INTP Forum  

Go Back   INTP Forum > Within > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 29th-March-2011, 01:08 AM   #51
A22
occasional poster
 
A22's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Brazil
Posts: 601
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

Also, if "The subjectivity arises from the objectivity." then new ideas and things couldn't be created. New things or ideas would be only modifications of an original thing/idea that embraces all ideas and can be modifed (turned) into anything and everything.

So what makes those transformations happen? idk, perhaps the trend that nature has of avoiding the status quo
A22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th-March-2011, 01:43 AM   #52
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

Quote:
Originally Posted by A22 View Post
So, the further away a POV is from the thing itself, the more fuzzied it is?
How can you tell if a POV is more distant from the thing itself than others?
So, how can you determine fuzziness?
Those would be things to explore. I'm not sure we can make generalizations like those without looking at more examples first. Initially I had in mind that to understand things, one tool would be to recognize they can be "fuzzy." Do have have any examples or counter-examples?

Quote:
You can't possibly know if your idea of something is the "perfect" idea of the thing, if it's the thing as it really is. As you said on a previously post, there is a relation between the observer and the observed, so what you have is just a POV. But how can you determine what the "real thing" is, so you can determine fuzziness or whatever?
Right! I assume we are homing in on the thing from various perspectives, not just one. When we do that we can compare. If there are lots of differences we could conclude we are distant. If things seem to "match up" when we try lots of perspectives (that is, trials and errors), we could conclude we are more clear on what the object is.
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th-March-2011, 01:53 AM   #53
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

Quote:
Originally Posted by A22 View Post
Also, if "The subjectivity arises from the objectivity." then new ideas and things couldn't be created. New things or ideas would be only modifications of an original thing/idea that embraces all ideas and can be modifed (turned) into anything and everything.

So what makes those transformations happen? idk, perhaps the trend that nature has of avoiding the status quo
Subjectivity is not so wild that it bears no relation at all to the object. The object is actually the center of our attention. We could say the object is the "home base" for our experience of it and we are drawn home. Does this answer anything?
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th-March-2011, 02:16 AM   #54
A22
occasional poster
 
A22's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Brazil
Posts: 601
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigApplePi View Post
Those would be things to explore. I'm not sure we can make generalizations like those without looking at more examples first. Initially I had in mind that to understand things, one tool would be to recognize they can be "fuzzy." Do have have any examples or counter-examples?
Guess you're right. I'll give it a thought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigApplePi View Post
Right! I assume we are homing in on the thing from various perspectives, not just one. When we do that we can compare. If there are lots of differences we could conclude we are distant. If things seems to "match up" when we try lots of perspectives (that is, trials and errors), we could conclude we are more clear on what the object is.
That makes sense... For now lol. I'll read this and other posts again later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigApplePi View Post
Subjectivity is not so wild that it bears no relation at all to the object. The object is actually the center of our attention. We could say the object is the "home base" for our experience of it and we are drawn home. Does this answer anything?
I'm trying to understand some posts here but it's kinda hard. First because this isn't a simple subject but mainly because I'm not an english speaker and I have to use google to translate some phrases.
A22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th-March-2011, 02:28 AM   #55
A22
occasional poster
 
A22's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Brazil
Posts: 601
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

What about some dogmas like "I think, therefore I am"? I mean, how can you negate your own existance? You may not understand the statement, but you know for sure that you exist. Is that as objectively as it gets?
A22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th-March-2011, 03:12 AM   #56
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

Quote:
Originally Posted by A22 View Post
I'm trying to understand some posts here but it's kinda hard. First because this isn't a simple subject but mainly because I'm not an english speaker and I have to use google to translate some phrases.
Then keep trying. Translation will lose something. If the original is the object, we may have to try more than one translation. Understanding is not an easy topic but I'm trying to make it easier.
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th-March-2011, 05:38 AM   #57
Da Blob
Banned
 

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 5,949
macossafari
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

Hmm, I have stayed away from this thread - not because of a lack of interest, but rather to understand the system. It seems somewhat similar to my own, but that might not be the case ...

It seems to me that there are not only 6 (or more?) cognitive tools but also there is a sequence, a process and/or a dynamic system involved in the application of these tools at various stages in the "production" line...(?)
Da Blob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th-March-2011, 05:54 AM   #58
Words
Only 1 1-F.
 
Words's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Order
Posts: 3,216
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigApplePi View Post
I don't think so. Since the black swan deviated from the object I would think that would detract from identifying it because the black swan is what the object is not.

Isn't Person A incorrect? Maybe I've missed your point.
Isn't Person B correct?
I assumed that you had correct=valid in mind.

Quote:
Because we are not the same as the object and are separated from it.

No. Imagination is sourced directly from internal activities while only indirectly from external experience. By the time imagination takes hold it is separated from direct external experience though depending on our motivation we may want to get close to externality. I think of fiction and non-fiction books, for example.
Well then, subjectivity does not necessarily arise from objectivity nor vice versa. If subjectivity can be viewed as a separate contributor of information, then it can make its own information. Ergo, there are useful and useless perspectives, and the determinant of the meaning of "use" is unidentifiable because of the possible relativity of perspectives. Obtaining perspectives may not lead to greater understanding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A22 View Post
What about some dogmas like "I think, therefore I am"? I mean, how can you negate your own existance?
I think the first question should be "how can you 'prove' your own existence?" Evidence before conclusion.
__________________
"CKSP + YTF + 'e'-continuous" does not work. E-continuous is difficult to ignite and get the engine running. It's possible but very difficult to ignite.
Words is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th-April-2011, 02:01 PM   #59
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

Quote:
Originally Posted by Da Blob View Post
It seems to me that there are not only 6 (or more?) cognitive tools but also there is a sequence, a process and/or a dynamic system involved in the application of these tools at various stages in the "production" line...(?)
Da Blob. Yes. I forgot all about that point. Now that you mention it, tools are there to operate on something. What is that something? Existence. That is the starting point. Existence may be self-centered, but it doesn't remain that way. There are multiple existences. Once that is discovered, there is Perspective. Then Translation. There is always Distance ... which could have been place first. Then there is Motion, quiet or violent. As we progress, there is the more complex Fuzziness and Hierarchy.

Afterthought. Existence is the ultimate miracle. It beats all others. Who can say anything about separate existences? Are they all One? Could we dare to say that Existence itself is God?
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th-April-2011, 07:36 PM   #60
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Re: MOTION - UMS

Comment on logic as motion:

Is It Logical To Assume?
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th-April-2011, 03:58 AM   #61
Zionoxis
Member
 
Zionoxis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 438
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

To understand, one must first have belief. To have belief, one must first have knowledge. To have knowledge, one must have a full proof method of obtaining knowledge. I have neither, so therefore, I lack understanding at the most basic level. At least I believe I do.
__________________

Sometimes, the most logical conclusion is one that contradicts itself. Such are the problems worth solving.
Zionoxis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th-April-2011, 05:44 PM   #62
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zionoxis View Post
To understand, one must first have belief. To have belief, one must first have knowledge. To have knowledge, one must have a full proof method of obtaining knowledge. I have neither, so therefore, I lack understanding at the most basic level. At least I believe I do.
Let's reverse this path for the heck of it: knowledge --> belief --> understanding.

A dog on occasion knows when it receives food. If it receives it regularly it may come to believe it will received food. I don't know how close it could ever come to understanding this, but in looking at it master's face and hearing his voice under various circumstances, it may come to the conclusion when and if it will receive food.

Generalizing this, one obtains uncertain knowledge as vague as that might be. If repeated adequately, this vague knowledge can turn into belief. If experience under various circumstances such that one surmises cause and effect, and is able to test these causes and produce effective results, then this measure of being able to deal with whatever it is has achieved a measure of understanding incomplete as that might be.

One can feel free to examine what tools were used in the process. Fuzziness and Perspective are prominent candidates. The others may be of lessor awareness.
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th-April-2011, 10:40 PM   #63
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default INTERACTION

INTERACTION.

Interaction is not a tool for understanding or rather not a basic tool. It is too complicated. There are all kinds of interactions, but how to define "interaction" in terms of the six basic tools: perspective, translation, distance, motion, fuzziness and hierarchy?

Interaction is a relationship between at least two objects. So if the objects are A and B, we have ArB symbolically. If we call this ArB = I, we have ourselves in relation to I, or OrI.

Any two objects have a distance between them and we have a perspective toward both objects. Their relation to each other can be called interaction, but we usually observe how they interact because they are in motion and the distance between them typically decreases though need not. Motion is necessary in some way for change to take place and interaction implies change as one object affects the other.

In general when two objects interact, they interact as peers, but this need not be the case. One may change the other in totality, destroy or encompass the other, but in general there is just minor change. How this happens requires analysis of each object and this means looking at their respective hierarchical structures.

Interaction can be between two animates, an animate and an inanimate, or two inanimates.

Interaction involves most if not the all of the six tools for understanding.
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th-December-2011, 09:48 PM   #64
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Reading This Thread

Reading this thread I don't expect readers to be much interested. After all, who wants to read a lot of technical stuff about tools? Although I do think I'm on to something here, I don't quite know how to present it in or outside this medium. If I start by describing the six tools, what they are and how they operate, they are too dull. If I start by giving random examples of problems requiring or desiring understanding, I have detracted from the beauty of the tools themselves. It's a dilemma.
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd-December-2011, 02:24 PM   #65
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default HIERARCHY, pre-example

A discussion for which Hierarchy might shed light if formalized:
Re: Reality of Christianity.
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd-December-2011, 05:01 PM   #66
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Understanding the INTP Forum

How would the six tools apply to the INTP Forum? Let's say you or some stranger wanted to understand this forum. Would the tools: perspective, translation, distance, motion, fuzziness, hierarchy work? Let's try them. I will put them in reverse order, which roughly means from the inside out.

Hierarchy. This is the most common way to think of understanding something. The INTP Forum is composed of messages. Many threads exist organized by categories like Typology, Psychology, Philosophy, Lounge, Science, School & Work, etc. Each thread has any number of posts and posters. The Forum exists in a context of other INTP forums, personality forums, interactive forums, message boards in general. Another hierarchy is more technical. How does it work? What programming is involved? What hardware is needed for storage and maintenance? Who manages the forum? What costs are involved? What demands are placed on the internet?

Fuzziness. Just what is the INTP forum? It's difficult to describe. Can we ever tell exactly what it is and what belongs? Can we even define what INTP means and what it means to be an INTP?

Motion. The forum changes. Normally my experience is it is very stable. One can always rely on it being here. A few weeks ago this was not true. It was unavailable to visit due to technical difficulties. This can break habits for some. Some will be disappointed or discouraged. Some will just wait. Some will wonder if it will ever return. Where are Adymus, Hawkeye, snowqueen, AlisaD and that guy with the rat in his mouth? The forum changes as to visitors. A troll can appear. A non-INTP can garner attention. Those who manage the forum can present an altered rule. There is fashion. Sometimes philosophy is hot; sometimes pastimes; sometimes personal problems.

Distance. Not everyone has even heard of the INTP forum including people you see every day and are close to in other ways. They don't know or like what you see in it. They may stay away from all internet activity. They are very distant. Others want to post or view every day. Their distance is close. This distance matters.

Translation. What would you say about this forum to someone who never comes here? Would you try to get them to take it seriously or to go where they can have some fun? Doesn't everyone have a different motive or do we all have something in common?

Perspective. It makes a great deal of difference who is looking at this forum as to what is seen. INTP regulars and related personalities may treat it as home. An occasional visitor may look at it as entertainment or curiosity. An ESTJ may look at it with contempt. Some may think it among the very best boards; others think it beneath contempt. What do other media think? What do YOU think?
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th-December-2011, 12:04 AM   #67
Da Blob
Banned
 

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 5,949
macossafari
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

Hmmm! I think there is a relationship between what you are proposing and cognitive development. That is to say infants and toddlers use "simple tools" of some sort, yet such learn at a faster rate than later in life, when more and more sophisticated tools are available...

There are some excellent textbooks on the topic of child thought and perhaps analogies to such can provide a means to better communicate your system of understanding...(?)
Da Blob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th-December-2011, 02:32 AM   #68
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default HIERARCHY & economics

Hierarchy is by far the most complicated of the six tools. I am going to guess the reason is because the behavior or treatment of what emerges at the next higher level has little or nothing to do with the behavior or nature of the level below. (Stars are very different from star constellations which are dependent on them.) This is strange because the dependency of the higher level on the lower one is quite intimate. We are not ready to understand this in this post but I just want to give an example from economics which shows the condition.

It is commonly known there has been an economic crisis in the United States which has severely affected not only the U.S. but a large part of the Western World. It has to do with a popular and pervasive investment vehicle called "derivatives" an example of which is called "credit default swaps." This particular investment was characterized by:

(1) a very profitable and monumental trend (motion) ultimately leading to a bubble
(2) the extreme fuzziness and unknown nature of just what these investments were to those who invested
(3) government officials holding and enforcing a "hands off" policy to regulation which they deemed as destructive interference.

Three tools are noted here: hierarchy, fuzziness, motion.

At a high level of this hierarchy is regulation. How much do we regulate? Answer: Too little regulation and "while the cat's away the mice will play." That is, without regulation people will behave randomly without regard for what is good. Too much regulation and natural growth is stifled. The latter I'm told is the Ayn Rand libertarian POV: hands off to regulation. I note this as a high level in the hierarchy of economics: One keeps watch but does not stifle activity. It is a truth any parent or person of modest intelligence would recognize. Then why was this "truth" ... if we can call it that ... ignored?

Answer: because at a much lower level the investment was made with no regulation and kept fuzzy with strong enforcement of that fuzziness via a complexity which defied understanding. Money was to be made and once it was set in a motion which spread throughout the economic world as desirable, it could not be stopped. No reference to the higher level truth could make headway because an existing motion (momentum) was in place and fuzziness at the lowest level prevented any insight into what could go wrong. Possibly all trends have characteristics like this.

I post this here (not knowing where else) to note these three tools for understanding. I now ask the question, what other examples do we have which illustrate other combination of tools? Seems to me this is a very fertile field for which to plant seeds.
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th-December-2011, 02:55 AM   #69
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Understanding: Toddlers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Da Blob View Post
Hmmm! I think there is a relationship between what you are proposing and cognitive development. That is to say infants and toddlers use "simple tools" of some sort, yet such learn at a faster rate than later in life, when more and more sophisticated tools are available...

There are some excellent textbooks on the topic of child thought and perhaps analogies to such can provide a means to better communicate your system of understanding...(?)
Toddlers and mature ones.

I would guess toddlers are writing not only on a clean slate, but new and sensory "simple" elements onto a slate which is expanding. Adults have a much larger fixed slate, but one which is so full it has to squeeze insertions as well as find open spaces. Which volume of the two is the faster rate? I wouldn't know. Is that the field for experimental psychologists?
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th-December-2011, 05:41 AM   #70
Chronomar
NOPE
 
Chronomar's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 680
windows_98_nt_2000safari
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

Wait. What's the difference between "fuzziness" and "abstractness"

Fuzzy = abstract?
Chronomar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th-December-2011, 12:03 PM   #71
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronomar View Post
Wait. What's the difference between "fuzziness" and "abstractness"

Fuzzy = abstract?
Fuzziness means lack of clarity or definition where when we observe, boundaries or positions are hard to see.

Abstractness means lifted as part of something else where the part lifted has characteristics no longer resembling where it came from. If I used the word "abstract" somewhere I didn't mean it to have as formal a definition as "fuzzy."

This example is both: "The INTP Forum has dialog."

That is fuzzy from the perspective of someone who has never been here. "dialog" is an abstraction because the INTP forum is much more than that. Now I'm confused, lol.
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th-December-2011, 02:42 PM   #72
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Re: FUZZINESS - example

This is an entire thread devoted to the fuzziness/clarity of something:

Do circles exist?
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th-December-2011, 06:26 AM   #73
rattymat
Member
 
rattymat's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 139
windows_98_nt_2000firefox
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

Interesting post, I like what you are trying to accomplish and your approach to the issue.
One small correction so far, and I may have more to add later, but for now..
Translation:
You speak of translation in terms of understanding another person's perspective? But should it not also incorprate a translation of one's own perspective? For, keep in mind, lanaguage and communication through language is in some degree a translation of perspective. I say language and communication through language as different because the language in your head IE thoughts is more natural and genuine to perspective than when applied in communication, for social aspects and verbal use of language causes disruptions in processing of even language-based thoughts. And, not all perspective is formulated in the head in accessible language, for example, sub conscious ideas that can manifest themselves into conditioned behaviors. This can be related to self awareness. Not everyone is completely aware of why they think or believe certain things as true, and thus the basis is unknown to them, but had clear influence in shaping their perspective and so basis can not be ignored when evaluating perspective.
You could use a separate category for this, perhaps Communication or Articulation, or perhaps incorporate it into Translation.
rattymat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th-December-2011, 05:54 PM   #74
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Understanding - translation comments

Excellent observation rattymat. I hadn't quite thought of that. Translating another's perspective means being aware of one's own. If, in the pursuit of what is true or not, it comes as a surprise a perspective is always around, should we be surprised if we find there is a perspective on that perspective? I would think not. That's why I've posed translation from one perspective to another as a primary tool. Translation is how perspective can change. (An analogy is that of speed, a term from physics. Speed can change and such change merits an actual name. It is called, "acceleration.")

If you want to see examples of translation, last week I watched the film "A Clockwork Orange".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066921/reviews?start=20

If you take a look at a few reviews from IMDb I'm amazed at the diversity of the perspectives. Now with all those perspectives, how would one puzzle and gripe about the other guy's review as compared with one's own? This "puzzling and griping" is translation. Some reviews are pure perspective on the film; others are after reading another's review. They have influence and affect one. That has an aspect of translation. It's the same film. Yet the views are all so different and even own's own view changes over time. Therefore translation has something to say about how we change.

If you have more thoughts on translation it would be good to hear them.
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th-January-2012, 03:57 AM   #75
thatsummer
Member
 

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: TX
Posts: 121
windows_vistafirefox
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

I read your thread and most of the comments. I am having difficult understanding your understanding tools (haha, ironic). I read the triangle example, but I don't really get it. What exactly are we trying to understand? For instances, are we trying to quantify an attribute of the triangle? Or are we trying to come up with a consensus about the existence of the triangle and what the word means? I guess I am missing the definition of understanding. What are we trying to accomplish? I think once I get that I understand the rest of it.

I like rattymat's comment. I've thought about the use of words to translate our emotions or perspective. Some emotions universal, such as happy or sad. These words in the dictionary.

Other emotions are only common among a group of people or language. For instance I speak semi-fluent Vietnamese. In the Vietnamese language there are like 50+ titles (like Mr, Mrs, Ms, Sir, ect.). They all describe your relationship with that person and all signify a level of respect. In the Vietnamese culture there is a lot respect shown to elders and their family. It is a bit ridiculous. I think you can tell a lot about a culture by how their language is set up. Another example, in Vietnamese there are a bunch of words that mean embarrassment/shame. Each of the words refer to a different type and varying degrees of shame.

Lastly there are emotions that are very specific to an individual or group. This is where things like poetry, music, and art can be used as a form of self expression.
thatsummer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th-January-2012, 03:17 PM   #76
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Basic Definitions, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thatsummer View Post
I read your thread and most of the comments. I am having difficult understanding your understanding tools (haha, ironic). ... I guess I am missing the definition of understanding. What are we trying to accomplish? I think once I get that I understand the rest of it.

Other emotions are only common among a group of people or language. For instance I speak semi-fluent Vietnamese. In the Vietnamese language there are like 50+ titles (like Mr, Mrs, Ms, Sir, ect.). They all describe your relationship with that person and all signify a level of respect. In the Vietnamese culture there is a lot respect shown to elders and their family. It is a bit ridiculous. I think you can tell a lot about a culture by how their language is set up. Another example, in Vietnamese there are a bunch of words that mean embarrassment/shame. Each of the words refer to a different type and varying degrees of shame.
When I defined understanding as "the capacity to deal with things, I didn't look up that word in the dictionary. I just put into words what I had in mind . I don't recall defining "tools" at all, so your question is a good one. I will go back and see what I said about triangles and give a response later. First to some things in your post.

Apparently in the United States we have the titles your mention. When we meet strangers there are so few titles but those few seem to be adequate to the purpose. When we come closer (distance tool) we can add titles like Ph.D., M.D., Sanitary Engineer, etc. Apparently the U.S. falls short of the 50+ titles of the Vietnamese. Could that mean more distance in terms of family ties? Or as you said family respect is important in that culture. I suppose one could try to generalize and say, "the more words surrounding something, the more important that something is to that culture." Without being aware of it, the tool used would be analysis/context (hierarchy tool).

If we wish to understand something (be able to deal with it in various situations), we can go about it by trial and error and not be aware there are any tools. Nevertheless we are using SOME tools. Whether we call them by the names and meanings I have chosen or not, some vehicle is being used.

Definition: Tools are intermediate aids used by the understander to reach understanding. Now whenever we wish to understand (how to deal with something), we usually reach some practical state and then we stop. What I want to say is we can reach a greater fuller understanding by trying out all six tools. This is not likely to be the case when we are not aware all these tools are there. That is why I've implemented this thread. The six tools are conceptual aids in getting from here to there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thatsummer View Post
I read the triangle example, but I don't really get it. What exactly are we trying to understand? For instances, are we trying to quantify an attribute of the triangle? Or are we trying to come up with a consensus about the existence of the triangle and what the word means? I guess I am missing the definition of understanding. What are we trying to accomplish? I think once I get that I understand the rest of it.
Now to the triangles you asked me about:
Six Tools Genesis - Triangle...

Your questions are valid ones. I reread what I wrote about triangles. It fails to provide any definitive understanding of triangles. Instead it tries to make statements about applying those six tools to triangles. It is more about understanding the six tools than it is about triangles.

I should rewrite it all for more clarity. As I read it, it is saying something especially about tool #6: hierarchy. This is such a voluminous concept it needs a few pages of elaboration to explain what I'm after.

Reading it again, in the back of my mind the hierarchy tool was not about triangles at all. It was about trying to go after the nature of complex systems. Are they complex because they are interlocked in random or arbitrary ways, or are they complex because these "levels" can be organized in multiple ways? Is there a good way to organize complex systems? What have others written about this? I have not looked hard enough and am not sure where to look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th-January-2012, 03:47 PM   #77
thatsummer
Member
 

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: TX
Posts: 121
windows_98_nt_2000firefox
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

I see what you're saying. Understanding doesnt necessarily have a defined purpose. Understanding is about forming a mental image of an object or system. To achieve full understanding you should use all these tools.

Lets try applying these tools to another example. How about kinematics?
thatsummer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th-January-2012, 07:32 PM   #78
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default UMS, kinematics example

Quote:
Originally Posted by thatsummer View Post
I see what you're saying. Understanding doesnt necessarily have a defined purpose. Understanding is about forming a mental image of an object or system. To achieve full understanding you should use all these tools.

Lets try applying these tools to another example. How about kinematics?
Kinematics is a good example, thatsummer, to inquire as to what the value of these tools is. If most people were to try to deliberately understand kinematics, the one tool they would favor far and away above any other would be analysis (part of hierarchy). They wouldn't even think of it as a tool. They would just hop in. They might take a physics course in kinematics, look up the word in the dictionary ... in fact I just looked it up. "The study of kinematics is often referred to as the geometry of motion" Wikipedia says.

Tool hierarchy. Wikipedia would provide some details to begin analysis. A university course would give lots of details. There would be any number of analytical techniques. Each teacher or professor would pick their own. To move to the other end of hierarchy, there would context. Kinematics could be observed in an academic atmosphere, in a science lab, by a child at play, by astronomical observation, at a pool table, by flow in a home town flood. A higher level of context could be, would kinematics be part of a general physics course or specific at a graduate level? Or would the faculty even provide for such a course?

Tool perspective. Who is observing? An academic? A student? What about those who don't care? Kinematics as a topic is experienced by children and involuntarily by those who have no intellectual interest at all. If kinematics were to be a research area, it might not get funding by those who have no close perspective.

Tool distance. I just mentioned research. Those close would be interested; those distant would not. That makes a great deal of difference in this case. One could study that as a topic all by itself. One could say everyone is extremely close and involved in kinematics yet distant consciously.

Tool motion. This tool happens to be all about motion, but I was thinking about a more generalized meaning of tool. Motion as a tool means addressing the topic as a whole. In the case of research, are we moving toward more research or less? Are we doing homework on this or not? If this were cancer research the example would be more clear.

Tool fuzziness. Speaking of clarity, those who fail to define kinematics wouldn't see it clearly. It would make a difference as to how we would study asteroid impact or skill at skateboarding. That makes a difference to how to handle it or even whether it is recognized for its very existence.

Tool translation. Non-technical people can take an interest. There is academic study and popular translation. Kinematics can be translated into mathematics which provides a far different perspective than popularization. There is basic mechanics (kinematics at "rest") and advanced refined mathematics yet to even be created.

Another area of interest is, how are these tools all mixed up with or related to each other? This is yet to be explored.

Last edited by BigApplePi; 17th-January-2012 at 07:33 PM. Reason: Title
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th-January-2012, 01:36 AM   #79
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default UMS - about fuzziness

A22. Late reply. Below you mention two tools, distance and fuzziness. These are not the same. The intention was to make all six tools different and for the most part, independent. I should explain how this difference comes about in a future post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A22 View Post
So, the further away a POV is from the thing itself, the more fuzzied it is?
No. Fuzziness can be experienced at ANY distance. One can be far away and see something clearly as when one looks out at the moon. You may not know what it is you see, but what you see is clear. One can be close up and see things as blurry if you are farsighted and are missing your glasses.

Is this explanation more clear, i.e. less fuzzy?
Quote:
How can you tell if a POV is more distant from the thing itself than others?
You can't. You have to go out and measure. You start with some standard of measurement and make a comparison.
Quote:
So, how can you determine fuzziness?
It can be an intuitive psychological state. It can be, as above, a failure to match up the object with another object. There is no standard for fuzziness unless you define standards. I can say, "I measured this object and its size is between eleven and thirteen inches. That is either fuzzy or precise depending on how you wish to use the object.
...
Quote:
You can't possibly know if your idea of something is the "perfect" idea of the thing, if it's the thing as it really is. As you said on a previously post, there is a relation between the observer and the observed, so what you have is just a POV. But how can you determine what the "real thing" is, so you can determine fuzziness or whatever?
What about making multiple observations, comparing them and letting them settle in? That's the scientific method. You decide on the object, come up with a way of observing it, make a few observations, have others check it out, and compare. If you begin to be able to predict, you have removed fuzziness. A more concise way of saying it is, you have "zeroed in on the object."

I think of this example. Suppose you want to know if your girlfriend loves you. You can pick a flower and pull the petals: "She loves me, she loves me not, she loves me, she loves me not." You will get the right answer 50 percent of the time. Another method is to ask her. But that is subject to her own subjective opinion. Still another method is to be with her for an extended period of time and see how positive her attitude is for you over many experiences.

On the other hand you may have something else in mind to which this does not easily apply.
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th-February-2012, 01:03 AM   #80
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Tool Derivation - UMS

Here is an attempt at a natural derivation for the six tools, starting with the object to be understood and progressing toword the one who observes:

1. Hierarchy tool = context + analysis. The object exists in some location. It is examined by looking at its parts and pieces.

2. Fuzziness tool. Both locations and parts can't be sensed perfectly.

3. Motion tool. The observed and the observer can't be held perfectly still.

4. Distance tool. There is always a separation between observer and observed to be noted.

5. Perspective tool. The observer observes the observed from the observers angle defined by the observers own location.

6. Translation tool. The observers angle of the observed is not unique meaning a comparison is available.
==============================

Derivation reversed starting with the observer.

1. Translation tool. The observer in wishing to understand realizes they have yet to do so. There is an assumption of defining an object to be understood and a changing progression in getting there.

2. Perspective tool. The observer realizes his understanding of the object depends on where he is located.

3. Distance tool. The object of his understanding is separated from him by a certain amount.

4. Motion tool. Both he and the object of his understanding are not perfectly fixed.

5. Fuzziness tool. He will never be able to observe with perfect clarity.

6. Hierarchy tool. The object to be observed lies within a location which in turn lies within a larger location. The object observed to be understood must be examined as to its content which is to be broken into parts each part of which can be broken into more parts.
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th-February-2012, 10:57 PM   #81
SteelEye
Redshirt
 
SteelEye's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Eastern Standard Time
Posts: 28
windows_98_nt_2000firefox
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

Well, this framework for understanding is coming along well enough to get me interested enough to actually post; I congratulate you on having the perseverance to stick with such a large project!

I find your hierarchy tool remarkably interesting, as it not only seems to contain both context and analysis (the approach most people seem most predisposed to using), but also appears to be the most applicable in understanding your tools themselves! You've recently set up your tools in their own form of hierarchy, going from most applicable to the observer to most applicable to the observed, or vice versa, making the relationship between the tools more easily observed.

So far you seem to have used your hierarchy tool to break down understanding into these 6 basic tools. I'm now curious if these are indeed the most basic tools we can practically use, and if so, what the most common combinations of your tools are.

Have you considered breaking hierarchy up into the separate tools "context" and "analysis"? I understand that such a split would lose the obvious grouping effect you get with "hierarchy" though... As if even though hierarchy is made up of "context" and "analysis", it has its own emergent properties when the two sub-tools are used together. However, I cannot see any reason why the two must always be used together, and must wonder if we could get other benefits from using them separately.

This also makes me wonder if other emergent qualities would appear from using the other 5 basic tools in varying combinations. (I should think so) Perhaps that would be worthwhile to try to map out? Perhaps the best place to start with that would just be examples. (different perspectives anyone?) I'll throw these tools at some basic phenomena and let you know if I get anything interesting back!
SteelEye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th-February-2012, 11:01 PM   #82
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

There are three components to understanding:
(1) The one who understands or not
(2) The thing to be understood
(3) Their relationship

We know there are sixteen temperaments. I'll bet each understands in a different way ... their own way.

What about the things to be understood? How can they be classified into categories? I'm thinking broad categories?
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th-February-2012, 12:50 AM   #83
SteelEye
Redshirt
 
SteelEye's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Eastern Standard Time
Posts: 28
windows_98_nt_2000firefox
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

Hmm, you could classify them as per their level of abstraction... Let me take a stab: (My system could include the relationship between the observer and the observed as a thing to be observed itself, or it could just include the relationship between different observed things; I'm not sure...)

1. Starting with physical materials such as plastic, metals, wood, etc.
2. Followed by conceptualized objects, such as chairs, beds, trees, etc.
3. Followed by conceptualized groups of objects, such as furniture, toiletries, forests, etc.
4. Followed by ideas pertaining to conceptualized objects or groups of objects, such as sitting, sleeping, building, deforesting, etc. (a lot of change involved here)
5. Followed by ideas pertaining to other ideas, such as exhaustion, sleepiness, hunger, pollution, etc. (a lot of stuff prompting change involved here)
6. Followed by ideas pertaining to the relationship between (or grouping of) ideas, such as actions, feelings, approaches, etc. (a lot of what we use to interpret causes of change involved here)
7. Followed by ideas about the nature of ideas themselves, such as thoughts, beliefs, understanding, etc. (ideas would fit in this final level of abstraction as well) (a lot of what INTP's spend their time on involved here)
8. Finally, it seems like we are trying to create another level altogether, with ideas about how to understand understanding itself.

(This was rather thrown together, so mistakes are likely prevalent and improvements are likely needed, but I hope you get the gist.)

A HYPOTHESIS: "To fully understand any one level, we have to use concepts that are one level more abstract."

It becomes much easier to use more abstract concepts as you understand them better, this requires us to dabble in trying to understand still more abstract levels, however. Here we are now, trying to understand the most abstract level I can conceive of, and we are stuck without any more abstract levels to help us out. (If one of you guys could come up with one, or just help the system in general, I would greatly appreciate it!)
So we seem to be trying to break down what we are trying to understand into a lower level (making it into what we can visualize as different "tools") (the remarkable power of hierarchy at work again), but does this detract from the full picture of what we are studying: understanding itself? Could we be failing to understand some emergent property from when all the tools are combined?

As to the different styles of understanding for the different personality types... I don't yet have a grasp on understanding, I doubt that getting a grasp on how understanding changes from person to person is very likely at this stage... Although that is sure to be fascinating to study in the future!
__________________
"The quantity of human intelligence in the universe is a constant; the population is just increasing exponentially." ~Anonymous
SteelEye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th-February-2012, 01:20 PM   #84
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

SteelEye I wrote the below and then had to leave before I could post it. Your categories are a great start. I have more in mind but will look at yours first, but not in this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelEye View Post
I find your hierarchy tool remarkably interesting, as it not only seems to contain both context and analysis (the approach most people seem most predisposed to using)
Indeed those are the most common tools consciously used to understand, analysis being THE most deliberate. It's the existence of the other four tools that lie behind my making this thread because they are so overlooked. Without the existence of the other four tools, this theme would not be necessary.

Quote:
You've recently set up your tools in their own form of hierarchy, going from most applicable to the observer to most applicable to the observed, or vice versa, making the relationship between the tools more easily observed.
I did that in the interest of understanding the genesis of the tools themselves. I didn't think of them as forming a hierarchy though, but rather they formed a linear arrangement along the line you mentioned.

Quote:
So far you seem to have used your hierarchy tool to break down understanding into these 6 basic tools. I'm now curious if these are indeed the most basic tools we can practically use, and if so, what the most common combinations of your tools are.
Good point. As to these tools being basic, what about "logic" itself? Logic is a tool. I don't include that because I'm treating understanding. Understanding is a psychological state. Logic exists outside or rather beyond human understanding. At least that's my thought just now.
Quote:
Have you considered breaking hierarchy up into the separate tools "context" and "analysis"? I understand that such a split would lose the obvious grouping effect you get with "hierarchy" though... As if even though hierarchy is made up of "context" and "analysis", it has its own emergent properties when the two sub-tools are used together. However, I cannot see any reason why the two must always be used together, and must wonder if we could get other benefits from using them separately.
That is a point. Analysis is an almost mandatory tool once we have the topic in mind. Context is almost incidental and taken for granted. People tend to take the context for granted once the topic is chosen. They fail to observe their object can have many contexts, each affecting the object. It might be on interest to generalize when the context tool proves useful and when it is not. Yes context and analysis can be separated as per the above comments. However it is important to note that from a still higher level or more distance view, they are one and the same in structure. They belong together.

Later: It is often desirable to "understand" one's loved one. Yet analysis is not the first tool that comes to mind. Instead it's context, believe it or not!
Quote:
This also makes me wonder if other emergent qualities would appear from using the other 5 basic tools in varying combinations. (I should think so) Perhaps that would be worthwhile to try to map out?
Yes indeed!

Quote:
Perhaps the best place to start with that would just be examples. (different perspectives anyone?) I'll throw these tools at some basic phenomena and let you know if I get anything interesting back!
Examples would be most helpful. I have some in mind but so far have found no natural way to introduce them. It is from examples that an expansion of this thread is promised. [Written before I saw your post with actual examples.]

Last edited by BigApplePi; 10th-February-2012 at 01:41 PM. Reason: None
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th-February-2012, 03:07 PM   #85
SteelEye
Redshirt
 
SteelEye's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Eastern Standard Time
Posts: 28
windows_98_nt_2000firefox
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

I'm still mulling over your last post. I find myself agreeing that analysis and context work best together, but I still find myself specifically stating when context is explicitly used, since it is so rarely explicitly used...

In an attempt at finding examples of the tools in action, I decided to take a look at the profession which would seem most concerned with getting people to understand something: teachers.

What makes the ideal teacher?
Spoiler:
I believe most would say that good teachers primarily require professionalism in their topic and the ability to effectively communicate. In our terms, these requirements would be a developed perspective (sufficiently large, possibly from incorporating the perspectives of "professionals") and trained use of translation (or perhaps better wording: the capability of triggering others to efficiently utilize translation; which requires that one be able to utilize translation themselves). Naturally, if one has a developed perspective, it is likely BECAUSE they were good at translation, since most things that are taught were originally learned from someone else (especially in today's academic world).

The question is: Is this all that is necessary to being a good teacher?
I suppose there is no inherent reason that a math teacher needs to know the context of how math is used in the real world in order to effectively teach math, but some students seem to prefer that approach. After all, sticking to the context of only using math with equations and in an abstract setting seems to get the "learnee" stuck in only that context and perspective when trying to utilize math. (Thus the development of word problems and why many people find them more difficult despite actually being closer to everyday experience. They simply cannot make the "jump" or translation from the abstract perspective to the concrete.)
Something here connecting hierarchy, translation, and distance. Perhaps hierarchy has as much of an effect on translation as distance does?

This has led to an increase in the development of "critical thinking" courses, which attempt to teach translation (among many other things). I'm still researching critical thinking course techniques; will have to get back to you on this part.

Then you have the issue of distance; teachers are often close, with students far away from the subject. This has become worse since the inception of "core classes" for which the student has no inherent interest. This marked difference in distance makes translation from the student's perspective to the teacher's perspective, and vice versa, much more difficult if not nigh impossible. Teachers teaching in such a way that they would understand (if they had never encountered that particular material before) is simply not sufficient. Distance is often a problem with understanding.
As mentioned before though, could hierarchy be used to overcome the problem of distance? (by making better connections between the topic at hand and an interest of the observer/something closer to the observer?)

Motion makes everything more complicated... A method that would have worked in getting translation to happen with last year's students might not work now (the observer is moving). In addition, what one older teacher knows (or thinks) about a topic may be different from what a newer teacher knows, due to new discoveries in that topic (the observed is moving). This requires the student to do twice as much translating, learning two perspectives on the topic and incorporating those into his/her own perspective. A student rather lax in his translating may just take the first perspective thrown at him and ignore all others.
Not sure how one might overcome or utilize this.

Most teachers never even attempt to create a hierarchy extending outside of their topic (another issue with not knowing/not caring about the context I suppose). This leads to students not trying to analyze the topic from a perspective outside of the "box" the teacher has made. Then the "box" sits in the attic and is never properly incorporated into the hierarchy which might be called the "house". This is possibly what leads to a segmented worldview in which many contradictions exist within one's own perspective.
(Contradictions: the bane of the INTP)

Fuzziness is still fuzzy in this example...

Just an attempt at an example. You gotta start somewhere, right?

Questions for consideration: Is distance dependent on the hierarchy the observer is using when trying to understand the subject? Could we restructure any hierarchy in such a way as to reduce distance, and thus make understanding any particular subject easier? Would this be better or worse than using one general hierarchy (such as the one presented in my last post) for all subjects of study?

[As an afterthought, spoilered for length. Also, maybe I should shrink the moon a little bit...]
__________________
"The quantity of human intelligence in the universe is a constant; the population is just increasing exponentially." ~Anonymous
SteelEye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th-February-2012, 08:54 PM   #86
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

SteelEye. The levels given for what you numbered below don't take too seriously. I just dashed them off. What I want to point out is you mentioned "emergence." In real life one can start at any one of the eight. If one starts with 8., 8. is not emerged but here right now. 7. through 1. would be derivated via analysis. Depends on where one starts.

SteelEye -
1. Starting with physical materials such as plastic, metals, wood, etc.
These are components, manufactured and cut which make up 2. below.
BAP -
The value of these can be judged by distance, perspective.

2. Followed by conceptualized objects, such as chairs, beds, trees, etc.
A higher level with 1. lower.

3. Followed by conceptualized groups of objects, such as furniture, toiletries, forests, etc.
Forests are many things. Forests are organic, but perhaps source materials here.

4. Followed by ideas pertaining to conceptualized objects or groups of objects, such as sitting, sleeping, building, deforesting, etc. (a lot of change involved here)
A higher level operating (motion) on 3.

5. Followed by ideas pertaining to other ideas, such as exhaustion, sleepiness, hunger, pollution, etc. (a lot of stuff prompting change involved here)
A still higher level presenting a context for 4.

6. Followed by ideas pertaining to the relationship between (or grouping of) ideas, such as actions, feelings, approaches, etc. (a lot of what we use to interpret causes of change involved here)
A yet higher level of 5.

7. Followed by ideas about the nature of ideas themselves, such as thoughts, beliefs, understanding, etc. (ideas would fit in this final level of abstraction as well) (a lot of what INTP's spend their time on involved here)
Would unknown ideas go even higher?

8. Finally, it seems like we are trying to create another level altogether, with ideas about how to understand understanding itself.
The thing about hierarchy is it can be constructed in many ways. Understanding understanding need not be elevated so high though technically it could be. Understanding is merely a part of psychology or maybe philosophy.

Quote:
A HYPOTHESIS: "To fully understand any one level, we have to use concepts that are one level more abstract."
Yes a higher level helps understand but doesn't do it all.

Quote:
So we seem to be trying to break down what we are trying to understand into a lower level (making it into what we can visualize as different "tools") (the remarkable power of hierarchy at work again), but does this detract from the full picture of what we are studying: understanding itself? Could we be failing to understand some emergent property from when all the tools are combined?
If you are talking about understanding the full picture, that is a meaningful issue. Not that we can ever totally understand the full picture, but if we are able to go up and down the hierarchy chain with a modest facility and able to see the picture whole, we then have a good handle on understanding.
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th-February-2012, 09:27 PM   #87
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Teacher example - UMS

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelEye View Post
What makes the ideal teacher?
I believe most would say that good teachers primarily require professionalism in their topic and the ability to effectively communicate. In our terms, these requirements would be a developed perspective (sufficiently large, possibly from incorporating the perspectives of "professionals") and trained use of translation (or perhaps better wording: the capability of triggering others to efficiently utilize translation; which requires that one be able to utilize translation themselves). Naturally, if one has a developed perspective, it is likely BECAUSE they were good at translation, since most things that are taught were originally learned from someone else (especially in today's academic world).

The question is: Is this all that is necessary to being a good teacher?
I suppose there is no inherent reason that a math teacher needs to know the context of how math is used in the real world in order to effectively teach math, but some students seem to prefer that approach. After all, sticking to the context of only using math with equations and in an abstract setting seems to get the "learnee" stuck in only that context and perspective when trying to utilize math. (Thus the development of word problems and why many people find them more difficult despite actually being closer to everyday experience. They simply cannot make the "jump" or translation from the abstract perspective to the concrete.)
Something here connecting hierarchy, translation, and distance. Perhaps hierarchy has as much of an effect on translation as distance does?

This has led to an increase in the development of "critical thinking" courses, which attempt to teach translation (among many other things). I'm still researching critical thinking course techniques; will have to get back to you on this part.

Then you have the issue of distance; teachers are often close, with students far away from the subject. This has become worse since the inception of "core classes" for which the student has no inherent interest. This marked difference in distance makes translation from the student's perspective to the teacher's perspective, and vice versa, much more difficult if not nigh impossible. Teachers teaching in such a way that they would understand (if they had never encountered that particular material before) is simply not sufficient. Distance is often a problem with understanding.
As mentioned before though, could hierarchy be used to overcome the problem of distance? (by making better connections between the topic at hand and an interest of the observer/something closer to the observer?)

Motion makes everything more complicated... A method that would have worked in getting translation to happen with last year's students might not work now (the observer is moving). In addition, what one older teacher knows (or thinks) about a topic may be different from what a newer teacher knows, due to new discoveries in that topic (the observed is moving). This requires the student to do twice as much translating, learning two perspectives on the topic and incorporating those into his/her own perspective. A student rather lax in his translating may just take the first perspective thrown at him and ignore all others.
Not sure how one might overcome or utilize this.

Most teachers never even attempt to create a hierarchy extending outside of their topic (another issue with not knowing/not caring about the context I suppose). This leads to students not trying to analyze the topic from a perspective outside of the "box" the teacher has made. Then the "box" sits in the attic and is never properly incorporated into the hierarchy which might be called the "house". This is possibly what leads to a segmented worldview in which many contradictions exist within one's own perspective.
(Contradictions: the bane of the INTP)

Fuzziness is still fuzzy in this example...

Just an attempt at an example. You gotta start somewhere, right?
This is an emergent example and an excellent one to illustrate the tools I didn't expect, lol.

A good teacher knows the topic and knows the audience to which the topic is directed. The relationship matters also. It is best when interactive because interactivity gives feedback which provides for adjustments.

Random thoughts:

TRANSLATION - Absolutely. The teacher has a far more sophisticated PERSPECTIVE on the topic than the student. TRANSLATION is the action thing here.

MOTION - There is a back-and-forth interaction. A pure lecture is like a dump. Can't tell the results unless a test is given. But the test itself is only a motivator. It doesn't help that much in learning. Presentation counts. Presentation affects student motivation, not just the hard topic.

DISTANCE - Initially there is a distance between teacher and student. The task is to bridge this gap. The student may be far removed from the topic, not knowing what it is for. Do students accept on trust or are they told the topic's value?

FUZZINESS - Without interaction, the relationship of the students and teacher is not clear at all. (Notice how I didn't address the nature of the topic taught. The topic of this message is teaching.

HIERARCHY - Not emphasized in this message. Is that okay?

Later: Context of school board, the curriculum for manditory coverage demanded does matter.
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th-February-2012, 01:36 AM   #88
SteelEye
Redshirt
 
SteelEye's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Eastern Standard Time
Posts: 28
windows_98_nt_2000firefox
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigApplePi View Post
A good teacher knows the topic and knows the audience to which the topic is directed. The relationship matters also. It is best when interactive because interactivity gives feedback which provides for adjustments.
Ah, I was focusing on the relationship between the teacher and topic being taught, as well as the student and the topic being taught. I realize now that I generally disregarded the relationship between the teacher and the student. It gives new perspective.

A possible relationship:
It seems that the smaller the distance between two different perspectives, the more readily translation can be applied to get from one perspective to another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigApplePi View Post
The thing about hierarchy is it can be constructed in many ways. Understanding understanding need not be elevated so high though technically it could be. Understanding is merely a part of psychology or maybe philosophy.
I think I would agree that recognizing different possible orderings of hierarchies could prove extremely beneficial. That solves most of my questions at the end of my last post.

I'm playing around now with the idea of changing the hierarchy used in understanding a system (or just changing what level we are at in the hierarchy) to "shorten" the distance between two different perspectives.
To try to put it more practically: trigger student interest by fitting a subject (or perspective) into a prominent place in (or near) the student's existing hierarchy (requires that you know a decent bit about the student). This would cause the student to come up with the importance of the topic on his/her own, and effectively reduce distance. Teaching kinematics to a skateboarder vice an astronomer requires approaching with a different hierarchy or context.
Also, trying to look at things through another person's eyes (using their hierarchy for a moment) does wonders for understanding their perspective, believe it or not!

I still must wonder if acquiring a perspective (or understanding) within a specific hierarchy precludes one from being able to view that subject in an entirely different hierarchy (context). Similar to my theory as to the modern difficulties with math word problems:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelEye View Post
After all, sticking to the context of only using math with equations and in an abstract setting seems to get the "learnee" stuck in only that context and perspective when trying to utilize math. (Thus the development of word problems and why many people find them more difficult despite actually being closer to everyday experience. They simply cannot make the "jump" or translation from the abstract perspective to the concrete.)
How do we get people to use different hierarchies (contexts) when trying to understand different things, and to use different hierarchies even when trying to understand the same thing more deeply?

I'm starting to realize that motion is likely the most effective key to reducing distance and improving translation, however. Have two perspectives interact enough and they will start to get the gist of what the other looks like. Interactivity is paramount, as you said. That takes time though, and I want QUANTUM LEAPS OF UNDERSTANDING!

I feel like I keep seeing glimpses of fuzziness in places...but cannot pin it down. Perhaps a more exhaustive definition of fuzziness is in order. (aka, I probably don't understand the term.)
__________________
"The quantity of human intelligence in the universe is a constant; the population is just increasing exponentially." ~Anonymous
SteelEye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th-February-2012, 05:55 PM   #89
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

[quote=SteelEye;274050]
Quote:
A possible relationship:
It seems that the smaller the distance between two different perspectives, the more readily translation can be applied to get from one perspective to another.
I think that a good fit to what was intended. Distance is a measure of separation. A small distance implies we can move from one perspective to another. That doesn't mean there can't be some sort of barrier between. That would mean a short distance as the crow flies but a long one if one has to make an end run around the barrier.

Quote:
I'm playing around now with the idea of changing the hierarchy used in understanding a system (or just changing what level we are at in the hierarchy) to "shorten" the distance between two different perspectives.
A noble cause. Note that shortening the distance between two hierarchies, would mean examining what is involved. This examination would present a new hierarchy possibly not related to the original hierarchies. This thought I find not concrete enough (too abstract), for me at least, to formulate any hypothesis. It would help to have a concrete example just to make some start.

Quote:
To try to put it more practically: trigger student interest by fitting a subject (or perspective) into a prominent place in (or near) the student's existing hierarchy (requires that you know a decent bit about the student). This would cause the student to come up with the importance of the topic on his/her own, and effectively reduce distance. Teaching kinematics to a skateboarder vice an astronomer requires approaching with a different hierarchy or context.
Also, trying to look at things through another person's eyes (using their hierarchy for a moment) does wonders for understanding their perspective, believe it or not!
Sounds good. Note that teaching one-on-one would be different than teaching to a class. One would have to get a feel for where the class members are at in some general way.

Quote:
I still must wonder if acquiring a perspective (or understanding) within a specific hierarchy precludes one from being able to view that subject in an entirely different hierarchy (context). Similar to my theory as to the modern difficulties with math word problems:

How do we get people to use different hierarchies (contexts) when trying to understand different things, and to use different hierarchies even when trying to understand the same thing more deeply?

I'm starting to realize that motion is likely the most effective key to reducing distance and improving translation, however. Have two perspectives interact enough and they will start to get the gist of what the other looks like. Interactivity is paramount, as you said. That takes time though, and I want QUANTUM LEAPS OF UNDERSTANDING!
Although speaking of different hierarchies here is technically the correct term (because we are talking about tools of understanding, there may be a more commonly applicable term: object or topic to be understood. Or just topic.

A math word problem is not the same as a math symbol problem. True, translation is required, but if the topic is a math word problem, words become the problem. One must know the meanings of those words and their sentences. To know that requires experience. If a liquid is pouring into a leaking vat, one must be able to visualize that. Less logic and more experience. Experience is the human factor.
Quote:
I feel like I keep seeing glimpses of fuzziness in places...but cannot pin it down. Perhaps a more exhaustive definition of fuzziness is in order. (aka, I probably don't understand the term.)
Yes the human factor is fuzzy. If you are not clear on this whole ball of wax being discussed, that is fuzziness. Now how to define fuzziness? How about we know we have a topic, but when we try to address it is lacks boundaries? Fuzziness is when we don't know if we are inside or outside where we want to be. I regard this as a major tool in understanding. That is, we know what we do and don't understand.
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th-February-2012, 02:58 PM   #90
SteelEye
Redshirt
 
SteelEye's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Eastern Standard Time
Posts: 28
windows_98_nt_2000firefox
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigApplePi View Post
A small distance implies we can move from one perspective to another. That doesn't mean there can't be some sort of barrier between. That would mean a short distance as the crow flies but a long one if one has to make an end run around the barrier.
Interesting thought with the barrier...any idea what would constitute or create a barrier between two perspectives? (Are you thinking different cultures, different religion, or am I missing it altogether?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigApplePi View Post
A noble cause. Note that shortening the distance between two hierarchies, would mean examining what is involved. This examination would present a new hierarchy possibly not related to the original hierarchies. This thought I find not concrete enough (too abstract), for me at least, to formulate any hypothesis. It would help to have a concrete example just to make some start.
I tried using the student example as a somewhat concrete example, but I suppose it was still too vague. My goal here in studying the relationships between common hierarchies would be to work out if there is some recurring pattern in their relationships, but I suppose that is a good deal of work and study not really related to this thread. Maybe I'll start a thread relating to that when I have something more concrete; assuming I come up with ANY recurring pattern at all (which is not certain when it comes to human thought patterns...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigApplePi View Post
Sounds good. Note that teaching one-on-one would be different than teaching to a class. One would have to get a feel for where the class members are at in some general way.
I agree, taking this approach would be much more difficult with a class, if not flat-out impractical. I switched to thinking of one-on-one benefits simply because I rarely have the opportunity of "teaching" a class.
Hmm...personal experience shaping the context I presumed...perhaps if common personal experiences can be identified, common characteristics of the commonly used hierarchies can be noted. Finding similarities is the first step in finding relationships. *writes in a mental notebook* *erases most of the "common" in the mental notebook but ignores them in the actual post*

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigApplePi View Post
Although speaking of different hierarchies here is technically the correct term (because we are talking about tools of understanding, there may be a more commonly applicable term: object or topic to be understood. Or just topic.
Yes, I was using "different hierarchies" to basically mean "topics in different contexts". Since I was emphasizing the context of the topic more than the topic itself, and since "hierarchy" became a common term in this thread, I stuck with just repeatedly using "hierarchies". I think I see your point though, I should avoid overusing the words associated with the tools since that will rapidly lead to watering down their meaning and effect. I'll stick with using the already watered-down words (like object and topic) when possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigApplePi View Post
Experience is the human factor.
Ah, you seems to have actually beaten me to that revelation earlier in my post...and were more concise in writing it... *cites BAP in his mental notebook*

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigApplePi View Post
Yes the human factor is fuzzy. If you are not clear on this whole ball of wax being discussed, that is fuzziness. Now how to define fuzziness? How about we know we have a topic, but when we try to address it is lacks boundaries? Fuzziness is when we don't know if we are inside or outside where we want to be. I regard this as a major tool in understanding. That is, we know what we do and don't understand.
Ah, so fuzziness is that thing you get every time you see something new, and it won't go away until you just sit still and stare at the new idea for a few hours. Then you look away for a moment, confident you understood the idea pretty well. Once you look back, the fuzziness is there again. (Really, I don't think it ever left, we just get sleep deprived and think the fuzziness is the idea itself.)
Actually, the best example of fuzziness I can come up with is this very thread. We have done a wonderfully poor job of precisely defining our ideas...especially me and my abstract tendencies.

Oh, and thanks, now you've got me addicted to quoting...
5 posts here, and I'm addicted to quoting already...either you're really good, I was prone to quote-addiction to begin with, or I drop my barrier of individuality far too easily around here. *ignore the derailer, it is just to document when I became quote-addicted, for future reference*
__________________
"The quantity of human intelligence in the universe is a constant; the population is just increasing exponentially." ~Anonymous
SteelEye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th-February-2012, 02:57 AM   #91
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelEye View Post
Interesting thought with the barrier...any idea what would constitute or create a barrier between two perspectives? (Are you thinking different cultures, different religion, or am I missing it altogether?)
I didn't have anything in mind but I'll bet there could be a barrier between any two perspectives anytime. Israel's perspective on the United States is not the same as Afghanistan's. Try translating that! Islam's perspective on God is probably pretty close to a Christian's but sometimes they will talk to each other and sometimes not. There is a thread going on this forum about being INTP versus INTJ. People have quite different perspectives in this. What is the barrier for agreement? Well lots: knowing cognitive functions. Knowing how to interpret oneself. Knowing how to interpret the other guy.

Quote:
I tried using the student example as a somewhat concrete example, but I suppose it was still too vague. My goal here in studying the relationships between common hierarchies would be to work out if there is some recurring pattern in their relationships, but I suppose that is a good deal of work and study not really related to this thread. Maybe I'll start a thread relating to that when I have something more concrete; assuming I come up with ANY recurring pattern at all (which is not certain when it comes to human thought patterns...)
Sure. Anytime you come up with a concrete student example ... You could try out one here or anywhere and and state where you'd like to see common patterns. It wouldn't be necessary to start with a solution ... there should be INTPs around this forum to look ...

Quote:
I agree, taking this approach would be much more difficult with a class, if not flat-out impractical. I switched to thinking of one-on-one benefits simply because I rarely have the opportunity of "teaching" a class.
Hmm...personal experience shaping the context I presumed...perhaps if common personal experiences can be identified, common characteristics of the commonly used hierarchies can be noted. Finding similarities is the first step in finding relationships. *writes in a mental notebook* *erases most of the "common" in the mental notebook but ignores them in the actual post*
Quote:
Yes, I was using "different hierarchies" to basically mean "topics in different contexts". Since I was emphasizing the context of the topic more than the topic itself, and since "hierarchy" became a common term in this thread, I stuck with just repeatedly using "hierarchies". I think I see your point though, I should avoid overusing the words associated with the tools since that will rapidly lead to watering down their meaning and effect. I'll stick with using the already watered-down words (like object and topic) when possible.
Not a big deal.
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd-May-2012, 10:37 PM   #92
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default UMS-Dimensionality

Understanding is a human endeavor. There are a limited number of dimensions to understanding, all different; all are necessary in some form. When we seek to understand something, there is the viewer, the acknowledgement there is a viewer, a distance to what is viewed, an acknowledgment of instability, an impossibility to reach perfection, a tearing apart of the whole, a positioning of the whole. None of these can be existentially avoided; all must be recognized if understanding is to be maximal.

There is the viewer. This is called PERSPECTIVE.

The acknowledgement there is a viewer. This is called TRANSLATION.

A distance to what is viewed. Simply DISTANCE.

Acknowledgment of instability. This is called MOTION.

An impossibility to reach perfection. This is called FUZZINESS.

A tearing apart of the whole (ANALYSIS); a positioning of the whole (CONTEXT). Together these two form a HIERARCHY structure.
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th-July-2012, 05:18 PM   #93
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Complexity Examples

One astonishing thing about levels in a hierarchy is understanding the highest level even when each and every level is about the same thing. Understanding can still be uncovered even for the most complex level. Here primitive brain functioning is partially explained.

Another example is that of chess where every level refers to playing ability. If we call level 1 as looking one move ahead and level 2 as two moves ahead, what about the chess grandmaster? It is said they look only one move ahead (not true) but it is the right move! How do they do that? They see patterns. Those patterns must represent very high levels. This level is very different from seeing one or two moves ahead. They see patterns found by recalling games and strategies of thousands of recorded games in addition to their own theories.
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st-July-2012, 04:50 PM   #94
Da Blob
Banned
 

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 5,949
macossafari
Default Re: UMS-Dimensionality

[QUOTE=BigApplePi;292109]Understanding is a human endeavor. There are a limited number of dimensions to understanding, all different; all are necessary in some form. When we seek to understand something, there is the viewer, the acknowledgement there is a viewer, a distance to what is viewed, an acknowledgment of instability, an impossibility to reach perfection, a tearing apart of the whole, a positioning of the whole. None of these can be existentially avoided; all must be recognized if understanding is to be maximal.

It is interesting to note the relationship between understanding and language

There is the viewer. This is called PERSPECTIVE. (indirect object, passive tense)

The acknowledgement there is a viewer. This is called TRANSLATION. (direct object, active tense)

A distance to what is viewed. Simply DISTANCE. (participle/relationship)

Acknowledgment of instability. This is called MOTION. (Verb)

An impossibility to reach perfection. This is called FUZZINESS. (adjectives and adverbs)

A tearing apart of the whole (ANALYSIS);
Sentence diagram

a positioning of the whole (CONTEXT).
relationship of sentence to paragraph




Hierarchies are often seen as pyramids. what is perhaps lost though in the 2D modeling of a 4D pyramid as a mere triangle is the range of POVs made possible by the 4D pyramid. One could view the pyramid from a distance or one could view the distance From the pyramid. As one progresses up the pyramid, at each level one can see more and more of the distance, see farther/see more.

I once had a dream where within I was following a band of pilgrims. I saw them beginning to ascend this boringly steep grey mountain. I assumed that at the top there was some boring altar or monument of interest to those pilgrims so I ceased following them.
Later I was shown what was atop that boring mountain, it was not a boring altar - but rather a spectacular view sought by the pilgrims. Things can look quite different if viewed from the inside or the outside, from above or below, from 'I' or 'Me'
Attached Thumbnails
800px-Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg.jpg  
Da Blob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th-August-2012, 08:01 PM   #95
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default FUZZINESS - MBTI example

Here is an entire thread devoted to seeking out clarity of temperament in the face of two aspects of fuzziness.

(1) Who one is
(2) Temperament definition

The poster, snafupants inquires, "I would like to know your impression of my type and hierarchy of cognitive functions based on this post and other posts stringing back nearly two years."
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th-August-2012, 05:56 PM   #96
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Hierarchy Formation

A guiding principle as to how hierarchies are formed remains to be seen: their nature, construction, evolution, devolution.

When something is taken apart (one level down) the method thereof can be either random or according to some guiding (formal or informal) principle. The behavior of the parts need have no visible relation to the behavior of the whole. When things are combined together (created a higher level), the method of construction can be either random or according to some guiding (formal or informal) principle. The behavior of the construction need have no visible relation to the behavior of the parts.

This is not the case with fractal systems where the behavior at every level appears to be the same. We can look for some guiding principle, not for the components themselves but rather for the construction itself. Growth (animal or plant) is a good example of a guiding principle. Another fractal example is the structure of coastlines, but what is the principle? What are the principles in general for non-growth systems or are they arbitrary? Notice that growth has its limits and the fractal characteristics break down when something external limits growth. An example is villages, towns, cities, megalopolises, countries, earth population.

Here is a reference to some fractal discourses but they are not grounded enough for me to get an intuitive feel. Reminds me of popular works on nuclear physics.

A hierarchy need not be formal as with letters, words, sentences, paragraphs or many other constructed organizations. Hierarchies may occur naturally as with crowds of people, when groups, leaders, or bystanders form, or as in thinking with the formation of ideas where it is not clear what structures are formed and what competing levels may exist. I'm sure much has been written about this (think about any invention or the creation of life itself). It just has not been called "hierarchy."
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th-September-2012, 01:12 PM   #97
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Re: Subjective and Objective PERSPECTIVE

Quote:
Originally Posted by Words View Post
I argued against it by questioning what if one participant claimed to be perceiving the statue at a certain angle but was actually looking at a different object or a non-object, how can you not deny that perspective? What if a perspective is purely imaginative and without any relation to reality at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Words View Post
Is this objectivity arising from subjective? Is there really a relationship between the two? To clarify, Are there invalid point of views? If yes, How can you know if a subjective POV is useful in determining the objective? If no, then is objective reality all ideas of reality regardless of contradiction?
@Words.
There is the observer, the relationship and the observed. The observer's view is subjective (we don't see what they see). If the observer is psychotic, delusioned, distracted or otherwise impaired, you are right. They may see only what is in their own imagination. In that case the relationship aspect approaches zero and their perspective is going to yield false results about the object.

The means to determining the reality or objectivity of the object is by taking many perspectives. Then one can compare one perspective with another (translation = another tool to understand). Although we never get to absolute objectivity, the goal is to approach it. Translation will hopefully discard deviant approaches, but we can only hope.
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th-September-2012, 10:44 PM   #98
Da Blob
Banned
 

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 5,949
macossafari
Default Re: Understanding Made Simple

Concerning hierarchy (as well as a couple of the others perhaps?)

It is easy to imagine a hierarchy as something rigid, with straight lines and 'non-fuzzy' boundaries. However, nature is full of examples of hierarchies that seem to conform to the mathematics and visual pattern of fractals. If one assumes that all natural hierarchies are plastic, then one can look at man-made hierarchies in a different light.

A drainage pattern in a desert, as an example...

Attached Thumbnails
488254_463033977064664_775691878_n.jpg  
Da Blob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th-November-2012, 08:51 PM   #99
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Local/ Global

Another way of looking at the hierarchy concept, not as incomprehensible or as esoteric, is that of local/global. Things can be looked at when the distance to us is close. This means local. Things can be looked at from some defined whole picture, regardless of whether the constituents are well organized or just arbitrary. This is the global outlook.

Lots of things have the local/ global perspective.

1. Space and time; spacetime
2. Sensualities; overall well-being
3. Individual think; group-think
4. Quantum mechanics and relativity; Unified Theory
5. Nations; Earth
6. House by the water; tidal waving
7. Individual wishes; war or peace
8. Me; we
9. Ignorance; knowledge
10. Knowledge; ignorance*
11. Short-term; long-term
12. Disease; health**
13. Trees; forest

Can you come up with more?

Here are more:
14. Particulars; Concepts
15. Goodness, power, presence, experience; God

Globally speaking, it's all there. We sense it but see it fuzzily. The world is a very large place and we live in just a small part of it. We can see better what is up close. It's just that we don't know what it means in the large scheme of things. That is because there is a vast separation, a hierarchy (no matter how disorganized), between the local and the global.

If we wish to think globally we can try. It works best if we recognize the global as local to something even larger.*** The global outlook can help predict and value the local. The reverse is also true. The global has to be aware of local changes which can grow or expand to affect and disrupt the global.

*Note the reversal. It depends on our starting point.
**Either can be local/ global. The overall body can be healthy while a cell is diseased; the body can be diseased while many cells are left healthy.
***The Earth can be thought of as heating up. Heating can be thought of as an event larger than just the particular Earth.

Last edited by BigApplePi; 25th-November-2012 at 01:48 PM. Reason: Added more
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th-March-2013, 03:29 PM   #100
BigApplePi
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York City (The Big Apple) & State
Posts: 8,988
windows_xp_2003firefox
Default Tool Necessity

Reflections on the necessity of each of these tools*. Understanding is a human relationship though the idea may be extended to relations of inanimate objects.

Perspective - Each human being is different and it is impossible for different people to have the same view, both detailed and whole. Therefore perspective is necessary.

Translation - When we realize our view cannot be unique, we know others will have different views. Therefore translation is necessary and a means of communication must be sought.

Distance - This is possibly the most overlooked tool in understanding. How far away we are from understanding something matters. The Butterfly Effect is not the rule as connections may be broken. Where there is minimal connection, there is minimal understanding. A realization of distance brought about by separation is a necessity.

Motion - We may take note of motion and measure it. Often we imagine our understanding is done. We operate with a fixed frame of mind. This is false. Things continually change. Acknowledgment of motion is a necessity.

Fuzziness - We can reach a state where clarity is imagined, whether we are up close or at a distance. This is deceptive. Nothing is ever precise no matter how much we wish it to be. Things change. Our perspective changes. This shakes our understanding. What is clear that shakes? Acknowledgment of fuzziness is a necessity.

Hierarchy - Everything we observe is bounded. There is an outside and there is an inside to what we see. This presents a natural hierarchy which is a necessity for understanding. It addresses the most complex aspect of understanding.

______________________________________
*These tools all work together and are inseparable.
BigApplePi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A not so simple question. Aerl Philosophy 29 18th-April-2014 11:42 PM
The Simple Life Apathy INTP Archive 39 6th-September-2008 03:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:40 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Template-Modifications by TMS
no new posts