"A talent for speaking differently, rather than arguing well, is the chief instrument of cultural change" – Richard Rorty,
"A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it." ―Rabindranath Tagore,
and Jonathan Rowson's: "The antidebate is about speaking differently rather than arguing well..."
I refer to an article by the Swiss French poet Philippe Jaccottet on Büchner's Woyzeck, where he writes that Woyzeck "senses things that escape both his friend Andrè's common sense and the false science of the doctor or the sermons of his captain..." but "doesn't know how to explain, he lacks the words". Thus, Jaccottet adds, "Authority speaks according to dead and deadly formulas, and the premonition of a possible new truth is in clumsy mouths... Precisely where soldier Woyzeck begins to stutter, because he cannot find words to express what he feels, there begins poetry. Woyzeck, by the imbalance of his nature and his simplicity of spirit, guesses that there are hidden things in the world more important and more powerful than those found all defined in the language of his superiors. 'Each of us is a chasm. It makes your head spin when you look down,' he says..."
In the light of all the above, who would condemn initial stuttering as failure. As Jonathan Rowson noted "We did not always get it right..."
I should stress that the above should be read as appropriate. Concerning "Authority speaks according to dead and deadly formulas, and the premonition of a possible new truth is in clumsy mouths", "clumsy" hardly refers to Perspectiva. The point is rather about the difficulty in finding the words needed to clarify a new vision of reality, as opposed to voicing the current confident yet moribund consensus.
I'm delighted to meet this curious 'mutt', the antidebate. Heartfelt thanks to all who laboured to bring it into the world! If anyone were to be thinking of holding an antidebate in Sydney, Australia, I'd love to participate.
The Art of Sensemaking for a World Gone Slightly Mad? Slightly Mad? Or the social world of humanity that generally speaking has always been completely mad, in the context of 'Our Brains, Our Delusions & The Unmaking of the World', with the epistemic delusion that we 'know' and we understand everything we Name? Who on earth do these well meaning folks enjoying the religio (binding) nature of 'concern' through the religio (binding) nature of language, believe Iain McGilchrist's subtitle addresses?
"Oh we need an antidebate." Gee, you think? This video a perfect demonstration of just how much we suffer from the epistemic delusion of the peculiarly human phenomena of Mind-Sight. A group of people sharing the blindingly obvious 'sense' that the behavioral power of 'imitation' and the auto-suggestion power of memory, really does 'mean' we know & understand what we name.
A group of people driven by the non-conscious needs of affect-regulation, as the physiological root of our e-motive motivations, and generally speaking unaware of the neuroscience maxim: "The attempt to regulate affect - to minimize unpleasant feelings to maximize pleasant ones - is the driving force in human motivation.” Because, “behavior is organized by implicit functions that occur beneath levels of awareness not because they are repressed but because they are too rapid to reach conscious awareness.”
Which is why I make apparently unpleasant comments about our being self-ignorant, semi-conscious talking heads, with little knowledge or awareness of 'how' we actually do, being human.
While the non-conscious nature of innate affect, as negative affect, was demonstrated several times in the way people felt uneasy about what was happening in the "we-space," and 'paradoxically' the non-conscious nature of innate affect was also demonstrated in the motion of those 43 muscles of the human face we see in the positive affect of a spontaneous Smile.
And as an 'intuition-pump' to paraphrase the philosopher Daniel Dennett, I share a book excerpt from the soul of the deceased Teresa Brennan, about the ‘conceptual oddity’ of that something inside us wiser than our heads, to paraphrase Arthur Schopenhauer. Please consider:
“Is there anyone who has not, at least once, walked into a room and “felt the atmosphere?” But if many have paused to wonder how they received this impression, and why it seemed both objective and certain, there is no record of their curiosity in the copious literature on group and crowd psychology, or in the psychological and psychoanalytic writing that claims that one person can feel other peoples feelings (and there is writing that does this, as we shall see). This is not especially surprising, as any inquiry into how one feels the others’ affects, or the “atmosphere,” has to take account of physiology as well as the social, psychological factors that generated the atmosphere in the first place. The transmission of affect, whether it is grief , anxiety, or anger, is social or psychological in origin. But the transmission is also responsible for bodily changes; some are brief changes, as in a whiff of the room’s atmosphere, some longer lasting. In other words, the transmission of affect, if only for an instant, alters the biochemistry and neurology of the subject. The “atmosphere” or the environment literally gets into the individual. Physically and biologically, something is present that was not there before, but it did not originate sui generis: it was not generated solely or sometimes even in part by the individual organism or its genes.
In a time when the popularity of genetic explanations for social behavior is increasing, the transmission of affect is a conceptual oddity. If transmission takes place and has effects on behavior, it is not genes that determine social life; it is the socially induced affect that changes our biology. The transmission of affect is not understood or studied because of the distance between the concept of transmission and the reigning modes of biological explanation. No one really knows how it happens, which may explain the reluctance to acknowledge its existence. But this reluctance, historically is only recent. The transmission of affect was once common knowledge; the concept faded from the history of scientific explanation as the individual, especially the biologically determined individual, came to the fore. As the notion of the individual gained in strength, it was assumed more and more that emotions and energies are naturally contained, going no farther than the skin. But while it is recognized freely that individualism is a historical and cultural product, the idea that affective self-containment is also a production is resisted.
We think that the ideas or thoughts of a given subject has, are socially constructed, dependant on cultures, times, and social groups within them. Indeed, after Karl Marx, Karl Mannheim, Michel Foucault, and any social thinker worthy of the epithet “social,” it is difficult to think anything else. But if we accept that our thoughts are not entirely independent, we are peculiarly resistant to the idea that our emotions are not altogether our own. The taken-for-grantedness of the emotionally self-contained subject is a bastion of Eurocentrism in critical thinking, the belief in the superiority of one’s own worldview over that of other cultures. The idea that progress is a modernist and Western myth are nonetheless blind to the way that non-Western as well as premodern, preindustrial cultures assume that the person is not “affectively” contained. Notions of the transmission of affect are suspect as non-white and colonial cultures are suspect. (p, 2.)
But the denial is not reasonable. The denial of transmission leads to inconsistencies in theories and therapies of the subjective state. All reputable schools of psychological theory assume that the subject is energetically and affectively self-contained. At the same time, psychologists working in clinics experience affective transmission. There are many psychological clinicians (especially the followers of Melanie Klein) who believe they experience the affects of their clients directly. (p, 2.)”
An excerpt from “The Transmission of Affect” by Teresa Brennan, PhD.-
Please contemplate how the sense-making phrase ‘who we are’ stands in denial of ‘what we are’ as sentient creatures of Creation (God) and the possibility that the ‘pattern that connects’ to paraphrase Gregory Bateson, is ‘triune’ and is demonstrated in the triune (3 in 1) relationship of sight-object-thought, within our conscious mind’s perception of reality? For truth be told, you can name any object your eyes see with any word you care to imagine without altering the reality of what your eyes are seeing. Which is why this statement on the perceptual paradox of our species makes sense:
"For people to comprehend their self-deception, they must try not to impose a conditioned expectation of mind-sight on the perception capacity of eye-sight." - Daniel Goleman, Vital Lies, Simple Truths, The Psychology of Self Deception
And one last quote worthy of perspecteeva contemplation: “When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.” ― Mark Twain
In reference to the quotations:
"A talent for speaking differently, rather than arguing well, is the chief instrument of cultural change" – Richard Rorty,
"A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it." ―Rabindranath Tagore,
and Jonathan Rowson's: "The antidebate is about speaking differently rather than arguing well..."
I refer to an article by the Swiss French poet Philippe Jaccottet on Büchner's Woyzeck, where he writes that Woyzeck "senses things that escape both his friend Andrè's common sense and the false science of the doctor or the sermons of his captain..." but "doesn't know how to explain, he lacks the words". Thus, Jaccottet adds, "Authority speaks according to dead and deadly formulas, and the premonition of a possible new truth is in clumsy mouths... Precisely where soldier Woyzeck begins to stutter, because he cannot find words to express what he feels, there begins poetry. Woyzeck, by the imbalance of his nature and his simplicity of spirit, guesses that there are hidden things in the world more important and more powerful than those found all defined in the language of his superiors. 'Each of us is a chasm. It makes your head spin when you look down,' he says..."
In the light of all the above, who would condemn initial stuttering as failure. As Jonathan Rowson noted "We did not always get it right..."
I should stress that the above should be read as appropriate. Concerning "Authority speaks according to dead and deadly formulas, and the premonition of a possible new truth is in clumsy mouths", "clumsy" hardly refers to Perspectiva. The point is rather about the difficulty in finding the words needed to clarify a new vision of reality, as opposed to voicing the current confident yet moribund consensus.
I'm delighted to meet this curious 'mutt', the antidebate. Heartfelt thanks to all who laboured to bring it into the world! If anyone were to be thinking of holding an antidebate in Sydney, Australia, I'd love to participate.
The Art of Sensemaking for a World Gone Slightly Mad? Slightly Mad? Or the social world of humanity that generally speaking has always been completely mad, in the context of 'Our Brains, Our Delusions & The Unmaking of the World', with the epistemic delusion that we 'know' and we understand everything we Name? Who on earth do these well meaning folks enjoying the religio (binding) nature of 'concern' through the religio (binding) nature of language, believe Iain McGilchrist's subtitle addresses?
"Oh we need an antidebate." Gee, you think? This video a perfect demonstration of just how much we suffer from the epistemic delusion of the peculiarly human phenomena of Mind-Sight. A group of people sharing the blindingly obvious 'sense' that the behavioral power of 'imitation' and the auto-suggestion power of memory, really does 'mean' we know & understand what we name.
A group of people driven by the non-conscious needs of affect-regulation, as the physiological root of our e-motive motivations, and generally speaking unaware of the neuroscience maxim: "The attempt to regulate affect - to minimize unpleasant feelings to maximize pleasant ones - is the driving force in human motivation.” Because, “behavior is organized by implicit functions that occur beneath levels of awareness not because they are repressed but because they are too rapid to reach conscious awareness.”
Which is why I make apparently unpleasant comments about our being self-ignorant, semi-conscious talking heads, with little knowledge or awareness of 'how' we actually do, being human.
While the non-conscious nature of innate affect, as negative affect, was demonstrated several times in the way people felt uneasy about what was happening in the "we-space," and 'paradoxically' the non-conscious nature of innate affect was also demonstrated in the motion of those 43 muscles of the human face we see in the positive affect of a spontaneous Smile.
And as an 'intuition-pump' to paraphrase the philosopher Daniel Dennett, I share a book excerpt from the soul of the deceased Teresa Brennan, about the ‘conceptual oddity’ of that something inside us wiser than our heads, to paraphrase Arthur Schopenhauer. Please consider:
“Is there anyone who has not, at least once, walked into a room and “felt the atmosphere?” But if many have paused to wonder how they received this impression, and why it seemed both objective and certain, there is no record of their curiosity in the copious literature on group and crowd psychology, or in the psychological and psychoanalytic writing that claims that one person can feel other peoples feelings (and there is writing that does this, as we shall see). This is not especially surprising, as any inquiry into how one feels the others’ affects, or the “atmosphere,” has to take account of physiology as well as the social, psychological factors that generated the atmosphere in the first place. The transmission of affect, whether it is grief , anxiety, or anger, is social or psychological in origin. But the transmission is also responsible for bodily changes; some are brief changes, as in a whiff of the room’s atmosphere, some longer lasting. In other words, the transmission of affect, if only for an instant, alters the biochemistry and neurology of the subject. The “atmosphere” or the environment literally gets into the individual. Physically and biologically, something is present that was not there before, but it did not originate sui generis: it was not generated solely or sometimes even in part by the individual organism or its genes.
In a time when the popularity of genetic explanations for social behavior is increasing, the transmission of affect is a conceptual oddity. If transmission takes place and has effects on behavior, it is not genes that determine social life; it is the socially induced affect that changes our biology. The transmission of affect is not understood or studied because of the distance between the concept of transmission and the reigning modes of biological explanation. No one really knows how it happens, which may explain the reluctance to acknowledge its existence. But this reluctance, historically is only recent. The transmission of affect was once common knowledge; the concept faded from the history of scientific explanation as the individual, especially the biologically determined individual, came to the fore. As the notion of the individual gained in strength, it was assumed more and more that emotions and energies are naturally contained, going no farther than the skin. But while it is recognized freely that individualism is a historical and cultural product, the idea that affective self-containment is also a production is resisted.
We think that the ideas or thoughts of a given subject has, are socially constructed, dependant on cultures, times, and social groups within them. Indeed, after Karl Marx, Karl Mannheim, Michel Foucault, and any social thinker worthy of the epithet “social,” it is difficult to think anything else. But if we accept that our thoughts are not entirely independent, we are peculiarly resistant to the idea that our emotions are not altogether our own. The taken-for-grantedness of the emotionally self-contained subject is a bastion of Eurocentrism in critical thinking, the belief in the superiority of one’s own worldview over that of other cultures. The idea that progress is a modernist and Western myth are nonetheless blind to the way that non-Western as well as premodern, preindustrial cultures assume that the person is not “affectively” contained. Notions of the transmission of affect are suspect as non-white and colonial cultures are suspect. (p, 2.)
But the denial is not reasonable. The denial of transmission leads to inconsistencies in theories and therapies of the subjective state. All reputable schools of psychological theory assume that the subject is energetically and affectively self-contained. At the same time, psychologists working in clinics experience affective transmission. There are many psychological clinicians (especially the followers of Melanie Klein) who believe they experience the affects of their clients directly. (p, 2.)”
An excerpt from “The Transmission of Affect” by Teresa Brennan, PhD.-
Please contemplate how the sense-making phrase ‘who we are’ stands in denial of ‘what we are’ as sentient creatures of Creation (God) and the possibility that the ‘pattern that connects’ to paraphrase Gregory Bateson, is ‘triune’ and is demonstrated in the triune (3 in 1) relationship of sight-object-thought, within our conscious mind’s perception of reality? For truth be told, you can name any object your eyes see with any word you care to imagine without altering the reality of what your eyes are seeing. Which is why this statement on the perceptual paradox of our species makes sense:
"For people to comprehend their self-deception, they must try not to impose a conditioned expectation of mind-sight on the perception capacity of eye-sight." - Daniel Goleman, Vital Lies, Simple Truths, The Psychology of Self Deception
And one last quote worthy of perspecteeva contemplation: “When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.” ― Mark Twain