IMPLEXI MUNDI: International Arts and Sciences Complexity Worlds

On the Economics of Chaos and Aberrant Common Sense
By: Roulette William Smith on: Sat 17 of Nov, 2007 [21:25 UTC] (5006 reads)

The presentation will focus on economics issues associated with aberrant common sense.

(2123 bytes)

The notion of common sense occurs in most, if not all, cultures. Less well known and poorly understood are disorders of common sense. The term aberrant common sense is used as a catchall term for all disorders in common sense. Curiously, there are no references to common sense or its disorders in any known clinical textbook or diagnostic manual, despite most persons knowing at least one person who lacks common sense and whose chaotic behaviors are costly. This report focuses on economic issues associated with chaos and aberrant common sense. Its subtitle could be “On the economics of stupidity” because of thoughtless and self-centered behaviors in aberrant common sense. Specifically, we consider economic aspects of chaos and aberrant common sense in:
• personal lives (e.g., associated with psychoviruses, trauma, addictions, failed relationships, sociopathy, insurance, clinical costs and opportunities, medications providing symptomatic relief, etc.);
• nationally (e.g., politics, election laws and procedures, associated with poor leadership and leaders with aberrant common sense, crime, civil strife and riots, war, catastrophes, national caveats emptor, etc.);
• globally (e.g., global warming, inequities between those who have and those who do not have, displacements and diasporas, human rights, divergences in common sense, etc.); and,
• aberrant ‘scientific common sense’ (e.g., poor experimental designs; failures in vaccine trials; confusion regarding causality, correlations and associations, consequences, and irrelevancies; not knowing when or how to stop; ethical lapses; open and anonymous peer review; mistakes and misunderstandings; internecine behaviors, etc.).
In addition, insofar as conditional and Bayesian probabilities may represent subconscious dynamic and fluid boundary conditions on reality, we examine beneficial and detrimental (economic) implications for chaos, health, wellness and sanity.

Here is a link to a paper preparatory for my presentation:
http://www.blueberry-brain.org/winterchaos/RoulettiInChina.htm external link

9 comments

Posted messages

Messages

Style

Sort

Threshold

Find

Top

Hide all

author message

dennalf

On the economics of chaos and aberrant common sense

on: Sat 05 of Jan, 2008 [23:34 UTC]

score: 0.80

Thank you, Dr. Smith, for a very interesting and thought-provoking article.
I have several comments, which, I confess, are framed by my own understanding of complexity which in turn is informed by a good deal of postmodern, postcolonial, and phenomenological philosophy. As you see, I have my biases.
The comments concern the definition of common sense, the defict analytical framework in which it appears, an observation that sense-making is more dynamical than the more metaphysical noun of 'common sense and that co-adaptation and emergent patterns of behavior that occur in this sense-making might provide an alternative framework for both diagnosis and treatment.

Common sense
Common sense (ala Einstein) might very well be termed as habitual thinking so aberrant might be the condition in which individuals have not learned habits or can't (as Dr. Smith suggests) or where their adaptive field (phase space) is so narrow that functional/useful behaviors (those that sustain a reality) are very few in number. This condition, however, reduces the viability of the individual if circumstances change, which I would guess creates stress as an individual finds themself in 'open water.'
Ironically, I suppose this narrow phase space is a prescribed condition of Enlightenment thinking — the narrowing of a 'chaotic' world to those variables which could be measured and managed. When I first read the term 'aberrant common sense,' I said - that's it, that's the perfect description of the bureaucratic condition. I was thinking, in particular of Herbert Simon, (satisficing, bounded rationality and AI guru). Simon,the exemplar Modernist, wrote the first bible of public administration which reduced the field to its functions, dismissed the notions of common good and ethics because they could not be managed. and a story he conveyed in his autobiography. Simon was being teased by his colleagues about his mantra 'there is nothing new to learn in the world,' meaning that knowledge was a finite, bounded, commodity available through the reading of expert texts. To prove his theory and his friends wrong he devised an experiment. He was very found of the impressionist Cezzane and in particular his paintings of Mt. Vittiore. Simon read all the experts on Cezzane, studied all the critics and then set out on a carefully planned hike along old Roman roads to where he stood within 400 feet of where the master had painted Mt. Vittiore. Simon declared that he had proved his theory - 'there is was - 'nature imitating art.' He declared that he had learned nothing new from the experience. Simon was using common sense of a scientific sort - not deviating from his method even when confronted with the mountain he admired and being in the footsteps of a painter he admired. I think the non-scientist would have learned something in the interplay of emotions and senses.
Sense-making would involve a conscious interaction between Simon and the experience, an involvement in the moment, learning. So just having common sense as a kind of generic awareness would have to be coupled with an active engagement of the environment — a willingness to be changed by it and to be comfortable with the abiguity surrounding possible outcomes of that engagement. Ironically, much of public philosophy is based on the idea of defense, rather than engagement. I very much like Walter Freeman's discussions of meaning-making in the chaotic brain in this regard and it is perhaps useful to think of the brain finding a place for new information to fit within the evolving sense of self, rather than only as correctly processing information. Processing is a solitary act, meaning-making requires engagement and the adaptive accommodation of difference. The fear of difference, the cruelty and violence that accompanies that fear is that difference does change reality, at points of criticality it disorders reality so the difference can be 'meaningfully' accommodated. As Tielhard said 'difference does not cause violence, the suppression of difference causes violence." I wonder, in reading the text, if the passive/agressive meanness of some of those observed by Dr. Smith is a kind of expressed dissonance between needing to change and fearing change - which is a hateful pergatory of sorts.
The idea of emergence in complexity seems like it might better inform the idea of common sense. Clearly, we all have learned behaviors and it makes sense that some of these might be stored across generations and that there might be nicks in DNA that distort those behaviors. Are the nicks mistakes always or could they also be evolutionary responses to a changed environment and if so can they be understood and engaged without recognizing what adaptive purpose they are serving? I have wondered about ADD is this regard - clearly a disruptive condition that creates dissonance for individuals and difficulty in adjusting 'normally,' but what if ADD, which is increasing as a social pattern, is an evolutionary response to a fast-paced, diversion-oriented adaptive field? Are we messing with our ability to adapt to the social circumstances we create if we do not engage the possibility of an adaptive change and respond to the problem in that manner rather than only framing it as a lack of attention, a deficit? Or if we do not value this emerging behavior, then is the problem the individual or again the adaptive field? What are we choosing to adapt to as a society?
In politics, for example, common sense is tauted as a virtue (Ron Paul) but the process of politics is largely habitual which sets it against the 'dealing with reality' that seems to be the basis of the virtue. The bounded fields of politics economics and science(see JB Ruhl, e.g.) exhibit aberrant common sense but still create the adaptive fields for the rest of us — making it seem that the only common sense is to deviate from the norm.
The references to 'herd behavior' and the mystery surrounding choices that animals seem to make might also be viewed from a different lens. Migrant geese, for example, form intriguing patterns in the winter sky as we watch them, but not necesarily because there is an Alpha Goose making clear-headed decisions, but because one goose adjusts to a wind current, say, then a nearby goose adjusts to the first one and so on until a pattern of behavior emerges. I think it would be hard to diagnose 'common sense' as an individual phenomenon, especially since the underlying pattern of western society is one which has historically ignored or villified the emotional and sensory responses needed to learn from an environment and respond appropriately rather than reactively. So observing behavior in situ is indeed important.
However, I am wondering about the act of observation, which we know alters events - especially those which are dynamic, soap operatic and Shakespearean — i.e. sensitive to initial conditions. The answer, I don't think, is to remove everyone to the laboratory, however. I think of phenomenology, for example, not only of observing the real world, but also experiencing it — i.e. being conscious of its change upon me as another member of the system which is an additional source of information about reality and where it is headed. Also, I am wondering about models based on the identification of deficits. From a complex systems approach the deficit behavior may be merely symptomatic of again an emerging set of behavior and circumstances - not the problem at all, but an indiciation that something is forming — that is potentially changing. Too, the deficit behavior could be serving some ancillary functional purpose that is not apparent at a particular moment.

I will stop now. Thank you so much for provoking these ideas.

author

message

fredabraham

Socio-political challenges for common sense

on: Thu 03 of Jan, 2008 [16:57 UTC]

score: 0.00

Herbert Muller's commntary leads me to consider some examples as tests of common sense. He brings up the arena of common sense in politics. Let's take an example and see if it stresses the general usefulness of the concept of common sense. Let us take US presidential candidate, Ron Paul, who has made a number of popular goals. One of those is to abolish the Department of Education. Is such a proposal one of good common sense? One state says gay marriage is forbidden, another says it is acceptable. Which is lacking in common sense? One senator says the PATRIOT Act is good, another bad. Which has common sense in their side. The Pareto Principle states that 80% of the effects comes from 20% of the causes (cited in Roulette's ommentary) is based on "The observation was in connection with income and wealth. Pareto noticed that 80% of Italy's wealth was owned by 20% of the population." (Wikipedia). Does such a statistic being used to found such a causal principal make common sense? If you use different cultural herds to justify different answers for issues in which the different herds are involved within a larger cultural context, to which herd do you apply a corrective for their aberrant behavior?

But these are trivial concerns compared to the issue I bring up at the end of my commentary concerning implications for civil rights, sources of innovation in society, and interdepedence in complex social systems. Though these emample involve all of these aspects.

author

message

fredabraham

Herbert Muller: THE DIAGNOSIS OF LACK OF COMMON SENSE

on: Thu 03 of Jan, 2008 [16:21 UTC]

score: 0.60

(Submitted by fred abraham for H. J. Muller, who commented at Karl Jaspers Forum: http://kjf.ca/100-C4MUL.htm external link

RW Smith’s work on common sense is of great potential interest, I would think. As he shows, there is a similar notion in all languages. However, much depends on the solidity of this concept.

What did not become clear to me how a diagnosis of disorder of common sense is to be made in practice. RWS mentions questions relating to this point in several places, such as {his paragraphs 54 and 65}. He comes back to the question of using tests of mathematics and reading abilities in his reply {pargraph 6} but I was not able to understand what his proposal for a diagnostic procedure would be; and this would be a pre-requisite for inclusion in ICD or DSM. And also, how reliable is such an ‘axis II diagnosis’ ?

Aside from psychiatric classification, RWS emphasizes the practical importance of common sense, for instance in politics. Would he suggest that candidates for political office should be pre-screened for common sense, as opposed to the lack of it (as in fanaticism, or more generally, a tendency to hold and promote pre-conceived assumptions in an uncritical manner) ?

author

message

fredabraham

Operational Definitions: Triage and Social Significance

on: Sun 30 of Dec, 2007 [18:07 UTC]

score: 1.00

Roulette has asked me to critique in an effort to sharpen his essay, to which I humbly and reluctantly submit despite a lack of qualifications. Nonetheless, while its virtues are abundant and self-evident and need no comment from me, in an effort to satisfy his request, I focus on two related issues that concern me. The first deals with the difficulty of providing operational definitions for “common sense” and many of the other terms used, and the second deals with the potential social significance of his definition of “common sense”.

My comments are at:
http://www.blueberry-brain.org/chaosophy/RouletteKJ100CommentaryFDAwImages.htm external link

and were made before Roulette's rejoinder (comment 5). My comments are not obviated by Roulette's Comment 5, and are colorful, using several images, including that of Plato, Avicenna, Bentham's Panopticon, and Thomas Reid, plus a few living souls, such as Habermas, Horgan, Kristeva, Roulette, and myself

Note that there are several pseudo links in his comment 5 that won't work, don't try them as you will have to restart your entry into Implexi Mundi when they 404. They may have been caused by using brackets in the wrong place (they signify links in Tiki language). If you create any links, you better cut and paste complete http references (in which case the [] brackets are not needed.

author

message

rickisfriend

On functional and operational definitions for 'common sense'

on: Sat 29 of Dec, 2007 [03:02 UTC]

score: 0.00

Response 1 (to in CA2 by Stanley Krippner and to and in CA3 by Fred Abraham):

Dear Stanley Krippner and Fred Abraham,

1
I am extraordinarily grateful for your thoughtful and insightful comments regarding definitions of common sense (also see 20, 21, 57, 58, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90 in TA100). Geneticist, biology textbook author and science journalist Ricki A. Lewis shares your concerns. She specifically recommended that a definition of common sense should appear early in TA100 (Ricki Lewis, personal communications). My decision to ignore Lewis’ advice was based on Ausabel’s notion of “advanced organizers.” I simply did not want to create unfulfilling expectations once I realized that aberrations in common sense possibly could lead to ambiguities and changes in any definitions. In the end, this decision proved to be correct.

2
Needless to say, I struggled mightily to provide a useful and accurate definition for common sense. Initially, I defined common sense as “core nurturance within a herd, group and/or culture” (see 89 in TA100). I reported this definition in San Francisco at a 2007 SF Tesla Society Meeting, in 2006 in Baden-Baden, Germany at the 18th International Conference on Systems Research, Informatics and Cybernetics (InterSymp 2006), and earlier this year in Puerto Rico at the 2007 Winter Chaos (Snowflake) Conference. This definition is: concise; succinct; reflects the importance of development, nurturance, culture and group differences; and, captures roles of both ‘common knowledge’ and underlying ‘common cognitive processes’ (including question-asking, question-answering, help seeking, teaching, caring, and decision-making; see 89, 90 in TA100). Moreover, each of the terms for common sense in Table 1 is consistent with this definition.

3
My research teaches me that the term “common sense” applies to ‘populations’ (i.e., groups, herds, etc.) and ‘individuals’ within those populations. When confronted with the disorders in common sense in Germany earlier this year (i.e., 2007), and when recalling my 1985 experiences with aberrant common sense in elementary school students in Sunnyvale, CA, it became critically important to understand aberrations in common sense. I began constructing Table 2 after the 4th International Conference on Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychologies and Psychotherapies (see attached .pdf file for the most recent revisions to Tables 1, 2 and 3). Table 2 cites definitions and expressions for aberrations in common sense from dictionaries, scholars and laypersons – including bartenders, taxi drivers and the woman or man on the street. (NB: Bartenders were canvassed because they often have first-hand experiences involving dynamic changes in common sense when their clients are under the influence of alcohol and other addictive substances.)

4
Although neither Table 1 nor 2 is complete, several findings are emerging from my effort to construct Table 2. Many informants and other persons struggled to find mild, kind, neutral and non-offensive ways of describing persons with disorders in common sense. In the end, almost all persons expressed some exasperation and ultimately resorted to curses, unflattering terms and other references to mental deficiencies (e.g., small brain, dumb, fool, idiot, stupid, half a loaf, crazy, etc. consistent with my notion of “functional strokes” 91-92 in TA100) when describing their personal experiences with persons who they perceived to have disorders in common sense. Indeed, Poet Neill Edwards and I were challenged to find a neutral and non-offensive alternative to the word “stupid.” Our softened term was “inappropriate” (see 84 and Footnotes {45. 46, 59} in TA100). Whether our action represents ‘experimenter bias’ remains to be elucidated. These findings have two important implications. First, any definition of common sense must consider both appropriate and inappropriate behaviors and decision processes. Second, operational and functional definitions of common sense must take into account extreme outliers associated with significant inappropriateness in disorders of common sense.

5
Table 3 is updated to reflect a recent overnight visit with Propositi “D” and “E”. Because of the chaos encountered in the German household, I accepted the opportunity to be an overnight guest in Proposita “D’s” home. Although I have known her since 1971, I never had an opportunity to observe her in situ. The chaos in her household immediately was evident thereby providing further support for the value of in situ observations. My overnight visit also provided evidence of severe psychosocial dysfunctions which often are inapparent during short and fleeting encounters. Thus, health and caring professionals may need to find ways to engage their clients in some level of in situ observations to fully appreciate the exasperating aspects of disorders of common sense.

6
These observations teach that common sense comprises “core nurturance within a group, herd and/or culture, although most, if not all, decision-making processes must be appropriate within the context of that group, herd and/or culture, and no(!) decision-making processes should be inappropriate within the context of that group, herd and/or culture.” Clearly, operational and functional challenges are to assess appropriateness and inappropriateness. This is a reason I propose to discuss the economics of chaos and aberrant common sense at the forthcoming 2008 Winter Chaos (Snowflake) Conference (also see 80, 82, 96, 103 in TA100). Because disorders in common sense often involve extreme outliers when compared to well-circumscribed errors which can occur in common sense, simple analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures may be inadequate in assessing extreme outliers. Economics employs important tools that may find value in this application. These tools include a Pareto-like Principle, Gini coefficients and indices, Theil entropic measures and several novel syntropic measures (cf. Footnote {18} and 08b6a38bc77cbd55b17797574a18d218 in TA100). The Pareto principle (also known as the ‘08b6a38bc77cbd55b17797574a18d218-20 rule’, the ‘law of the vital few’ and the ‘principle of factor sparsity’) states that, for many events, 08b6a38bc77cbd55b17797574a18d218% of the effects comes from 20% of the causes. In the case of a proposed Pareto-like Principle for common sense, the, say, ≤20% of persons with disorders in common sense in a population cause and consume, say, ≥08b6a38bc77cbd55b17797574a18d218% of attention, chaos, derision, services and resources. Although these numbers are arbitrary at this time, the underlying message is clear; chaos and aberrations in common sense are extremely costly! This is the crux of concerns about the economics of chaos and aberrant common sense in unknowingly needy and worried well. Gini coefficients and indices should assist in assessing extreme outliers. Novel syntropic measures and indices would be consistent with common sense, whereas flat or low syntropic findings would be consistent with disorders in common sense.

7
Under the above definition for common sense, disorders in common sense consist of one or more inappropriate behaviors and decision-making strategies (in the context of the group, herd and/or culture) derived from inadequate or inappropriate development, nurturance, and/or situational trauma. These disorders in common sense may lead to mild to severe psychopathic and sociopathic behaviors, stress-related physical symptoms, and chaos for others. Horrendous crimes also may be consequences of disorders in common sense. Because laws and crimes are based on group, herd or cultural norms, I am unable to think of any crime which would not be considered a disorder in common sense. Even the notion of “just war” may represent an inappropriate attempt to change common sense in a population by individuals within that population or by outsiders.

8
One should note that the proposed definition in 6 differs subtly, though importantly, from a working definition proposed by Krippner. Krippner’s notion of “functional for the individual as well as for his/her social group” does not adequately deal with possibilities that what an individual perceives to be functional may not be acceptable within the population. An individual may perceive that “my way or the highway” is functional (see 46, 61, 64, 69, 84, 104, Table 3 page 64, and Footnote {45} in TA 100), whereas the population regards such behaviors as inane. The population also may not know of an individual’s dysfuntionalities – thereby providing a priori and default presumptions of common sense. Krippner also raises the issue of biological predispositions. This precisely is the issue of representations of common sense in non-proteomic regions of the host’s genome in brain. It is extremely important to disambiguate proteomic (i.e., genetic) and non-proteomic (i.e., non-genetic) issues. Equally important, developmental and nurturing aspects of congenital (and intrauterine), and post-natal components in common sense must be teased-out.

9
A focus on economics has another important implication. Because fMRI increasingly is used to assess brain activity in tasks involving moral and rational behavior, some version of this technology may contribute to the explication of one’s understanding of irrational, inappropriate, and ‘functional stroke’ activities in disorders of common sense (see 91, 92 in TA100). Not only would this approach extend one’s understanding of brain and behavior, ultimately it may add support for common non-proteomic regions of the genome (in brain) serving as repositories of long-term memories. In view of savant-like behaviors in Propositi “C” and “E”, fMRI also may contribute to the disambiguation of commonsense elements in the autistic spectrum of disorders – including Malcolm Gladwell’s notion “temporary autism” (see 08b6a38bc77cbd55b17797574a18d218 in TA 100). Indeed, temporary autism and dynamic changes in common sense (e.g., when under the influence of alcohol) now should be investigated for an underlying molecular biological basis.

10
Stanley Krippner offers an excellent suggestion that one analyze mathematics and reading performance (also see 220566bd6fd38d9a043603873187116b in TA100). Needless to say, I considered this possibility on numerous occasions. A more immediate challenge is to construct culturally-sensitive mathematics and logic problems as well as reading tasks that can distinguish reasoning skills associated with well-circumscribed errors in common sense from extreme outliers prevalent in disorders in common sense. It was quite fortuitous that in 1985 the school librarian cited the material in Exhibit 4. Without those examples, I may not have been able to identify aberrant common sense among the elementary school students in Sunnyvale, CA. This challenge of producing culturally-sensitive and culturally-relevant materials may find expression and applications in art and graphics design, medicine, developmental psychology, education (including curriculum design, instructional science, and special education), and philosophy. An appropriate novel test theory which takes into account peer and other cultural norms also may be indicated (see 79 in TA100). NB: ACT, ETS, and other testing services already use identifying numbers which can be used to both track individuals over time as well as assess an individual’s performance in relationship to his or her identified peers. Such a test theory would place less emphasis on “the bell curve” and individual differences. It would incorporate more sensitivity to one’s relationships with peers. After all, common sense is an attribute of both individuals and their populations. The novel test theory also could resolve debates about languages, second languages, and, cultural and ethnic differences in performances.

11
Finally, Professor Krippner mentions that my notion of DNA being a repository of long-term memories is “extremely controversial, of course” and “the provocative notion about junk DNA.” Because Krippner’s comments are based on an earlier version of my manuscript, I responded by adding an Afterword (see 106-118) in TA 100. Suffice it to say, the molecular evidence supporting my model is overwhelming … with most of that evidence having been available in 1979 (see Exhibit 1 and 106-118 in TA 100). A central challenge now is to convince genome research teams headed by, say, Francis Collins, J. Craig Venter, Svante Pääbo or others that no(!) genome sequences will have full relevance without ruling out DNA dynamics in brain. When one considers the many millions of dollars invested in genome sequencing equipment, laboratories and staffing, those research teams must be convinced that to ‘responsibly’ sequence genomes of higher-order organisms requires that they also explore evidence of extraordinary DNA dynamics lurking before their eyes. In this regard, it should be noted that studies of cloning also may be inappropriate when cloning is limited to somatic cell sources for DNA. Lastly, because it requires relatively little additional effort, any genome sequencing efforts (whether or not single-nucleotide polymorphism SNP analyses are used) should record and report G*C::A*T ratios to further one’s understanding of syntropy and its potential – both within individuals and within herds and other groups.

Roulette Wm. Smith
E-Mail:

author

message

fredabraham

Operational Definitions: re Krippner Comment

on: Thu 20 of Dec, 2007 [19:46 UTC]

score: 0.80

Krippner comment: "Now what you need is an operational definition of common sense. {cf. 84, 89} To start, couldn't you say that "common sense" is the ability to make decisions (that are functional for the individual as well as for his/her social group) based on experience and past learning?"

Stanley has made a very nice perspective in the strengths and weaknesses of Smith's brilliant essay. However, the point of the need for an operational definition for common sense (which has been my primary concern about Roulette's topic; difficult to do because of the ambiguities involved), I think that it would be difficult to supply the same by characterizing behaviors that are functional, for this just shoves the need for operational definition to the new word "functional", which is just as likely to be fraught with operational difficulties. Much of the judgment as to what is functional (or common sensical) may depend on shifting and differing views of the behavior and the context in which the behavior occurs. The need for hermeneutics remains.

author

message

fredabraham

KJ Forum: Krippner Comment

on: Thu 20 of Dec, 2007 [19:34 UTC]

score: 0.80

( COMMON SENSE ) by Stanley Krippner
3 December 2007, posted 22 December 2007

I have read your paper. You have hit some high notes, e.g., experimental effect on page 2 {6, 16, 82, 98}, DNA and non-genetic information on page 3 {10, 23, 101, 111} (extremely controversial, of course), in utero experiences and their effect of behavior {23} (page 9), Lamarckian evolution {25} (same page), the three divergent strands of common sense {13, 14, 16, 19, 28} (page 10), separation of children from military mothers {30, 31, 32} (page 11) which I think is one of the most important contributions of this paper, the fact that unprotected sex during one night stands shows a LACK of common sense in the Age of AIDS {33, 34, 35} (page 12), the provocative notion about junk DNA {55} (page 17), the example {62} on page 18 is a good one but needs more context, the example {65} of page 19 in 1985 is excellent (you could easily collect data to show that math and reading skills go along with common sense), the vignettes 69 on page 21 show the cross-cultural aspects of common sense as does general anxiety disorder {73} on page 24, and the meta-transpersonal perspectives is a fresh slant {76-82} (page 25). Now what you need is an operational definition of common sense. {cf. 84, 89} To start, couldn't you say that "common sense" is the ability to make decisions (that are functional for the individual as well as for his/her social group) based on experience and past learning ? {cf. 89} I see common sense as a skill, an ability, and a learned behavior. Of course there are biological predispositions to it, as there are to all human abilities. But you have hit on an important topic and I hope you follow up on it !

author message

fredabraham

KJ Forum: Pictures on Crossing a Bridge

on: Thu 20 of Dec, 2007 [19:16 UTC]

score: 0.80

THE EXPLANATION OF THE PICTURES PRESENTING THE CONFLICT CAUSED BY CROSSING A BRIDGE

by Liu Zhida
12 December 2007, posted 22 December 2007 on Karl Jaspers Forum

There’re mainly three types of animals in the pictures. They’re wolves, rabbits and bears.

Here the wolf can represent the Earth or a specific subject (self) while the rabbit can be viewed as the moon, an outside relative object or a lower level. And the bear also can refer to the sun, an outside relative subject or a higher level.

The special subject (the wolf) can, in terms of a higher level, be considered inwardly as human beings, states, a specific person or any other subjects. On contrary, the outside relative subject (the bear) or the outside relative object (the rabbit) can mean outward subjects of different sizes in conflicts of a lower level.

In the first picture, the special subject overpowers the relatively weak outside relative object, which is showed in the conflict involving the bridge.

The same situation occurred in the second picture, revealing that the main concern of the subject is itself.

In the third picture, the special subject (self) marches across the bridge, the cause of the conflict. It indicates the imbalance between the special subject and the outside relative object.

In the forth picture, the specific subject is in a state of degradation, as it encounters the strong outside relative subject.

In the fifth picture, the outside relative subject doesn’t behave arrogantly as the specific one did before, instead, embodies justness and solves the conflict. This is the turning point.

In the sixth picture, the specific subject is moved and understands the benefit brought by the elimination of the conflict; therefore, it puts what it has learnt into practice from then on whenever it comes across any similar conflicts.

This is a typical example showing how to solve a specific problem between different subjects. The key is to convert.

Therefore, the nature is intact inwardly when the subjects of the body and mind are combined together. However, these two can be separated, which is the foundation of the conversion of the mind’s subject.

When the specific subject comes across the outside relative one, it not only focuses its attention on the outside relative subject, but also separates its thoughts from its body and combines it with the outside relative subject that reflects any subjects of any levels. After the combination, it turns its attention back to itself and observes its body from a different angle.

Therefore, since human beings live on the earth, the subject of the body is fixed, but the mind’s can ascend to a higher level. On such a level the mind can think over the body from a new perspective.

The similar situation happens when the specific subject confronts the outside relative object. In this case, the main body observes itself from a lower level after its combination with the object.

So it can be concluded that the mind can descends to a lower level and observes its own body from a new point of view.

In the situation mentioned above, the sun (the bear) and moon (the rabbit) are in one outside environment, a common environment. However, they also have different specific surroundings. The common one restrains the individual specific ones, that is to say, the common environment is the basis of the conversion of the subject and the specific environments are ignored.

When such explanation is applied to handle any subjects in daily life, a progress will be made in terms of the specific relationship between the subjects. This shows Jean Piaget’s idea, “holism, conversion and self-adjusting”.

The Duel Cognition of Human Beings’ Brains-Relativity, One article of my, presenting the ideas mentioned above, was published on Gansu Social Science (Chinese version), Issue 1, 1996.

author

message

fredabraham

Karl Jaspers Forum

on: Thu 20 of Dec, 2007 [19:02 UTC]

score: 0.00

This paper also appears on Karl Jaspers Forum as Target Article TA100, where Roulette would appreciate your comments. I will transfer some of the comments being made there to here on Implexi Mundi

Karl Jaspers Forum is at: http://www.kjf.ca/ external link

Page: 1/1

Support ImplexiMundi