[MD] Two Minds

Blodgett, Nikolas nblodgett at worcester.edu
Tue Nov 10 12:05:36 PST 2015


I always throw out my same pet theories about the two hemispheres of the
brain and their function. This seems like just the topic where I find it
fits the best. The left and right hemispheres operate in a complimentary
and dichotomous way, with the left being more serial and specific in
processing information and the right more parallel and broader when
prossecing. The net result, although an unconscious type of thinking does
stem from the more inner and outer evolutionary parts, has alot to do with
the two hemispheres, in my opinion. I have a wealth of information and am
still working on putting it all together. I found a Scientific America
article that is close to what I think about this. (June 24, 2009. "The
evolutionary origins of your right and left brain, Peter F. MacNeilage,
Leslie J. Rogers, and Giorgio Vallortigara)
This is only part of the puzzle, but the LH is geared toward language and
consequently what we typically consider logical reasoning and the RH is
geared toward monitoring the environment for dangers and consequently
recognition of subtle social cues. If anyone catches my drift here I would
be grateful; I realize I'm still messy in explaining what, in my head, is a
very large multi-piece puzzle. In any case, I feel what I've connected
about the hemispheres might explain things like introspection, possibly
sense of self, unconscious social recognition, and what seems to be two
kinds of thought we see pop up throughout philosophical history. The strict
intellectual logically geared processing that comes from the LH is indeed
balanced by, but preceded by the social emotionally geared RH processing.
In a philosophical sense, the intellect is INDEED based on the social
level, because it would not be so finely-tuned into words phrases and
thoughts without being part of a larger social level from which it springs.
Anyway, I need to get working on this because it probably seems bizarre out
of context from all the research I found/collected and whatnot, but I
really feel it can explain the Dynamic / Static type of element we fans of
Pirsig know is important.
Other names to search I have come across are Gazzaniga and the split-brain
patients, Kounios and Jung-Beeman and their work with 'the Eureka! moment',
Corballis did work with handedness and evolution, Hale does research into
ADHD and its possible basis in these lateral functions. I use keywords such
as lateralization, hemispheric asymmetry, and sometimes they will use
jargon such as hemisity or dual-process. Austin, you mentioned Kahnemann
above, and he factored into my thoughts about the two types of processing.
Emily mentioned Tolle, and the sort of Zen-like though processes are very
much the RH kind, which I feel is the Dynamic side opposing the Static LH.
David mentioned the mind / body problem and the hard problem of
consciousness, and I always come back around to that issue. Cognitive
neuroscience is my leaning and its probably obvious at this point, so
thanks for bearing with me

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 1:53 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:

> Austin,
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Austin Fatheree <austin.fatheree at gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I think that both the social and intellectual levels emerged out of the
> > biological level.  The intellectual did emerge after the social and still
> > holds moral authority over it and still has access to it, but it is more
> > correct to say that it emerged from biology.
> >
> >
>
> Jc:  I disagree.  I think that "bottom's up" view of the cosmos is common
> but highly problematic.  The mechanism upon which the whole thing runs,
> isn't a mechanism!  So why get mechanical at all?  It makes more sense to
> me to take a top-down approach, such that it's seen that intellectual
> patterns  create various social patterns,  social patterns support and
> create biological success and biology begets new inorganic combinations.
> There really is no conflict, EXCEPT, for between the social and the
> intellectual, occasionally.  But this isn't a natural aspect of reality,
> it's a problem, when it occurs.
>
> Austin:
>
>
> > I think this because it more adequately fits what we see in reality.
>
>
>
> Jc:  depends upon your reality
>
>  Austin:
>
> (snipped)
>
>
> Unfortunately the fallout from this is that distinguishing that the
> > intellectual level should have moral authority over the social level
> > becomes even murkier.  Unfortunately this also seems be an accurate map
> of
> > the territory.  I’m from Houston and yesterday we voted down our Houston
> > Equal Rights Ordinance(HERO) because we have a significant portion of our
> > population that has no desire to operate at an intellectual level.  It is
> > all still way to social here in the South and social means that that guy
> > over there is going to get one over on me if I don’t take it for myself.
> > Boo us.
> >
> >
> I'd say that since our ideal goal is for the intellectual to have rule over
> the social, we should just make that our pragmatic foundation and USE it.
> I think a metaphysical system is good if it actually helps us to overcome
> experienced conflicts, and bad if it just leads to more conflicts in a
> widening gyre.
>
> As to Texas... don't get me started.  I'm a Californian, through and
> through.
>
> But thinking about this interplay between intellectual and social patterns,
> it's really what the American experiment was all about, eh?  This country
> was founded with the idea of individual freedom - which is all about
> reining in the powers of the social to restrict free thought.  But what
> gets people confused is, that doesn't mean we have an intellectual
> society!  We just have a society that values intellect enough to let it be
> free, in the hopes that thus we evolve upward, rather than downward.
>
> I think the MoQ's statement of values as real, makes everything else work
> out, in the end.
>
> John C.
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>



More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list