[MD] Two Minds

[Emily Schober]

Interesting! Everyone has give me so much to think about. I love all the varying approaches to mind and consciousness...
 
> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 15:05:36 -0500
> From: nblodgett at worcester.edu
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Two Minds
> 
> 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
> >
> 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