Tracking some more information on brain functionalities these days, in context with the Gazzaniga experiments I stumbled over a comment as 'the brain is much more complex than to draw conclusions about features of just the one or the other hemisphere'.
Well: Of course it is. It is totally complex! That is what all is about!
Every thing is continuously complex and when we are, or maybe I am doing so in a post here, examining an issue on one detail then of course it is clear that this is only one aspect which is part of and must be seen as one in complex interconnection in and with the a complete environment. In linear arguments, people like to nail you down to only what you have just said that moment. In an explication we actually would include everything that completes the picture of the view of the other side! Integrative thinking takes into account all information for finding the clues, not only the one just displayed.
Actually this is exactly the weak point in linear sciences and views. As any kind of linear thinking is doomed to stick to linear methods as the media they can use to pass on ideas and thoughts literally are two-dimensional.
It is just impossible to display depth, complex interconnectivity or multidimensionality of anything on two dimensions as a sheet, a screen or binary-dualistic language.
Certainly you also fell over that geek joke about
Thinking exactly this way may function - if humans had the capability to include an unlimited number 'if-then-else'-statements in their thinking. Unfortunately, then they would not be able to finish even only one thought per day. So in a sense, binary, dualistic thinking does not function in practice. It functions for administrators only, and as their name says, they are there to 'ad-minister' (to serve to) while suddenly they took over and rule. Sorry, I couldn't leave out that remark on my favourite enemies ;).
Exactly this is why I am trying to point at 'switching on' (and to) 'another way of thinking'. Building the arcs, opening access to all those additional processors and integrating all there is to overcome functional errors of some neuronal islands.
We might slowly learn to listen to the inner processing output (and learn ro distinguish them from those voices implanted otherwise since we came into this world), we might learn to not 'overhear' but become aware of information which trigger us in certain directions as if we were ping pong balls, so easily blown around by any little breath of air.
Thus, we can decide to play the ball - or to be the ball.
The flatter the plain, the more likely is that the wind will play and toss the lightweight ball on it in its own way.
In the end it is a permanent process to extract and straighten each single knot of the confusion; then to integrate the new piece into the whole picture. And slowly, slowly ...
(Slowly slowly ... what? You will finish the sentence automatically, isn't it so? That's the fun with brains.)
Do you know this when you call for something, you ask a question and then you actually directly get it? So much dealing with 'right-handed' and 'left' thinking as well as what happens in shifted sinistrals (what a terrible word), I these days am facing an overly 'righthanded' work environment. Well, most environments in our Western culture are so today, in some countries it is even much worse, as is the time we seem to be stuck in. Hopefully not for ever. Where they think they gain they actually loose. It is personally painful to conscentiously watch this going on and on.
Additionally where I am working is fully a boy's world where boys (and eagerly adapting 'girls') play applying their 'boys' rules'. It is not easy but often funny at the same time to somehow keep countenance ... though sooner or later, I guess, I personally won't make it there. It is too big and too fossilized an environment. So I see it as a learning lab, a test environment in the full sense. It is so 'deja-vue' when you ask for a further-going information and they start 'explaining to the 'girl' the basics though that was just not asked. A woman can know much more without having to look like or behave competitive like a boy or without even having to have the same focus as they have. A major problem for boys is that they are stuck in that 'stag competition stage', I guess, which includes that attitude of not admitting or letting show that you might not know something which creates an environment where the balance is held by submitting to the achieved hierarchical roles. Hierarchy always includes that others must be 'under' to be 'top'. Despite sometimes I can get dragged into such unvolontarily, it is certainly not for me. My decision. You will have made or will take your own.
If people would start to admit what they don't know by starting to ask and by such receive other and additional knowledge to expand their views, then they would also be able to step by step fill the information gaps and they would really come there where they with lots of waste of energy have to pretend to be.
When they need to behave as if they knew, in order to demonstrate capability or superiority - well, they are simply cheating themselves.
Even if you were the best communicator on the world - if someone has a pre-defined dualistic view or patterns, you could say whatever you wanted, you could even jump up and down in front of him (or her) to get them awake to listen what you really had sais - or make them aware that what they 'see' on their inner screen is so different to what actually takes place. And still they would only see what they have displayed on the inside screen of their personal glasses, what is inside their very own boxes and schemes, and they will hear what is coming from inside their brains but not what tries to enter from the outside world.
They will simply not see or hear. Maybe they think they 'must be right' to not be left (out, maybe). 'Right' is linear, and linear has more force - if applied to one point.
They try to bring together the single elements, units and groups then by drawing lines between the elements as in diagrams and matrices. Each member is isolatedly functioning by definition of what is their task to do - and in everyday hustle to follow all orders just forgets about the original sense why that task is existing in the which context. Though everyone knows that those detached units need to be somehow interconnected it is done by again defining linear procedures for interfacing. What happens is that always some linking lines are missing - or some are so overly regulated that they clearly don't know anymore their own rules. Greets to European Administration, by the way, and any administration any way.
The experience just confirms how much 'line thinking' is the fine art of separation and isolation.
It is a good first step actually ... to analyze piece by piece. When the analyzed samples are in the next step well integrated, you'd just DO what is flexibly demanded by a situation. It is grown knowledge by integrated experience and unfortunately, in any linear discussion you will never make a point.
It is somewhat much more a 'miracle' that some organizations work at all to achieve an output like a complex product rather than it is logical to happen. In fact it costs much more energy than would be needed to achieve the same in an integrative environment.
Energy we would then have to create good times, agreeable and sensable environments. In small as well as on a large scale.
Just some thought fun springing up while writing this, and maybe a thought to follow up:
If the word 'man' and 'human', the latter mirrored from the Latin 'homo' (language changes vowels over time and space easily) is connected to the word 'manus' which means 'hand'. Then 'man' would mean 'hand' - someone who has hands to use. Let me play further - a 'monkey' could be 'little hand' in the same context - a little man, or as in Northern German languages: a 'Männeken'.
Then, what makes us special could be that we have 'hands' to use.
An piece of circumstancial evidence might be the reflection of the syllable in the name of the Mandrake, the mythical Mandragora plant. Maybe the picture of 'man' is related to the body, the root of the plant, as with the Ginseng. But maybe also to the fingers formed by the leaves. Just look at it and associate. Or not. Every move you do is always up to you.
Etymology is also only what certain people have tried to find out. Each day there are new findings and we should not get stuck in what we have been tought as anyway, our teaching system takes ages to bring through new evidence. Anyone can be wrong ... or we can find totally new ways to approach old phenomena. The human brain was not set up only a few tenthousand years ago, our deepest developments are much older, and we are to all that connected - willingly or not. That is why it is wise to go far back and deep down to understand what we are.
Or just live life alive.
In this sense, have good fun in the play today!
Lyn
Well: Of course it is. It is totally complex! That is what all is about!
Every thing is continuously complex and when we are, or maybe I am doing so in a post here, examining an issue on one detail then of course it is clear that this is only one aspect which is part of and must be seen as one in complex interconnection in and with the a complete environment. In linear arguments, people like to nail you down to only what you have just said that moment. In an explication we actually would include everything that completes the picture of the view of the other side! Integrative thinking takes into account all information for finding the clues, not only the one just displayed.
Actually this is exactly the weak point in linear sciences and views. As any kind of linear thinking is doomed to stick to linear methods as the media they can use to pass on ideas and thoughts literally are two-dimensional.
It is just impossible to display depth, complex interconnectivity or multidimensionality of anything on two dimensions as a sheet, a screen or binary-dualistic language.
Certainly you also fell over that geek joke about
'There are 10 types of people in this world.
Those who understand binary and those who don't'.
Thinking exactly this way may function - if humans had the capability to include an unlimited number 'if-then-else'-statements in their thinking. Unfortunately, then they would not be able to finish even only one thought per day. So in a sense, binary, dualistic thinking does not function in practice. It functions for administrators only, and as their name says, they are there to 'ad-minister' (to serve to) while suddenly they took over and rule. Sorry, I couldn't leave out that remark on my favourite enemies ;).
Exactly this is why I am trying to point at 'switching on' (and to) 'another way of thinking'. Building the arcs, opening access to all those additional processors and integrating all there is to overcome functional errors of some neuronal islands.
We might slowly learn to listen to the inner processing output (and learn ro distinguish them from those voices implanted otherwise since we came into this world), we might learn to not 'overhear' but become aware of information which trigger us in certain directions as if we were ping pong balls, so easily blown around by any little breath of air.Thus, we can decide to play the ball - or to be the ball.
The flatter the plain, the more likely is that the wind will play and toss the lightweight ball on it in its own way.
In the end it is a permanent process to extract and straighten each single knot of the confusion; then to integrate the new piece into the whole picture. And slowly, slowly ...
(Slowly slowly ... what? You will finish the sentence automatically, isn't it so? That's the fun with brains.)
Do you know this when you call for something, you ask a question and then you actually directly get it? So much dealing with 'right-handed' and 'left' thinking as well as what happens in shifted sinistrals (what a terrible word), I these days am facing an overly 'righthanded' work environment. Well, most environments in our Western culture are so today, in some countries it is even much worse, as is the time we seem to be stuck in. Hopefully not for ever. Where they think they gain they actually loose. It is personally painful to conscentiously watch this going on and on.
Additionally where I am working is fully a boy's world where boys (and eagerly adapting 'girls') play applying their 'boys' rules'. It is not easy but often funny at the same time to somehow keep countenance ... though sooner or later, I guess, I personally won't make it there. It is too big and too fossilized an environment. So I see it as a learning lab, a test environment in the full sense. It is so 'deja-vue' when you ask for a further-going information and they start 'explaining to the 'girl' the basics though that was just not asked. A woman can know much more without having to look like or behave competitive like a boy or without even having to have the same focus as they have. A major problem for boys is that they are stuck in that 'stag competition stage', I guess, which includes that attitude of not admitting or letting show that you might not know something which creates an environment where the balance is held by submitting to the achieved hierarchical roles. Hierarchy always includes that others must be 'under' to be 'top'. Despite sometimes I can get dragged into such unvolontarily, it is certainly not for me. My decision. You will have made or will take your own.
If people would start to admit what they don't know by starting to ask and by such receive other and additional knowledge to expand their views, then they would also be able to step by step fill the information gaps and they would really come there where they with lots of waste of energy have to pretend to be.
When they need to behave as if they knew, in order to demonstrate capability or superiority - well, they are simply cheating themselves.
Even if you were the best communicator on the world - if someone has a pre-defined dualistic view or patterns, you could say whatever you wanted, you could even jump up and down in front of him (or her) to get them awake to listen what you really had sais - or make them aware that what they 'see' on their inner screen is so different to what actually takes place. And still they would only see what they have displayed on the inside screen of their personal glasses, what is inside their very own boxes and schemes, and they will hear what is coming from inside their brains but not what tries to enter from the outside world.
They will simply not see or hear. Maybe they think they 'must be right' to not be left (out, maybe). 'Right' is linear, and linear has more force - if applied to one point.
They try to bring together the single elements, units and groups then by drawing lines between the elements as in diagrams and matrices. Each member is isolatedly functioning by definition of what is their task to do - and in everyday hustle to follow all orders just forgets about the original sense why that task is existing in the which context. Though everyone knows that those detached units need to be somehow interconnected it is done by again defining linear procedures for interfacing. What happens is that always some linking lines are missing - or some are so overly regulated that they clearly don't know anymore their own rules. Greets to European Administration, by the way, and any administration any way.
The experience just confirms how much 'line thinking' is the fine art of separation and isolation.
It is a good first step actually ... to analyze piece by piece. When the analyzed samples are in the next step well integrated, you'd just DO what is flexibly demanded by a situation. It is grown knowledge by integrated experience and unfortunately, in any linear discussion you will never make a point.
It is somewhat much more a 'miracle' that some organizations work at all to achieve an output like a complex product rather than it is logical to happen. In fact it costs much more energy than would be needed to achieve the same in an integrative environment.
Energy we would then have to create good times, agreeable and sensable environments. In small as well as on a large scale.
If the word 'man' and 'human', the latter mirrored from the Latin 'homo' (language changes vowels over time and space easily) is connected to the word 'manus' which means 'hand'. Then 'man' would mean 'hand' - someone who has hands to use. Let me play further - a 'monkey' could be 'little hand' in the same context - a little man, or as in Northern German languages: a 'Männeken'.
Then, what makes us special could be that we have 'hands' to use.
An piece of circumstancial evidence might be the reflection of the syllable in the name of the Mandrake, the mythical Mandragora plant. Maybe the picture of 'man' is related to the body, the root of the plant, as with the Ginseng. But maybe also to the fingers formed by the leaves. Just look at it and associate. Or not. Every move you do is always up to you.
Etymology is also only what certain people have tried to find out. Each day there are new findings and we should not get stuck in what we have been tought as anyway, our teaching system takes ages to bring through new evidence. Anyone can be wrong ... or we can find totally new ways to approach old phenomena. The human brain was not set up only a few tenthousand years ago, our deepest developments are much older, and we are to all that connected - willingly or not. That is why it is wise to go far back and deep down to understand what we are.
Or just live life alive.
In this sense, have good fun in the play today!
Lyn
No comments:
Post a Comment