idiots

Idiots

Back to Top/Down, Bottom/Up


DrB-07 The problem I have always had with communicating with un-centered people is that whenever the topic turned to soft subjects their thinking became silly, if not insane. Before I recently heard the terms reductionist and constructionist thinking I used the terms top down and bottom up thinking. Math, for instance, is hard. 2+3 = 5, always has, always will. If you are trying to understand a frog, you cut it up and try to understand the pieces. You are dealing with a known. Top down works great here. This only addresses the how. If on the other hand you want to know why, it is necessary to take a more holistic view. Consideration must be given to evolution, environment, ecosystem, niche, mating, food, sex, competition, dangers etc. Top down doesn’t address these issues. Bottom up works here.

In psychology, for instance, there is no frog to cut up. It is an unknown. There is no way you can know what combination of events has led to a particular behavior pattern. Each person is unique, with his own unique environment, hopes, religion, education, experience, dreams, triumphs, failures etc. It is not possible to determine which combination of events caused a particular behavior pattern. It is insane to try. Yet people do. This results in simple concepts exploding into byzantine labyrinths of illogic. Psychology with it’s id, ego, sub-conscious, psychosis’, neurosis’, and all kinds of weird concepts made up to give the illusion of understanding.

Take for instance centering. The concept is simple; “me”, That lone two letter word says all there is to know about centering in bottom up thinking. It is an identity. Integrally implied in the concept of the “me identity” is awareness of self, (I like me, I want to stay me, I don’t want to be anyone else) etc. Even the lowliest life form has a me. ie, Even bacteria are centered. Yet when top down thinking is applied to this concept it explodes into self worth, esteem, pride, moral compass, religion, ethics, philosophy, spirituality etc. which explodes into libraries full of self help books.


Back to the un-centered, their “me” has been displaced, overwritten, co-opted, whatever. It’s still there, always has been, always will be. To me, their mind has become “super tangled”. (If I understand your analogy correctly) They are, to me, insane. Their mind is working against itself. They are scary.

As to the project, oblique verbiage with a visual image should get it past the left hemisphere into the right hemisphere, bypassing the reductionist overlay. There are plenty of self help books, all good stuff, no point in regurgitating them. Assuming a 52 card deck, that’s 26 pages, (both sides) with a 4 page intro. That’s 30 pages for a p-book ($3) or free for an e-book. A physical deck is $13, free for virtual deck.

Fortunately, the mind is a simple thing conceptually, and bottom up thinking works well here.

There is a plethora of data out there, a cornucopia of riches that could solve most of the problems of mankind and allow him to reach his full potential. It just needs to be collated.

Consider the video below. The bacteria is centered. What else can you say? Why do you people make it so complicated?

BacteriaChase

One Response to “idiots”

  1. walt,

    i agree with a lot of what you say here, but for me ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ (and ‘right hemisphere’ and ‘left hemisphere’) are too restrictive.

    my ‘path’ in trying to sort this stuff out (western insanity) has been in terms of ‘geometry’ (in Poincaré’s writings about how people ‘reason’, there are ‘geometers’ and ‘logicians’ and while everyone has ‘some of both’, individuals tend to lean on one or the other types of reasoning.

    in my explorations, what makes sense is that ‘every local system is included in a suprasystem’. if one thinks of what’s going on the surface of the earth where we humans live, there’s a whole lot of mutual interdependencies that are not contained even within that curved space on the surface of the earth (e.g. the sun’s irradiation intensifies and/or the earth’s orbit wobbles and the surface of the earth is taken towards or away from the boil. if we are focused on ANYTHING (and are trying to understand why it is like it is and why its behaviour is like it is, we are not going to be able to get to it by looking ‘down and in on it’. when people go nuts in harlem, we can ‘see’ the ‘how’ of it as we watch that guy take out a pistol and shoot that other guy, … but when we move on to the ‘why’ of it, our normal practice is to assume;

    Walt’s ‘combination of event driven behaviour theory;

    “Each person is unique, with his own unique environment, hopes, religion, education, experience, dreams, triumphs, failures etc. It is not possible to determine which combination of events caused a particular behavior pattern.”

    in my view, this is too small a view and it seems to me that it is not consistent with your overall web of ideas. this is the Aristotelian ‘acorn-to-oak-tree’ ‘intrinsic behaviour shaping influence’ view which has us think in terms of a human being as a ‘local system with its own locally originating behaviour’.

    if i am observing harlem riots from a blimp over the city, i can feel the sun on my back as i look down on the harlem. every time the sun on my back intensifies more than ‘usual’, the riots break out in harlem; i.e. everybody goes nuts at the same time. blame lack of air conditioning and socio-economic environmental effects if you want, or any other ‘combination of events’ acting on our notional ‘local unique person with his own locally originating behaviour’, … but i am claiming that this behaviour is first-of-all ‘celestially-force’, that the sun is bringing everything in that space on the surface of the earth ‘towards the boil’ and it makes them all start jumping around like cats on a hot tin roof. granted, the sun does not fall evenly across all of them, and they are not all made the same way, so like pop-corn grains in the pot on the stove, the popping will be sporadic but if the intensity of the heat is varied, there will be ‘bursts’ of popping and bursts of calm.

    these ‘bursts’ CANNOT be explained using ‘intrinsic final cause’ (acorn-to-oak-tree) , local behaviour-shaping influence. these ‘bursts’ derive from ‘extrinsic final cause’, from ‘nonlocal behaviour-shaping influence’.

    seeking to understand why an individual behaves like he does, by way of “a combination of events that determine a particular behaviour pattern” is over-simplification.

    so, i agree with you when you say; “It is not possible to determine which combination of events caused a particular behavior pattern. It is insane to try.”

    but i agree for a different reason. my view is that the ‘model’ wherein “a particular pattern of behaviour on the part of our ‘unique person’ is determined by a combination of events” is fundamentally wrong. it is wrong in its implicit assumption of intrinsic final cause (locally originating behaviour).

    in this way of seeing things, there is no parenting medium, no energy-charged space wherein the ‘unique person’ is understood as a (complex) ‘lump of energy’ in the manner of the storm-cell in the atmosphere, which gets hyperactive when the soup is brought towards the boil. as emerson says (and mcluhan, and mach), ‘the medium is the message’ the local unique person is a local unique person by virtue of his unique situational inclusion in the energy-charged medium (in the same way that a storm-cell is a unique entity). the uniqueness does not ‘come from a supernatural God’, it comes form the resonant-energy-charged space-time continuum in which the individual is gathered and into which it will be regathered in the ceaselessly innovative gathering and regathering that is ‘the method of nature’.

    so, one view (my view) is that first there is the resonant energy-charged medium of space and the individual is a gathering of energy in that medium. in this case, the behaviour of the individual and its basic ‘being’ is FIRSTLY (in a ‘first cause’ sense) ‘extrinsically’ shaped..

    meanwhile, your view seems to be that our ‘unique identity’ is ‘just that’, a ‘unique identity’ out of the blue, and you call this ‘centered’, … ‘centered in what?’, … centred in one’s local self?

    you say;

    “ The concept is simple; “me”, That lone two letter word says all there is to know about centering in bottom up thinking. It is an identity. Integrally implied in the concept of the “me identity” is awareness of self, (I like me, I want to stay me, I don’t want to be anyone else) etc. Even the lowliest life form has a me. ie, Even bacteria are centered.”

    there are five hundred strains of bacteria in your gut and without them you wouldn’t continue to be who you are. did they come to your support because they respect your centeredness?

    there is no persisting ‘local identity’ in a fluid (energy-field-flow) dynamic, the meaning of the ‘inhabitant’ is relative to the ‘habitat’ and both are continuously changing in an interdependent way; i.e. they ‘come’ in a conjugate habitat-inhabitant dynamic relation, you can’t isolate them and give them each a separate identity, … that is part of the western insanity, it seems to me.

    the continually transforming (in a spatial-relational sense) resonant-energy-charged medium (the ‘habitat’) transcends the ‘identity’ of ‘local systems’ (the ‘inhabitant’). as it goes with the storm-cell in the flow of atmospheric space, so it goes as well with all inhabitants in the habitat we call nature.

    you say;

    “Fortunately, the mind is a simple thing conceptually, and bottom up thinking works well here.”

    i don’t agree. i agree with schroedinger that ‘there is just one mind’; i.e. the ‘mind’ is not something that is replicated for each ‘unique person’. you have cited ‘evidence’ to this effect;

    “Current research theories show that intelligence is non-local and not bound to the brain. Sometimes nature offers insight into a particular subject by presenting a baffling enigma and contradictory example. Intelligence’s contradictory enigma is the idiot-savant. “

    i do agree that we are each coming from a ‘unique spatial situation’; i.e. that we are each being called to take our unique place in the natural scheme of things, but this form of ‘centeredness’ is a ‘calling’ that is of an extrinsic-behaviour-shaping influence, in the manner that the storm-cell is born and behaves to serve the sustaining of dynamic balance and harmony in the universe (resonant-energy-charged medium) it is uniquely, situationally included in.

    but if this ‘centeredness’ is a ‘calling’, as i feel it is, then the term ‘centeredness’ (which seems to connote ‘local identity” is not an appropriate term; i.e. the ‘centeredness’ does not belong to us, we belong to the universe and acknowledgement of this amounts to this feeling you are calling ‘centeredness’. the universe does not belong to man, man belongs to the universe. man’s behaviour is not locally originating out of some absolute local ‘me’, the universe which gathered ‘me’ into being did so for ‘its purpose’ (sustaining balance and harmony in its ceaselessly innovative spatial-relational unfolding). the rioters in harlem are dancing to the dynamics of their energy-charged parenting medium which brought them into being.

    ok, how about ‘idiots’? the comparable or ‘parallel’ terms that comes up for me is ‘flatspacer’. western civilization cultivates ‘flatspace’ thinking.

    where we seem to differ is that while you don’t believe that ‘flatspace thinking’ can be ‘used’, my view is that the very notion of ‘flatspace thinking’ is wrong. we both come out ‘on the same side’ regarding ‘idiots’ and/or ‘flatspacers’. you say;

    “It is not possible to determine which combination of events caused a particular behavior pattern. It is insane to try. Yet people do. This results in simple concepts exploding into byzantine labyrinths of illogic. Psychology with it’s id, ego, sub-conscious, psychosis’, neurosis’, and all kinds of weird concepts made up to give the illusion of understanding.”

    while i say;

    “The notion that behaviour is locally originating and unfolds from a combination of locally applied external influence and locally originating internal influences, is idealization that should not be confused for the ‘natural reality’ of our experience. There is nothing in nature that is ‘local’ and there are no behaviours in nature that are ‘locally originating’. It is insane to think this way. Yet people do. Without acknowledging natural extrinsic shaping influences (as in ‘field’, the sort of non-uniform thermal field dynamic that induces the emergence of convection-cells), we are left to explain every ‘local pixel’ in space as some sort of ‘centered in itself’ entity which can only be changed from (a) local intrinsic (first cause creative) processes/influences arising in its own interior and/or (b) being shaped in form and behaviour by a combination of locally applied external influences. Because the complexity of dynamics derives from extrinsic shaping influences which cannot be ‘handled’ by a framework in which behaviour is rendered by what goes on ‘locally’, all kinds of weird local agencies are postulated to try to explain extrinsically influenced behaviour without acknowledging the reality of extrinsic (energy-field) influences.”

    everyone will say that Jean Valjean was under a lot of stress; but what is ‘stress’? the flatspacers will say that stress is one of those forces or influences that is locally applied to a locally existing person.. almost no-one will acknowledge that ‘stress’ is a ‘field’ that operates nonlocally on spatial relations. as mcluhan said, when you plunk down a factory in the middle of a town, it is not like ‘adding a new local productive entity’, it is more like putting a magnet down amongst iron filings; i.e. it transforms the spatial-relations in the region, how people relate to one another and to the common habitat they are included in. compared to the spatial-relational transformative effect, it matters little whether the factory produces Cadillacs or cornflakes. the influence is ‘extrinsic’ in that it changes the relations between people simultaneously, that’s the way ‘fields’ work.. people’s behaviour is necessarily ‘relative’ to the dynamics of their living space/habitat, their motion is not ‘absolute’ (locally originating, say no more). ‘fields’ (thermal, pressure, gravity) change the habitat-dynamic and there is a conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation in dynamics.

    ‘stress’ is a ‘field’ the warps the whole spatial-relational web of relationships. it is impossible to solve what goes on as if the behaviour were locally originating within each notional ‘local organism’. the dynamic behaviour of the habitat is ‘bigger than’ the dynamic behaviour of individuals within it (or sums or combinations thereof). that is, the dynamics of the energy-charged medium in which local concentrations of energy called organisms’ gather and are regathered transcends the dynamics of the inhabitants (as local entities, they are ‘schaumkommen’ or ‘appearances’, shadows on the wall of the cave like clouds whose forward movement is not ‘their movement’ but, for example, their coming into being on one end and their ceasing to be on ‘their’ other end. this movement is not theirs but belongs to the energy charged medium which precipitates and inhabits them.

    not to worry though, we are not those local ‘schaumkommen’, our mere ‘visual aspect’, we are of the energy-charged field which not only inhabits us but which creates us. it is the insanity of the western culture that limits our view of ourselves to the local material aspect (the ‘schaumkommen’) and refuses to acknowledge that we are ‘of the field’. Because, in our western materialist belief system, we insist on equating that which we can see with ‘reality’, we limit our understanding of ourselves and the world we live in, and it forces us to come up with all kinds of weird constructs to explain our behaviour (as organisms with locally originating behaviour) such “psychology with it’s id, ego, sub-conscious, psychosis’, neurosis’”.

    now, there are organisms living in the sea in thermal and pressure fields that have precipitated them that are unlike the thermal and pressure fields that have precipitated us humans;

    “The 1993 Alvin expedition to the East Pacific Rise was one in a series of dives to the area. The site was first visited in 1989, and scientists observed vent organisms thriving there. But when Alvin returned in April 1991, its flabbergasted occupants witnessed the birth of a hydrothermal vent. A recent volcanic eruption had spread glassy lava across the ocean floor, and the researchers measured temperatures up to 403 C – the hottest ever recorded at a hydrothermal vent. The scientists dubbed the site Tube Worm Barbecue, because the worms they brought back to their ship had charred flesh.

    “The most spectacular sight down there was this massive blinding snowstorm of bacteria,” says Rich Lutz, a marine ecologist at Rutgers University, who led the expedition. On the ocean floor, the bacteria formed mats several inches thick, but the scientists saw no other living things. Since the eruption, scientists have been able to watch several stages of colonization at the site. When they returned in March 1992, only a few bacterial mats remained. In their place were colonies of Jericho worms and a variety of small crustaceans. The scientists named the area Phoenix, because new life had arisen from the ashes of the eruption. The scientists first observed the giant tube worms at Phoenix in December 1993.” —‘The Creatures of the Thermal Vents’
    http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/ps_vents.html

    if the celestially-driven (nonlocally influenced) climate of the earth shifts so that the conditions on earth and in the oceans are more generally like those around a hydrothermal vent, then humans will go through a lot of strange behaviours like the harlem riots on their way to extinction which will keep the psychologists very busy, … and after all the humans are gone there is no reason to suppose that the bacteria and tube-worms will cease to thrive, but who will tell the story of what continues to unfold?

    this question reminds me of the poem ‘Huntsman, What Quarry’ by Edna St. Vincent Millay (another person who suffered from bouts of ‘hyper-intelligence’ which were unacceptable to our western society which equates an over-simplistic and constrained ‘intelligence’ with ‘sanity’ and less simple brands of intelligence as ‘insanity’, regarding the latter as ‘disturbing’ and thus deserving of suppression by operating on the perceived seat of intelligence, the ‘brain’, with drugs and surgical blades).

    When Man is gone and only gods remain
    To stride the world, their mighty bodies hung
    With golden shields, and golden curls outflung
    Above their childish foreheads; when the plain
    Round skull of Man is lifted and again
    Abandoned by the ebbing wave, among
    The sand and pebbles of the beach, —what tongue
    Will tell the marvel of the human brain?

    ted

    ‘Huntsman, What Quarry?’
    Upon this age that never speaks its mind,
    This furtive age, this age endowed with power
    To wake the moon with footsteps, fit an oar
    Into the rowlocks of the wind, and find
    What swims before his prow, what swirls behind—
    Upon this gifted age in its dark hour,
    Rains from the sky a meteoric shower
    Of facts . . . they lie unquestioned, uncombined.
    Wisdom enough to leech us of our ill
    Is daily spun; but there exists no loom
    To weave it into fabric; undefiled
    Proceeds pure Science, and has her say; but still
    Upon this world from the collective womb
    Is spewed all day the red triumphant child.
    . . .
    When Man is gone and only gods remain
    To stride the world, their mighty bodies hung
    With golden shields, and golden curls outflung
    Above their childish foreheads; when the plain
    Round skull of Man is lifted and again
    Abandoned by the ebbing wave, among
    The sand and pebbles of the beach, —what tongue
    Will tell the marvel of the human brain?
    Heavy with music once this windy shell,
    Heavy with knowledge of the clustered stars;
    The one-time tenant of this draughty hall
    Himself, in learned pamphlet, did foretell,
    After some aeons of study jarred by wars,
    This toothy gourd, this head emptied of all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: