours. And then, right at the peak, we bring them out and say, You may work on your problem ...
p.108
There's a saying in the psychedelic world: If you get the answer, you should hang up the phone. In other words, when you get the message you need, you shouldn't keep asking (i.e., having more experience), at least until you you've done some homework assignments, or used the clarity gained to make meaningful changes. It's easy to use the medicine as a crutch and avoid doing your own work, as the compounds themselves help in the short term as antidepressants.
([ low dose LSD is a short-term remedy for depression, should be studied and investigated; how does it affect clinically depressed people with chronic depression and suicidal tendency or other symptoms? ])
([ LSD, upgrade the law; keep the illegal part, put in exemption and exception for medical use, how would you implement that? ])
pp.110-121
Martin Polanco & Dan Engle
African hallucinogen ibogaine and 5-MeO-DMT
p.112
“That's why it's so critical to have preparation before the experience and then a period of integration afterward, because you are in this opened-up and receptive state and more suggestible. Whatever habits you incorporate in the weeks afterward can stick, and these can be good or bad.”
([ very much close to a truth serum; so rather than torture or ..., consider drugging the person with low dose of ... to aid interrogation; the idea is not to use the drug to get at the truth; the truth is for the analyst to decide; the objective is to lower the inhibition, to temporarily dismiss the psychological barrier, ... ])
(Tim Ferriss, Tools of Titans, 2017, 081 Ferriss, )
associative • barriers
Arthur Koeslter, The Act of Creation, 1964
Koestler suggests that we are at our most creative when rational thought is suspended - for example in dreams and trance-like states. Then the mind is capable of receiving inspiration and insight. Taking humor as his starting point, Koestler examines what he terms ‘bisociative’ thinking - the creative leap made by the mind that gives rise to new and starling perceptions and glimpses of reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Act_of_Creation
http://webprojects.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/marcusp/notes/koestler.pdf
https://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/05/20/arthur-koestler-creativity-bisociation/
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-rDIHDXbS3uvtgXcr/The+Act+of+Creation%2C+Arthur+Koestler_djvu.txt
Tim Ferriss, Tools of Titans, 2017 [ ]
p.126
Ideally, you would be sleeping in a hammock. You should be waking up in the morning feeling amazing without having to loose up your lower back.
p.126
Yes, you'd ideally be able to sleep on the floor and wake up feeling great, but we are not those people anymore due to excess sitting and inactivity.
(Tim Ferriss, Tools of Titans, 2017, 081 Ferriss, )
Tony Schwartz, The way we're working isn't working, 2010 [ ]
pp.74-75
Sara Mednick, "the optimized napping formula", slow-wave sleep (SWS), a full Basic Rest Activity Cycle (90 minute nap), 4 sleep stages, stages 1 and 2 sleep, deeper sleep of stages 3 and 4,
The most powerful nap of all is one taken for 90 minutes between 1 and 3 P.M. — traditional siesta time — which is when the body most craves sleep.
(Schwartz, Tony, 1952-, HF5549.5.P37S39 2010, 658.3'128—dc22, copyright © 2010)
(The way we're working isn't working : the four forgotten needs that energize great performance / Tony Schwartz, with Jean Gomes and Catherine McCarthy. — 1st Free Press hardcover ed., 1. performance., 2. work — psychological aspects., 3. organizational effectiveness., 4. personnel management., p.73, pp.73-74)
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Tim Ferriss, Tools of Titans, 2017 [ ]
p.105
low dose LSD
100 mcg is useful for creative problem solving with non-personal matters (e.g., physics, biomechanics, or architecture).
Jim attributes this to enhanced focus and pattern recognition.
[We gave] them psychedelics and [had them] relax with music and eye shades for a couple of hours. And then, right at the peak, we bring them out and say, You may work on your problem ...
p.108
There's a saying in the psychedelic world: If you get the answer, you should hang up the phone. In other words, when you get the message you need, you shouldn't keep asking (i.e., having more experience), at least until you you've done some homework assignments, or used the clarity gained to make meaningful changes. It's easy to use the medicine as a crutch and avoid doing your own work, as the compounds themselves help in the short term as antidepressants.
([ low dose LSD is a short-term remedy for depression, should be studied and investigated; how does it affect clinically depressed people with chronic depression and suicidal tendency or other symptoms? ])
([ LSD, upgrade the law; keep the illegal part, put in exemption and exception for medical use, how would you implement that? ])
pp.110-121
Martin Polanco & Dan Engle
African hallucinogen ibogaine and 5-MeO-DMT
p.112
“That's why it's so critical to have preparation before the experience and then a period of integration afterward, because you are in this opened-up and receptive state and more suggestible. Whatever habits you incorporate in the weeks afterward can stick, and these can be good or bad.”
([ very much close to a truth serum; so rather than torture or ..., consider drugging the person with low dose of ... to aid interrogation; the idea is not to use the drug to get at the truth; the truth is for the analyst to decide; the objective is to lower the inhibition, to temporarily dismiss the psychological barrier, ... ])
(Tim Ferriss, Tools of Titans, 2017, 081 Ferriss, )
associative • barriers
Arthur Koeslter, The Act of Creation, 1964
Koestler suggests that we are at our most creative when rational thought is suspended - for example in dreams and trance-like states. Then the mind is capable of receiving inspiration and insight. Taking humor as his starting point, Koestler examines what he terms ‘bisociative’ thinking - the creative leap made by the mind that gives rise to new and starling perceptions and glimpses of reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Act_of_Creation
http://webprojects.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/marcusp/notes/koestler.pdf
https://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/05/20/arthur-koestler-creativity-bisociation/
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-rDIHDXbS3uvtgXcr/The+Act+of+Creation%2C+Arthur+Koestler_djvu.txt
Tim Ferriss, Tools of Titans, 2017 [ ]
p.126
Ideally, you would be sleeping in a hammock. You should be waking up in the morning feeling amazing without having to loose up your lower back.
p.126
Yes, you'd ideally be able to sleep on the floor and wake up feeling great, but we are not those people anymore due to excess sitting and inactivity.
(Tim Ferriss, Tools of Titans, 2017, 081 Ferriss, )
Tony Schwartz, The way we're working isn't working, 2010 [ ]
pp.74-75
Sara Mednick, "the optimized napping formula", slow-wave sleep (SWS), a full Basic Rest Activity Cycle (90 minute nap), 4 sleep stages, stages 1 and 2 sleep, deeper sleep of stages 3 and 4,
The most powerful nap of all is one taken for 90 minutes between 1 and 3 P.M. — traditional siesta time — which is when the body most craves sleep.
(Schwartz, Tony, 1952-, HF5549.5.P37S39 2010, 658.3'128—dc22, copyright © 2010)
(The way we're working isn't working : the four forgotten needs that energize great performance / Tony Schwartz, with Jean Gomes and Catherine McCarthy. — 1st Free Press hardcover ed., 1. performance., 2. work — psychological aspects., 3. organizational effectiveness., 4. personnel management., p.73, pp.73-74)
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Two realities II, part 5 of 8
Two realities II, part 5 of 8
Thomas A. Seboek, 'signs: an introduction to semiotics', 2001 [ ]
[p.33]
Umwelt-Forschung - approximately translated as 're-search in subjective universes'
elementary sensations (Merkzeichen, 'perceptual signs')
action impulses (Wirkzeichen, 'operation signs')
phenomenal world (Umwelt) - the subjective world each animal models out of its 'true' environment (Natur, 'reality'), which reveals itself solely through signs.
(Thomas A. Seboek, 'signs: an introduction to semiotics', © 2001, p.33.)
[p.144]
The term Umwelt has proved notoriously recalcitrant to translation(the act or process of making plain and making clear to the mind), although 'subjective universe,' 'phenomenal world,' and 'self-world' variously approximate the author's intent. However, 'model' renders it more incisively, especially in view of his credo that 'every subject is the constructor of its its Umwelt' (Uexkull 1982: 87)
(Thomas A. Seboek, 'signs: an introduction to semiotics', © 2001, p.144.)
Uexkull, J. von. (1909). Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tierre. Berlin: Springer.
- (1973 [1928]). Theorestische Biologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
- (1982a). The Theory of Meaning. Semiotica 42: 1-87.
- (1982b). Semiotics and Medicine. Semiotica 38: 205-215.
[p.145]
As Jacob (1982: 55) has explained with utmost clarity, 'every organism is so equipped as to obtain a certain perception of the outer world. Each species thus lives in its own unique sensory world, to which other species may be partially or totally blind ... What an organism detects in its environment is always but a part of what is around. And this part differs according to the organism.'
Every beings--humans, animals, insects, micro-organisms, fishes, plants--are equipped with a set of sensors that enable that life-form to experience the surrounding environment(man-made or natural) with a point of view and view of the world. "Each species thus lives in its own unique sensory world, to which other species may be partially or totally blind ... What an organism detects in its environment is always but a part of what is around. And this part differs according to the organism.";--(Jacob, F.(1982). The Possible and the Actual. Seattle: University of Washington Press. p.55)
Jacob, F.(1982). The Possible and the Actual. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
... But the inclusive behavioural resources of any organism must be reasonably aligned with its model of 'reality' (Natur), that is, the system of signs its nervous system is capable of assembling - or it will surely be doomed, by natural selection, to extinction.
(Thomas A. Seboek, 'signs: an introduction to semiotics', © 2001, p.145.)
[p.27]
In the age-old philosophical quest for reality, two alternative points of departure have been suggested: that the structure of being is reflected in semiotic structures, which thus constitute models, or maps, of reality; or that the reverse is the case, namely, that semiotic structures are independent variables so that reality becomes the dependent variable. Although both views are beset by many difficulties, a version of the second, proposed by the remarkably seminal Estonian biologist Jakob von Uexkull (1864-1944), under the watchword Umwelt-Forschung - approximately translated as 're-search in subjective universes' - has proved to be in the conformity with modern semiotics (as well as with ethology). The same attitude was expressed by Niels Bohr when he answered an objection that reality is more fundamental than the language it underlies; Bohr replied: 'We are suspended in language in such a way what we cannot say what is up and what is down' (French and Kennedy 1985: 302). Signs have acquired their effectiveness through evolutionary adaptation to the vagaries of the sign wielder's Umwelt. When the Umwelt changes, these signs can become obstacles, and the signer, extinct.
(Thomas A. Seboek, 'signs: an introduction to semiotics', © 2001, p.27.)
(Thomas A. Seboek, 'signs: an introduction to semiotics', © 2001, )
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Thomas A. Seboek, 'signs: an introduction to semiotics', 2001 [ ]
[p.33]
Umwelt-Forschung - approximately translated as 're-search in subjective universes'
elementary sensations (Merkzeichen, 'perceptual signs')
action impulses (Wirkzeichen, 'operation signs')
phenomenal world (Umwelt) - the subjective world each animal models out of its 'true' environment (Natur, 'reality'), which reveals itself solely through signs.
(Thomas A. Seboek, 'signs: an introduction to semiotics', © 2001, p.33.)
[p.144]
The term Umwelt has proved notoriously recalcitrant to translation(the act or process of making plain and making clear to the mind), although 'subjective universe,' 'phenomenal world,' and 'self-world' variously approximate the author's intent. However, 'model' renders it more incisively, especially in view of his credo that 'every subject is the constructor of its its Umwelt' (Uexkull 1982: 87)
(Thomas A. Seboek, 'signs: an introduction to semiotics', © 2001, p.144.)
Uexkull, J. von. (1909). Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tierre. Berlin: Springer.
- (1973 [1928]). Theorestische Biologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
- (1982a). The Theory of Meaning. Semiotica 42: 1-87.
- (1982b). Semiotics and Medicine. Semiotica 38: 205-215.
[p.145]
As Jacob (1982: 55) has explained with utmost clarity, 'every organism is so equipped as to obtain a certain perception of the outer world. Each species thus lives in its own unique sensory world, to which other species may be partially or totally blind ... What an organism detects in its environment is always but a part of what is around. And this part differs according to the organism.'
Every beings--humans, animals, insects, micro-organisms, fishes, plants--are equipped with a set of sensors that enable that life-form to experience the surrounding environment(man-made or natural) with a point of view and view of the world. "Each species thus lives in its own unique sensory world, to which other species may be partially or totally blind ... What an organism detects in its environment is always but a part of what is around. And this part differs according to the organism.";--(Jacob, F.(1982). The Possible and the Actual. Seattle: University of Washington Press. p.55)
Jacob, F.(1982). The Possible and the Actual. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
... But the inclusive behavioural resources of any organism must be reasonably aligned with its model of 'reality' (Natur), that is, the system of signs its nervous system is capable of assembling - or it will surely be doomed, by natural selection, to extinction.
(Thomas A. Seboek, 'signs: an introduction to semiotics', © 2001, p.145.)
[p.27]
In the age-old philosophical quest for reality, two alternative points of departure have been suggested: that the structure of being is reflected in semiotic structures, which thus constitute models, or maps, of reality; or that the reverse is the case, namely, that semiotic structures are independent variables so that reality becomes the dependent variable. Although both views are beset by many difficulties, a version of the second, proposed by the remarkably seminal Estonian biologist Jakob von Uexkull (1864-1944), under the watchword Umwelt-Forschung - approximately translated as 're-search in subjective universes' - has proved to be in the conformity with modern semiotics (as well as with ethology). The same attitude was expressed by Niels Bohr when he answered an objection that reality is more fundamental than the language it underlies; Bohr replied: 'We are suspended in language in such a way what we cannot say what is up and what is down' (French and Kennedy 1985: 302). Signs have acquired their effectiveness through evolutionary adaptation to the vagaries of the sign wielder's Umwelt. When the Umwelt changes, these signs can become obstacles, and the signer, extinct.
(Thomas A. Seboek, 'signs: an introduction to semiotics', © 2001, p.27.)
(Thomas A. Seboek, 'signs: an introduction to semiotics', © 2001, )
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Two realities II, part 6 of 8
Two realities II, part 6 of 8
____________________________________
Definitions:
Eris : Gr. Myth. the goddess of strife and discord
eristic : of or provoking controversy or given to sophistical argument and specious reasoning
THE SACRED CHAO
THE SACRED CHAO is the key to illumination. Devised by the Apostle Hung Mung in ancient China, it was modified and popularized by the Taoists and is sometimes called the YIN-YANG. The Sacred Chao is not the Yin-Yang of the Taoists. It is the HODGE-PODGE of the Erisians. And, instead of a Podge spot on the Hodge side, it has a PENTAGON which symbolizes the ANERISTIC PRINCIPLE, and instead of a Hodge spot on the Podge side, it depicts the GOLDEN APPLE OF DISCORDIA to symbolize the ERISTIC PRINCIPLE.
The Sacred Chao symbolizes absolutely everything anyone need ever know about absolutely anything, and more! It even symbolizes everything not worth knowing, depicted by the empty space surrounding the Hodge-Podge.
HERE FOLLOWS SOME PSYCHO-METAPHYSICS.
If you are not hot for philosophy, best just to skip it.
The Aneristic Principle is that of APPARENT ORDER; the Eristic Principle is that of APPARENT DISORDER. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of PURE CHAOS, which is a level deeper that is the level of distinction making.
With our concept making apparatus called "mind" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about- reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently. It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T True) reality is a level deeper that is the level of concept.
We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The ORDER is in the GRID. That is the Aneristic Principle.
Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the ANERISTIC ILLUSION. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.
DISORDER is simply unrelated information viewed through some particular grid. But, like "relation", no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is "absence of female-ness", or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary. The artificial concept of no-relation is the ERISTIC PRINCIPLE.
The belief that "order is true" and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the ERISTIC ILLUSION.
The point is that (little-t) truth is a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that (capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered.
Reality is the original Rorschach.
Verily! So much for all that.
5. Hung Mung slapped his buttocks, hopped about, and shook his head, saying
"I do not know! I do not know!"
HBT; The Book of Gooks, Chap. 1
Source:
• http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tilt/principia/introh.html
• http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tilt/principia/body.html
____________________________________
Charlton Laird, Language and the Dictionary, Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (David B. Guralnik, editor in chief), pp.xxvi-xxvii, 1978 and 1974, 1976
Language and the Dictionary
by Charlton Laird
pp.xxvi-xxvii
IX. Dictionaries and Meaning
<skip the first paragraph of section IX.>
Part of the difficulty arises from the fact that, in any strict sense, words do not have intrinsic meaning. The meanings and the sense of words are in the users of the language, in the speakers and writers, in the hearers and readers. The words are stimuli that call forth senses of meaning, one sense in the speaker and writer, a somewhat different sense in the hearer or reader, and in reality a different sense in each hearer and reader, since no word can ever have quite the same impact on any two people, nor, if one wishes to push the investigation far enough, does a word have precisely the same meaning any two times it is used. Thus, the lexicographer, when he tries to define a term, is not trying to put into words an ideal, objectively existing meaning which could be completely and exactly revealed if his defining practices were without flaw.
He is trying to describe what he trusts is a consensus, even though a mainly unconscious consensus, of the ways in which users believe they are employing the word, for interestingly enough, the fact that words have no objective meaning does not prevent users from believing they have. In fact, users believe this so strongly that they will fight about the meaning of words, and those fights are national and international as well as personal. Constitutions are drafted, laws are made, cases at law are decided, and books and articles and newspaper are written on the tacit assumption that words do have meanings. On this assumption the maker of dictionaries must work. He knows that although philosophically he cannot describe meaning, he can attempt to describe the common convictions about a word, aware that language can function and can serve mankind on this working assumption, and that for practical purposes words can be defined.
Within limits, meanings can be pinned down. Most words have what are called referents, something to which they refer. The name Rabbi Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra probably refers to only one poet-grammarian, since it is unlikely that there was another Spanish Jewish divine by the same name. Similarly, as usually used, Jesus has only one referent, although the word is used as a given name in same countries. That is, proper names presumably have referents, one referent to a name, since theoretically the proper name attaches to only one object, even though the same linguistic shape may be the proper name for another object or kind of object. Molly Mog, the heroine of The Fair Maid of the Inn, is quite different from a Molly Maguire Riot and different also from the sheep in one of Chaucer's tales “that was called Molly”. Similarly, almost any concrete term is likely to have an identifiable referent. Words like goat and automobile refer only to one referent at a time, whether it be a single object or class of objects. But the concept of referents has its limits; no two people would be likely to agree as to what truth refers to, except that they would agree that it does not refer to something false. The concept becomes even less useful with grammatical terms like but, a, and of. In the consideration of many other words, for instance, terms like full, somewhat, and beautiful, the concept of referents seems to do little more than confuse the issue.
Furthermore, even for those words that have identifiable referents, a word obviously does more than identify an object. Almost always and inevitably it has more meaning than that. The mere fact that a word is heard or read assures us that it will do more. A word like Hiroshima, although it has as its referent a certain Japanese city, today means more than just a specific community. A word like Mary, whatever its referent, is likely to mean more to all Christians than to most Buddhists, more to Roman Catholics than to Unitarians, more to nuns than to most cowboys. Here an old distinction is useful, if not very precise──the difference between a word's denotation and its connotation. The denotation has been defined as the total of all the word's referents. Its connotation concerns the personal and especially the emotional impact that the word can arouse. Obviously, neither of these identifications will bear examination, but every word has some sort of recognized use, some denotation that can be generally described and will be roughly the same for all people, and most words will call up associations that will be unique in each person. These connotations will vary greatly, in degree as well as character; presumably words like God and mother will have strong connotations for all English-speaking persons, even though different connotations for each person, whereas ichthyology and symbiosis will move few readers deeply.
(Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, second college edition, David B. Guralnik, editor in chief, 1978 and 1974, 1976, )
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Richard Koch, Greg Lockwood, Superconnect, 2010 [ ]
p.188
Imagine, for instance, the bewildering profusion of tongues and dialects Meriwether Lewis and William Clark encountered on their epic voyage of discovery into the uncharted and sparsely populated American West in the early 1800s. They were the first white men to travel the length of the Missouri River in search of a route to the Pacific, and they came across a plethora of tribes and languages - Mandan, Cheyenne, Hidatsas, Sioux, Pawnees, Lakotas, Nez Perce, Cayuse, Blackfoot, Piegan, Wishram, Yakima, Wananpam, Shoshones and Salish.
(Superconnect: harnessing the power of networks and the strength of weak links / Richard Koch, Greg Lockwood--1st American ed., 1. social networks., 2. success., 2010, )
____________________________________
Definitions:
Eris : Gr. Myth. the goddess of strife and discord
eristic : of or provoking controversy or given to sophistical argument and specious reasoning
THE SACRED CHAO
THE SACRED CHAO is the key to illumination. Devised by the Apostle Hung Mung in ancient China, it was modified and popularized by the Taoists and is sometimes called the YIN-YANG. The Sacred Chao is not the Yin-Yang of the Taoists. It is the HODGE-PODGE of the Erisians. And, instead of a Podge spot on the Hodge side, it has a PENTAGON which symbolizes the ANERISTIC PRINCIPLE, and instead of a Hodge spot on the Podge side, it depicts the GOLDEN APPLE OF DISCORDIA to symbolize the ERISTIC PRINCIPLE.
The Sacred Chao symbolizes absolutely everything anyone need ever know about absolutely anything, and more! It even symbolizes everything not worth knowing, depicted by the empty space surrounding the Hodge-Podge.
HERE FOLLOWS SOME PSYCHO-METAPHYSICS.
If you are not hot for philosophy, best just to skip it.
The Aneristic Principle is that of APPARENT ORDER; the Eristic Principle is that of APPARENT DISORDER. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of PURE CHAOS, which is a level deeper that is the level of distinction making.
With our concept making apparatus called "mind" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about- reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently. It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T True) reality is a level deeper that is the level of concept.
We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The ORDER is in the GRID. That is the Aneristic Principle.
Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the ANERISTIC ILLUSION. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.
DISORDER is simply unrelated information viewed through some particular grid. But, like "relation", no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is "absence of female-ness", or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary. The artificial concept of no-relation is the ERISTIC PRINCIPLE.
The belief that "order is true" and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the ERISTIC ILLUSION.
The point is that (little-t) truth is a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that (capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered.
Reality is the original Rorschach.
Verily! So much for all that.
5. Hung Mung slapped his buttocks, hopped about, and shook his head, saying
"I do not know! I do not know!"
HBT; The Book of Gooks, Chap. 1
Source:
• http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tilt/principia/introh.html
• http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tilt/principia/body.html
____________________________________
Charlton Laird, Language and the Dictionary, Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (David B. Guralnik, editor in chief), pp.xxvi-xxvii, 1978 and 1974, 1976
Language and the Dictionary
by Charlton Laird
pp.xxvi-xxvii
IX. Dictionaries and Meaning
<skip the first paragraph of section IX.>
Part of the difficulty arises from the fact that, in any strict sense, words do not have intrinsic meaning. The meanings and the sense of words are in the users of the language, in the speakers and writers, in the hearers and readers. The words are stimuli that call forth senses of meaning, one sense in the speaker and writer, a somewhat different sense in the hearer or reader, and in reality a different sense in each hearer and reader, since no word can ever have quite the same impact on any two people, nor, if one wishes to push the investigation far enough, does a word have precisely the same meaning any two times it is used. Thus, the lexicographer, when he tries to define a term, is not trying to put into words an ideal, objectively existing meaning which could be completely and exactly revealed if his defining practices were without flaw.
He is trying to describe what he trusts is a consensus, even though a mainly unconscious consensus, of the ways in which users believe they are employing the word, for interestingly enough, the fact that words have no objective meaning does not prevent users from believing they have. In fact, users believe this so strongly that they will fight about the meaning of words, and those fights are national and international as well as personal. Constitutions are drafted, laws are made, cases at law are decided, and books and articles and newspaper are written on the tacit assumption that words do have meanings. On this assumption the maker of dictionaries must work. He knows that although philosophically he cannot describe meaning, he can attempt to describe the common convictions about a word, aware that language can function and can serve mankind on this working assumption, and that for practical purposes words can be defined.
Within limits, meanings can be pinned down. Most words have what are called referents, something to which they refer. The name Rabbi Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra probably refers to only one poet-grammarian, since it is unlikely that there was another Spanish Jewish divine by the same name. Similarly, as usually used, Jesus has only one referent, although the word is used as a given name in same countries. That is, proper names presumably have referents, one referent to a name, since theoretically the proper name attaches to only one object, even though the same linguistic shape may be the proper name for another object or kind of object. Molly Mog, the heroine of The Fair Maid of the Inn, is quite different from a Molly Maguire Riot and different also from the sheep in one of Chaucer's tales “that was called Molly”. Similarly, almost any concrete term is likely to have an identifiable referent. Words like goat and automobile refer only to one referent at a time, whether it be a single object or class of objects. But the concept of referents has its limits; no two people would be likely to agree as to what truth refers to, except that they would agree that it does not refer to something false. The concept becomes even less useful with grammatical terms like but, a, and of. In the consideration of many other words, for instance, terms like full, somewhat, and beautiful, the concept of referents seems to do little more than confuse the issue.
Furthermore, even for those words that have identifiable referents, a word obviously does more than identify an object. Almost always and inevitably it has more meaning than that. The mere fact that a word is heard or read assures us that it will do more. A word like Hiroshima, although it has as its referent a certain Japanese city, today means more than just a specific community. A word like Mary, whatever its referent, is likely to mean more to all Christians than to most Buddhists, more to Roman Catholics than to Unitarians, more to nuns than to most cowboys. Here an old distinction is useful, if not very precise──the difference between a word's denotation and its connotation. The denotation has been defined as the total of all the word's referents. Its connotation concerns the personal and especially the emotional impact that the word can arouse. Obviously, neither of these identifications will bear examination, but every word has some sort of recognized use, some denotation that can be generally described and will be roughly the same for all people, and most words will call up associations that will be unique in each person. These connotations will vary greatly, in degree as well as character; presumably words like God and mother will have strong connotations for all English-speaking persons, even though different connotations for each person, whereas ichthyology and symbiosis will move few readers deeply.
(Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, second college edition, David B. Guralnik, editor in chief, 1978 and 1974, 1976, )
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Richard Koch, Greg Lockwood, Superconnect, 2010 [ ]
p.188
Imagine, for instance, the bewildering profusion of tongues and dialects Meriwether Lewis and William Clark encountered on their epic voyage of discovery into the uncharted and sparsely populated American West in the early 1800s. They were the first white men to travel the length of the Missouri River in search of a route to the Pacific, and they came across a plethora of tribes and languages - Mandan, Cheyenne, Hidatsas, Sioux, Pawnees, Lakotas, Nez Perce, Cayuse, Blackfoot, Piegan, Wishram, Yakima, Wananpam, Shoshones and Salish.
(Superconnect: harnessing the power of networks and the strength of weak links / Richard Koch, Greg Lockwood--1st American ed., 1. social networks., 2. success., 2010, )
Two realities II, part 7 of 8
Two realities II, part 7 of 8
Brooke Gladstone, The trouble with reality, 2017 [ ]
p.12
It is a nauseating enterprise, tinkering with your universe. You could break it.
pp.12-13
But what if you have no choice? You know what happens; you've done it. We've all done it. In a 1906 lecture, pragmatist William James described exactly what transpires when suddenly a person's trusty stock of old opinions is imperiled. The reason can vary; maybe it's because the facts contradict them, or they contradict each other, or they are getting in the way of what he wants. No matter, the result is always a deep and strange unease, which can be escaped only by modifying one's previous opinion.
p.14
You alter only what you must to avoid collateral damage to the code you live by. To do otherwise would both deny you serenity and defy your biochemistry. It's behavior bred in the bone, and the blood, and the brain.
p.16
ME (Gladstone): You mean once they figured out how best to lie to themselves, they got a blast of oxytocin or something?
WESTERN: [laughs] Very, very close, that's right. So they got this huge blast of dopamine, which is involved in reward.
ME (Gladstone): In other word, the same thing you get when you take coke.
WESTERN: That's exactly right. There was no reasoning at all going on.
p.91
Western, Drew, interview by Brooke Gladstone. “This Is Your Brain on Politics: Interview with Drew Western.” On the Media, podcast audio, October 12, 2012. http://www.wnyc.org/story/243320-your-brain-politics/.
pp.16-17
That is what you're up against. Who would choose violation over validation? The very wiring of your mind and body rebels against that choice. Yet any sincere reckoning with reality demands that you strain, violently, against the natural, lifelong limitations of your umwelt , or as neuroscientist David Eagleman proposes, at least accept the idea that the umwelt exists.
(Brooke Gladstone, The trouble with reality: a rumination on moral panic in our time, 306.2097 Gladston, 2017, )
David DiSalvo, What makes your brain happy and why you should do the opposite
2011
p.51
To understand why, we have to go back to what makes the brain happy. When a well-established schema is called into question by new information, the brain reacts as if threatened. The amygdalae fires up (threat response), and the ventral striatum revs down (reward response). This is not a comfortable place for the brain. The supercharged clay in your head doesn't like being on guard--it likes being stable. Ambiguity, which might result from considering the new information, is a threat.
p.51
We can either allow that threat to stand by considering the inconsistent information, or block it by dismissing or ignoring it. Or we might subcategorize the information and store it away as an “outlier” case; something that can't be entirely ignore, but does not challenge or change the existing schema.
p.52
Successfully plumbing the depths of religious belief, for example, appears to hinge on understanding the ways our brains seek stability. Indeed, belief in general appears to have much to do with the brain's penchant for homeostasis--defined by renowned physiologist Walter Bradford Cannon as “the property of a system that regulates its internal environment and tends to maintain a stable, constant condition.”17
p.52
the brain wants stability and consistency.
We seldom realize it, but very nearly everything we do is colored by this drive.
(DiSalvo, David, 1970-, What makes your brain happy and why you should do the opposite / by David DiSalvo., 1. happiness., 2. logic., 3. desire., 4. neurosciences., 152.42 DiSalvo, 2011, )
V. S. Ramachandran., and Sandra Blakeslee., Phantoms in the brain [ ]
p.147
I used this analogy to illustrate that there is a sort of coherence-producing mechanism in the left hemisphere--the general--that prohibits anomalies, allows the emergence of a unified belief system and is largely responsible for the integrity and stability of self.
(Ramachandran, V.S., Phantoms in the brain : probing the mysteries of the human mind / V. S. Ramachandran, and Sandra Blakeslee., 1. neurology--popular works., 2. brain--popular works., 3. neurosciences--popular works., 1998, 612.82, )
Francisco J. Varela, Evan Thompson, Eleanor Rosch., The embodied mind, 1991
p.67
Consciousness, as a technical term vijñana , always refers to the dualistic sense of experience in which there is an experiencer, an object experienced, and a relation (or relations) binding them together.
pp.71-72
At this point the reader will probably become rather irritated and say, “Fine, the self isn't really a lasting and coherent thing; it is just the continuity of the stream of experience. It is a process and not a thing. What's the big deal?”
(Varela, Francisco J., 1945-, The embodied mind : cognitive science and human experience / Francisco J. varela, Evan Thompson, Eleanor Rosch., 1. Cognition.
2. Cognitive science., 3. Experiential learning., 4. Meditations──Buddhism.,
BF311.V26 1991, 153.4──dc20, 1991, )
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Brooke Gladstone, The trouble with reality, 2017 [ ]
p.12
It is a nauseating enterprise, tinkering with your universe. You could break it.
pp.12-13
But what if you have no choice? You know what happens; you've done it. We've all done it. In a 1906 lecture, pragmatist William James described exactly what transpires when suddenly a person's trusty stock of old opinions is imperiled. The reason can vary; maybe it's because the facts contradict them, or they contradict each other, or they are getting in the way of what he wants. No matter, the result is always a deep and strange unease, which can be escaped only by modifying one's previous opinion.
p.14
You alter only what you must to avoid collateral damage to the code you live by. To do otherwise would both deny you serenity and defy your biochemistry. It's behavior bred in the bone, and the blood, and the brain.
p.16
ME (Gladstone): You mean once they figured out how best to lie to themselves, they got a blast of oxytocin or something?
WESTERN: [laughs] Very, very close, that's right. So they got this huge blast of dopamine, which is involved in reward.
ME (Gladstone): In other word, the same thing you get when you take coke.
WESTERN: That's exactly right. There was no reasoning at all going on.
p.91
Western, Drew, interview by Brooke Gladstone. “This Is Your Brain on Politics: Interview with Drew Western.” On the Media, podcast audio, October 12, 2012. http://www.wnyc.org/story/243320-your-brain-politics/.
pp.16-17
That is what you're up against. Who would choose violation over validation? The very wiring of your mind and body rebels against that choice. Yet any sincere reckoning with reality demands that you strain, violently, against the natural, lifelong limitations of your umwelt , or as neuroscientist David Eagleman proposes, at least accept the idea that the umwelt exists.
(Brooke Gladstone, The trouble with reality: a rumination on moral panic in our time, 306.2097 Gladston, 2017, )
David DiSalvo, What makes your brain happy and why you should do the opposite
2011
p.51
To understand why, we have to go back to what makes the brain happy. When a well-established schema is called into question by new information, the brain reacts as if threatened. The amygdalae fires up (threat response), and the ventral striatum revs down (reward response). This is not a comfortable place for the brain. The supercharged clay in your head doesn't like being on guard--it likes being stable. Ambiguity, which might result from considering the new information, is a threat.
p.51
We can either allow that threat to stand by considering the inconsistent information, or block it by dismissing or ignoring it. Or we might subcategorize the information and store it away as an “outlier” case; something that can't be entirely ignore, but does not challenge or change the existing schema.
p.52
Successfully plumbing the depths of religious belief, for example, appears to hinge on understanding the ways our brains seek stability. Indeed, belief in general appears to have much to do with the brain's penchant for homeostasis--defined by renowned physiologist Walter Bradford Cannon as “the property of a system that regulates its internal environment and tends to maintain a stable, constant condition.”17
p.52
the brain wants stability and consistency.
We seldom realize it, but very nearly everything we do is colored by this drive.
(DiSalvo, David, 1970-, What makes your brain happy and why you should do the opposite / by David DiSalvo., 1. happiness., 2. logic., 3. desire., 4. neurosciences., 152.42 DiSalvo, 2011, )
V. S. Ramachandran., and Sandra Blakeslee., Phantoms in the brain [ ]
p.147
I used this analogy to illustrate that there is a sort of coherence-producing mechanism in the left hemisphere--the general--that prohibits anomalies, allows the emergence of a unified belief system and is largely responsible for the integrity and stability of self.
(Ramachandran, V.S., Phantoms in the brain : probing the mysteries of the human mind / V. S. Ramachandran, and Sandra Blakeslee., 1. neurology--popular works., 2. brain--popular works., 3. neurosciences--popular works., 1998, 612.82, )
Francisco J. Varela, Evan Thompson, Eleanor Rosch., The embodied mind, 1991
p.67
Consciousness, as a technical term vijñana , always refers to the dualistic sense of experience in which there is an experiencer, an object experienced, and a relation (or relations) binding them together.
pp.71-72
At this point the reader will probably become rather irritated and say, “Fine, the self isn't really a lasting and coherent thing; it is just the continuity of the stream of experience. It is a process and not a thing. What's the big deal?”
(Varela, Francisco J., 1945-, The embodied mind : cognitive science and human experience / Francisco J. varela, Evan Thompson, Eleanor Rosch., 1. Cognition.
2. Cognitive science., 3. Experiential learning., 4. Meditations──Buddhism.,
BF311.V26 1991, 153.4──dc20, 1991, )
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Two realities II, part 8 of 8
Two realities II, part 8 of 8
• reality - in large part is a social construction - is institutionalized in sociology that it [social construct?] threatens to mask the different degrees of “agency”, or the different power of agents (actors).
• it [social construct] is constructed out of negotiation and agreement.
• But it is important to see the resources of those doing the most construction; ... .
• it was the exercise of organizational power. We miss a great deal when we substitute culture for power.
Charles Perrow, Normal accidents : living with high-risk technologies, 1999
p.380
Those who left the organization described that night quite differently. They made it clear, as did much other evidence she presents, that this was not the normalization of deviance or the banality of bureaucratic procedures and hierarchy or the product of an engineering “culture”; it was the exercise of organizational power. We miss a great deal when we substitute culture for power.
p.374
Clarke's work goes beyond social construction and garbage cans in two respects. The idea that reality is in large part a social construction is now so institutionalized in sociology that it threatens to mask the different degrees of “agency”, or the different power of agents (actors). Yes, what we observe is neither necessary nor “natural”; it is constructed out of negotiation and agreement. But it is important to see the resources of those doing the most construction; power and interests are still involved.
p.374
The case is similar to the ‘garbage can’ metaphor. It emphasizes the role of symbols, happenstance, variable participation, and so on, but this masks intent, power struggles, and conflicts over interests.
p.374
Clarke not only argues that the metaphor works best when trying to understand relationships among organizations rather than within them, but shows that the ‘garbage can’ nature of organizations (due to limited rationality) is itself a problem for powerful organizations. If ‘garbage can’ conditions exist, the organizations with less power (like the local health department), loosely organized associations (the fire fighters and citizen's groups), and even individual citizens have [a] chance to affect the definitions of acceptable risk.
( Normal accidents : living with high-risk technologies / Charles Perrow, 1. industrial accidents., 2. technology--risk assessment., 3. accident., HD7262 P55 1999, 363.1--dc21, 1999, )
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Arthur B. VanGundy, Managing group creativity, 1984 [ ]
p.148
Redefining the Problem
Problems are abstract representations of what we perceive reality to be. They help to provide meaning for the many different situations we encounter. Without problems, we would be unable to distinguish between what is real and what is unreal.
Just as an artist uses canvas and paint to portray some feature of life, so do we use problems to paint pictures of our existence. Like the artist, we sketch a rough outline of a problem in our minds, fill in details, use shading and perspective, and produce a finished product. The result is how we depict reality.
What we consider to be real and unreal is entirely subjective. There are no absolute standards. We each create our own reality to use in interpreting our existence. Depending on our experiences and psychological makeup, what is real for one person will not necessarily be real for another. What you consider to be a problem may be of little concern to me, and vice versa. In one respect, your problems help you deal with your world and my problems help me deal with mine. Occasionally, such as in group situations, our worlds may collide or overlap. When this occurs, our individual perceptions of reality may blend, enabling us to work together to deal with our problem situations.
p.149
When we establish limits or boundaries for a situation, we are defining a problem; when we attempt to break away from these boundaries and see what lies on the other side, we are redefining a problem. Both these actions are highly interrelated and without a beginning or an end. Where one problem ends another may begin.
To define is to understand. When we say that we are defining a problem, we are actually clarifying our understanding of a situation by the use of a concept we call a problem. Problems are not situations. Problems are ways of understanding situations. Thus, when we redefine a problem, we are providing ourselves with a circumscribed way of viewing reality.
To redefine is to change our understanding of a situation. We may achieve such change by pushing out situational boundaries or by drawing them in, by altering the shape of the boundaries or by substituting other elements into the mix that makes up our problem situation. The situation always stays the same--only our understanding changes, because we have reconstructed the boundaries or changed the elements of the situation. The result is a new definition of problem.
p.149
We need to redefine problems in order to increase our understanding of situations.
p.149
In addition, when we have extensively redefined a situation, the odds are greatly increased that we will be able to avoid correctly solving the “wrong” problem. (Note that “wrong” problem in this instance refers to a situation that is not clearly understood.) This is perhaps the most important reason for redefining a problem situation.
p.149
In actual practice, an extensively redefined problem usually is a solved problem.
(VanGundy, Arthur B., Managing group creativity / Arthur B. VanGundy, 1. problem solving, group, 1984, HD 30.29 .V35 1984, )
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
the right to define [consensus reality]*?
imbalance in power and the power structure to define [consensus reality]*
the sharp end of power; the supporting power structure - blunt end and the
rest of the supporting instruments of the power structure
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
p.172 The System-thinking Iceberg
p.173
four factors that influence any situations:
events,
patterns or trends,
deeper systemic structures or forces,
and the mental models or assumptions that shape these structures and force.
pp.174-177
p.173 events
p.174 patterns/trends
p.175 systemic structures or forces
p.176 mental models.
p.174
Ways of explaining reality
**increasing leverage and opportunity for learning
||
|| Events React
|| what just happened?
||
|| Patterns/Trends Anticipate
|| what's been happening over time?
|| have we been here or some
|| place similar before?
||
|| Systemic Structures Design
|| what are the deeper forces driving these
|| patterns or trends and how do they arise?
|| what are the forces at play
|| contributing to these pathways?
||
|| Mental Models Transform
|| what about our thinking
|| allows this situation to persist?
\/
figure 12.1
p.177
Why is it so important to look beneath the surface at the deeper levels of reality? Because in our experience it is often the key to lasting change. When people or organizations pay attention only to the visible tip of the iceberg, they can only react to change as it happens—so at best, they survive the crisis. They often try to compensate for their lack of analysis of a problem with aggressive and "proactive" strategies. But being "proactive" from a reactive mind-set is reactive just the same. With long enough lever, boasted Archimedes, "I cann move the world."
(The necessary revolution : how individual and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world, Peter Senge, Bryan Smith, Nina Kruschwitz, Joe Laur, Sara Schley, 2008, 338.927 Senge, pp.172-177)
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
• reality - in large part is a social construction - is institutionalized in sociology that it [social construct?] threatens to mask the different degrees of “agency”, or the different power of agents (actors).
• it [social construct] is constructed out of negotiation and agreement.
• But it is important to see the resources of those doing the most construction; ... .
• it was the exercise of organizational power. We miss a great deal when we substitute culture for power.
Charles Perrow, Normal accidents : living with high-risk technologies, 1999
p.380
Those who left the organization described that night quite differently. They made it clear, as did much other evidence she presents, that this was not the normalization of deviance or the banality of bureaucratic procedures and hierarchy or the product of an engineering “culture”; it was the exercise of organizational power. We miss a great deal when we substitute culture for power.
p.374
Clarke's work goes beyond social construction and garbage cans in two respects. The idea that reality is in large part a social construction is now so institutionalized in sociology that it threatens to mask the different degrees of “agency”, or the different power of agents (actors). Yes, what we observe is neither necessary nor “natural”; it is constructed out of negotiation and agreement. But it is important to see the resources of those doing the most construction; power and interests are still involved.
p.374
The case is similar to the ‘garbage can’ metaphor. It emphasizes the role of symbols, happenstance, variable participation, and so on, but this masks intent, power struggles, and conflicts over interests.
p.374
Clarke not only argues that the metaphor works best when trying to understand relationships among organizations rather than within them, but shows that the ‘garbage can’ nature of organizations (due to limited rationality) is itself a problem for powerful organizations. If ‘garbage can’ conditions exist, the organizations with less power (like the local health department), loosely organized associations (the fire fighters and citizen's groups), and even individual citizens have [a] chance to affect the definitions of acceptable risk.
( Normal accidents : living with high-risk technologies / Charles Perrow, 1. industrial accidents., 2. technology--risk assessment., 3. accident., HD7262 P55 1999, 363.1--dc21, 1999, )
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Arthur B. VanGundy, Managing group creativity, 1984 [ ]
p.148
Redefining the Problem
Problems are abstract representations of what we perceive reality to be. They help to provide meaning for the many different situations we encounter. Without problems, we would be unable to distinguish between what is real and what is unreal.
Just as an artist uses canvas and paint to portray some feature of life, so do we use problems to paint pictures of our existence. Like the artist, we sketch a rough outline of a problem in our minds, fill in details, use shading and perspective, and produce a finished product. The result is how we depict reality.
What we consider to be real and unreal is entirely subjective. There are no absolute standards. We each create our own reality to use in interpreting our existence. Depending on our experiences and psychological makeup, what is real for one person will not necessarily be real for another. What you consider to be a problem may be of little concern to me, and vice versa. In one respect, your problems help you deal with your world and my problems help me deal with mine. Occasionally, such as in group situations, our worlds may collide or overlap. When this occurs, our individual perceptions of reality may blend, enabling us to work together to deal with our problem situations.
p.149
When we establish limits or boundaries for a situation, we are defining a problem; when we attempt to break away from these boundaries and see what lies on the other side, we are redefining a problem. Both these actions are highly interrelated and without a beginning or an end. Where one problem ends another may begin.
To define is to understand. When we say that we are defining a problem, we are actually clarifying our understanding of a situation by the use of a concept we call a problem. Problems are not situations. Problems are ways of understanding situations. Thus, when we redefine a problem, we are providing ourselves with a circumscribed way of viewing reality.
To redefine is to change our understanding of a situation. We may achieve such change by pushing out situational boundaries or by drawing them in, by altering the shape of the boundaries or by substituting other elements into the mix that makes up our problem situation. The situation always stays the same--only our understanding changes, because we have reconstructed the boundaries or changed the elements of the situation. The result is a new definition of problem.
p.149
We need to redefine problems in order to increase our understanding of situations.
p.149
In addition, when we have extensively redefined a situation, the odds are greatly increased that we will be able to avoid correctly solving the “wrong” problem. (Note that “wrong” problem in this instance refers to a situation that is not clearly understood.) This is perhaps the most important reason for redefining a problem situation.
p.149
In actual practice, an extensively redefined problem usually is a solved problem.
(VanGundy, Arthur B., Managing group creativity / Arthur B. VanGundy, 1. problem solving, group, 1984, HD 30.29 .V35 1984, )
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
imbalance in power and the power structure to define [consensus reality]*
the sharp end of power; the supporting power structure - blunt end and the
rest of the supporting instruments of the power structure
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
p.172 The System-thinking Iceberg
p.173
four factors that influence any situations:
events,
patterns or trends,
deeper systemic structures or forces,
and the mental models or assumptions that shape these structures and force.
pp.174-177
p.173 events
p.174 patterns/trends
p.175 systemic structures or forces
p.176 mental models.
p.174
Ways of explaining reality
**increasing leverage and opportunity for learning
||
|| Events React
|| what just happened?
||
|| Patterns/Trends Anticipate
|| what's been happening over time?
|| have we been here or some
|| place similar before?
||
|| Systemic Structures Design
|| what are the deeper forces driving these
|| patterns or trends and how do they arise?
|| what are the forces at play
|| contributing to these pathways?
||
|| Mental Models Transform
|| what about our thinking
|| allows this situation to persist?
\/
figure 12.1
p.177
Why is it so important to look beneath the surface at the deeper levels of reality? Because in our experience it is often the key to lasting change. When people or organizations pay attention only to the visible tip of the iceberg, they can only react to change as it happens—so at best, they survive the crisis. They often try to compensate for their lack of analysis of a problem with aggressive and "proactive" strategies. But being "proactive" from a reactive mind-set is reactive just the same. With long enough lever, boasted Archimedes, "I cann move the world."
(The necessary revolution : how individual and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world, Peter Senge, Bryan Smith, Nina Kruschwitz, Joe Laur, Sara Schley, 2008, 338.927 Senge, pp.172-177)
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)