Re: [COMPLEX-M] Objective Knowledge, Stories and Models

[Ayten Aydin <***>]

Dear John M,

I cannot claim that I have fully understand what you are saying owing to my
own fault, but I have a few things to say on the Mind. You say: "Thought
would be 'a-temporal', 'a-spatial',   the mind, howver, observes the
limitations of its material ingredient. (I don't know about a general
concensus about identifying "mind".)"

I think a similar subject was dealt with in the past. I do not however
remember how it has ended. To my mind, anthropologically speaking, when we
talk about the mind, to do with thinking, we may be talking about the
physiological reflective mind. It thinks and reflects, a capacity which is
mostly attributed to the right hemisphere of the brain. Then comes the
reactive mind, nowadays, "the mastermind", which overwhelmes the right
hemisphere and thus as a result geopardises a proper thinking. It is also
like subjectivity and objectivity, they are part of the same whole but they
turn their backs to each other (without a chance to look at the far side of
it).

The reactive one operates the world and the reflective one gradually
atrophise, leaves the seen to the nasty child. We as outsiders observe this
phenomenon and
talk about it with great intensity.

I am repeatedly asking myself what I am doing to enliven the right
hemispheres and overwhelm in turn the left hemispheres to retreat to their
proper domains and be friend with their other halves. I catch every
opportunity to introduce the concept of conciliation and cooperative action
with respect to every small or big contributers. In every occasion I try to
introduce an element of love and grace into every relationship. Help merging
opposites in appearance like objective and subjective is also a good way in
making people aware of many shortcomings of peoples' thinking processes and
making decisions resulting actions which are faulty many times. What do you
do? What do you suggest that we should all do in a concerted way?

Judith, entering into her father's skin is trying to do her best. She looks
for opportunities to apply her father's theories into practice in many life
matters, which are complex with no exception. The major point in her
mission, if I have understood well, if so  I agree, is that we have not yet
reached a  perception that neither mechanistic nor quantistic theories can
help us to solve complex and ever-entangling life problems which are beyond
the physical realm. They require another kind of precision that physical
realm can do without. This is a facinating subject. One thing leads to
another. I do not want to be carried away with it and abuse your patience.
We, however, still need to do something concrete.

My best,
Ayten


----- Original Message -----
From: "John M" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: [COMPLEX-M] Objective Knowledge, Stories and Models


> Dear Ayten,
> Kant's phrase is incredible - at his time and the epistemic level there
was.
> Psych was not yet evolved to the level to make it sure that "anything" we
> perceive - appercipiate is by the mind's acceptance and subject to the
> capacity and experientila content of the mind.
> This is why I expose myself to controversy saying that objective knowledge
> is by default subjective.
> You wrote:
> >In a way, objectivity and subjectivity are
> > like the non-separable opposite sides of the same medallion<
> I would add: without a chance to look at the far side of it.
>
> Some speak about a (virtual?) objektivity which is a social synthesis of
> (many? accepted?) 1st person opinions about objectivities - still some sum
> of subjective statements. Many call that 3rd person conclusions, however
> such conclusions are also only feasible by the accepting
> individuals' 1st person decision to accept it - and most likely - not in
the
> unaltered form, rather adjusted to the acceptor's mindwork, the experience
> content and (mind)behavioral attitude.
> Try to ask 100 educated people to explain Kant's statement:
> "Beautiful is that pleases without (vested? personal?) interest" (or
however
> is the English official translation). Chances are that there will be no
two
> of them matching in all details.
>
> The mental complexity human - the 'natural system human' working in
concert
> with its materially restricted tool, the neuronal brain, is incapable of
> encompassing the totality of interconnections, rather selects the aspects
> familiar with the experiential material in mind.
> Such fundamental reductionism controls our thinking, within which we
> identify "our" objective reality, truth and decisions. Thought, however,
> would be 'a-temporal', 'a-spatial', (you can jump in thought without ANY
> time-delay from NYC to HongKong and so do our dreams) the mind, howver,
> observes the limitations of its material ingredient.
> (I don't know about a general concensus about identifying "mind".)
>
> Best wishes
>
> John Mikes
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ayten Aydin" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 3:43 AM
> Subject: Re: [COMPLEX-M] Objective Knowledge, Stories and Models
>
>
> > To all concerned with objectivityXsubjectivity pair:
> >
> >  I quote a phrase from Kant which may be handy for those interested in
> > deepening on the above.That is:
> >
> > "There is no objectivity, but there is a synthesis of many
objectivities".
> >
> > Then I say: The objectivity merges with the subjectivity as the
synthesis
> of
> > essences of many objectivities. In a way, objectivity and subjectivity
are
> > like the non-separable opposite sides of the same medallion. We have, in
> > effect, reached a stage where we have separated them and placed into
very
> > distinctive positions in far away quarters, giving a preference to the
> > former believing that only objective judgements give us a sound,
rational
> > and thus reliable base to establish all life matters. This belief is the
> > off-spring of the Scientific (17th)and the Industrial (18th/19th
> centuries)
> > Revolutions. In effect , nowadays a particular attention is given to not
> > letting the subjectivity to interfere or even corrupt the process
> > objectively set in motion.
> >
> > Human being has a lot to do to renew itself which is only possible by
> > becoming able to see and understand themselves and things around in
their
> > totality and recognizing subjectively (!) their inherent complexities.
> >
>
>