the distinction chair or tree stump

Tags

  1. distinctions

Comments


Mark de LA says
seth 2013-02-11 09:16:02 16418
chair and tree stump
I was assuming it all was one piece. Distinctions are not ambiguous otherwise they are not distinctions. I doubt that you can hold both distinctions at once & be genuine to both at the same time.


Mark de LA says
seth 2013-02-11 11:52:53 16418
MR 2013-02-11 10:25:03 16418
My amusement here was the heart of a class on context & distinction in one of PR's classes.  He would say that "there is a chair there, but there is no chair there" . The distinction & context makes the thing what it is, but not the thing.


well yes, a distinction might not exist apart from the context in which it appears.  Definitely a good thing to keep in mind.

In this case, the term with which you titled this item, "the distinction chair or tree stump", contains the assumption that the thing in question cannot be both a chair and a stump ... but that assumption is obviously false ... so, i was compelled to correct it.
No need for correction. The distinction is all about how you hold the thingy within a context. So it can be many things.  I could hold it as a sculpture - carved wood piece of art.  Anything can be a number of things depending on the way you hold it.  A log in the forest could be called a chair if suitable to sit upon. Like I repeated before - there's a chair there, but there is no chair there. Some take a while to get this point.


Mark de LA says
seth 2013-02-11 11:55:40 16418
MR 2013-02-11 10:00:56 16418
seth 2013-02-11 09:16:02 16418
chair and tree stump
I was assuming it all was one piece. Distinctions are not ambiguous otherwise they are not distinctions. I doubt that you can hold both distinctions at once & be genuine to both at the same time.

Huh?  I think to make your real point here you are going to need to find a better example.
This was the perfect example.
A distinction is something you make to separate something out of the infinite sea of percepts to single you focus upon for further cognizing.


Seth says
MR 2013-02-11 14:54:58 16418
seth 2013-02-11 13:46:36 16418
MR 2013-02-11 13:29:31 16418
seth 2013-02-11 11:52:53 16418
MR 2013-02-11 10:25:03 16418
My amusement here was the heart of a class on context & distinction in one of PR's classes.  He would say that "there is a chair there, but there is no chair there" . The distinction & context makes the thing what it is, but not the thing.


well yes, a distinction might not exist apart from the context in which it appears.  Definitely a good thing to keep in mind.

In this case, the term with which you titled this item, "the distinction chair or tree stump", contains the assumption that the thing in question cannot be both a chair and a stump ... but that assumption is obviously false ... so, i was compelled to correct it.
No need for correction. The distinction is all about how you hold the thingy within a context. So it can be many things.  I could hold it as a sculpture - carved wood piece of art.  Anything can be a number of things depending on the way you hold it.  A log in the forest could be called a chair if suitable to sit upon. Like I repeated before - there's a chair there, but there is no chair there. Some take a while to get this point.


... or perhaps you could just say:  "distinctions are in the mind of the distinguish-er" ... wouldn't that have covered it?   How can i distinguish that idea from your thingy?
Distinctions seem to be capable of being passed around, even to those who are not the original perceptionist. You miss the point about a context shifting what's there as well as the idea, unexpressed, that context is also a distinction.

Well yes we do describe and name distinctions and pass them around by using language.

As to "missing the point about a context shifting what's there" .... i had thought that my first reaction would have conveyed the idea to you that i got it ...

source: seth above
well yes, a distinction might not exist apart from the context in which it appears.  Definitely a good thing to keep in mind.
... you see, i am all over that one ... context is my thing ... i how context changes shit.


Mark de LA says
seth 2013-02-11 13:46:36 16418
MR 2013-02-11 13:29:31 16418
seth 2013-02-11 11:52:53 16418
MR 2013-02-11 10:25:03 16418
My amusement here was the heart of a class on context & distinction in one of PR's classes.  He would say that "there is a chair there, but there is no chair there" . The distinction & context makes the thing what it is, but not the thing.


well yes, a distinction might not exist apart from the context in which it appears.  Definitely a good thing to keep in mind.

In this case, the term with which you titled this item, "the distinction chair or tree stump", contains the assumption that the thing in question cannot be both a chair and a stump ... but that assumption is obviously false ... so, i was compelled to correct it.
No need for correction. The distinction is all about how you hold the thingy within a context. So it can be many things.  I could hold it as a sculpture - carved wood piece of art.  Anything can be a number of things depending on the way you hold it.  A log in the forest could be called a chair if suitable to sit upon. Like I repeated before - there's a chair there, but there is no chair there. Some take a while to get this point.


... or perhaps you could just say:  "distinctions are in the mind of the distinguish-er" ... wouldn't that have covered it?   How can i distinguish that idea from your thingy?
Distinctions seem to be capable of being passed around, even to those who are not the original perceptionist. You miss the point about a context shifting what's there as well as the idea, unexpressed, that context is also a distinction.

Mark de LA says
seth 2013-02-15 13:51:48 16418
MR 2013-02-15 13:07:05 16418
seth 2013-02-15 11:56:50 16418
MR 2013-02-15 11:19:52 16418
seth 2013-02-15 10:21:50 16418
seth 2013-02-14 07:42:49 16418
MR 2013-02-13 11:18:05 16418
seth 2013-02-13 09:41:55 16418
MR 2013-02-13 09:04:17 16418
If you really get it then you may run into the (eeek) that you don't know really what is there - at least by using your intellect & reason.


Well do you think there is some "eeek" beyond the obvious one that our intellect and reasoning does not apprehend what is at all, but rather reacts to (and creates) what is according to our nature and history  ?
It is the same "eeek" that you can get when you don't really know what something is & your intellectual excuse doesn't supply satisfaction for why you don't. It could be an "eeek" or a feeling of curiosity.


in that case i may feel frustration. 

What i try to do when i get frustrated by not knowing something and feeling that i will not be able to know it and yet am still curious, is to try to think outside of myself and use my fellow man to think with me. 
Kewl when that works. I am alone in my personal perception, though which is usually when my grokking fails.

Huh?    ... How are you alone in your personal perception when you have all the productions from others right there in your mind?  For example your perceptions about the American Federal government.
Generally I perceive alone, I don't use your eyes or someone else's. Same with my thoughts. If I am using something that another first pointed out I have to weigh that first as real or just bullshit like your contributions to the link above which you pointed out.


I think everything that you see contributes to your perceptions.  Apparently your model of the process is more like a logical machine ... mine is not.  In most perceptions, me thinks there is no "logical weighing" involved ... there is just the recognition, the Gestalt, or not.   Sometimes you want to see it ... sometimes you don't.  Sometimes the mind fights  against seeing it and will look at whatever it can to distract itself from seeing something that it doesn't like. 

We have an example right here.   When i originally saw that cartoon, i flashed, yes that is a problem with some Americans ... getting things free from the government ... i've done that myself at times in my life ... i got food stamps in the warehouse ... didn't really need them but i got them anyway.  When i thought about it there is much that the Federal government does that is of that nature.  If all of those programs were just stopped, then not only would we probably solve the deficit spending problem and not suffer any other ill effects.  There is a giant truth to that that needs to absorbed by the American people so that they will change their government accordingly.

But you made it all about Obama.  Big mistake!   Big confusion!   The Gestalt of the cartoon suddenly becomes polluted and looses its meaning.  Of course, if the message really is just about Obama ... well then, for me, there is no new gestalt at all ... just normal ragging, of which most of us are sick to death.

When, as and if, you ever see that Gestalt ... please let me know.
You are getting the Obama cartoon confused with the tree. Please keep them separate. It would be good also to restart rather than making a large nest which is hard to decipher. I agree that everything I see has something to do with my perceptions - specifically those that come thru the visual channel. I use the PR & RS view of things & isolate peceptions to percepts just the sensory input from outside ourselves.  From there goes the rest of the cognization chain. e.g. 3976. It helps clear things up as to what's real if you uncollapse this process with some distinctions.  The italisized & bolded shit that you wrote above is just because you didn't get the point & made the point about your own shit .. i.e. Obama is blameless in every way.  Enjoy the KookAid I will not be participating in it.


Seth says
MR 2013-02-15 22:58:53 16418
seth 2013-02-15 15:38:05 16418
source: mark says he agrees with "everything I see has something to do with my perceptions"
... well that is not the way i would put it.  I would say something more like whatever you see will contribute to what you see later.  I don't see the need to separate what is seen from some concept called "perceptions" ... which, depending on the context, can mean just about anyting you want it to mean and is not really worth arguing about. 

My point is that seeing (and any other sensual channel too) is a process of building up the ability to see.  You learn to see by seeing ... the more you see ... the more you can see.  It is like you see by connecting new stimulus to what you have already seen.  Hence my thesis: "everything that you see contributes to your perceptions" ... and "our intellect and reasoning does not apprehend what is at all, but rather reacts to (and creates) what is according to our nature and history" ... our history here being what we have already seen.

That kind of denys your original thought: "A distinction is something you make to separate something out of the infinite sea of percepts *to* single you focus upon for further cognizing" ... which for me is way too logical ... it implies that we are solving syllogisms and Venn diagrams in our minds when we form our perceptions.  I don't really think we do that.   I think, first we actually see the distinction based upon what we have learned to see in the past ... then if we have some motivating agenda we try to use the distinction to further it.
Seeing is seeing.  I think you are talking about cognition.  Nobody solves sylogisms except in logic class. There is some kind of sense beyond solving equations - I've noticed that many years ago. Go back & look at the graph stuff in 3976.

Well these natural language words mean many different things to different people at different times.  To talk about things specifically we really do need to put more specific descriptions on them or we are just courting confusion and argument for no good purpose. 

I am talking about the process of a person receiving stimulus on a sensory channel and arriving at the recognition that something specific is (or might be) happening  again.  All sensory channels work just about the same in this regard, seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, feeling etc.   My thesis applies to all of them.    And the process need not be considered ending when the image is formed but not yet interpreted ... the process of recognition proceeds into the highest possible levels of cognition.  I see no useful reason to draw a line below which is seeing, then another for perception, then another for cognition.   As far as i can tell, and taking in consideration all of what i have read on the subject, they all work the same way in regards to what i am talking about.

So that when you see Obama's face with your eyes, and you watch news and commentary about him on whatever media, and then arrive at a recognition that he is leading the country in the wrong direction,  you will get these flashes of recognitions all the way.  All of those recognitions are dependent on and caused by your history of previous recognitions. 

Incidentally, i'm glad that at least we agree that "Nobody solves sylogisms except in logic class".  

Mark de LA says
seth 2013-02-15 11:56:50 16418
MR 2013-02-15 11:19:52 16418
seth 2013-02-15 10:21:50 16418
seth 2013-02-14 07:42:49 16418
MR 2013-02-13 11:18:05 16418
seth 2013-02-13 09:41:55 16418
MR 2013-02-13 09:04:17 16418
If you really get it then you may run into the (eeek) that you don't know really what is there - at least by using your intellect & reason.


Well do you think there is some "eeek" beyond the obvious one that our intellect and reasoning does not apprehend what is at all, but rather reacts to (and creates) what is according to our nature and history  ?
It is the same "eeek" that you can get when you don't really know what something is & your intellectual excuse doesn't supply satisfaction for why you don't. It could be an "eeek" or a feeling of curiosity.


in that case i may feel frustration. 

What i try to do when i get frustrated by not knowing something and feeling that i will not be able to know it and yet am still curious, is to try to think outside of myself and use my fellow man to think with me. 
Kewl when that works. I am alone in my personal perception, though which is usually when my grokking fails.

Huh?    ... How are you alone in your personal perception when you have all the productions from others right there in your mind?  For example your perceptions about the American Federal government.
Generally I perceive alone, I don't use your eyes or someone else's. Same with my thoughts. If I am using something that another first pointed out I have to weigh that first as real or just bullshit like your contributions to the link above which you pointed out.


Mark de LA says
Seth-hole: ...
Well these natural language words mean many different things to different people at different times.  To talk about things specifically we really do need to put more specific descriptions on them or we are just courting confusion and argument for no good purpose.
Well quit using words then. Apparently not the words you want to lead to the conclusion you want.

I am talking about the process of a person receiving stimulus on a sensory channel and arriving at the recognition that something specific is (or might be) happening  again.  All sensory channels work just about the same in this regard, seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, feeling etc.   My thesis applies to all of them.    And the process need not be considered ending when the image is formed but not yet interpreted ... the process of recognition proceeds into the highest possible levels of cognition.  I see no useful reason to draw a line below which is seeing, then another for perception, then another for cognition.   As far as i can tell, and taking in consideration all of what i have read on the subject, they all work the same way in regards to what i am talking about.
The above is just redundant word-salad about previous similars - not useful yet.

So that when you see Obama's face with your eyes, and you watch news and commentary about him on whatever media, and then arrive at a recognition that he is leading the country in the wrong direction,  you will get these flashes of recognitions all the way.  All of those recognitions are dependent on and caused by your history of previous recognitions.
NOPE! - I use the evidence that He is actually doing those things. (this was your conclusion all along.  P.S. Keep the Obamalagnia out of this item or I will delete it.

Incidentally, i'm glad that at least we agree that "Nobody solves sylogisms except in logic class". 
You are free to claim agreement as you wish but, it doesn't necessarily make it so. You missed the part where I claim some other ability exists to do that - possibly existing in the neurology of the brain or soul.
...

Seth says
source: mark above "You missed the part where I claim some other ability exists to do that - possibly existing in the neurology of the brain or soul."
... well yes perhaps i missed it.  Can you put some more meat on them bones?


Mark de LA says
S&M(from above): ... That kind of denys your original thought: "A distinction is something you make to separate something out of the infinite sea of percepts *to* single you focus upon for further cognizing" ... which for me is way too logical ... it implies that we are solving syllogisms and Venn diagrams in our minds when we form our perceptions.  I don't really think we do that.   I think, first we actually see the distinction based upon what we have learned to see in the past ... then if we have some motivating agenda we try to use the distinction to further it.
Seeing is seeing.  I think you are talking about cognition.

M: Nobody solves sylogisms except in logic class. There is some kind of sense beyond solving equations - I've noticed that many years ago. Go back & look at the graph stuff in [item 3976].
... It IS useful to notice in the cause, effect, effect ,,... world of our encounter with the World, that nothing comes prepackaged with meaning. Indeed, we add meaning & names & character etc to it all through the cognizing process; all of which does include our past as well as beliefs (also past) & our current encounter for some new things. 
Nothing like programs or solving equations occurs for me as I cognize experience except when I am doing such while studying logic or programming computers.  The same could be said about electro chemical things going on in my brain. I suspect they are just mirror images of what is going on in the soul. I suspect that rationalizing, logic & cognizing are acquired through the sense for language.


Seth says
MR 2013-02-17 10:20:59 16418
S&M(from above): ... That kind of denys your original thought: "A distinction is something you make to separate something out of the infinite sea of percepts *to* single you focus upon for further cognizing" ... which for me is way too logical ... it implies that we are solving syllogisms and Venn diagrams in our minds when we form our perceptions.  I don't really think we do that.   I think, first we actually see the distinction based upon what we have learned to see in the past ... then if we have some motivating agenda we try to use the distinction to further it.
Seeing is seeing.  I think you are talking about cognition.

M: Nobody solves sylogisms except in logic class. There is some kind of sense beyond solving equations - I've noticed that many years ago. Go back & look at the graph stuff in [item 3976].
... It IS useful to notice in the cause, effect, effect ,,... world of our encounter with the World, that nothing comes prepackaged with meaning. Indeed, we add meaning & names & character etc to it all through the cognizing process; all of which does include our past as well as beliefs (also past) & our current encounter for some new things. 
Nothing like programs or solving equations occurs for me as I cognize experience except when I am doing such while studying logic or programming computers.  The same could be said about electro chemical things going on in my brain. I suspect they are just mirror images of what is going on in the soul. I suspect that rationalizing, logic & cognizing are acquired through the sense for language.


Yep that is the part i agree with.

Where is the part i missed .... the part where you "claim some other ability exists" ?

I am wondering: Can all of human apprehension be explained and modeled by pattern recognition?   You seem to be claiming that some other ability needs to be put in the mix.  So i am wondering what that other ability is.   Bear in mind that i am talking here only of *apprehension* ... not of *volition*.   Yet, of course, there is a interaction between them and they cannot be totally considered separately.

Mark de LA says
It is the sense for language - perhaps attributable to Aries. Here is a different map:
Turquoise = TOL sepiroth; Orange-yellow = powers of the zodiac; white are the senses associated with the zodiac.  Notice there are more than 5 senses.


Mark de LA says
Note the power of the 6 astrals (faces) of the cube are in their own appropriate color as best I could match it.

Mark de LA says
More on distinction (from Mother Jones)


Seth says
MR 2013-02-18 09:03:54 16418
MR 2013-02-18 08:56:44 16418
Seth (above): ...
I am wondering: Can all of human apprehension be explained and modeled by pattern recognition?   You seem to be claiming that some other ability needs to be put in the mix.  So i am wondering what that other ability is.   Bear in mind that i am talking here only of *apprehension* ... not of *volition*.
... elaborating a bit ...
I know no other sense driven tool that the "I" has to put speech to something perceived by the "I" than the sense of speech. As I am conscious in some domain or field of attention I know of no other sense that putting the right words to describe something or keep the thing in consciousness than a set of words or a single word itself. Some symbol steadies my attention for a brief moment.  As I pursue it (whatever I called my attention to) more & more previous similars well up & I include them in the language of description. I don't think you can write off this process as simple pattern recognition or neural networks. I think I need a smoother seam between the meta-worlds than that. I am conscious while I add words to things.


Have you ever not known a word for what you are thinking? How do you know you have the right words to exactly describe something. It is an interesting moment looking for the right words.


I don't think anybody doubts that humans have a special language faculty ... you can call that a sense of language, if you want, with no loss of reference.  Just like if you get your eye balls removed you will loose your sense of sight, so too there is an organ in the head which when removed you will loose your sense of language.  Many times i know of a specific word for something that i want to say, but cannot remember the particular word.  I get that frequently now with celebrity names.  That is obviously some kind of glitch in my language organ.  When the name of the celeb is remembered it "automatically" connects itself to the memory i have of seeing and hearing that celeb.  I think that is pretty similar to having an image of a green leaf in mind and then connecting it to the words "green leaf" so that i can talk about it.  I think that  space has been fairly well mapped by neuroscience ... so that when you exhibit some particular aphasia, the doctors can tell you what part of the organ in your brain has the problem. 

There are also places in the brain which recognize written language, it's structure and meaning. I think those can be described as patterns.  Sometimes you need to try lots of different ways to match up  the words to their meanings before you can grock what a sentence, or a paragraph, means.  Sometimes it takes many trials and errors .... matching up the previous recognized patterns of verbal behavior of the writer with what he is saying in the current context.  Many times i read what you write and i go ... "what the fuck is he talking about".  But if i spend the time i usually can guess what you are driving at.  I suppose if the match is just too mysterious ... i could put it back on you, saying  "hey dude, you are writing writing word salad". 

Like this ... where i wrote, what i though was a very interesting paragraph ... even though it may well have had errors within it, i thought it possibly could have gotten "us" to a better understanding of how we talk to each other. 

source: me writing in our Facebook dialogue

you switched the value of "it" ... my "it" was this item here that you have written and the article it refers to ... your last "it" is obviously something different. You have the wrong "it" ... i have the right "it" .... switching them does nothing but confuse the conversation.

... I bring that up, not to argue about politics ... but rather to talk about pronouns and guessing what they refer to and the flim flam game that is played by switching their meaning.


Mark de LA says
MR 2013-02-18 08:56:44 16418
Seth (above): ...
I am wondering: Can all of human apprehension be explained and modeled by pattern recognition?   You seem to be claiming that some other ability needs to be put in the mix.  So i am wondering what that other ability is.   Bear in mind that i am talking here only of *apprehension* ... not of *volition*.
... elaborating a bit ...
I know no other sense driven tool that the "I" has to put speech to something perceived by the "I" than the sense of speech. As I am conscious in some domain or field of attention I know of no other sense that putting the right words to describe something or keep the thing in consciousness than a set of words or a single word itself. Some symbol steadies my attention for a brief moment.  As I pursue it (whatever I called my attention to) more & more previous similars well up & I include them in the language of description. I don't think you can write off this process as simple pattern recognition or neural networks. I think I need a smoother seam between the meta-worlds than that. I am conscious while I add words to things.


Have you ever not known a word for what you are thinking? How do you know you have the right words to exactly describe something. It is an interesting moment looking for the right words.


Mark de LA says
seth 2013-02-18 11:09:19 16418  ...[snip]
ly could have gotten "us" to a better understanding of how we talk to each other. 

source: me writing in our Facebook dialogue

you switched the value of "it" ... my "it" was this item here that you have written and the article it refers to ... your last "it" is obviously something different. You have the wrong "it" ... i have the right "it" .... switching them does nothing but confuse the conversation.

... I bring that up, not to argue about politics ... but rather to talk about pronouns and guessing what they refer to and the flim flam game that is played by switching their meaning.

When you start arguing about arguing my eyes glaze over & I blow a fart to get back to thinking again.  I call those moments word salad - jibberish from your mind - psuedo officious logiciousness-nonsense.


See Also

  1. Thought The binary logic of two distinctions with 35 viewings related by tag "distinctions".
  2. Thought [title (17761)] with 1 viewings related by tag "distinctions".
  3. Thought We don't need no stinking dictionaries with 0 viewings related by tag "distinctions".
  4. Thought Neurons making a distinction with 0 viewings related by tag "distinctions".