Bjorn,
Thank you for the questions. The easiest way to visualize the shared space between ideas is to look at the interactions between metaballs:
Metaballs - Wikipedia . If you look at image 1 on the right pane, you can obviously see that the two metaballs are attracted to each other. Why? What is the source of this attraction? Take a look at image 2. What is causing that indentation on the sphere? It's asking questions like these that lead to new insights.
I use the same process while interpreting all theories. This "principle of permanent curiosity" goes like this: The most important aspect of any theory is missing or hidden from view. For example, did you know the imaginary number was discovered by Heron of Alexandria using this same process? In this case he was trying to calculate the volume of a pyramidal frustrum. Einstein had a similar orientation, although his curiosity was the unseen forces behind the magnetic compass.
I enjoyed reading your translation of my text. Again, my only edit would be to replace the word perception with perspective. Perception to me is an inherently anthropocentric view to begin with, so if you must use it, then I suspect that its boundary conditions will limit your thinking to within the hierarchy, rather than beyond it.
Speaking of cells, have you seen this Ted.com video on supercomputing the brain:
http://www.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DLS3wMC2BpxU&h=01edb
So how are we conscious of our own perceptions when a single neuron is as unique as we are on the planet, that it takes a single computer to model a single neuron, and that current supercomputing technology can model only 10,000 neurons when we have over 100 billion in our heads? Given all this complexity, I would not be surprised if each neuron followed a PCT hierarchy!
Believe me, I have spent years trying to model this complexity. What I have learned in an effort to leverage it is that the most important feature is the signal-to-noise ratio. That's all you really need to control. Of course, you need to factor in the utility of noise (stochastic resonance) as well.
As for being stuck at level 7 (i.e., the use of perceptual categories), that's what happens when you confront a theory that is a polarity of another competing theory. Theories of this nature always have the seeds of the other polarity built in them if you look carefully. That is why I try not to get too close to theories, otherwise they limit your clarity of thought. What is most important is the unfolding contextual complexity, seen or unseen.
As for the use of other theories, the ultimate litmus test to me is whether or not a theory empowers you to empower others. If it does the former and not the latter, then you need to start over at the beginning of this message once again.
Chad
PS Check out the legend of Cupid and Psyche for the same perspective using a different message: Cupid and Psyche - Wikipedia
Chad Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633
Bjorn <bjsimon@ONLINE.NO> 10/7/2010 5:25 AM >>>
[From Bjorn Simonsen (2010.10.07, 11:25 EUST)]
Chad Green around 2010.10.06.
It is important that we appreciate the other side of the equation because
it is not the other side that is so important as attaining the shared space
between the sides. In other words, it is a process of stretching or
decentering which, when you have control over it, makes life as we know
it exponentially simpler and more meaningful. This shared space is the
origin from which our values, principles, and meaning itself emanates.
I don't know if I understand what you write. I think you talk about a metaphoric equation, but I have no idea how I can explain that two philosophical or psychological thoughts or values/principles have the same equation value. Sorry.
I understand your second sentence better if I write: "In other words, it is a process of control when I stretch or destretch my perceptions. It makes life meaningful if I wish to perceive a certain perception and I manage it. My perceptions of the extern world is the origin from which my thoughts and imaginations (also values/principles) emanate.
All: Speaking of meaning making, I am beginning to see a pattern in my
triangulation of the meaning of the word "perception". For example, the
winner of the 2010 Jean Nicod Prize, UCLA's Tyler Burge, states at the
beginning of his lecture series entitled Thresholds of Reason, that
"perception is the most primitive form of representational mind": >http://www.institutnicod.org/lectures2010_outline.htm ....
I think Tyler Burge perceive the extern world more or less in the same way as other people. But the thoughts and meanings that the extern world emanate for him are different from my thoughts and meanings.
I define perceptions as a dynamic matrix of perceptual signals moving from my sensing cells to central parts of the brain. I am able to be aware of, put my attention toward and be conscious of my perceptions, but I don't know where in the brain and how.
For me perceptions are the only thing/event/process I am aware of and they represent something in the extern world (outside my sensing cells) that I don't know what is.
Don't get me wrong. I have a copy of the PCT hierarchy taped to my
computer monitor as I refer to it often to make sense of my program
evaluation work, primarily at levels 9 and higher. However, I find
the word "perceptual" or "levels of perception" in the theory problematic.
In other words, you could say that I'm stuck at level 7 of the PCT
hierarchy if you applied PCT to itself.
Again I have problems understanding what you mean when you say: "I'm stuck at level 7 of the PCT
hierarchy if you applied PCT to itself." Give me an example where you apply PCT to itself.
So how can I resolve this cognitive dissonance? I ask this question
not on my behalf, but on behalf of my colleagues who will be asking
me this question once I include PCT, with credit to Bill, of course,
in a more comprehensive worldview that frames PCT as the first rung
of a ladder of knowledge (i.e., the shadow in Plato's ladder of love). by forgetting
Don't misunderstand when I say that you can solve your cognitive dissonance by forgetting Tyler Burge and Ronald Giere's perspectival realism. Study your Behavior: The Control of perception and your Making Sense of Behavior. I am just a simple PCT-er (if my PCT knowledge is correct).
bjorn
