<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type="text/css">p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}
p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}
p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><i>"Back in the seventeenth century, when science as we know it today took its first steps, scientists based their entire work on—what else?—</i><b><i>perceptual experience</i></b><i>: the things and phenomena they could see, touch, smell, taste or hear around them. That starting point, is course, </i><b><u><i>qualitative</i></u></b><i> in nature.</i><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><i>Soon, however, scientists realized that it is very convenient to describe the eminently <b>qualitative</b> world by means of <b><u>quantities</u></b>.</i><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><i>But then something bizarre happened: many scientists seemingly forgot where it all started and began attributing fundamental reality only to the <b><u>quantities</u></b>.</i><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><i>This, in a nutshell, is the beginning of </i>metaphysical materialism<i>, a philosophy that—absurdly—grants fundamental reality to mere <b>descriptions</b>, while denying the reality of that which is described. ... we began cluelessly replacing reality with its description, the territory with the map.</i><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><i>And so now we face the so-called 'hard problem of consciousness': the impossibility of explaining qualities in terms of quantities.</i><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><i>In the space of a couple of centuries, we tied ourselves up in hopelessly abstract conceptual knots and managed to lose touch with reality altogether.</i><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><i>Laboratory results in quantum mechanics, for instance, strongly indicate that there is no autonomous material world of tables and chairs out there. Coupled with the inability of materialist neuroscience to explain experience, this is forcing us to reexamine our earlier assumptions and contemplate alternatives. <b><u>Analytic idealism</u></b>—the notion that reality, while equally amenable to scientific inquiry, is fundamentally qualitiative–is a leading contender to replace metaphysical materialism."</i><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">The preceding was from <i>Science Ideated</i> by Bernado Klastrup.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">Factoid: when "perceiving alternate realities," e.g., while on LSD, brain activity decreases when material neuroscience predicts an increase.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><i>"Attention is not just receptive, but actively creative of the
world we inhabit. How we attend makes all the difference to the world we
experience. </i><i></i><br></div><span><p><i>Forget everything you thought you knew
about the difference between the hemispheres, because it will be largely
wrong. It is not what each hemisphere does – they are both involved in
everything – but how it does it, that matters. And the prime difference
between the brain hemispheres is the manner in which they attend. For
reasons of survival we need one hemisphere (in humans and many animals,
the left) to pay narrow attention to detail, to grab hold of things we
need, while the other, the right, keeps an eye out for everything else.
The result is that one hemisphere is good at </i><b><u><i>utilising</i></u></b><i> the world, the
other better at </i><b><u><i>understanding</i></u></b><i> it.</i><i></i><br></p><p><i>Absent, present, detached,
engaged, alienated, empathic, broad or narrow, sustained or piecemeal,
attention has the power to alter whatever it meets. The play of
attention can both create and destroy, but it never leaves its object
unchanged. How you attend to something – or don’t attend to it – matters
a very great deal."</i><br></p><div style="font-family:Arial;">Preceding from Iain McGilchrist's <i>Ways of Attending</i>. I am a big fan of McGilchrist and his book The Master and his Emissary and, I expect, the just ordered two volume, <i>The Matter with Things</i>.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">Just throwing some things to see if they stick against anyone's walls and prompts some conversation.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">Also, big fan of <i>The Dawn of Everything</i> mentioned on the list in the last couple of days. I think it has some valuable information and insights that would inform a lot of conversations on this list with regard sociopolitical organization and means of effecting change.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">davew<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div></span><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><i></i><br></div></body></html>