Correction to the below. Obviously Gregg Smith
demonstrated to prove that he wasn't exaggerating and could do what he
said. On the other I'm not sure that I could have followed the
bouncing tongue had I been in that chorus.
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:58
PM
Subject: [Futurework] Re: [Futurework]
Re: [Futurework] Re: [Futurework] Re: [Futurework] [Futurework] FW:
"Spiritualität macht fr ei" ?
Is "being in the zone" linear or non-linear holistic
thinking? When a pianist stops before beginning the sonata
and thinks the entire thirty minute work in 2 seconds is that linear or
non-linear thought? When you work with both right and
left hands with one in 3/4 and the other in 4/4 time or with one playing five
notes to a beat and the other six is that linear or non-linear or maybe
multi-linear? Or is maybe this entire conversation,
with people who have done and not done this ,a conversation that has no linear
way of being answered?
Charles Ives wrote a piece (Harvest Home Chorales)
that was three choruses in different time signatures. Gregg
Smith (Gregg Smith Singers) told me that he conducted them with one hand
beating on tempo while the other beat another while conducting the third by
rhythmically sticking out his tongue. He demonstrated it to
let me know he was fooling me. Most of the time three conductors
are used. When he did that was that linear or
non-linear thought? Does linear thought exist or is
it, like the circulatory system in the body, just a pedagogical construct that
is useful for describing what is essentially a part of the
whole. If that is true then what we are calling linear is
really the articulation of threads of knowledge within a construct and the
decision to focus on one. Like be analogue or digital when
you are driving a car. You can observe the flow or you can stop the
flow and observe the object but one type of attention precludes the
other. Math can express everything visual but nothing aural
for it is essentially a visual construct. It takes music to
express the aural. Music and math are analogous but different
systems. French is a system, English is a
system. etc. etc. etc.
Ray Evans Harrell
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 9:02
PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Re:
[Futurework] Re: [Futurework] Re: [Futurework] [Futurework] FW:
"Spiritualität macht fr ei" ?
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
|