Arthur,
If I thought the pilot of the plane I am in had to think about
every move s/he makes as, e.g., when learning to drive, I would never get on
that plane. I much prefer to believe that pilots fly planes the way people drive
cars once driving is so well learned that they can 'go beyond' the linear
thinking involved in the learning process.
I guess Ray's reference to 'knowing' applies here; to 'know'
something is to be proficient enough that one does not have to think about how
one is doing it.
As for dentists, doctors, mechanics, plumbers, etc., I want my
health professionals and other crafts people to understand their craft well
enough that they can sense things that go beyond the facts that can be learned.
When I have a doctor that looks at me or my child and 'senses' something that
needs to be looked into, I know I have a good doctor.
Selma
----- 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
|