Understanding Made Simple

[BigApplePi]

This is an optimistic title. You may say it is impossible to cover such broad ground simply. I will try anyway. I suppose everyone here is familiar with the decimal number system. 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 0 are its language. The symbols work well when properly arranged. That's not the way it always was. It took thousands of years after language was created to facilitate counting. The Romans used Roman Numerals. I don't know what the Greeks used but they preferred logic over quantity. The numerals came from India and do a good job. The same idea is true of how we read. Everything is based on letters of some alphabet. I would like to see the same thing done with the task of understanding things.

Who here has never had difficulty understanding? It could be schoolwork, politics, economics, how to fix something, trouble with oneself, relationships with others or reading this post. The world out there is difficult and frustrating. Just as the number system and the alphabet with their symbols are very simple, they can get very complicated very fast. What I'm hoping for is to come up with some tools, defined at some elementary level that can deal with understanding, just as the number system deals with measuring and viewing patterns or letters of the alphabet lie at the foundation of literature.

Since understanding is a human endeavor the basics aren't going to be as simple as numbers and letters. The tools I present may not be as primitive as numbers and letters. They are generalized tools which I think make sense across all the interests we have in understanding. I will try to explain them and what they mean. The challenge though is to see if they work. What things, practical or theoretical, do we come across where understanding falls short of obvious? Can these tools be used to address them or do they fail? Are these tools adequate? Are they complete? Are they all there? Do they avoid overlap? That is, does each stand on its own independent of the others?

I consider this thread a work in progress. Either you or I can use these tools. I'd like to know if they work or fail. I consider these tools, if everyone were aware of them, to be potentially revolutionary. That is, if they were widely known and used the world could be a different place. I have no illusions. I don't think this thread will ever be widely known let alone used. People have an interest in pursing their own matters.

I assume INTPs have a strong desire to grasp things. They want to know what things mean, how they work, what they do, what can go wrong with them, or if they are false. This would not be true of action oriented types. I'm talking about those who don't care to understand and are only interested in doing. I prefer to behave as an INTP and contemplate, however successful or unsuccessful that might be. While those who are action oriented are the accomplishers of this world, what good is that if it is a wasteful action or the wrong action? INTP's can explain things and provide guidance for efficient and favorable actions. They can get it right.

In any case there are basic tools for understanding. That would mean to understand and if it's not understandable, why not? For tools to be a good ones, their meanings must be clear. There should be no other tools required. Other tools when needed can be obtained from these. Incidently understanding is not so easy that it can occur just like that. Intuition is a clue one understands, but it often fails as it makes mistakes.

More background:

Spoiler

How can YOU help with the thread? Not sure. I think beyond stating what these tools are, the purpose of this thread is to come up with EXAMPLES which need explaining. What difficulties are you having? What doesn't work for you? What is beyond us all? On the other hand unexplained examples if explained will show how effective these tools can be. So if you can come up with examples ... any ol' examples no matter how simple or complex or offbeat ...

If you don't agree, have any objections, questions, doubts, embellishments or any other comments at all about what I present, I want to hear. After all, the way you go about understanding is going to be different from me so we need to explore all that can be brought to bear. I'd just like to see what works or what doesn't.

A good many things which come up in other threads can relate to understanding. That is as they should be. I hope this thread can shed some light. I may post things as they come up elsewhere here, so as to limit interference with other ongoing threads. Is that practical? This is dilemma since these tools can explain in such a broad way,

Here are the six tools in brief:
1. PERSPECTIVE - viewpoint
2. TRANSLATION - interpretation of a perspective
3. DISTANCE - separation
4. MOTION - direction & speed/ motivation
5. FUZZINESS - clarity's opposite
6. HIERARCHY - construction and location

My claim is all these tools are required for understanding and if anything is missing from understanding, then using these tools will get you there. I'll define, or at least talk a little to each.

What do I mean by "understanding"? Understanding is that state of mind we have within ourselves that says we know with confidence how things come about and are dealt with. Understanding is graded on a scale. Who would say that we can understand something in every way, to every degree, and in all situations? No one can unless we conceive that "God" can. So understanding exists to variable degrees, from the inexperienced toddler to the knowledge of the master. Can you find something you find difficult to understand? These tools should explain why or why not. Here is an introduction, but there will be more in later posts.

1. PERSPECTIVE

Spoiler

PERSPECTIVE. The intention to understand implies the existence of one who understands. A perspective is how something is viewed. A perspective implies the view is one of many. It implies that other views are different. It is hoped our view captures or approaches what we are after, but if taken in isolation there is no way of telling. Another way of saying this is, perspective observes something exists in a certain state, but it doesn't capture whole the essence of what the something is. If it is wished, for convenience, it can be said an omniscient being is the only one who sees the essence of the something. That is an option. Since perspective implies an observer, an observed and a relationship between them, there is no reason to think perspective can't be applied to all of these.

Usually it is thought a human being does the viewing. It is not necessary to make this restriction. Why not an animal, plant or rock? Those may be considered wayward sub-categories. In this case the word relationship would better serve than "view."

Can things only be seen through perspective? There are those who say there are absolute truths. They say it doesn't matter who is looking.

2. TRANSLATION

Spoiler

TRANSLATION. Translation may seem an odd term to choose for understanding. As it is set up, translation is a special kind of perspective. It is separated, from general perspective because of its importance in general understanding. It is to be recognized that two different observers most likely have two different perspectives. Translation is the perspective one has on another's perspective. It is the personal interpretation of that perspective. Because of dealing with a different observer, the separation implies the two perspectives are not the same. Each deals with an approximation. Two perspectives are different but the implication is one perspective can be translated into another. This should give the second observer a little humility if the first observer is given credit for a valid viewpoint.

Is translation really necessary? Can't something be displayed or taught so it is clear the first time around? If not the first time, why not after repeated study? After all, if a truth is certain there should be no ambiguity.

3. DISTANCE

Spoiler

DISTANCE. Distance is a term from physics. It means there is a separation, specifically between observer and observed. This matters a great deal if it is to be understood how well we understand. A great separation implies difficulty in viewing. How can anything be seen to get a perspective if the distance is too great? A small separation also encounters a difficulty. If too close, we see only a part of the whole picture. The failure to recognize we are too close, mistakes the part for the whole. Standing far back enough to see the object whole, too grants an imperfect understanding. That is because of a failure to apply a microscope to the parts of which the whole is made.

Distance explains how well we can see. If we don't see at all, there is no understanding.

4. MOTION

Spoiler

MOTION. Like distance, motion is a term borrowed from physics. As with distance, if we have a feel for the physical world, or even better for physics itself, it helps to understand the broader aspects of its use here. Psychologically speaking motion is the motivation for which understanding is pursued. Whether we move toward, away or obliquely to the object and with what effort makes a great deal of difference. Motion can be imperceptible in which case our view is akin to a snapshot (relatively fixed) as opposed to a motion picture (continual change). An object for understanding can be static or stable as with a snapshot. The same object can be in contant flux, continually changing its form. When motion is referred to here, it can either refer to the object of interest or the changing and directive attitude toward it. Attitude makes a difference.

When motion is acknowledged, we may take note of changes. This brings into play the terms scaling, grading, measurement or degrees.

Unlike fixed distance, motion involves considerably more data. That is because of change. Often we mistake how we treat what we view because we assume it is fixed or we assume we are fixed. This need not be the case.

5. FUZZINESS

Spoiler

FUZZINESS. Fuzziness is the opposite of clarity. Nothing is precise. Not the object of understanding, our relationship to it or even who we are. We "see through a glass darkly." Our senses deceive us. Our reach exceeds our grasp. We may believe we see clearly, but we never do. Our ability to measure is limited.

Our view of something ranges from disbelief to doubt to certainty. Though there is information, nothing is certain. This gives rise to probability and statistics.

6. HIERARCHY

Spoiler

HIERARCHY. Hierarchy is by far the most complex part of understanding as it presents the structure (dynamics if there is change) of what is going on. Objects can be divided into parts and they in turn are parts of larger wholes. So hierarchy always consists of two directions: downward which is called analysis and upward which is called environmental placement. Hierarchy is the most mysterious of the tools. Phenomena seem to appear and disappear, emerge and vanish, contradict themselves and perhaps shed light on the meaning of existence itself.

Whatever it is we wish to understand can be analyzed, meaning broken into parts. The task is to decide how to make the breakdown. Is it formal, haphazard, natural, or merely narrative? Should components be evaluated equally? What technique is to be used to decide the analysis?

The other direction is often taken for granted. When we begin we think the first step is to analyze. This is not a given for things exist in any number of contexts or environments. An environment affects how we proceed with analysis though that is rarely consciously clear.

Anywhere we begin there is a hierarchy of construction for what is observed. The term "construction" is used advisedly as an object need not be constructed. It may just "be." Objects are formed and reside somewhere within a great variability of dwelling places. If we think of object, observer and their relationship, there is a hierarchy for the observer and for the relationship as well. The latter won't be addressed here. A hierarchy need not be fixed. As it changes we have a dynamic state. Acknowledgment of fluidity is a requirement for understanding.

When dealing with our object of understanding, hierarchy comes into play from the beginning. Our environment affects affects our approach. An altered detail can affect the whole we are approaching.

Hierarchies exist in the physical world, as in star constellations, the construction of matter, and the topography of the Earth. They exist in organisms as in man and other living things. They exist in man's creations, as with science, art, nations and social groups. If the other tools represent form, hierarchy implies content.

For the next six posts, the main title (Understanding Made Simple) is changed to label each tool. Tool descriptions are repeated as in the Spoilers above. They are not separate enough from the main theme to assign them separate threads, yet deserve separation because they are treated as distinct.

Copyright © 2010 by BigApplePi . All rights reserved.

 

[BigApplePi]

PERSPECTIVE - UMS

1. PERSPECTIVE. The intention to understand implies the existence of one who understands. A perspective is how something is viewed. A perspective implies the view is one of many. It implies that other views are different. It is hoped our view captures or approaches what we are after, but if taken in isolation there is no way of telling. Another way of saying this is, perspective observes something exists in a certain state, but it doesn't capture whole the essence of what the something is. If it is wished, for convenience, it can be said an omniscient being is the only one who sees the essence of the something. That is an option. Since perspective implies an observer, an observed and a relationship between them, there is no reason to think perspective can't be applied to all of these.

Usually it is thought a human being does the viewing. It is not necessary to make this restriction. Why not an animal, plant or rock? Those may be considered wayward sub-categories. In this case the word relationship would better serve than "view."

Can things only be seen through perspective? There are those who say there are absolute truths. They say it doesn't matter who is looking.

 

[BigApplePi]

TRANSLATION - UMS

2. TRANSLATION. Translation may seem an odd term to choose for understanding. As it is set up, translation is a special kind of perspective. It is separated, from general perspective because of its importance in general understanding. It is to be recognized that two different observers most likely have two different perspectives. Translation is the perspective one has on another's perspective. It is the personal interpretation of that perspective. Because of dealing with a different observer, the separation implies the two perspectives are not the same. Each deals with an approximation. Two perspectives are different but the implication is one perspective can be translated into another. This should give the second observer a little humility if the first observer is given credit for a valid viewpoint.

Is translation really necessary? Can't something be displayed or taught so it is clear the first time around? If not the first time, why not after repeated study? After all, if a truth is certain there should be no ambiguity.

 

[BigApplePi]

DISTANCE - UMS

3. DISTANCE. Distance is a term from physics. It means there is a separation, specifically between observer and observed. This matters a great deal if it is to be understood how well we understand. A great separation implies difficulty in viewing. How can anything be seen to get a perspective if the distance is too great? A small separation also encounters a difficulty. If too close, we see only a part of the whole picture. The failure to recognize we are too close, mistakes the part for the whole. Standing far back enough to see the object whole, too grants an imperfect understanding. That is because of a failure to apply a microscope to the parts of which the whole is made.

Distance explains how well we can see. If we don't see at all, there is no understanding.

 

[BigApplePi]

MOTION - UMS

4. MOTION. Like distance, motion is a term borrowed from physics. As with distance, if we have a feel for the physical world, or even better for physics itself, it helps to understand the broader aspects of its use here. Psychologically speaking motion is the motivation for which understanding is pursued. Whether we move toward, away or obliquely to the object and with what effort makes a great deal of difference. Motion can be imperceptible in which case our view is akin to a snapshot (relatively fixed) as opposed to a motion picture (continual change). An object for understanding can be static or stable as with a snapshot. The same object can be in contant flux, continually changing its form. When motion is referred to here, it can either refer to the object of interest or the changing and directive attitude toward it. Attitude makes a difference.

When motion is acknowledged, we may take note of changes. This brings into play the terms scaling, grading, measurement or degrees.

Unlike fixed distance, motion involves considerably more data. That is because of change. Often we mistake how we treat what we view because we assume it is fixed or we assume we are fixed. This need not be the case.

 

[BigApplePi]

FUZZINESS - UMS

5. FUZZINESS. Fuzziness is the opposite of clarity. Nothing is precise. Not the object of understanding, our relationship to it or even who we are. We "see through a glass darkly." Our senses deceive us. Our reach exceeds our grasp. We may believe we see clearly, but we never do. Our ability to measure is limited.

Our view of something ranges from disbelief to doubt to certainty. Though there is information, nothing is certain. This gives rise to probability and statistics.

 

[BigApplePi]

HIERARCHY - UMS

6. HIERARCHY. Hierarchy is by far the most complex part of understanding as it presents the structure (dynamics if there is change) of what is going on. Objects can be divided into parts and they in turn are parts of larger wholes. So hierarchy always consists of two directions: downward which is called analysis and upward which is called environmental placement. Hierarchy is the most mysterious of the tools. Phenomena seem to appear and disappear, emerge and vanish, contradict themselves and perhaps shed light on the meaning of existence itself.

Whatever it is we wish to understand can be analyzed, meaning broken into parts. The task is to decide how to make the breakdown. Is it formal, haphazard, natural, or merely narrative? Should components be evaluated equally? What technique is to be used to decide the analysis?

The other direction is often taken for granted. When we begin we think the first step is to analyze. This is not a given for things exist in any number of contexts or environments. An environment affects how we proceed with analysis though that is rarely consciously clear.

Anywhere we begin there is a hierarchy of construction for what is observed. The term "construction" is used advisedly as an object need not be constructed. It may just "be." Objects are formed and reside somewhere within a great variability of dwelling places. If we think of object, observer and their relationship, there is a hierarchy for the observer and for the relationship as well. The latter won't be addressed here. A hierarchy need not be fixed. As it changes we have a dynamic state. Acknowledgment of fluidity is a requirement for understanding.

When dealing with our object of understanding, hierarchy comes into play from the beginning. Our environment affects affects our approach. An altered detail can affect the whole we are approaching.

Hierarchies exist in the physical world, as in star constellations, the construction of matter, and the topography of the Earth. They exist in organisms as in man and other living things. They exist in man's creations, as with science, art, nations and social groups. If the other tools represent form, hierarchy implies content.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Interesting. Perspective, I think, is the most important tool, because in conversation, not only must you have the same emphasis(in ideas and words), but you must also use the same semantics.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: HIERARCHY - UMS

Reference: Re: Big picture vs Details

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: FUZZINESS - example

Usually we try to make fuzzy things clear. Sometimes clear things get fuzzy: Speaking in absolute

 

[BigApplePi]

PERSPECTIVE

Example of perspective: Big picture vs Details

 

[Words]

I am tired of all these words. I would create a flow chart for this, but I would have to read it all!

Argh!!!

 

[BigApplePi]

I am tired of all these words. I would create a flow chart for this, but I would have to read it all!

Argh!!!

I don't blame you Words. I was working on something close to a flowchart, but not a flowchart. It's an example that would clarify. But it's getting out of hand and I haven't posted it, lol. Maybe I will post part of it ...

It's an intellectual exercise. These tools are to be as simple as possible in themselves, yet meant to attack the most difficult situations. Using them rapidly gets complicated.

 

[Cogwulf]

I would describe translation as being the art of de-constructing perspectives.
A good teacher de-constructs his own perspective in order to present his ideas in a way that can be understood via a wider range of perspectives.
And likewise, a good student is someone who is able to de-construct the perspective behind a poorly-presented idea in order to understand it correctly.

 

[BigApplePi]

I would describe translation as being the art of de-constructing perspectives.
A good teacher de-constructs his own perspective in order to present his ideas in a way that can be understood via a wider range of perspectives.
And likewise, a good student is someone who is able to de-construct the perspective behind a poorly-presented idea in order to understand it correctly.

I think that is so well put. Anyone can have a perspective. How close is it though to the truth? We have to be able to exchange perspectives, kick them around to see what happens to them, and be surprised at how they change. That is a reason why I elevated Perspective to one of the six tools.

 

[BigApplePi]

HIERARCHY - LEVELS

Although a singular concept, hierarchy has many facets. We may begin understanding anywhere. Where we begin is arbitrary. No rules as to beginning. What we observe may be broken into parts or related to other things. This gives rise to a hierarchy.

There are naming conventions in a hierarchy. Wherever we start observing something, we call that the "Starting Level." If we break it into parts (analysis) we name the first breakdown, "Starting Level minus one." If we combine the first observation with something else (synthesis) we name the first combination, "Starting Level plus one."

Note that the process of analysis and synthesis are not necessarily symmetrical relationships. That is, the end product constructed by synthesis need not be reversed in the same way as it was constructed. I hope to give an example of this.

 

[final-dimension]

Okay uncle Pi,I have a question: How can the Fuzziness tool be used?
I didn't get that one honestly* now I feel stupid><"*.

 

[BigApplePi]

Okay uncle Pi,I have a question: How can the Fuzziness tool be used?
I didn't get that one honestly* now I feel stupid><"*.

Final-D. That's a good Q. (All Q's are good.) I haven't clearly thought that out. The answer is still fuzzy. My initial reaction would be to recognize that things are not perfectly clear. We don't see them clearly. So when we interact with another person the lack of clarity is compounded. That helps to understand why sometimes when we disagree, things get worse.

BTW, stupidity is a feeling. If I thought you were stupid, we'd ALL have to be stupid.

Addendum. Things like friendship, love, God are never clearly defined. Yet we use these words all the time. The idea is to recognize they are permanently "fuzzy" in meaning.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Fuzzy is a result of subjective concepts/experiences striving to be objectified?

 

[Polaris]

Could fuzziness be the "dimension" where one is perhaps most open to ideas/inspiration, and where Ni plays the initial part of crystallising one's perspective? Fuzziness as a form of clarity, before one makes what can only be a subjective choice?

 

[BigApplePi]

Could fuzziness be the "dimension" where one is perhaps most open to ideas/inspiration, and where Ni plays the initial part of crystallising one's perspective? Fuzziness as a form of clarity, before one makes what can only be a subjective choice?

Polaris. Do you mean like where one has something for certain in mind but has yet to describe it so it can be given to the outside world?

 

[Polaris]

Polaris. Do you mean like where one has something for certain in mind but has yet to describe it so it can be given to the outside world?

I mean the state where one is purely observing without attaching labels, as in sensing before using one's intuitive functions. If they can be separated, that is. As INTP's we tend to perhaps undermine the sensory state or dimension, because we dissociate from the emotional aspect of sensory input.

Therefore, when we do crystallise ideas, they are perhaps coloured by this dissociation. I don't know if I'm making sense.

 

[final-dimension]

Could fuzziness be the "dimension" where one is perhaps most open to ideas/inspiration, and where Ni plays the initial part of crystallising one's perspective? Fuzziness as a form of clarity, before one makes what can only be a subjective choice?

I think I understand what you mean.

 

[final-dimension]

Final-D. That's a good Q. (All Q's are good.) I haven't clearly thought that out. The answer is still fuzzy. My initial reaction would be to recognize that things are not perfectly clear. We don't see them clearly. So when we interact with another person the lack of clarity is compounded. That helps to understand why sometimes when we disagree, things get worse.

BTW, stupidity is a feeling. If I thought you were stupid, we'd ALL have to be stupid.

Addendum. Things like friendship, love, God are never clearly defined. Yet we use these words all the time. The idea is to recognize they are permanently "fuzzy" in meaning.

Fuzzy is a result of subjective concepts/experiences striving to be objectified?

I am not sure,but I think the three of you mean the same thing,I think this tool is mostly used by kids,because of their lack of basic concepts the world around them uses. They make their own definition for words or concepts they don't understand *they use their beautiful imagination* then compare that with how these words are used by others,and try to find out wether they were right or wrong and every time they do this comparison the inner image for that word changes .It is like trying to gather information about something without asking,cause sometimes they can't really get the explanation presented to them by adults. I think this is why making a child draw something,is the easiest way to know what they feel or think,because usually what they draw is the inner image they have created to understand their current situation ....

 

[BigApplePi]

I mean the state where one is purely observing without attaching labels, as in sensing before using one's intuitive functions. If they can be separated, that is. As INTP's we tend to perhaps undermine the sensory state or dimension, because we dissociate from the emotional aspect of sensory input.

Therefore, when we do crystallise ideas, they are perhaps coloured by this dissociation. I don't know if I'm making sense.

I'm a little fuzzy on what you're saying. Do you mean like when one is observing (sensing) something like this: gold and can see what it is, but whether it is really gold or not remains fuzzy?

 

[Polaris]

I'm a little fuzzy on what you're saying. Do you mean like when one is observing (sensing) something like this: gold and can see what it is, but whether it is really gold or not remains fuzzy?

Lol....I apologise for speaking through "cotton wool".

I guess it depends on the situation. For example, if one is sensing or observing speech, facial expression and gestures, the feeling (Fe) aspect that follows sensing (and I mean feeling as in the ability to use that function as a form of auxiliary reasoning tool, to be able to recognise for example, presence or absence of harmony), as INTP's we may ignore or confuse these signals as we tend to "jump" straight to the thinking part. Hence our suggested difficulty in "reading" people.

So yes, we may see gold but not recognise it.

However, looking at a complex problem may be different, as it is more abstract. The feeling function cannot aid thinking or intuition here. Unless you are Superman, of course. I t can be applied to the understanding of a painting, though. I think a few very talented mathematicians even use Fe in problem solving, they see or recognise answers no one else can see. I used to know such a mathematician, he was a very spiritual person. I guess it is a bit like that with music as well. Talented composers and musicians recognise mathematical patterns through sensing and feeling, but cannot necessarily explain how.

Ok, ramble....

 

[BigApplePi]

Lol....I apologise for speaking through "cotton wool".

Have you tried a mouthful of marbles?

I guess it depends on the situation. For example, if one is sensing or observing speech, facial expression and gestures, the feeling (Fe) aspect that follows sensing (and I mean feeling as in the ability to use that function as a form of auxiliary reasoning tool, to be able to recognise for example, presence or absence of harmony), as INTP's we may ignore or confuse these signals as we tend to "jump" straight to the thinking part. Hence our suggested difficulty in "reading" people.

If you are saying INTPs too quickly jump to thinking, I'd say, yes, the sensing and people parts in their neglect are going to be rendered "fuzzy."

However, looking at a complex problem may be different, as it is more abstract. The feeling function cannot aid thinking or intuition here. Unless you are Superman, of course. I t can be applied to the understanding of a painting, though. I think a few very talented mathematicians even use Fe in problem solving, they see or recognise answers no one else can see. I used to know such a mathematician, he was a very spiritual person. I guess it is a bit like that with music as well. Talented composers and musicians recognise mathematical patterns through sensing and feeling, but cannot necessarily explain how.

I guess if they can't explain those patterns, their thinking remains fuzzy. I love trying to explain things. So far I haven't tried to explain this "love", lol.

 

[BigApplePi]

Six Tools Genesis - Triangle Example

Six Tools Genesis - Triangle Example.

Definitions repeated:
1. PERSPECTIVE - viewpoint
2. TRANSLATION - interpretation of a perspective
3. DISTANCE - separation
4. MOTION - direction & speed/ motivation
5. FUZZINESS - clarity's opposite
6. HIERARCHY - construction and location

Note the observed always has an observer. Although an entity by itself doesn't have an observer, understanding requires an observer for understanding. Here is one example to show how these tools work:

Triangle Example.

1. Perspective - Picture three entities in Euclidean (ordinary three-dimensional) space. In the observer's mind they can be connected by three lines generally seen as creating a scalene triangle. Another observer in a different position sees an isosceles triangle while still another sees an equilateral. A fourth observer sees only a line.

2. Translation - The first three observers above all have different perspectives. Each occupies another position in Euclidean space. If they recognize they are viewing the same three entities, a translation has taken place. Note the fourth observer will have difficulty translating without moving.

3. Distance - Using some method of measurement, there is a distance from the observer to each entity. If the entities form a unit, this unit may be seen as lying in a plane and there is a distance to this plane. Each observer has a different distance. If any distance is zero (or very close to it), the observer will have a special experience. If one counts the observer, we can visualize a four-faced polyhedron.

Note distance has not been precisely defined. It's not stated if the measurement is to a center of gravity, some geometrically defined center or to a closest point on the entity.

4. Motion - The entities in Euclidean Space can change position and so can the distance of the observer which if noted in appropriate context define something called, "time." Conversely if given time, we call the position changing process, motion.

5. Fuzziness - The entities, if not points, have a certain arc length presented to the observer. An entity up close may occupy a large field of vision and so may be seen in detail. If very close, details will be sharp but the periphery will fade from view. Too many details may result in some being overlooked or more or less ignored. A distant entity may not be made out at all and may approach a point (arc length zero) and not be identifiable.

6. Hierarchy - There may be an unlimited number of entities. Think of them as points in a Euclidean plane. These points are said to exist at Level 0* (zero). Three points form a new entity, a triangle. Call this grouping Level 1. There are other groupings beginning with the Level 0 of points. Four entities would form a quadrilateral. These would be a different kind of Level 1. We could call it Level 1a** (especially if we were aware of the previous Level 1.) Entities from Level 1 may be grouped in turn. Such groupings define Level 2, Level 3 and so on. The Level 1 of triangles is different from the Level 1 of quadrilaterals because triangles are not quadrilaterals. Note something special. Quadrilaterals may be broken into triangles.

Because quadrilaterals can be broken into triangles, we have a rather odd state of level naming. One system has triangles at Level 1; the other system has quadrilaterals at Level 1 which can be broken into triangles. If we observe the second system, the triangles observed from quadrilaterals could be named to be one level down from the Level 1 of quadrilaterals which would be called Level 0. The points of these triangles of the second system would occupy Level minus one.

To resolve this apparent contradiction in level naming, we must note the first system of just triangles is different from the system of triangles and quadrilaterals. If we are to compare the two systems, Level numbers must be renamed:

System 1
Points - Level 0 *
Triangles only - Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
.
.
.

System 2 - construction direction or "synthesis"
Points - Level 0
Quadrilaterals - Level 1a

System 2 - separation direction or "analysis"
Quadrilaterals - Level 1a**
Triangles - Level 0
Points - Level -1

If we note System 1 has the same form as part of System 2, we need to rename levels if we are to work with both.

System 1
Points - Level -1
Triangles - Level 0
Quadrilaterals - Level 1

or a possible renaming,

System 1
Points - Level 0
Triangles - Level 1
Quadrilaterals - Level 2

It doesn't matter what numbers we begin assigning to these levels as long as their order is sequential.

 

[BigApplePi]

FUZZINESS Defined

Fuzziness defined. Every entity, has a central theme or form of existence. For the lack of another word, this can be called the "center" even though we may not be able to identify it or locate it. This center radiates outward with diminishing awareness, influence or force. It radiates outward until it becomes imperceptible. The point of imperceptibility is called a "boundary. It can be well-defined or undefined, the latter meaning no boundary.

Fuzziness is both a state in the mind within the beholder and a characteristic of the beheld. Usually they work together, but there are extremes which help define the boundaries of the condition. Two extremes when they work together could be a sharp mind trying to make sense of a fuzzy situation or a dull mind remaining unclear as to a relatively clear situation.

Fuzziness can refer to any entity, be it a physical object, or a human condition. We can have fuzzy thinking, intuition, sensing, feeling and uncertain action.

Three examples:
(1) The sun radiates its energy outward. There is no boundary unless blocked by other celestial objects.
(2) A public speaker. The center is his speech platform. Its content radiates outward to the audience and through the airwaves. It is intense to the immediate audience and diminishes greatly to those who receive the speech second and third hand.
(3) Love. Whether it's a state of mind or a concept, it is ill-defined or has multiple definitions. The latter implies multiple centers. It's presence may be quite clear to our awareness or we may be hardly aware at all.

The scale of fuzziness-clarity is much clearer if the entity we are observing is static. Not so if the entity is moving. That is because motion implies a multiplicity of existences.

Here is a reference to a special kind of fuzziness. Notice how you receive it will be fuzzy to clear in its own right. Its center can be the message post itself or the mind of the author. Its radiation will depend on one's comprehension. Its boundary will depend on how it lingers in one's mind.

Fuzziness carries two independent concepts:
(1) Radiation outward from a center or oppositely focusing inward toward a center.
(2) A boundary on one side of which is existence and on the other side, non-existence.

The physical analogy is these intersect at an angle. Radiation is directed outward from the center; a boundary forms a shell surrounding the center, like so. An angle of ninety degrees will terminate radiation or prevent entrance; forty-five degrees will divert radiation or entrance; zero degrees will be transparent.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

We need a Discourse 101 thread...that lists common fallacies and procedures for argument.

Perhaps I should get to work on it.

 

[BigApplePi]

We need a Discourse 101 thread...that lists common fallacies and procedures for argument.

Perhaps I should get to work on it.

If one is going to make an argument I would think there are a lot less rules for the right way to do it than wrong ways. Yet I've seen a list of argument fallacies out there. Maybe Google? Haven't seen it in a long time.

2 + 2 = 4. I believe that is close to the right answer. Here are some wrong answers (I could be rong). ‹(•¿•)› Check them out:

2 + 2 = 5.
2 + 2 = -1.
2 + 2 = 768.
2 + 2 = 2² + .00001

 

[BigApplePi]

Subjective and Objective PERSPECTIVE

If understanding an object is doomed to be confined within our single perspective, and we acknowledge there are so many other perspectives, how are we to live in a world with no objectivity? Can we ever know what the world really is?

Here is a clue by example. Extend the example to clarify:

Suppose one encounters a statue. Think of the statue as of a famous fallen hero sitting atop a horse in some outdoor scenario. To make sure we begin correctly, let's say we view with only one eye, the other eye being shut. Then we have only one perspective. We can't even tell if the statue is three-dimensional. As long as we don't move it appears flat. Then we walk around it 120 degrees ... the same statue. Our view changes. For all we know, this is a different statue. Recalling the earlier view we notice there are things in common. Circle another 240 degrees. Even more things in common. We become suspicious. This IS the same statue. Our previous experiences of the world tell us we are seeing a different view of the same thing. Yet we've seen only three views. We haven't seen the whole statue. As our curiosity and appreciation increases, we take a slow troll all around the statue. At any single point we never have a whole picture. We have to rely on memory, a memory which can deceive us. Yet we have formed an inner picture of the statue approaching the whole. The whole is objective reality. Our picture is never complete. In fact we return to the statue several weeks later to get a better look. Why? Because our previous picture lacked something. We return again and again to enhance that picture hoping to close in on objective reality. We close in, but never get there. One day we bring a friend and the friend points out something we've never seen.

 

[Words]

Re: Subjective and Objective PERSPECTIVE

Very eloquent Pi.

Yet we have formed an inner picture of the statue approaching the whole.

Just for my own clarification, if reaching the "whole picture" was possible, would you agree that the resulting perspective will still be a single perspective?

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?

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Subjective and Objective PERSPECTIVE

Very eloquent Pi.

Thank you.

Just for my own clarification, if reaching the "whole picture" was possible, would you agree that the resulting perspective will still be a single perspective?

The resulting perspective is a single perspective whether the whole picture is reached or not. It's just a more mature perspective.
Below are some of the best and most illuminating questions I've encountered on this subject.

Is this objectivity arising from subjective?
No. Definitely not. It's the reverse. The subjectivity arises from the objectivity.
Is there really a relationship between the two?
Yes. The subjective approaches the objective. It's a matter of distance.
To clarify, Are there invalid point of views?
No. There are no invalid POVs. Someone could look at the statue and think "fish." Others wouldn't like that, but it's their perspective.
If yes, How can you know if a subjective POV is useful in determining the objective?
A subjective POV is useful if its harmonious with cousin views.
If no, then is objective reality all ideas of reality regardless of contradiction?
This assumes there is such a thing as "all ideas of reality." Only God has that. There is no such thing for mere man.

+++++++++++
Afterthoughts: A teacher informs others on a specialty. Although students many benefit, so does the teacher. That is because although the teacher is informed, that doesn't make them the master. Each teaching adds another perspective to the prior "mature" perspective and one can never tell if they were off base in some area.

 

[Words]

Re: Subjective and Objective PERSPECTIVE

No. Definitely not. It's the reverse. The subjectivity arises from the objectivity.

I don't understand. Don't you start of with smaller pictures? When subjectivity arises from objectivity, does that mean that all subjectivity is a valid portion of reality?

Yes. The subjective approaches the objective. It's a matter of distance.

"Distance"?

No. There are no invalid POVs. Someone could look at the statue and think "fish." Others wouldn't like that, but it's their perspective.

Ok.

A subjective POV is useful if its harmonious with cousin views.

Is useful different from valid? Useful in what sense?

This assumes there is such a thing as "all ideas of reality." Only God has that. There is no such thing for mere man.

Well if one argues that all POV's are valid and allows one to reach an "objective view of reality", doesn't this mean that objective reality = all POV's or all ideas of reality?

(Another concern here is the resulting contradiction.)

Afterthoughts: A teacher informs others on a specialty. Although students many benefit, so does the teacher. That is because although the teacher is informed, that doesn't make them the master. Each teaching adds another perspective to the prior "mature" perspective and one can never tell if they were off base in some area.

How does "each teaching add another perspective"?

 

[BigApplePi]

DISTANCE Examples

Distance is the amount of separation between observer and object. It can be physical, psychological, intellectual, temporal. Distance matters a great deal as understanding diminishes as it increases. As physical distance increases, sensual apprehension becomes less available. Vehicles such as telescopes, hearing aids, bloodhounds, automobiles, radio, television, internet can bring objects closer. Time causes our memory to fade; knowledge increases with the availability of libraries.

A measure of psychological distance is involvement. The greater the involvement the closer we are; the weaker the involvement the more distant we are. We may believe we are sensitive to the suffering of others. Yet if the suffering of millions occurs in countries we know nothing about, we ignore it. We may be cool toward viewing another person, but if that person is bleeding, some will faint at seeing the blood. The inner distance to danger is suddenly too close. A social situation may be very popular and of great interest to many people. They have an involvement and are readily close. Others may view the same situation and be indifferent or bored. Their involvement is weak so the distance is great. Experience predisposes us to adjust our involvement meaning we can more readily adjust the desired distance.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Subjective and Objective PERSPECTIVE

Words. Is this objectivity arising from subjective?
No. Definitely not. It's the reverse. The subjectivity arises from the objectivity.
[Words;226060]I don't understand. Don't you start of with smaller pictures? When subjectivity arises from objectivity, does that mean that all subjectivity is a valid portion of reality?

What I mean is that the starting point is something is "out there." We use our imagination to apprehend it. What is in our imagination comes from earlier experiences plus what is in front of us. Not sure what you mean by "valid portion of reality." Our subjective imagination has a reality all of its own residing in our brain.

"Distance"?

Defined more here. In the description of experiencing the statue, as we learn we become closer and closer to what it really is.

A subjective POV is useful if its harmonious with cousin views.
Is useful different from valid? Useful in what sense?

I'm using "useful" here in the ordinary sense, not a technical one. We hope it's valid but it may not be. Useful = practical.

Well if one argues that all POV's are valid and allows one to reach an "objective view of reality", doesn't this mean that objective reality = all POV's or all ideas of reality?

When I said "There are no invalid POVs", I failed to define valid. I meant each POV has some valid meaning somewhere. If someone sees a statue as a fish, that is not socially valid. It is valid to his psyche. It is subjectively valid for him.

How does "each teaching add another perspective"?

The teacher receives more feedback from students.

 

[Words]

Re: Subjective and Objective PERSPECTIVE

As physical distance increases, sensual apprehension becomes less available.

You introduced "sensual apprehension", what about the factor of "imagination"? Can a person imagine without any reference to any sense hence, can they create an entirely subjective reality? hence, are there "parts of the puzzle" that are irrelevant in identifying the "picture of reality"?

What I mean is that the starting point is something is "out there." We use our imagination to apprehend it. What is in our imagination comes from earlier experiences plus what is in front of us.

Is imagination available without the "out there"?

] I meant each POV has some valid meaning somewhere. If someone sees a statue as a fish, that is not socially valid. It is valid to his psyche. It is subjectively valid for him.

But is it valid in terms of identifying the "out there"?


Addendum:

What about the possibility of "indirect" sensory information? I chose to use the word "indirect" because I find it hard to define "false." If, like in the matrix, sensory information is manipulated, that information is still existing and is still part of what is real. Though I still don't see how "indrect" sensory information provides any clarity on what's direct sensory information.

Of course, the original issue you presented is about the perspectives towards a general understanding of an "object", which means it could be something specific and not necessarily about the most general assumption which is "reality." But even if we assume that reality equals empirical idea of reality, understanding requires tapping into the abstracts or the nonphysical. Are these "unsensed" ideas not part of reality at all?

Perspectives give way for too much variation. There are always absolute radical views out there that has no connection to the object at all aside from what the object is not. Because of the openness and because of the inevitable contradictory "picture" of the object your "System of Perspective"(as I would name it) creates, I don't think relying on perspectives will always lead to an understanding of the object.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Subjective and Objective PERSPECTIVE

Words, I like to keep these three things in mind: the observer, the observed and the relationship between them. When studying these in detail it may be hard to keep them apart. That is, the borderline between the first two and the relationship may be "fuzzy." Let's see.

You introduced "sensual apprehension", what about the factor of "imagination"? Can a person imagine without any reference to any sense hence, can they create an entirely subjective reality? hence, are there "parts of the puzzle" that are irrelevant in identifying the "picture of reality"?

Are you asking, can a person imagine something entirely separate from what is outside? I think when it comes to defining what we are talking about here we have to distinguish between what is outside and what is inside. My claim is that what is inside may be imagined as a whole, but its components came from experience that can be traced back to experiencing something from the outside. If I image some non-existent fantasy animal, its components (eyes, head, limbs, breath) came from the outside.

Is imagination available without the "out there"?

No. Imagination resides in a person having grown from an infant experiencing the real world. The real world was once out there.

But is it valid in terms of identifying the "out there"?

Are you asking if a person sees a fish, is that valid in identifying the real statue out there? My answer is think of the observer, the object and the relationship again. I could answer yes, but in only a very tenuous way. If the fish resides 99.9 percent within the observer's imagination, it was kicked off by observing the statue. His observation of .1 percent verified something was out there. He just didn't do a very good job of getting close to what the statue actually was.

 

[Words]

Re: Subjective and Objective PERSPECTIVE

Words, I like to keep these three things in mind: the observer, the observed and the relationship between them. When studying these in detail it may be hard to keep them apart. That is, the borderline between the first two and the relationship may be "fuzzy."

Random Thought: You can observe the observer. You can observe the relationship. The observer could be the observed vice versa, but relationships in general can only fit into the "observed" position, unless you consider a "collective of observers" a "relationship".

I apologize, Pi. I'm not very good at articulating myself, most likely due to how I don't have a guideline. With unexplained intuitive assumptions mainly that there is connection or sense in my words, I just say what comes to mind.

Are you asking, can a person imagine something entirely separate from what is outside? I think when it comes to defining what we are talking about here we have to distinguish between what is outside and what is inside. My claim is that what is inside may be imagined as a whole, but its components came from experience that can be traced back to experiencing something from the outside. If I image some non-existent fantasy animal, its components (eyes, head, limbs, breath) came from the outside.

What then creates the variety of imaginations? If things can be traced back to what is initially experienced, what causes the "filter" or "change" of information? What formed the transition of objective to subjective?

No. Imagination resides in a person having grown from an infant experiencing the real world. The real world was once out there.

How do or did you confirm this? If information is originally outside, why is information different for all of us?

With the assumption that the subject "filters" information, consider the idea that filtering of information could turn something into something exactly unrelated or even opposite.

If I wanted to understand "chair"(you sit on it), would someone's perspective that a chair is "not a chair"(you don't sit on it) help my understanding of "chair"? If I wanted to understand "squid", would someone's perspective of "a squid is a person" help me in understanding the "squid which thrives underwater"?

Are you asking if a person sees a fish, is that valid in identifying the real statue out there? My answer is think of the observer, the object and the relationship again. I could answer yes, but in only a very tenuous way. If the fish resides 99.9 percent within the observer's imagination, it was kicked off by observing the statue. His observation of .1 percent verified something was out there. He just didn't do a very good job of getting close to what the statue actually was.

So you're saying that the fact that the fish is something and the statue is also something means that the person helped in identifying the object?

But how about the idea of "negative understanding"? If 99.9% was wrong, isn't the entire computed understanding .1% - 99.9% wrong? Didn't it worsen the quality(maturity) of the image?

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Subjective and Objective PERSPECTIVE

Random Thought: You can observe the observer. You can observe the relationship. The observer could be the observed vice versa, but relationships in general can only fit into the "observed" position, unless you consider a "collective of observers" a "relationship".

Excellent point and since I read down below, that was very well articulated. It's a difficult theme. Suppose I state it symbolically as

aRb = observer a has a relationship R to observed b

Although one can observe R, that is a different observation. R is a relationship and so far I don't know how to define that.

Added: How about a relationship is a kind of "connection"? I think you may be right. A relationship can only be defined from the outside. When I get further along I will most more on "hierarchy" which may help in understanding that. Good point Words.

I apologize, Pi. I'm not very good at articulating myself, most likely due to how I don't have a guideline. With unexplained intuitive assumptions mainly that there is connection or sense in my words, I just say what comes to mind.

Thanks for calling that to my attention. My reaction is regardless of one's ability to articulate, that is one of the main reasons for human talk. It's to improve on one's ability to get things across. I am here strongly for that reason myself.

I love your questions. Without those questions to refine previous answers, we can't entirely trust previous answers. Sometimes we are lost and it takes a question like, "where are we?", to pin down the answer. If your question is not clear and I think it is going to shed light, I'll ask what you mean.

What then creates the variety of imaginations? If things can be traced back to what is initially experienced, what causes the "filter" or "change" of information? What formed the transition of objective to subjective?

If the imagination came directly from sensory observation, that observation is never perfect. Maybe 1 to 99 percent. Let's suppose here it's 99 percent accurate although "percent" is technically not a perfect term. So ten people observing at 99 percent are going to have different results. Here is an imperfect image:

Visualize a hula hoop. It traces circles around your waist. If your waist is the object, the hula hoop circles define your waist but never capture it. All definitions are different. Not sure if this gets across. (I couldn't find an internet picture.)

How do or did you confirm this? If information is originally outside, why is information different for all of us?

As above. Now objects are not confined to the external material word. An idea could be an object. We could all think about "art" as the object and have different images about what that is. Yet hopefully there would be enough in common to identify the idea of that object, art.

With the assumption that the subject "filters" information, consider the idea that filtering of information could turn something into something exactly unrelated or even opposite.

Could happen.

If I wanted to understand "chair"(you sit on it), would someone's perspective that a chair is "not a chair"(you don't sit on it) help my understanding of "chair"? If I wanted to understand "squid", would someone's perspective of "a squid is a person" help me in understanding the "squid which thrives underwater"?Those would be subjective departures (distance) from those objects.

If different observers are too distant they can't communicate. One observer will think another is wrong. If all observers are close, they will communicate, though imperfectly.

So you're saying that the fact that the fish is something and the statue is also something means that the person helped in identifying the object?

Yes. If I were the overall observer of the whole situation, I'd say the person who imagined a fish instead of a statue only succeeded in identifying that something was observed. He did a poor job of getting right. I wouldn't rely on that person if I were walking in the park.

But how about the idea of "negative understanding"? If 99.9% was wrong, isn't the entire computed understanding .1% - 99.9% wrong? Didn't it worsen the quality(maturity) of the image?

Hadn't thought of that. Yes misinformation is a possible concept. I haven't thought of how to characterize misinformation. Negative doesn't ring a bell for me. Anyone else?

Later: So far the best I can come up with is that there is no such thing as misinformation. What we think of as misinformation is really great distance ... distance so far the connection can't be made. Other observers see more in common and misinformation is statistical deviation according to some standard. Seems like an advanced concept, eh?

 

[BigApplePi]

Water example of Hierarchy

Here is the example of water from nature. Water has certain attributes. If we begin at the familiar level,
Level N we have constant volume, changing shape, conformance to containers, penetrability, clinginess. If we move down to
Level N-1 we have ingested water reacting with inner bodily systems and reacting chemically with other kinds of molecules.
Level N-2 at the molecular level, we have different attributes: hydrogen and oxygen atoms with electron shells encountering each other in special ways. Notice that these ways are not the same as those at Level N. At

Level N+1, we have an uncertain merging of waters with the stated attributes. We have larger bodies of water, other inert and living beings encountering water. We have movement over surfaces, large floating objects, flooding. These are different attributes than those at Level N. At
Level N+2, we have oceans, temperature gradients, reflections, tides. At
Level N+3, observable from outer space we have a thin skin covering parts of a globe. At
Level N+4 from deep space, water molecules may be detected, but the water at Level N+3 becomes undetectable.

Emergence occurs each time we move from one level to another. Something new is created or discovered regardless of upward or downward level direction. (Notice that when we leave a level, the opposite of emergence happens: something is destroyed or is moved into non-existence.) Observe the change in attributes from Level N-2 to Level N is more prominent than changes through the higher levels. The Level N attribute of water filling a container is not a property of water at the molecular level. The Level N-2 attribute of atoms interacting with each other in space is not the same as the fluidity of "solid" water at Level N. The Level N+3 attribute of a thin skin clinging to a globe by gravity is not the same as the wetness in washing hands at Level N.

Are these levels correct? Is there a better arrangement?

Can what happens at one level affect other levels? How? At the molecular level N-2, should energy be added or removed, atoms can find themselves being ordered in a defined manner or oppositely flying apart randomly unable to retain even regular distances at close range. The result is water at Level N disappears and is replaced by something called ice or steam. Those in turn affect Levels N+1 and N+2 though not Level N+4.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: TRANSLATION - UMS

Translation puts things which may or may not be closely alike in one-to-one correspondence. Analogies do the same. Metaphors are more distant in that the correspondence has to be sought out. Translation helps in understanding structure if we can achieve the correspondence.

Almost everyone has a nose* yet we can say no two noses are alike. When we note noses, their size, their position on the face, compare them, we are making a translation. When we observe there is such a thing as a nose, the concept, we are making a translation. A generalization is a translation, though it's a many to one correspondence.

*a pretty girl who had no nose made the cover of a national magazine recently.

Here is a mild example about translation. The Problems of Jungian...

 

[BigApplePi]

Seeds & Poisons

Seeds & Poisons

Notice how these seeds and poisons pass freely through a hierarchy ... yet to be defined.

 

[Words]

Re: Subjective and Objective PERSPECTIVE

Added: How about a relationship is a kind of "connection"?

I don't understand. I think connection = relationship.

When I get further along I will most more on "hierarchy" which may help in understanding that.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but is hierarchy synonymous to logic? It reminds me of rules due to its relationship to politics.

My reaction is regardless of one's ability to articulate, that is one of the main reasons for human talk. It's to improve on one's ability to get things across. I am here strongly for that reason myself.

That is both interesting and admirable. Perhaps I'll follow the same route.

If the imagination came directly from sensory observation, that observation is never perfect. Maybe 1 to 99 percent. Let's suppose here it's 99 percent accurate although "percent" is technically not a perfect term. So ten people observing at 99 percent are going to have different results. Here is an imperfect image:

Visualize a hula hoop. It traces circles around your waist. If your waist is the object, the hula hoop circles define your waist but never capture it. All definitions are different. Not sure if this gets across. (I couldn't find an internet picture.)

Can a hula hoop circle be elsewhere and not on your waist? Meaning, outside? Meaning, irrelevant and unconnected to the "waist"? unrelated to the object?

Anyways, you didn't really answer my question. I know that there are many hula hoop circles, what I want to know is what caused the various forms of deviation. Why did it change from object to subject?

As above. Now objects are not confined to the external material word. An idea could be an object. We could all think about "art" as the object and have different images about what that is. Yet hopefully there would be enough in common to identify the idea of that object, art.

Yes, but you said: Imagination resides in a person having grown from an infant experiencing the real world. What if one has no experience of the "external world"? Does that one person have imagination?

Could happen.

Then this is the unrelated hula hoop circle.

If different observers are too distant they can't communicate. One observer will think another is wrong. If all observers are close, they will communicate, though imperfectly.

What is the importance of communication in terms of the value of perspectives in defining an object?

If two observers were distant, hence, they cannot communicate, does this mean that one of them has an invalid perspective? if not, what does it mean in terms of validity?

Yes. If I were the overall observer of the whole situation, I'd say the person who imagined a fish instead of a statue only succeeded in identifying that something was observed. He did a poor job of getting right. I wouldn't rely on that person if I were walking in the park.

Would you consider his perspective invalid?

Later: So far the best I can come up with is that there is no such thing as misinformation. What we think of as misinformation is really great distance ... distance so far the connection can't be made. Other observers see more in common and misinformation is statistical deviation according to some standard. Seems like an advanced concept, eh?

What is the difference between "great distance" and one person simply being incorrect? And why would you consider the statement "a pig(perspective) is a cow(objective)" as partly true? Both may be "something" but their differences overwhelmingly subtracts their similarities.

Objective assumption:

1. A pig is something.
2. A pig is an animal.
3. A pig is a mammal.
4. etc.

"Distanced" assumption:

1. The statement assumes that the pig has the same size with the cow.
2. It assumes that the pig behaves similarly with the cow.
3. It assumes that the pig has same features.
4. same legs.
5. same tail.
6. etc.

Would you consider that everything is "partly" true?

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Subjective and Objective PERSPECTIVE

I don't understand. I think connection = relationship.

At the moment I'd say they are as good as the same.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but is hierarchy synonymous to logic? It reminds me of rules due to its relationship to politics.

Not the same at all. A hierarchy is a special way of arranging things or of seeing them arranged that way. Logic I believe is more definite. Logic implies a necessary order of things.

BAP: My reaction is regardless of one's ability to articulate, that is one of the main reasons for human talk. It's to improve on one's ability to get things across. I am here strongly for that reason myself.

Words: That is both interesting and admirable. Perhaps I'll follow the same route.

Go for it. That is how we learn and gain.

Can a hula hoop circle be elsewhere and not on your waist? Meaning, outside? Meaning, irrelevant and unconnected to the "waist"? unrelated to the object?

Yes. If, in the example, the waist represents the objective, the hula hoop represents how we are approximate. If we are further away, separate from the waist, that could represent the "black swan" where what happens is the unexpected and we are far away from our object.

Anyways, you didn't really answer my question. I know that there are many hula hoop circles, what I want to know is what caused the various forms of deviation. Why did it change from object to subject?

What caused the deviations? I guess because two things are not exactly alike. When we go after getting something exactly, we are far from perfect. We approximate. We experience the approximate.

Yes, but you said: Imagination resides in a person having grown from an infant experiencing the real world. What if one has no experience of the "external world"? Does that one person have imagination?

You tell me. If one has NO experience of ANY kind, how can they have an imagination? If they have SOME experience, their imagination will take off from there and may be limited or wild.

What is the importance of communication in terms of the value of perspectives in defining an object?

If two observers were distant, hence, they cannot communicate, does this mean that one of them has an invalid perspective? if not, what does it mean in terms of validity?

Right. That frequently happens. People fail to communicate. Then they can't compare results. One or both of them could be "off."

BAP: If I were the overall observer of the whole situation, I'd say the person who imagined a fish instead of a statue only succeeded in identifying that something was observed. He did a poor job of getting right. I wouldn't rely on that person if I were walking in the park.

Words: Would you consider his perspective invalid?

I would, because of my own judgment. But I could be wrong. If twenty people passed by the statue and told me it was a fish, I would have to look again and battle them all. Maybe they would convince me, but I still have to hold on to my own judgment.

What is the difference between "great distance" and one person simply being incorrect? And why would you consider the statement "a pig(perspective) is a cow(objective)" as partly true? Both may be "something" but their differences overwhelmingly subtracts their similarities.

Objective assumption:

1. A pig is something.
2. A pig is an animal.
3. A pig is a mammal.
4. etc.

"Distanced" assumption:

1. The statement assumes that the pig has the same size with the cow.
2. It assumes that the pig behaves similarly with the cow.
3. It assumes that the pig has same features.
4. same legs.
5. same tail.
6. etc.

Would you consider that everything is "partly" true?

Yes I would consider things you mentioned as partly true. I don't know if I'm ready to give a more formal definition of "distance." Let me just try for something:

Suppose we take the perspective of an adult versus the child. Both are looking at the cow. Both say, "pig." The adult is less accurate than the child and his judgment is more distant. Why? Because we demand more of the adult. The child's experience is limited so the child coming up with "pig" is good because of all the similarities. We are more demanding of the adult and insist the adult be more aware of the differences.

I think I will have a better explanation of the "distance" concept you raise here later. A good challenge.

 

[Words]

Tried posting this a while back hoping it would get posted eventually, but non-changed so I post again probably risking a double post:

Not the same at all. A hierarchy is a special way of arranging things or of seeing them arranged that way. Logic I believe is more definite. Logic implies a necessary order of things.

So a hierarchy can be many, while, logic is confined to one?

If we are further away, separate from the waist, that could represent the "black swan" where what happens is the unexpected and we are far away from our object.

Is the "black swan" still helpful in identifying the object?

We experience the approximate.

Why?

You tell me. If one has NO experience of ANY kind, how can they have an imagination?

Are there "internal" experiences? Are there experiences that are not sensational?

If they have SOME experience, their imagination will take off from there and may be limited or wild.

If imagination is purely sourced out of external experience, then wouldn't imagination be purely a product of the external and therefore, is only a copy of the external experience? Therefore, would there really be a distinction between imagination and external experience?

Yes I would consider things you mentioned as partly true.

Another Scenario:

Fact: X is something.

Person A states: X is nothing.
Person B states: X is something.

Are both perspectives partly true?


Another question, would you acknowledge that a person could end up with a perfectly true answer?

 

[BigApplePi]

HIERARCHY Defined

A hierarchy may be closed or open.

Closed Hierarchy definition:
A grouping or set of elements (said to occupy the lowest level) where elements are initially grouped (said to occupy the next higher level beyond the lowest) and in turn those groups are grouped (into the next higher level) until groupings are terminated (said to occupy the highest level).

According to this definition, a hierarchy is a set of sets of sets.

Open Hierarchy definition:
Beginning with a closed hierarchy, a grouping where either the elements at the lowest level can be formed into groups of other elements (lower elements said to occupy a still lover level) or a group at the highest level can be combined with other groups to form a still higher level.

These groups can be natural (found in nature) or articifial (created by man). They need not be formal as distinguishing between levels may not be clear.

Hierarchies of levels have two dimensions:
(A) Moving up or down a level
(B) Moving around within a level

One of the issues in further analysis is there are a multiplicity of kinds of hierarchies needing addressing. We know of
(1) Living things - plants, animals, the brain, learning, experiencing
(2) Social structures - governments, economics, internet forums, schools, language
(3) Intellectual enterprises - art, science, board & parlor games
(4) Machines - mechanical, electronic
(5) Nature - terrestrial, cosmological

Can you think of more kinds of categories?

 

[BigApplePi]

So a hierarchy can be many, while, logic is confined to one?

Not sure what that means. Many steps? A hierarchy is supposedly about many things while logic can be simple.

Is the "black swan" still helpful in identifying the object?

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.

BAP: We experience the approximate.

Why?

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

BAP: You tell me. If one has NO experience of ANY kind, how can they have an imagination?

Are there "internal" experiences? Are there experiences that are not sensational?

I'm not versed enough in physiology to know how much the brain registers internal happenings. We might become aware of internal changes to us that we were not aware of before. However while our conscious brain is functioning we have a greater or lessor awareness it is doing so. What we are experiencing internally is memory, not external sensation. This is a good example of hierarchy: external happenings --> brain registers it --> brain mulls it over internally (imagination). So the brain has lots of things stored in its internal memory and we "sense" our awareness of that. Such sensing is different from direct sensing.

If imagination is purely sourced out of external experience, then wouldn't imagination be purely a product of the external and therefore, is only a copy of the external experience? Therefore, would there really be a distinction between imagination and external experience?

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.

Another Scenario:

Fact: X is something.

Person A states: X is nothing.
Person B states: X is something.

Are both perspectives partly true?

Isn't Person A incorrect? Maybe I've missed your point.

Another question, would you acknowledge that a person could end up with a perfectly true answer?

Isn't Person B correct?

 

[A22]

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?


...


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?