Mastering Things

[Caraccioli]

I am sitting in Panara, half-listening to this man who is an absolute font of ignorance explain his views to a couple. He has given several of what appear to me to be wrong-headed opinions on a Scottish airport bombing, child rearing, divorce, ex-Prez Clinton, Prez Bush, television, home repair and any number of other things.

Why is it that the most ill-informed must be the most vocal? I forget who it was the said it - it may have been Earl Nightingale - but he opined that the most unfortunate and uniformed seem to have the strongest opinions and ideas on every topic. And they often feel the most compelled to impart these ideas to every passerby.

(BTW, right about here would be a spankingly fine time for someone to point out how free I am with my opinions. )

[PyratePhil]

We all are, to one degree or another.

Often it seems that the lack of quality of intelligence is more than amply made up for by a surfeit of volume.

But anyway, yer a chicken, and I'm a chickenhawk! Now don't make any sudden moves, see, or yer gonna' get hoit!

[blackjohn]

Is it all a matter of perspective?

[Misson]

If there is one thing I have learned, it is that you probably can't teach your cat tricks. They just don't seem to care what you want. If there is another thing I have learned, it that nearly nothing is all of anything.

Throwing numbers around, with no real research to back me, I'd say it's about 80% perspective. I was just reading about a salesman named Bill Porter who has cerebral palsy. The man has back troubles, his right arm is nearly useless, he can barely use his hands because they are clenched, he suffers terrible migraines, speaks very slowly and looks more than a bit odd when he walks. This is a man who easily qualifies for federal aid and has been told as much by a government employment agency he once sought help finding a job from. So what does he decide? From his perspective, these are just the normal challenges of his life and he wants nothing whatsoever to do with a "free" living. So he chose to become a door-to-door salesman...and did that for over 30 years. (There's a really good movie about his life starring William H. Macy called Door to Door.) I think it's more about perspective than not. You can do most of things you believe you can do, but you almost never do anything you choose to believe you can't do. That's perspective. (And if someone with that much "against him" can succeed at the level he has, I think I can probably do alright if I also shift my perspective on occasion.)

[blackjohn]

If there is another thing I have learned, it that nearly nothing is all of anything.

I like that. I believe it is intuitive, but does everyone share the same intuition?

[PyratePhil]

I like that. I believe it is intuitive, but does everyone share the same intuition?

I think it depends on your big-picture beliefs - is there a cosmic consciousness? If so, then I think we'd all have the same basic starting materials, but of course what we choose to DO with those materials is up to the individual.

There are exercises that can be performed that actually increase your intuition, or at least heighten your awareness of it. I teach them as part of my self-defense curriculum, since in so many cases a good dose of intuition can help you avoid a nasty encounter before it starts.

[Misson]

I think we all have intuition to begin with...children are very intuitive if you watch them closely. But then we are taught to ignore it and rely (in Western cultures particularly) on critical thinking to the exclusion of intuition. Now, don't get me wrong here...critical thinking is also very important and can even trump intuition in many cases (Hey Phil. ) Intuition will just about completely fail you when trying to understand particle physics or large swaths of economics, for example. If you rely exclusively on critical thinking, however, you can easily become a sort of automaton and miss out on a lot of your fun of being. That'sa no good. It is particularly challenging to creativity, which is very intuitive. (I love creativity. It's one of my favorite things. Next to raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, of course.)

It's yin and yang. You need both intuition and critical thinking. At least that's been my experience so far. And you can absolutely develop intuition. In fact, I don't think it's a matter of "developing" it at all...it's a matter of re-connecting to it and not blocking it (which is one of the faults of relying heavily on critical thinking).

As for "Do we all share the same... *nearly any reference point*?" I think the answer is pretty much: NO. We can all agree (well, most of us) on certain broad principles. When you get to the details of the broad principles, though...that's where agreement seems to fail us as a species. For example, most people can agree that they like pizza, but just try and get three of them to agree on the toppings. (And none of this namby-pamby "cheese and pepperoni" crap. For most people, that's a cop out. We want some win/win pizza topping selection agreement here. )

____________________

"What does it say?"

"Well, go on and read it!"

"You read it."

"All right, I'll read it to you. Can you hear?"

"I haven't heard anything yet. Did you say anything?"

"Well, I haven't said anything worth hearing."

"Well, that's-a why I didn't hear anything."

"Well, that's why I didn't say anything."

"Can you read it?"

"I can read but I can't see it. I don't seem to have it in focus here. If my arms were a little longer, I could read it. You haven't got a baboon in your pocket, have ya? Here, here, here we are. Now I've got it. Now pay particular attention to this first clause because it's most important. It says the, uh, "The party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part." How do you like that? That's pretty neat, eh?..."

"No, that'sa no good."

"What's the matter with it?"

"I dunno. Let's hear it again."

"It says the, uh, "The party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part."

"That sounds a little better this time."

"Well, it grows on ya. Would you like to hear it once more?"

"Uh, just the first part."

"Whaddaya mean? The...the party of the first part?"

"No, the first part of the party of the first part."

"All right. It says the, uh, "The first part of the party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the first part of the party of the first part shall be known in this contract" - Look, why should we quarrel about a thing like this? We'll take it right out, eh?"

"Yeah, ha, it's-a too long, anyhow. Now, what do we got left?"

"Well, I got about a foot and a half. Now, it says, uh, "The party of the second part shall be known in this contract as the party of the second part."

"Well, I don't know about that..."

"Now what's the matter?"

"I no like-a the second party, either."

"Well, you shoulda come to the first party. We didn't get home 'til around four in the morning...I was blind for three days!"

[PyratePhil]

So, by your own standards, critical thinking is only important for boring, inane and ultimately unimportant topics such as particle physics and economics.

OK - I agree.

Maybe it depends on your Meyers-Briggs scores, or what you majored in in school - not sure. Some people seem to have a predilection for one or the other, and shape their lives and resulting actions around that single facet.

Others, like me (*harumph*), are masters of both.

BTW - "Most people can agree they like pizza"? Really? I wasn't aware of the world-wide poll on that subject...

And what's wrong with cheese and pepperoni? That's MY favorite...

[Misson]

Critical thinking is useful for many things, particle physics and economics are just two things that sort of stunned me when I tried to wrap my intuition around them.

And if you think they're boring, you do so to your own peril, IMO. Especially economics. I personally think they're both quite fascinating. But that's a perceptive thing, I suppose...

It's a blend of both in many things. According to most individuals I've talked with who are interested and willing to stretch their mind around the concept, they are masters of both. (Although there are certainly some people who claim (sometimes with great pride) to rely exclusively on one or the other. Boggles my mind why you would want to do that. "Argue for your limitations and sure enough they're yours." -R. Bach) In fact, according to most people who think about such things, they are masters - period. I know I sure am.

As for pizza being the ubiquitously enjoyed food, I can pull ideas out of the air if I like. (I actually am one of those rare people who is not a huge fan of most pizzas. Dull stuff IMO. (Chicago deep dish is another matter, however.) Besides which, it makes my blood sugar go cwazy.)

[Misson]

I'm reading this book called Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind by VS Ramachandran and I came across an interesting idea. To quote,

"Humans, on the other hand, have evolved an organ, a brain, that gives us the capacity to evade specialization [which is how other animals survive according to evolutionary theory]..."

He goes on to explain how the brain has all sorts of latent skills which have little evolutionary function, because...

"Natural selection can only explain the emergence of actual abilities that are expressed by the organism - never potential ones. When they are useful for survival, they are passed on to the next generation. But what to make of a gene for latent mathematical ability? What benefit does that confer upon a non-literate person?"

I think the notion that evolution cannot explain our primary evolutionary advantage is sort of fascinating. OTOH, if we didn't have all that latent ability, would we be where we are? In his book The Black Swan, which I recently finished, the author notes that the fact that you are here today is almost a miraculous occurrence. It is almost completely outside the realm of probability - the odds against it are astronomical. Ramachandran sort of attributes this to our latent skills (which are probably not even close to fully explored) which give us an evolutionary advantage - even though the process of evolution is unlikely to have produced them!

Fasinating.

[Red Cat Jenny]

"Jack of all trades, master of none" My dad used to say that a lot. He was master of quite a few. Kindness being the biggest. But he could build and fix everything.

I hope to master fencing and sailing and with any luck navigation..the real kind.

[PyratePhil]

In his book The Black Swan, which I recently finished, the author notes that the fact that you are here today is almost a miraculous occurrence. It is almost completely outside the realm of probability - the odds against it are astronomical. Ramachandran sort of attributes this to our latent skills (which are probably not even close to fully explored) which give us an evolutionary advantage - even though the process of evolution is unlikely to have produced them!

Funny - although I agree that it's miraculous that we're here at all, I always attribute it to the working of the Tao. Others, depending upon their beliefs, would attribute it to God, Neptune or what-have-you.

[Red Cat Jenny]

BUt have you gents considered that perhaps the odds of us being only seem miraculous because of some shortfalling of our own perception? Facts or no? Maybe we lack the knowledge that would make it seem rather simple. It could be simply due to our limited frame of us and our abilities as our only reference...

[Misson]

I think it depends on how you define miraculous. If you are thinking of it as some form of deity-inspired intervention, then I would sort of agree with you about the limitations of our understanding (specifically of the actions and motivations of the deity).

If you are looking at it from a purely mathematical perspective on an evolutionary event, then, no, the assertion stands. At each juncture in the growth of our species, something different could have happened and we would have come out entirely different or been evolutionarily usurped by a superior species or some such.

Of course, by the same argument, anything that would be sitting here pondering/discussing/experiencing its' being here is just about equally unlikely. (A hyper-intelligent shade of blue, for example.)

At least that's my take on it.

[Red Cat Jenny]

Yes but even our mathematical perspective is limited by our ability to observe, analyze and understand things the way we do. Just a thought..

You never know what we might not see or understand..

How can you factually consider the edges of the universe? or space? (Not to open the whole time doubling theorum of course) just making an example of our being limited by our own ability to understand things..

[Misson]

You never know what we might not see or understand..

By definition, in fact.

How can you factually consider the edges of the universe? or space? (Not to open the whole time doubling theorum of course) just making an example of our being limited by our own ability to understand things..

True, but these things have little impact on the mathematical possibility of our having arrived at this moment. Kind of like subatomic forces have little impact on your ability to go about your daily tasks. Sure, there's an impact, but it's minute. (Of course, now you get back to the Black Swan issue, but that's another matter entirely.)

[blackjohn]

Intuition will just about completely fail you when trying to understand particle physics or large swaths of economics, for example.

Critical thinking may even fail too, given time. That is to say, don't theories change as "knowledge" increases? Could it be that current theories will fail given a century? And if so... maybe... naaaa...

ps - I dig that new sig pic Misson

[Red Cat Jenny]

HI BlackJohn! ~ wave ~

-----------------------

Yes well as I was saying...I'm still open to the concept that though we deem ourselves so intelligent and have vivisected the things on our planet and in our lives, neatly categorizing it as fact etched in granite.....there's still an "Oh man!! why didn't I see that before!" moment out there. We are only able to define things within the parameter of what we see and can understand given the tools of our psyche and such...

It's kind of like art. A painting. One person can tell you its two people and a tree.

Compare that to us, our brains and our ability to define and understand. Yes..it IS two people and a tree. Correct.

But.....someone else (Not representing our limitations as human beings in this Century) would be able to tell you so much more. Like a person who has the ability to see more in a painting than its two dimensional image.... Which would also be correct.

Ow...my brain... I need a Latte....

[blackjohn]

I get to use one of my favorite quotes again!

Or to put it in the poetic words of Lord Dunsany...

"And so it was it became a magical sword. And little magic there is in English woods, from the time of anemones to the falling of leaves, that was not in the sword. And little magic there is in southern downs, that only sheep roam over and quiet shepherds, that the sword had not too. And there was scent of thyme in it and sight of lilac, and the chorus of birds that sings before dawn in April, and the deep proud splendour of rhododendrons, and the litheness and laughter of streams, and miles and miles of may. And by the time the sword was black it was all enchanted with magic.

"Nobody can tell you about that sword all that there is to be told of it; for those that know of those paths of Space on which its metals once floated, till Earth caught them one by one as she sailed past on her orbit, have little time to waste on such things as magic, and so cannot tell you how the sword was made, and those who know whence poetry is, and the need that man has for song, or know any one of the fifty branches of magic, have little time to waste on such things as science, and so cannot tell you whence its ingredients came. Enough that it was once beyond our Earth and was now here amongst our mundane stones; that it was once but as those stones, and now had something in it such as soft music has; let those that can define it."

[Misson]

I'm still open to the concept that though we deem ourselves so intelligent and have vivisected the things on our planet and in our lives, neatly categorizing it as fact etched in granite.....there's still an "Oh man!! why didn't I see that before!" moment out there. We are only able to define things within the parameter of what we see and can understand given the tools of our psyche and such...

Hmm. Yes. Which is another reference to the Black Swan concept...sort of. Duchess got me reading this book about unlikely events and I really liked the framework. (Although I did not like the tone and some of the personal swipes at people and organizations that the author didn't like.)

Of course, we are all prisoners of our perceptions, as I've prattled on about repeatedly. And, like it or not, we are also prisoners of shared societal perceptions. (What Jung called the collective unconscious). There may always be bizarre and unexplainable factors at work in bringing us to where we are (gods, aliens, the zodiac, the healing power of color). So, if you like, as far as we know, from a purely mathematical odds standpoint, dismissing mysticism (gods, aliens, the zodiac, the healing power of color), our being here is pretty unlikely.

I like that picture too. I don't even remember where I got it. If I ever get a boat (which I probably won't) I will name it the Diving Sea Tiger. Or the Blue...Blue...Azul...something... (Help me out here, Jill.)

"And so it was it became a magical spoon. And little magic there is in Hundred Acre wood, from the time of the snow to the falling of leaves, that was not in the spoon. And little magic there is in the six pine trees, that only heffalump roam over, that the spoon had not too. And there was scent of honey in it and sight of woozles, and the chorus of birds that sings before dawn in April, and the deep proud splendour of rhododendrons, and the litheness and laughter of streams, and acres and acres of tweetybird. And by the time the spoon was black it was all enchanted with magic."

[blackjohn]

I had a lucid moment while driving home... everything feel into place... don't know that one word can make sense of any of it... magic... I believe in the simple kind... the nature of the universe... knowing that things are as they are... what if the nature of the universe is that everything happens... something happens, or doesn't happen, and all the shades in between... what if magic is just the ability to choose which of those realities you want... that's how I'll define it... it works for me...

[Misson]

what if magic is just the ability to choose which of those realities you want... that's how I'll define it... it works for me...

Sounds like self-actualization to me. (The ultimate high.) I think you can choose your reality. In fact, I think you do, whether you think you are or not. (Richard Bach...) I have written about it in my success newsletter several times.

That sort of reminds me of something else I read in that other book (Phantoms in the Brain). He started talking about a section of the brain that, when pressure is applied to it, causes many people to experience a sort of spiritual fervor. Kind of like a "Paul on the road to Damascus" sort of occurrence. The author goes on to conjecture whether or not a part of our brain may not be genetically predisposed toward spiritual (or perhaps just mystical?) experiences. Of course, experiencing God is not the same as mental synchronicity. (Especially agnostics.) Although it might make for an interesting experiment.

[blackjohn]

Mastering things... does that mean I place distinctions between myself and things... because... is there a difference?

[Duchess]

Nice BlackJohn. You've arrived at the crux of the topic!

[Red-Handed Jill]

Sounds like self-actualization to me. (The ultimate high.) I think you can choose your reality. In fact, I think you do, whether you think you are or not. (Richard Bach...) I have written about it in my success newsletter several times.

That sort of reminds me of something else I read in that other book (Phantoms in the Brain). He started talking about a section of the brain that, when pressure is applied to it, causes many people to experience a sort of spiritual fervor. Kind of like a "Paul on the road to Damascus" sort of occurrence. The author goes on to conjecture whether or not a part of our brain may not be genetically predisposed toward spiritual (or perhaps just mystical?) experiences. Of course, experiencing God is not the same as mental synchronicity.  (Especially agnostics.) Although it might make for an interesting experiment. 

But isn't that the nature of being human? Don't we all choose our own realities and live within them? (And create God in our own image? Okay - that's a whole other issue...)

And with regards to pressure on the brain, if you mean physically, that makes a lot of sense. When I have migraines, all sorts of things happen, such as olfactory hallucinations or very blurry or grey peripheral vision. The blood vessels in the brain expand beyond what they should and press on certain parts. The pain is from the vessels and the side effects from the pressure. Some people say they see halos during migraines, which would explain A LOT of religious experiences.

BTW - tigre del mar.