[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Extending the 3 R's

Some other free-streaming reactions, but more to Jack's:    (01)

1. Re linking to creation. - In his "A brief history of time," Sephen Hawkings
tells the story of an old lady's vision of the universe. All this around us
sits on top of a giant turtle, she says. But what does the turtle stand on?
Hawkings asks. Well, of course, on an other turtle, she responds. And that one?
Another turtle; it's turtles al the way.    (02)

I am inclined to believe there is a more to this cosmology than what tickles
the funny bone. The essene of it is that there is no end to riddles facing us.    (03)

2. Re linking to creation again. - Joseph Campbell detects a common origin in
myths and religious believes, an origin that - I am translating this into my
own sense - is found in the natural makeup of human minds. He came to his
conclusion from observing common elements in creation stories extant around the
globe: posts or trees, snakes, etc. The reptile figures in the title and
substance also of Carl Sagan's "The Dragons of Eden." And what underlies the
makeup of the human mind? Turtles all the way....    (04)

3. Former psychologist (now neuroscientist) Michael Gazzanigga postulates the
existence in the human mind of an interpreter. An individual's interpreter
ensures that sense is made of the world, notably so in the face of facts that
are nor readily assimilated. This aspect of human nature, one may suspect, is
at work in developing mythical beliefs (which are patterned after societal
structures as discussed in Karen Armstrong's "A History of God"). It also is
the force that drives science - with its ripples positively or negatively
interfering with those emanating from religious dogmas.    (05)

3. Re Whorf and diversity of human cultures. - The genetic makeup of humans
differs only a small percentage from that of the great apes and, yet, what a
difference one percent makes once compounded. And what a difference a word
makes, once compounded.    (06)

4. As Jack knows, cognitivism is about personal world views and education is
about expanding and partially replacing personal world views. On a
world-societal scale, each world view is the origin of an expanding circle of
waves that upon meeting with one another interefere with each other in
re-enforcing and in destructive ways.    (07)

5. Preliminary conclusion: Our compound belief structure has human nature
(including the turtles underneath) at its root and develops as we gain in
experiences, but always modulated by he controlling force of our psychological
interpreters because we go bananas if things don't make sense to us, i.e.
without interpreters we are evolutionary dead ducks.    (08)

6. It seems then that our interpreters retard reaching "higher" levels of
understanding. We live in capsules of scientific models and societal paradigms.
Low-level learning is associating within our mental makeup facts found within
these models and paradigms. High-level learning is accomodating models and
paradigms acquired by leaders in specific fields. People brilliant in their
field have (by "definition") jumped from high-level understandings to higher
levels still, levels for others yet to grasp - and they can only grope to grasp
them. In all this we usually forget that those brilliant people mostly live by
lower-level models and paradigms which makes personality cults a hazardous
business, but one probably foisted upon us largely by our interpreters.    (09)

7. Why smart people do stupid things. - This is the deck of an article in the
Montreal Gazette about an interview with Robert J. Steinberg of Yale
University's Center for the Psychology of Abilities, Competencies and
Expertise. He wrote a book called "Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid."
Basically, smart people (as well as the vey dumb ones) have become overly
confident about being right about most everything.    (010)

8. Why do we follow smart people, even when suspecting they do so many dumb
things? (Which begins modelling ourselves after our parents and then after
expanding circles of the various societies we are part of - social,
professional, economic, etc.)  - Because if we don't we find ourselves without
mental rudders and, again, we become evolutionary dead ducks.    (011)

Lesson: We need forever better ways of assessing for an increasing number of
fields who really are at the frontiers and carefully track where these people
fail. It is the difficult, if not impossible, task of our journalists, editpors
and educators to achieve this. For them it is turtles all the way.    (012)

Henry    (013)

Jack Park wrote:    (014)

> Great questions.
> As it so happens, when this arrived, I was "thematic vagabonding" from some
> of the work of Heiner Benking.  Was just reading this page:
> http://www.global-dialog.org/mvd/mvl.cgi?NextName=wNewMythos.html
> requisite quotation:
> "What we need is a common story that connects us to Creation, that
> discovers the sacred, the magic in every moment. We need to evoke the deep
> sense of connection and relationships, the pattern that illuminates our
> place, our identity, direction and purpose... We need stories we can share
> as children of the earth, stories that bring us to a knowledge of ourselves
> as global beings and as participants in a vast and wondrous unfolding of
> Creation."
> - Medicine Story
> This page was found after rediscovering some of the premises of Whorf:
> "That the commonly held belief that the cognitive prosesses of all human
> beings possess a common logical structure which operates prior to and
> independently of comunication through language is erroneous. It is Whorf's
> view that the linguistic patterns themselves determine what the individual
> perceives in this world and how he thinks about it., Since these patterns
> vary widely, the modes of thinking and perceiving in groups utilizing
> different linguistic systems will result in basically different world views
> (Fearing, 1954)"
> found at http://www.newciv.org/ISSS_Primer/asem18wh.html
> This is mostly free-stream reaction to the questions below, not an active
> response to anything specific. To go there is to start reaching for the
> platinum ring.
> Cheers
> Jack
> At 12:29 PM 6/14/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> >Part of the unfinished revolution is to use the extra
> >degrees of freedom of computer-human interfacing to
> >extend our basic 2-D recording techniques based on our
> >long use of pen and paper.  My keyboard-mouse
> >interface
> >incorporates a pair of 2-D key arrangements derived
> >from the typewriter and adding machine of a century
> >ago
> >plus a 2-D pointing mechanism.  With this I spend a
> >lot
> >of time reading images of ink-on-paper in .pdf format.
> >
> >Last week I was at a workshop on Finsler Geometry at
> >which the lecturers either used oral-whiteboard mode
> >or oral-transparency mode, while spending a fair
> >amount
> >of time gesturing and drawing in the air with their
> >hands to convey the geometrical meaning of what they
> >were saying. The hand motions won't be in the printed
> >reports of the meetings.
> >
> >Can anyone give me references to good analyses of how
> >to create a well integrated system of communication
> >that:
> >
> >1) Is fast and flexible, using the many degrees of
> >    freedom of the hands and limbs (and voice),
> >
> >2) Incorporates versions of the dominant current modes
> >    of recording as special cases to allow economic
> >    transition to the new system,
> >
> >3) Has both reliable logographic and phonetic modes
> >    of writing that can incorporate and extend our
> >    contemporary mathematical and alphanumeric symbols,
> >
> >4) Allows tagging of points in a higher dimensional
> >    geometrical space of navigation with writing to
> >    create a mathematically effective virtual reality,
> >
> >5) Is physically arranged to allow effective team
> >    communication and mobility within complex
> >    intelligent-machine rich environments, and
> >
> >6) Has good consensus-building social features?
> >
> >I see that this is possible in the near future,
> >because computing technology is reaching the point
> >where the necessary interfacing calculations can be
> >done in real time.  The more difficult part is
> >creating a credible business and organizational
> >model to deal with the costs of switching to the new
> >system. Part of such a model needs to be an
> >explanation of how the new system is an effective tool
> >for allowing people to understand more advanced
> >mathematics than is in the customary curriculum, and
> >thus is a good tool for developing the bio-, nano-,
> >and materials technology of the coming century.
> >
> >Another part of the social problem is to overcome the
> >mythology that the next dominant computer-human
> >interface will be "invisible" and "easy" to learn.
> >Cultures embellish their empowering technologies with
> >games, disciplines and art, so that people are guided
> >to learning how to use the power inherent in the
> >technologies.  The next computer-human interface will
> >be no exception.  It will lead to more collaborative
> >work and to more specialization. Since it will enhance
> >both desirable features and undesirable aspects of our
> >technology culture, a realistic anthropological view
> >is needed in analyses.
> >
> >Since I already understand most of the basic
> >mathematics, science, and engineering of the problem,
> >I am particularly looking for concepts of how best to
> >merge current informational techniques and efforts
> >into the new system.
> >
> >larens imanyuel    (015)