|
I like my airline pilots,
dentists, surgeons, fire fighters, etc. to be linear thinkers. Compulsive
linear thinkers. A job to be done.
arthur
One version of non-Linear thought is four directional
thought which places an observation in four positions or universes or it could
be as many as you wish around the problem being examined. You
could talk again to those old people you spoke to when you wrote that
government report. Or you could read Warfield's discussion of
linearity in relation to systems in his "Structure Based Science of
Complexity" tome. Linearity seems more an issue of people
who are dealing with the issues of "practical IQ" where problems with more
than one thread have to be solved. Something as simple as
the use of Vitamins for human health have proven to be difficult to double
blind test because the factors are variable and the subjects are systems that
are similar but with enough variables to skew the result. Biochemically
individual. That is the root of all of those four directional symbols
you see out West. There are processes that are meant to look at a
problem from thousands of different viewpoints by using people in a Council
situation over a period of time. That is what those big wheels on
the mountains are about, on one level.
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 6:01
PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Re:
[Futurework] Re: [Futurework] [Futurework] FW: "Spiritualität macht fr ei"
?
Was ist das, "linear
thinking"?
I posted something on the list the
other day that suggested that the brain functions in a variety of ways
simultaneously or in rapid succession. Obviously, since no one
commented on it, it was not "right think" in terms of the present
discussion. So, tail between legs, I decided to find out a little more
about linear thinking. One website told me little about it, but
did so in trying to say something about non-linear thinking - i.e. the
following:
The origin and genesis of Non
Linear Thinking lies very obviously within "Lateral Thinking" - a term
coined by Dr. Edward De Bono who called it amongst other definitions an
"insight tool". Today "Lateral Thinking " is a part of our vocabulary in
the Oxford Dictionary and is responsible for giving tangibility to the
thinking process.
To Dr. De Bono -
Dr. De Bono professed the need for
Lateral Thinking in the West in the 1960's for enhancing the productivity
within progressive economies. As a concept , at the time it was considered
closer to Eastern thinking.
Though globally it has been a
buzzword since the 1980's- the creative elite seem to have hijacked
"lateral thinking" and again sought to "classify" it ( totally against its
intent ). Many assumed that Lateral thinking was best suited to right
brained thinkers and those who were considered to be 'creative'. The
normal and common person seemed to have been excluded.
Its usage would be instinctively
easier for most ASIANS because the Eastern thought process and attitude is
inherently "holistic" and able to include lateral issues.
Having read that, I'm still
not sure of what people are talking about. Non-Linear thinkers are
supposed to be creative, but as Selma suggests, they can only be that, and
perhaps be recognized for being that, after they have developed a
superlative level of skill via a process of prolonged linear thinking.
I don't think that is the way it works. When I was in my teens, I
spent a year at a very good art school. I was taught by teachers that
were recognized or became that, and are now household words in CanArt.
Some of the kids there, including my girl friend Heather, were innately
gifted. They simply were creative before they were technically
skilled. Technical skill made them better able to convey their
creativity, but they were obviously able to convey it anyhow. My
girlfriend was recognized nationally for her poetry, based on a summer as a
candy-stripper in an asylum for the insane when she was sixteen
("Asylum Poems").
I was creative too, but I
was always fighting with my left brain because of the moral precepts my
father and grandfather had put there. "Learn a profession! Get a
good job! Raise a family! Go to church! Be a pillar of
your community!" No wonder I spent so much time getting
drunk!
I was in the unfortunate
position of having a two sided brain. I could have been an artist
(though not as good as Heather) but I could also have been an accountant or
lawyer, so I choked-off the right side of my brain and became a mediocre
economist. What remained of my creativity was used in writing
government documents and providing spin to them. Alas, alas, what a
waste! Or maybe not???
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September
19, 2003 2:57 PM
Subject: [Futurework] Re:
[Futurework] Re: [Futurework] [Futurework] FW: "Spiritualität macht fr ei"
?
I have a question that may or may not have
some kind of answer but it seems to me very closely related to this
discussion. I think it is a question that Ray could probably answer better
than anyone else because he is so closely involved in the
arts.
It is my impression, both from my own
experience and from what I have heard and read about people in the arts
and in other fields such as sports and science, etc. that it is true
of the very finest artists that when s/he has been thoroughly
trained in the technicalities of her/his art, the next step is to master
those technicalities so thoroughly that they no longer are the focus of
that artists performance because then and only then the focus can become
the artistic components of the art, i.e., the musicality, the dramatic
impact perhaps in the theatre which goes beyond the words, the passion in
a painting, the sense in a basketbal game of being part of the team to the
point that the team acts a unit, etc.
So the learning of the technical elements of,
e.g., an instrument, or the voice, would you say, involve linear thinking
and, of course, if one cannot do this one cannot do anything else; the
real art is then something that is not possible within the
realm of the linear because it demands much more, althoug, again, it is
not possible to produce that much more unless the linear has
first taken place.
Selma
As these thoughts have come to me it occurs
now to me that this can be extended to-who knows how many areas of
life.
S.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 1:03
PM
Subject: [Futurework] Re: [Futurework]
[Futurework] FW: "Spiritualität macht fr ei" ?
> In voice we call that focus and
Martin Buber called it speaking the Primary
> Word.
However that doesn't address the complexity of multiple skills or
>
the way that the consciousness prevaricates to the rest of the brain
ala
> Freud and others. Mechanics does not equal
consciousness.
>
> REH
>
>
> -----
Original Message -----
> From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
"pete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:52 AM
> Subject: Re:
[Futurework] [Futurework] FW: "Spiritualität macht fr ei" ?
>
>
> > Pete,
> >
> > Your description
below is correct -- in as far as it goes.
> >
> >
However, the brain becomes very linear indeed when all the
processed
> > material from the rear cortex (whether from
separated halves or not) is
> > gathered by the frontal lobes and
ordered in strictly linear fashion
> > preparatory for action.
Were this not so we could not carry out any
> skilful
> >
physical action in the right sequence, nor derive logical conclusions,
nor
> > make plans for the future, nor be able to utter a
sentence with a
> > meaningful syntax no matter how large our
vocabulary.
> >
> > Benjamin Libet, acknowledged to be
the world's leading researcher into the
> > consciousness of
perception and action, has shown very clearly that
> >
consciousness arises only at the point when the action potentials of
the
> > motor neurons are at their maxima and are then released
in strict sequence
> > as action is initiated or words
spoken.
> >
> > All the preparatory work for the
sensation of consciousness is indeed
> > carried out in parallel
as you say, but the full realisation of
> > consciousness is
strictly a linear affair.
> >
> > Keith Hudson
>
>
> > At 17:23 18/09/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> >
>Actually, pyschology demonstrates that this notion is an
illusion.
> > >I'll just sketch a couple of examples, which
are probably familiar.
> > >The truth is revealed by instances
of physical brain function
> > >disruption, which can be
generated by strokes, or by radical
> > >surgical
intervention. The surgical instance is most impressive,
> >
>as in this case, the majority of the brain is fully severed
into
> > >left and right halves to stop massive epileptic
attacks. As a
> > >result, the patients become, at the
intellectual, interpretive
> > >level, two distinct entities
which do not share any information,
> > >despite the fact that
because the lower brain is still (must
> > >still be, for the
patient to survive) intact, the patient percieves
> >
>themselves as a single unitary entity. Probing the behaviour
of
> > >such patients teases out the way the brain conspires
to fool itself
> > >that it is behaving rationally. As you are
probably familiar,
> > >when the patient's hands are placed in
two boxes so they cannot
> > >be seen, which contain two
different objects, then the patient
> > >is interrogated as to
the content of the box which he can feel,
> > >if the answer
is to be spoken, the response will relate to one
> > >box, but
if it is to be written down, it will relate to the
> > >other
box, as speech is on one side of the brain, and writing
> >
>is on the other, and which ever side is to provide the answer
>
> >conveys only that which it knows (the sense data from
each
> > >hand goes only to one side of the brain). But if you
try to
> > >point out the discrepancies in the reponses, the
patient is
> > >found to have a surprising resistance to
acknowledging the
> > >disparity. It can be demonstrated that
each side of the brain
> > >uses every trick it can come up
with to sneak access to the
> > >knowledge of the other half,
meanwhile denying that there is
> > >any separation, flatly
refusing to believe that two autonomous
> > >"thought engines"
are operating, even when the evidence is
> > >indisputable.
Why should this be? Because in reality this sort
> > >of
deceit is going on all the time in normal healthy individuals,
>
> >it is just that with considerable communication between
the
> > >hemispheres, the illusion is much more seamless and
easy to
> > >conceal.
> > >
> > >The
other sort of damage which reveals the same deviousness
> >
>occurs with stroke victims. Again, I'm sure you have
encountered
> > >the stories. When a part of the visual cortex
is damaged, a
> > >patient will draw pictures with one side of
all the objects
> > >missing, but won't realize that it is
gone. Or will be unable
> > >to acquire some piece of sensory
information, but will aggressively
> > >"eavesdrop" on
themselves to acquire the information by
> > >other means,
while refusing to acknowledge that they are
> > >doing so. The
important point being that in these cases,
> > >while their
errors are glaringly obvious to all other observers,
> > >they
are utterly invisible to themselves.
> > >
> >
>These anecdotes, which I have only briefly indicated, point
>
> >to the systemic misdirection the mind uses to maintain
>
> >an illusion of a unitary self, whose behaviour is
rational
> > >and consistent. In fact, the reality is that
loads and
> > >loads of little semi-autonomous pieces of the
brain are
> > >always churning away, sensing, filtering,
interpreting,
> > >providing bits of information, and most
importantly coming
> > >to conclusions, outside of the purview
of conscious
> > >attention, which flits from "module" to
"module", pulling
> > >in bits of resultant items to sew
together to provide an
> > >apparent seamless, linear stream
of awareness, with an
> > >apparent logical, rational
narrative justification to
> > >hold it all together. But
knowing what we now know about
> > >how this mechanism works,
it should be clear that this
> > >narrative is essentially
propaganda, a convenient myth to
> > >keep the individual from
collapsing into an existential
> > >chaos of fractured
identity. In truth, the brain works
> > >massively in
parallel, and is not linear at all.
> > >
> >
> -Pete Vincent
> >
>
> >
>_______________________________________________
> >
>Futurework mailing list
> >
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>
>
> > Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath,
England,
> > <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> Futurework mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework>
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Futurework mailing
list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
|
