Binocular Dialogue

Most of us see through two eyes simultaneously.  Each eye sees something different.  Yet we see just one single image.  That image which we see through both eyes is actually better than each of the images we see through just one eye.  That is called "binocular vision". 

It is possible to do the same binocularing with dialogue between tow different people.  The result should be thinking that is better than each person could have thought on their own. 

I think this gives us a hint of how a ME being can become better as a WE being.

Tags

  1. binocular dialogue
  2. cute
  3. item 17033

Comments


MeE says
seth 2014-01-21 09:20:32 17033
Why this has been put in cute ?  I think it is more just a cleverly accurate metaphor ... and does not belong with the rest of the cute things.
It is an inaccurate metaphor since the brain unites the two points of view for each eye into one for that brain.  Not so, ever, for different people & different eyes.  Cute, though.


MeE says
MeE 2014-01-21 07:42:36 17033
I wonder if Obama sees things differently because he has a different brain than the WE the people do? Maybe even a different pair of eyes.



Seth says
Why this has been put in cute ?  I think it is more just a cleverly accurate metaphor ... and does not belong with the rest of the cute things.

Seth says
source: mark
I wonder if Obama sees things differently because he has a different brain than the WE the people do? Maybe even a different pair of eyes.
... well certainly so as every eye sees differently according to its point of view.

Since Obama was elected the president of the United States he does have a privileged view of our nation.  Is that view necessarily closer to WE the people of this nation than yours or mine?  Honestly i think that it is. 

So what?

MeE says
seth 2014-01-21 09:11:59 17033
source: mark
I wonder if Obama sees things differently because he has a different brain than the WE the people do? Maybe even a different pair of eyes.
... well certainly so as every eye sees differently according to its point of view.

Since Obama was elected the president of the United States he does have a privileged view of our nation.  Is that view necessarily closer to WE the people of this nation than yours or mine?  Honestly i think that it is. 

So what?
  • Yep, he's privileged alright & he acts like it.
  • Not about equality though.
  • Actually, he is farther away.
  • Doesn't shop for himself
  • ..... on & on the list bloats ... now he vows to ignore even Congress & order things himself
  • .. We the people be damned
  • Gets his vacations & perks free
  • Gets his lies censored by the fawning M$M
  • Apparently your eyes see different than mine.

Seth says
MeE 2014-01-21 09:27:57 17033
seth 2014-01-21 09:20:32 17033
Why this has been put in cute ?  I think it is more just a cleverly accurate metaphor ... and does not belong with the rest of the cute things.
It is an inaccurate metaphor since the brain unites the two points of view for each eye into one for that brain.  Not so, ever, for different people & different eyes.  Cute, though.


wow ... "not so ever for different people!".   So according to that we never do affect each other's point of view.  Yet i have noticed society adjusting people's views on a daily basis ... perhaps at times that could even be called uniting them.  Me thinks your "not ever" needs to be reevaluated to "quite frequently" ... if not "most usually".  Me thinks you underestimate the power of society to mold your perspective by several orders of magnitude.

Seth says
MeE 2014-01-21 09:55:08 17033
seth 2014-01-21 09:41:56 17033
MeE 2014-01-21 09:27:57 17033
seth 2014-01-21 09:20:32 17033
Why this has been put in cute ?  I think it is more just a cleverly accurate metaphor ... and does not belong with the rest of the cute things.
It is an inaccurate metaphor since the brain unites the two points of view for each eye into one for that brain.  Not so, ever, for different people & different eyes.  Cute, though.


wow ... "not so ever for different people!".   So according to that we never do affect each other's point of view.  Yet i have noticed society adjusting people's views on a daily basis ... perhaps at times that could even be called uniting them.  Me thinks your "not ever" needs to be reevaluated to "quite frequently" ... if not "most usually".  Me thinks you underestimate the power of society to mold your perspective by several orders of magnitude.
The brain does it organically without consciousness.  Bad metaphor - STILL!

well both processes do it organically ... and what is consciouss of what varies from event to event in both processes.   it is a excellent metaphor ... when i first thought of it i got a bit of a rush.  my only question is ... is it a metaphor at all ? ... an not rather one part of a fractal resembling another at a different level.

MeE says
seth 2014-01-21 10:48:17 17033
MeE 2014-01-21 09:55:08 17033
seth 2014-01-21 09:41:56 17033
MeE 2014-01-21 09:27:57 17033
seth 2014-01-21 09:20:32 17033
Why this has been put in cute ?  I think it is more just a cleverly accurate metaphor ... and does not belong with the rest of the cute things.
It is an inaccurate metaphor since the brain unites the two points of view for each eye into one for that brain.  Not so, ever, for different people & different eyes.  Cute, though.


wow ... "not so ever for different people!".   So according to that we never do affect each other's point of view.  Yet i have noticed society adjusting people's views on a daily basis ... perhaps at times that could even be called uniting them.  Me thinks your "not ever" needs to be reevaluated to "quite frequently" ... if not "most usually".  Me thinks you underestimate the power of society to mold your perspective by several orders of magnitude.
The brain does it organically without consciousness.  Bad metaphor - STILL!

well both processes do it organically ... and what is consciouss of what varies from event to event in both processes.   it is a excellent metaphor ... when i first thought of it i got a bit of a rush.  my only question is ... is it a metaphor at all ? ... an not rather one part of a fractal resembling another at a different level.
  • Enjpy your cleverness
  • Don't confuse it with reality
  • ... or precision in language
  • Still cute, though
  • very organic!

Seth says
MeE 2014-01-21 13:03:09 17033
You may enjoy the meaning of the syllable/prefix meta .. (*)
meta- Look up meta- at Dictionary.comword-forming element meaning 1. "after, behind," 2. "changed, altered," 3. "higher, beyond;" from Greek meta (prep.) "in the midst of, in common with, by means of, in pursuit or quest of," from PIE *me- "in the middle" (cf. German mit, Gothic miþ, Old English mið "with, together with, among;" see mid). Notion of "changing places with" probably led to senses "change of place, order, or nature," which was a principal meaning of the Greek word when used as a prefix (but also denoting "community, participation; in common with; pursuing").

Third sense, "higher than, transcending, overarching, dealing with the most fundamental matters of," is due to misinterpretation of metaphysics as "science of that which transcends the physical." This has led to a prodigious erroneous extension in modern usage, with meta- affixed to the names of other sciences and disciplines, especially in the academic jargon of literary criticism, which affixes it to just about anything that moves and much that doesn't.
  • What then stops your respect for metaphysics & other metas but embraces it with your own meta (M^^4) ?
  • I suspect you have a wallaby in metaspace yet drifting about in chaos not become cosmos & ...
  • need to bring it down with more artful language without the aid  M^^4 pedantry


wow the way you use words just seems to subvert them.    i use the word "meta-world", and the word "mind" to point to pretty much the exact same thing ... i rarely write a sentence in which you could not switch those words and leave my meaning totally intact.  the stem "meta" to me just means "about" ... the mind is a reflection of what is outside ... it is about what is outside ... or perhaps even inside ... nonetheless about it ... not the thing itself but rather a representation of it.  there is not much more to it than that. 

the etymology of a word means nothing to me ... you can't understand (or twist) my meaning by digging up some hidden meaning of a word from the past.  i try to use those words the same way others i have read use them.  Consult Google if you question it ... see how others are using the word today in similar contexts ... or just ask me ... not some ancient tome which is just as irrelevant to my current meanings as the color of my fathers underwear when he procreated me.

so, yes i agree, meta-physics is kind of a misuse of the "meta" stem ... but it doesn't matter i still know how people talk about metaphysics and i talk about it with the word "metaphysics" in the same way they do. 

your use of M^^4 is just you trying to subvert what i am saying ... it is a perversion  ... it means nothing to me ... and you probably know that ... hence it is not communicating ... it is just insulting my language.  so take out the "mung" and the "mashup" and just talk of "mind" or "meta-world" the way i do.  making up words is fine when you actually have a new concept to name ... hiding insults inside of a string of characters is, er ... just insulting.  i usually try to ignore this shit, but when you wipe it in my face the way you have here ... you will get my honest reaction. 

MeE says
seth 2014-01-22 00:59:46 17033
MeE 2014-01-21 13:03:09 17033
You may enjoy the meaning of the syllable/prefix meta .. (*)
meta- Look up meta- at Dictionary.comword-forming element meaning 1. "after, behind," 2. "changed, altered," 3. "higher, beyond;" from Greek meta (prep.) "in the midst of, in common with, by means of, in pursuit or quest of," from PIE *me- "in the middle" (cf. German mit, Gothic miþ, Old English mið "with, together with, among;" see mid). Notion of "changing places with" probably led to senses "change of place, order, or nature," which was a principal meaning of the Greek word when used as a prefix (but also denoting "community, participation; in common with; pursuing").

Third sense, "higher than, transcending, overarching, dealing with the most fundamental matters of," is due to misinterpretation of metaphysics as "science of that which transcends the physical." This has led to a prodigious erroneous extension in modern usage, with meta- affixed to the names of other sciences and disciplines, especially in the academic jargon of literary criticism, which affixes it to just about anything that moves and much that doesn't.
  • What then stops your respect for metaphysics & other metas but embraces it with your own meta (M^^4) ?
  • I suspect you have a wallaby in metaspace yet drifting about in chaos not become cosmos & ...
  • need to bring it down with more artful language without the aid  M^^4 pedantry


wow the way you use words just seems to subvert them.    i use the word "meta-world", and the word "mind" to point to pretty much the exact same thing ... i rarely write a sentence in which you could not switch those words and leave my meaning totally intact.  the stem "meta" to me just means "about" ... the mind is a reflection of what is outside ... it is about what is outside ... or perhaps even inside ... nonetheless about it ... not the thing itself but rather a representation of it.  there is not much more to it than that. 

the etymology of a word means nothing to me ... you can't understand (or twist) my meaning by digging up some hidden meaning of a word from the past.  i try to use those words the same way others i have read use them.  Consult Google if you question it ... see how others are using the word today in similar contexts ... or just ask me ... not some ancient tome which is just as irrelevant to my current meanings as the color of my fathers underwear when he procreated me.

so, yes i agree, meta-physics is kind of a misuse of the "meta" stem ... but it doesn't matter i still know how people talk about metaphysics and i talk about it with the word "metaphysics" in the same way they do. 

your use of M^^4 is just you trying to subvert what i am saying ... it is a perversion  ... it means nothing to me ... and you probably know that ... hence it is not communicating ... it is just insulting my language.  so take out the "mung" and the "mashup" and just talk of "mind" or "meta-world" the way i do.  making up words is fine when you actually have a new concept to name ... hiding insults inside of a string of characters is, er ... just insulting.  i usually try to ignore this shit, but when you wipe it in my face the way you have here ... you will get my honest reaction. 
  • Seth just uses the dictionary as a vague suggestion -
  • coin happily preferrring to make up his own
  • Most dictionaries carry etymology as a hint to the essence of word meaning
  • The dictionary & particular usage dictionaries (if you can find one) are the general agreements of the meaning of words like a standard which evolves
  • the urban dictionary is a kind of slang usage dictionary - there are others
  • Guess who is/is not twisting words to make his own meanings
  • Some of the origin of the meta prefix I thought might help with your wallaby
  • too fucking bad you missed that in the RWG
  • M^^4 just means mashing shit all together rather than creating crisp distinctions by teasing them apart
  • too bad you have no respect for that
  • & you want to communicate?
  • no wonder you couldn't pass Subject A English at UCLA
  • you should be a politician they make up their own meanings so they can never be held accountable for what they say
  • Bandler used "meta" to point to the map rather than the territory (see NLP)
  • I prefer to point to the territory when speaking about mind - there are a lot of goodies in there that can be grasped
  • for some, truth is optional, relative at best, temporary to the moment
  • not me
  • enjoy


MeE says
What is fascinating, maybe mentioned before, is that most of the etymology shows that words & their meaning in English evolved from the 16th century with some basic ones like "to be" being much older.  A lot of such was written by the translators of the Bible.  Notions of morals etc are somewhat derived from that time. What temporality means to me is that grasping the ideas & consciousness of the early philosophers like Aristotle, Plato etc is barely possible ignoring that they spoke Greek.
  • What does Bozo expect to bequeath if meaning is always in motion
  • Whatever it is is only good for a few cycles of the Internet
  • The Tower of Babel is ripe to fall again
  • Maybe it already fell in some places

Seth says
source: mark
  • Bandler used "meta" to point to the map rather than the territory (see NLP)
  • I prefer to point to the territory when speaking about mind - there are a lot of goodies in there that can be grasped.
Like Bandler, i too use "meta" to point to the map rather than the territory.  My mind is my map of what is and which we share ... it is a mere reflection of it ... a representation of it ... a subjective filtered interpretation of it ... my mental images are not the things themselves.  For me to then point to the territory when speaking about my mind would strike me as a grave error.   Now certainly i am always trying to look through my mind to the thing itself ... and when i talk about something with language, i am talking about the thing, not the image of it in my mind.  However if i talk about my mind, then i am talking about the map, not the territory.  (note the use of the word "about" in this paragraph and how it can be substituted for "meta")

I too think the spiritual world has a lot of goodies.  Perhaps the territory of those goodies is the mind itself ... i don't know ... but nevertheless, that territory has a different quality to is that is not present in our normal territory which can be shared ... and that is, er ... it can not be shared ... rather it is secret, subjective, and occult.

Now if you are talking about these things differently ... perhaps even switching them ... i can see where there will be a whole lot of confusion between us.  but that does not necessarily mean that we are even really disagreeing ... just, er ... confused between ourselves.  With good will and the common purpose of our mutual consciousness and with a little effort we should still be able to understand each other ... even though our preferential choices may be quite different.

MeE says
seth 2014-01-22 12:28:40 17033
source: mark
  • Well I don't limit myself to what I can know, access & grasp in this Universe
  • Others may do so, but they are just limiting themselves.
  • This from section 7 of CFR/s Detroit Address may apply or agree with you ... somewhat Hermetic ... but without any limits.  We are the territory & the map.
  • "All that you will ever know of the universe is your own self. There is no real division; apparent separation is only in the consciousness. What you see and feel and know and think are you, your "I". The material things about you, your environment and arena, are your own activity. The perception of them is their reaction in your consciousness. You will never get outside of yourself, nor the real universe. It is your self and your home, your path, so you have got to make the best of it. Every event goes on inside of yourself. You have in you all the forces of the universe, and all the possibilities of everything you will ever be."
  • May even seem like your wallaby

... i think this on Facebook is my best possible response to this thought. 

Incidentally while i accept that i am limited to what i am and have experienced at any particular point in time, i don't limit myself at all to what i can become or experience in the future ... except, of course, that i cannot practically do, be, and see everything myself.  That would be why i would need multi-facated-binocular-perception .

"We are the territory & the map" is just a self reflective reference, merely about itself ... not very useful imho.



Have fun. Be nice!


See Also

  1. Thought Grand Teton and Wildflowers in Wyoming from Webshots with 46 viewings related by tag "cute".
  2. Thought How to see an elephant with multi-person binocular vision. with 10 viewings related by tag "binocular dialogue".
  3. Thought title tbd with 6 viewings related by tag "binocular dialogue".
  4. Thought Cute with 3 viewings related by tag "cute".
  5. Thought about: justifying what i said 2014-03-06 22:14:00 with 1 viewings related by tag "binocular dialogue".
  6. Thought Charlie bit me with 0 viewings related by tag "cute".
  7. Thought Cuteness quotient = 8 with 0 viewings related by tag "cute".
  8. Thought Attention Economy with 0 viewings related by tag "binocular dialogue".