Philosophy Discussion Forums

Protagoras wrote: ↑July 15th, 2021, 11:43 am
Having read all the thread. I will come at if from a slightly different angle.
I would seperate these viewpoints into the artistic and scientific temperament.
The feelings based and the materialist temperament.
The creative temperament and the controlling temperament.

Such fundamental influencers of thought are what I am trying to get at.

I am using "point of view" in the sense of Physicalist or Dualist. What is the foundation assumption that informs choice (or opinion).

I am using "perspective" in the sense of the discerning intellect enjoyed by the person expressing a point of view. Another way of saying that might be whether the person who has a Physicalist point of view, for instance, has the perceptual tools to express an informed opinion. This is not an informed opinion in the sense of education. There are many well-educated people who express untenable opinions, apparently because their point of view prevents them from perceiving "the rest of the story" possibly suggested by a more complete perspective.

Temperament is a concept that I think helps me get to my point. We can parse differences in temperament in many ways. Yours is a good way. I tend to say "As an engineer ..." because I know the way I see the world is very different than, say, a psychologist. How we parse it is not as important as the concept, itself.

A story I was once told by a telephone equipment sales man concerned a lost contract because they misread the temperament of their client. They treated an apparent high roller casino executive as more flamboyant than he was. He asked, "Do you really think I would be trusted with this job if I was as flamboyant as you thought?" Those sales people were later given a course in "styles," which is a way to consider temperament.

Thanks!

Tom Butler wrote: ↑July 15th, 2021, 9:02 pm

Protagoras wrote: ↑July 15th, 2021, 11:43 am
Having read all the thread. I will come at if from a slightly different angle.
I would seperate these viewpoints into the artistic and scientific temperament.
The feelings based and the materialist temperament.
The creative temperament and the controlling temperament.

Such fundamental influencers of thought are what I am trying to get at.

This reminds me of the classical and romantic modes of thought that Pirsig describes in 'Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance'. It's the same idea, I think.

Tom Butler wrote: ↑July 15th, 2021, 9:02 pm Temperament is a concept that I think helps me get to my point. We can parse differences in temperament in many ways. Yours is a good way. I tend to say "As an engineer ..." because I know the way I see the world is very different than, say, a psychologist.

I tend to say "As a designer ..." because I know the way I see the world is very different than, say, an engineer.

[I have engineering qualifications, but spent nearly 40 years as a designer (of software).]

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 16th, 2021, 8:33 am This reminds me of the classical and romantic modes of thought that Pirsig describes in 'Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance'. It's the same idea, I think.

That is an interesting reference. As I remember, in art, "romantics" are said to naturally emphasize form while "classical" thinkers tend to emphasize function. The author of the article considers this polarization a problem. While I agree, I think the purpose of classifying people into ways of thinking is intended to help everyone understand there is a difference. Perhaps most important, knowing people's point of view might enable better cooperation.

People are not the same. From one person's perspective, working with another person may further the first person's work or it may impede it. I spent a lot of time as a strategic planner, and in my company, I was probably the last hardware engineer in a office full of software engineers. Communication was always a challenge, but we shared the same sense of respect for eloquent function to achieve practical form.

Many of the ancient teachings emphasize the need to understand all paths but to learn to travel the middle way. A seeker, then, is taught to be able to approach choices from the classical point of of view (for instance), and if useful, move to the romantic point of view while always seeking the middle way.

That applies to the point I am trying to understand. In terms of ancient wisdom, seekers deliberately try to understand the underlying nature of experiences and habitually try to live in accordance with that understanding. I often encounter people who are educated, smart, well-intentioned but seemingly incapable of thinking outside of what they were taught. Is it the ability to think abstractly that is missing?

First comes fundamental characteristics ... perhaps temperament ... that enables a person to perceive underlying form. Then comes the evolution of personal axiomatic truths based on the resulting perception. What leads one person to a physicalist conclusion and another to a dualist conclusion from the same facts?

Tom Butler wrote: ↑July 16th, 2021, 1:57 pm I often encounter people who are educated, smart, well-intentioned but seemingly incapable of thinking outside of what they were taught. Is it the ability to think abstractly that is missing?

What I call 'flexibility of thought' is rare. Not only that, but it is treated with active contempt by just the sort of people you describe. It's the ability to broaden a point of view, to generalise so that we can (sometimes) discover the pattern. It's something I have always valued in myself, when I could do it. I was stunned when I discovered this highly valuable way of thinking is treated with scorn by those who are frightened (?) by it.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 18th, 2021, 11:00 am What I call 'flexibility of thought' is rare.

Take a look at https://ethericstudies.org/first-sight-theory/. James Carpenter https://www.parapsych.org/users/jcarp/profile.aspx composed a theory he refers to as "First Sight Theory." While he is an active parapsychologist, his day job is clinical psychology.

Of course, "First Sight," is a reference to psi sensing and the way our mind preprocesses perception. You can ignore that part if you wish. You have indicated awareness of the preprocessing part. The important part of the theory is what I refer to as the "Ruleset" for preprocessing is detailed in the Corollaries. I refer to part of the preprocessing function as the "Perceptual Loop."



Worldview is the arbiter of what we consciously experience. From birth, its dominant authority is our human's instincts.

The Extremity Corollary is probably the one that most applies here:

(paraphrased, I think) #10. Extremity Corollary: "The frequency of switching affects the relative density of accumulated additive or subtractive references to the meaning in question. Rapid switching renders potential meaning irrelevant to ongoing experience"

(paraphrased, I think) #9. Switching Corollary: A person will be fairly consistent in how information is processed, (but) may switch in how information is weighted, the sign attributed to it, and therefore, whether or not it is included in behavior. This switching will occur rapidly or slowly depending on the consistency and purity (focus) of unconscious intention, and this, in turn, is determined by the relative weight of the information over time, situational factors that promote or diminish critical analysis, changes of approach in a task and mood.

Switching, which is influenced by personality style, is not necessarily a good thing.

Again from Carpenter -- Persons who are disposed to switch rapidly include those who:

• tend to approach situations cognitively and analytically

• lack consistent purpose and motivation

• take a detached-observer posture toward most situations

• are chronically ambivalent

• are cognitively disorganized are highly distractible

Persons who tend to switch slowly, conversely, tend to be persons who:

• approach situations globally and holistically

• are strongly and consistently purposive

• engage themselves wholeheartedly in situations

• are not overly self-doubting or uncertain

• are well-integrated cognitively

• are prone to hold focus purposively and not become distracted

• are dissociative (when in certain states).

As far as I can tell, the one input we have from our conscious self to our perceptual processes is intention. I do not understand how to model the trigger that changes a person from passive expression of Worldview to intended examination of Worldview. Lifetime-wise, I see the "realization" event as a change in phase in which the person gradually realizes the need to examine the implications of assumed truths. When I try to help a person move toward greater lucidity, I begin with teaching the importance of managing intention and examining implications of assumed truth.

Again, the real question is what enables a person to begin movement from passive living to examined living? My assumption is that society is better of as more people make that change.