but, too freaky for me is an envelope we dont want to push… 😉
i would only consider the brush too broad if we were to assume application on a large scale…i think most people (especially ‘cognitively constrained’ ones) dont necessarily follow the process as orderly as this, and tend to adopt their realities early and then reject any input that doesnt fit it..
…plus the schematic needs a defense mechanism….a defense/denial valve of some sort 😉
the diagram, well, i would not have picked all that up there
the importance about your questions and what you’re asking us to understand are immense.
it might help us step away from constructs long enough to assess how we got here… literally. Bush, climate, war.
and that is why i think it has become, for some of us, our intellect vs our DNA. the dilemma is in our preconscious selves. the preprogrammed expectations.
George Bush et al. No matter how much info they have. They only believe might is right. whatever happens to others will not happen to them. they are entitled. as you say…
that is how we unconsciously select the few things we actualy are conscious of in any scene…….inumerable data yet we only tag a very small fraction and we insert what we expect to see…..that is right we insert and complete what is not there in order to see an expected pattern…..and we deny disconfirming information ………we program ourselves,through our semiconsciuos belief systems, to see what we look for, to hear what we listen for….
we need to see it this way. then we stop blaming and condemning. and start figuring out how to stop these old models. and it also gives us an insight into how to incite others who are prone to use intellect to fight dna.
i have been working on an essay dealing with understanding how we got here fueled by might is right. about scale, the individual, and mass consensus.
and i figure we new models started evolving 5 or 6 thousand years ago. i’ve written it before and i think the example is a good one: it is the Clan of the Cave Bear. our divergence from people like George Bush will be that epic, imo.
I do have one small thing to mention though. In quantum physics it is learned that the act of observing something changes that which is observed. Wouldn’t that open up another feed back loop on the ascending actuality leg of your diagram? Given that what we consider to be real is our understanding of what is actual, wouldn’t it follow then that the act of observing our understanding of our reality would change that which is the basis of that understanding, the actuality?
At that point it would seem that the morphological constraints would be effected to the point that actuality as well as reality is changed.
36 comments
Skip to comment form
Author
but, too freaky for me is an envelope we dont want to push… 😉
i would only consider the brush too broad if we were to assume application on a large scale…i think most people (especially ‘cognitively constrained’ ones) dont necessarily follow the process as orderly as this, and tend to adopt their realities early and then reject any input that doesnt fit it..
…plus the schematic needs a defense mechanism….a defense/denial valve of some sort 😉
for this one TES… i always get lost in diagrams and charts and graphs. but i trust you’ll help me through it.
but i’ll be back!
would you consider putting ‘interrobang’ as a tag on all these? it will make it easier for others to find after they’ve left the page.
also please consider a very broad based tag~ philosophy?
thanks ♥~
Ria
(new tag helper!)
in the right spirit, in the right places, in I think it’s possible for the fly to find its way out of the fly-bottle.
but my reactions surface as i look at it
it seems to be a closed system, except for the two light lines coming out of it (or going into it).
and why dilemma? and what is it? biological vs cognitive? meaning versus assumption? or is it that we shape our perceptions and they shape us?
i’m assuming you’re using dilemma in a pejorative way…
and i’m looking for the word reality… i see actuality used. reality seems like a softer take than actuality.
well, those are my reactions. help!!!
(^.^)
the diagram, well, i would not have picked all that up there
the importance about your questions and what you’re asking us to understand are immense.
it might help us step away from constructs long enough to assess how we got here… literally. Bush, climate, war.
and that is why i think it has become, for some of us, our intellect vs our DNA. the dilemma is in our preconscious selves. the preprogrammed expectations.
George Bush et al. No matter how much info they have. They only believe might is right. whatever happens to others will not happen to them. they are entitled. as you say…
that is how we unconsciously select the few things we actualy are conscious of in any scene…….inumerable data yet we only tag a very small fraction and we insert what we expect to see…..that is right we insert and complete what is not there in order to see an expected pattern…..and we deny disconfirming information ………we program ourselves,through our semiconsciuos belief systems, to see what we look for, to hear what we listen for….
we need to see it this way. then we stop blaming and condemning. and start figuring out how to stop these old models. and it also gives us an insight into how to incite others who are prone to use intellect to fight dna.
i have been working on an essay dealing with understanding how we got here fueled by might is right. about scale, the individual, and mass consensus.
and i figure we new models started evolving 5 or 6 thousand years ago. i’ve written it before and i think the example is a good one: it is the Clan of the Cave Bear. our divergence from people like George Bush will be that epic, imo.
I do have one small thing to mention though. In quantum physics it is learned that the act of observing something changes that which is observed. Wouldn’t that open up another feed back loop on the ascending actuality leg of your diagram? Given that what we consider to be real is our understanding of what is actual, wouldn’t it follow then that the act of observing our understanding of our reality would change that which is the basis of that understanding, the actuality?
At that point it would seem that the morphological constraints would be effected to the point that actuality as well as reality is changed.