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] )
  <-------------------------------------------------------------------------->