Dog Bark


The dog that doesn’t bark

This is something you might be interested in. an exerpt. Still trying to figure you out. (my neurons are hungry and must be fed.)

>Actually, this is true because the Indians are using categorization itself (like George Lakoff’s *Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things* as a lexical category in Dyrbal), while metaphor is a different kind of categorizing used extensively — some might say nearly exclusively — in Western European and other languages, and which they like to fancy is universal. While all of us have been subtly conditioned/brainwashed/socialized by our European language/culture complex (Imprinted) to believe in the “things” of reality as being more real than the invisible connections between them, valuing the dancers over the dancing, it’s a highly important antidote and counterbalance to know that Native American and other indigenous peoples value the dancing over the dancers, believe that processes and interrelationships are more real than the ‘things’ that grow out of them — that the physical is an epiphenomenon of the non-physical, and that cyclical timing is more real than linear time. We need both descriptions for a complete picture of how reality works for everyone, as well how language works for everyone, on this planet.< Dan Moonhawk Alford.

found here http://www.fdavidpeat.com/forums/indigenous/alford.htm

AHA! notice the bold, this is how you think. concepts instead of symbols serial/parallel instead of binary/boolean. He thinks in the top down/bottom up method typical of western civilization however. (he doesn’t have the amerind imprinting, [if valid, i’ve only got a database of one.]) He’s a linguist so he might have much to say in re communication.

walt

Yeah, I thought you might resonate with moonhawk. If he doesn’t want to restart the forum you can. Get permission to use his emails.

i was going to suggest an ‘epilogue’ instead of going back to the beginning and telling the reader where i was going to end up. sherlock holmes does many strange things in the course of his inquiry that don’t make sense until the viewer gets to see the ‘missing connections’, as in the epilogue where the detective brings everyone together and then reveals ‘who the culprit is’.

there would be no point in sherlock stating his hypothesis upfront. he would do better to invent some inquiry that would be ‘telling’ so as to validate his hypothesis without ever stating it, then each of the anecdotes that support the still unseen hypothesis build support for it, … support that would nto be there if the participants had not curiously observed these apparent ‘diversions’.

Well, there you go big guy. There’s your beginning. (a prelogue) A prologue would address DrB’s concerns and maintain the integrity of your thought process. In the final anaylsis we are all ignorant, only the wise admit it. There is no TRUTH, there is only truth. In reality, Dunno. But we can get less dunno if we admit it. We can sneak up on it. Orientals think occidentals think backwards. IE start with the conclusion and work our way back to the question. I agree. Note I was just passing on DrB’s comment. I use learn as a transitive verb, as in “I’m going to learn you something.” I present data and evidence, say what I think about it and invite criticism. It is this lack of communication in education that imprints the Aristotelian brain fart during the “critical stage” of children’s education.

“It makes sense to me…….does it to you?”

Which is what SH is doing. By comparing “patterns” we can see “ that curious incident in the night” the dog that didn’t bark (silver flash) something that should be there but isn’t. This “curious incident in the night” is in EVERYTHING in western civilization.

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”

By pointing out the disjunct in the pattern, the answer “snapped” into place. That’s actually where I got the word SNAP, a person with SNAP (a Nexialist) can correlate many seemingly unrelated patterns to discern an overall rule. (shortcut) Then this “odd” pattern can be examined to find out why. THIS is what is missing in western civilization. The lack of SNAP IS the dog that didn’t bark. Something that should be there but isn’t . This is why people are dumb. THIS is the hurdle you must overcome in communication.

The algorithms (outputs) of the left mind and the right mind are compared, and if they disagree the “Does Not Compare” detector will (should) go off. This is what is not happening. This is the dog that doesn’t bark. This is the curious incident in the night. This lack of “does not compute” defines an idiot. The wires to this alarm have been cut by education.

Here’s one of my alarms> The man who isn’t there

BUT the ANN can.

The mind is elegant in it’s simplicity, incomprehensible in it’s scale, and glorious in it’s implementation.” – el Loco Gringo

https://ellocogringo.wordpress.com/12-the-aware-mind/10-the-aware-mind/

Somebody’s nibbling on my site again, probably from SAND. (I just sent them something) I notice an odd pattern. Most people click through, and occasionally someone will read 20 or 30 pages. A few have spidered my site. As people who “go off the reservation” are stigmatized, anonymity is a problem. Maybe talk to Mr. Geoff about a proxy for gentlemen.

Check out Grobstein on this page

https://ellocogringo.wordpress.com/16-the-warriors-mind/geoff-06/
Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • ellocogringo  On October 27, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    walt,

    the sherlock holmes joke i liked was the one where holmes and watson go camping;

    “Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John Watson went on a camping trip. After sharing a good meal and a bottle of Petrie wine, they retire to their tent for the night.
    At about 3 AM, Holmes nudges Watson and asks, “Watson, look up into the sky and tell me what you see?”
    Watson said, “I see millions of stars.”
    Holmes asks, “And, what does that tell you?”
    Watson replies, “Astronomically, it tells me there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, it tells me that Saturn is in Leo. Theologically, it tells me that God is great and we are small and insignificant. Horologically, it tells me that it’s about 3 AM. Meteorologically, it tells me that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow.
    What does it tell you, Holmes?”
    Holmes retorts, “Someone stole our tent.”

    we westerners, with all our clever logicalness, are getting very fancy in our answers and still totally miss what’s really going on. political shows on television are amazingly full of energy over bullshit arguments. what are they grappling with? maybe ‘differences’, the ghosts of departed quantities.

    we believe in the past because we believe in absolute space. (i know, … this is generalization). not only that but we believe that space is rectangular. if we walk along any one of the three orthogonal axis, we ‘go away’ in ‘one direction’ and never come back. if we have a clock with us, we say that our footsteps that we laid down behind us are always in the past.

    but we live on earth, on the surface of a sphere and so our footsteps (actions) taken in the past are also in front of us. ‘my future is my past’ is a line from an old blues song where the broken-hearted jilted lover can’t let go of his old flame and hopes that they could get back together in the future. only in absolute, rectangular space do you leave your past actions totally behind you. on the surface of the earth, a boat that circles the world will bump into the garbage he jettisoned off the back of his ship months ago.

    poincare said we should think about ‘topology’ when we inquire into ‘complexity’ rather than ‘cause’. imagine if the earth had a very small circumference so that we could walk around it more quickly (this is just to make something that already happens ‘pop out’ a bit more clearly). and supposing the earth was crowded with circumnavigating walkers and the surface was soft and muddy (to better visualize the amerindian ‘tread lightly ethic’). everyone’s footprints would be woven beneath and over everyone elses. the earth would have a ‘topography’ (landscape) made of footprints. the hills and valleys, the bumps and potholes would be ‘made of footsteps’. we would be the co-evolvers of the landscape we were included in. if we ‘acknowledged’ this, would we not be like the wildgeese and let the shapes that we co-tease out of the mud orchestrate our behaviour? would we not step so as to smooth the hard rims of potholes as they developed, round off the bumps and cultivate gently rising and descending paths on the big hill like bulges ad valley like holes.

    what would inform our experience as we participated in this co-evolution would not be like conventional thought because we would ‘do it first’ and try to make sense of it later (later we might form an architectural committee and give names to all the features and argue about ‘their’ development plans). initially, we would quite naturally step so as to improve the aesthetic/harmonious form of the land. that is, spatial harmonies naturally orchestrate our individual and collective behaviour. if the wildgeese are capable of this, why not man? (all things seem to be in the service of cultivating balance, even revolutionaries).

    BUT! … in our western culture, everyone, INSTEAD, wants to ‘make a difference’. that’s what the chancellor says at university graduation commencement ceremonies; ‘go out there and make a difference’. every day the western person asks himself how much of the difference between the way things are in the present and the way they were in the immediate past has their causal-agent ‘john henry’ on it, whether they judge it to be ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

    but the co-evolving topography on the small-circumference planet could not be split down into ‘who did what’. in the same way, the mutually orbiting bodies in the solar system don’t know who is contributing what because they are moving under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence and that’s not solvable for three or more bodies (the ‘three body problem’ that poincare continued to work on till he died has never been solved, but poincare figured it could be the foundation for an entirely new and different ‘system’).

    the ‘topology’ (geometric relationships) of people walking on a spherical surface such as our planet is the same regardless of the circumference. not until the radius of curvature goes to infinity does it no longer happen that our past and future are bound up in the present.

    the topography we are co-evolving, that we are included in, is taking form very quietly. it is like john lennon’s imagery; ‘life is what happens while we’re busy making other plans’.

    it is like the dog that did not bark in the night; its silence is deafening.

    ted

Trackbacks

  • By Social Mind 1 « el Loco Gringo on October 27, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    […] CT/RTSurvival QDFix Snap Ponder Derailment KnowNothing CupOfStupid Chrysalis BrainFart CircleJerk TheManThatIsn’tThere TheHumanZoo SteelMagnolia YayaSisterhood ArtOfManliness NakedApe ChimpFight DogBark […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: