Mitch Cronin Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 "In the vortex of process, there are no fixed points of view. Understanding is never a point of view." I'm about to ask the question you've said repeatedly is one that can be worth asking.... Sez who? Consider light... I percieve it from my particular point of view, as do you, as do any others who observe the same light.... as fixed points, we observe only what we can... we can, however, move and add to our perspective, seeing other points of view of the same light source, or the same object as viewed from different angles.... adding more information about what it is we're viewing... adding to our understanding... A prism could be said to understand more of the light source, or at least, add to our understanding of light, by showing us more of what comes from that light.... As our understanding is enhanced, we adjust our point of view accordingly... it becomes more like a three dimensional understanding of the observation. Yet we still hold a point of view, now better for the triangulation of available information. The "understanding" is still, and I think always, limited to whatever points of view we're able to achieve.... Unless what it is that we're understanding is that we cannot possibly remove ourselves from our own point(s) of view. That is to say... if we understand our limits in what it is we're trying to understand, we can better identify the truth of our understanding. A millenium ago, that the world was shaped like a ball was not well understood... probably few had that "point of view".... a few centuries ago, that the Earth orbited around the Sun was not well known, and there were few who held that point of view... as we learned more, we developed a better understanding and adjusted our point of view.... yet we know there is still much we don't understand. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that an accurate assesment of understanding would include an awareness of the point of view that understanding comes from? ....Though I'd agree it isn't a "fixed" point of view. ...just another rabbit trail this mind has wandered down today... Cheers, Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 And a fine rabbit trail it is, Mitch! Yes, I can hear Benny as clearly as the days I used to listen to the radio, then watch the show on telebision (as Dennis the Menace would say). I think you have expressed McLuhan's notion eloquently and better than I could have because I had never seen it from that "point of view". My own understanding of it, and I will say straight out that it was a fairly simple understanding, was that as someone understood something, that wasn't necessarily linked nor did it imply a point of view..it was just that: Understanding. The intent was to convey a suspension of judgement, a non-ideological view, one that took in more information...in short, precisely what you've written. For me, the phrase has application in political/economic discussions where one has to be careful about one's posture in the discussion. I try never to have hands-on-hips or poke at chests but sometimes fail and slip into the "convinced" mode. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with being convinced, but one had better base it upon independantly inspectable evidence to be taken seriously! "Understanding" in the way McLuhan meant it, to me, is expressed just that notion: That adopting the stance that the evidence is all important and one's viewpoint is unimportant in the sense that it can't "re-do", deny or set aside what is. I wonder if it might not be the same thing as saying, "In the vortex of process, there are no ideologies". Evidence is never an ideology"? Especially in these discussions, I think it is important to always remember the difference. I realize there are significant difficulties with that because one always interprets, (the study of interpretation is called hermeneutics...fascinating stuff and quite accessible) what is, or what one sees/hears etc. The approach favoured is to examine a lot of material and see what filters. The view doesn't always appreciate the subtleties that, notwithstanding my views on US media and even their foreign policies, there is good work being done and not everyone in the media is a sycophantic fool...it just doesn't work that way as we know, but complexity is difficult to express...without getting complex! And I really am having a merry old time; I love Christmas, with family gathered around, the kids coming home and the house all decorated. Its just that ideas don't take holidays! Off to find something special for my loved one... What a great board eh? Just some wonderfully intelligent and fine contributions, yours included. A very Merry Christmas Mitch. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted December 22, 2004 Author Share Posted December 22, 2004 And I really am having a merry old time; I love Christmas, with family gathered around, the kids coming home and the house all decorated. Its just that ideas don't take holidays! No, of course they don't... y'know... I almost kicked myself earlier after I suggested that maybe we could get angry later (or words to that effect)... The spirit of this season can be a beautiful thing, but you're right of course, it can't eliminate the need or the urge for thought and ideas unrelated... That crack was unfair and I apologize for that. ...please chalk it up to personal mood. I sure am with you on the loving this! ... What a great board eh? Just some wonderfully intelligent and fine contributions Yessir! It is that, in spades! Cheers Don, Merry Christmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccairspace Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Mitch, When I read this last week, I wanted to reply, but was variously distracted and preoccupied. Although the discussion involved primarily “points of view”, it is “understanding” that has most import. You state: “I perceive it from my particular point of view…” and, “As our understanding is enhanced, we adjust our point of view accordingly... “ I defined these in two ways. One definition of “point of view” is as a vantage point, or an observer’s platform, from which one can view a concept, a phenomenon, or entity etc. The second is as an opinion, derived from other’s opinions (ideologies), or our own experiences or observational platforms (“points of view”). McLuhan’s quote is out of context, so I am unsure to what he was referring, but when I first read it, I interpreted “vortex of process” to imply continuous movement and as such, to have “no fixed points of view”. I also inferred that understanding is derived from process and because process is not static, then understanding cannot be a point of view. What is interesting is that I read “point of view” to be “opinion”, not “vantage point”, and it changes the whole concept. Your rabbit trail poked these old brain cells into looking at the quote from a different “point of view”… With reflection upon, and contemplation of, the Christmas season, it is the understanding that we derive from “vantage points” that we need, more so than from opinions or ideology. And I agree with you, in that the more points of view, which we can find to look at a concept, the greater should be our understanding, and as our understanding grows, so should our points so view. But the most difficult vantage point (or point of view) to adopt, on our way to understanding, is always the other’s. Unfortunately, it is often the most important. If the best platform is from the top of that mountain, way over there on the horizon, with swamps and scary creatures between us and it, then we tend to stick with our reassuring and safe platforms from which we usually look at the world. Surrounded by non-threatening opinions and recognisable ideology, we sit within a comfortable fog. This tends to limit our understanding because it limits our point of view… In reality, understanding is usually very hard work because we need a lot of effort to clear the fog, to suspend entrenched opinion, or judgement, and it does require, as Don says, the adoption of “a non-ideological view”. I truly believe, however, that with love and tolerance - devoid of ideology - we can find ourselves to have effortlessly scaled that mountaintop and that understanding will dawn gently, bringing with it warmth as well as light, and perhaps peace… ccairspace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted December 28, 2004 Author Share Posted December 28, 2004 Hi ccairspace... good to talk to you... I like your last paragraph there. I agree with you also. In time - and we're touching on beliefs here again - I too think we'll all understand. It may be obvious to point out that we've interchanged a fixed and a variable meaning for the word "understanding". We can completely understand certain things; that is, we can know them, or grok them perhaps ... and we can have an understanding of more complex things that can be improved upon, or grow. For example, one could have an understanding of a 767's pneumatic system to a degree that cannot be improved upon (though I wouldn't be so arrogant as to make that claim, it's designers could probably do so), but at any point in my own experience, I had an understanding which, if one had taken a snap shot, would represent my vantage point at that point in time. My point of view, as it existed, from that vantage point, within my then level of understanding... a moving or fluid understanding, not yet complete, yet fixed by that snapshot. "In the vortex of process" the understanding does certainly seem to represent a moving or changing field of view. To understand simply that a process is dynamic is perhaps an example of a degree of understanding ...but one's understanding of whatever that fluid process happens to be can only be looked at by a snapshot that will necessarily be fixed in time, and represent the point of view that existed from the vantage point of the observer at that point in time. You could, however, witness the change from past "snapshots" and interpolate from there that the understanding is fluid as well. In simpler terms... if we understand that our point of view is always changing with our experiences... and our vantage points continually afford a wider field of view, we can also recognize that our opinions are subject to change as well... Trouble comes when we draw conclusions based on a mere snapshot of a fluid process. "But the most difficult vantage point (or point of view) to adopt, on our way to understanding, is always the other’s. Unfortunately, it is often the most important. If the best platform is from the top of that mountain, way over there on the horizon, with swamps and scary creatures between us and it, then we tend to stick with our reassuring and safe platforms from which we usually look at the world. Surrounded by non-threatening opinions and recognisable ideology, we sit within a comfortable fog. This tends to limit our understanding because it limits our point of view…" If I understand the existentialist viewpoint correctly, I'd say it might be somewhere in that paragraph that you and he parted company. In fact... wouldn't the true existentialist have abandoned this conversation as soon as the notion of concern for understanding came up? I agree with you... but that's because I care about the other's point of view... and I can see value in the understanding to be gained by a study of that perspective. ....which is probably why you and I are both here?.... and I hope we haven't chased others away with this... (you like how I threw in the 767 pneumatic system to add the aircraft related flavour? ) Maybe too heady for most in the middle of this holiday season? Cheers, Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDR Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 I have no doubt that I could add my own clarity of thought to all of this and astound you with incredible insights and wisdom, but I am still embroiled in this cribbage marathon with my father-in-law. The score is now 51 to 48 in favour of yours truly, my eyes are bugged, I have a perpetual glazed and even slightly haunted look and all I can see are spots. (The spots seem to be heart , spade etc shape if you catch my drift.) This is only the 28th. He isn't leaving until the second. I now have to leave my father-in-law behind and go to my parents as I do each night --- to do what, you might ask --- you got it--- play a game of crib with my mother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccairspace Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 ...my eyes are bugged, I have a perpetual glazed and even slightly haunted look and all I can see are spots. (The spots seem to be heart , spade etc shape if you catch my drift.) I have no doubt that I could add my own clarity of thought to all of this and astound you with incredible insights and wisdom, I have no doubt either... This is only the 28th. He isn't leaving until the second. By then, Mitch may be back on night shifts and fuzzy brained, but I'll still be here... working only day shifts and still fuzzy brained. I'll hold off with the other topic that we discussed until your familial obligations have lessened. However, sir, when it comes to cribbage, I think you need to be taken down a peg or two... ccairspace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Fascinating trajectories here... To me, the words '..vortex of process' relate to the act of "keeping the question open"....suspending any judgement or acceptance, not because more information is needed before conclusions may be drawn but to avoid concluding at all. Clearly, such a stance is at great odds with a Cartesian approach to the world, but "coming to conclusions" is a peculiarly human trait. It doesn't happen in nature. I like to equate the term "understanding" with the German word verstehen which I interpret to mean a kind of understanding that "goes deeper" (tieferes verstehen) but in doing so keeps the question open to further understanding. The dialogue therefore, is "always and ever on the move". I looked again for the phrase to find the original context and the closest I came was McLuhan's book, "The Gutenberg Galaxie", so I'll have to keep looking. The wonderful aspect of all this is however, that the interpretation (and following discourse ) mirror life's conversation in the sense that even without the context conceived of by the original author, there is the context brought by the present discourse itself and that is just as valid when one "keeps the question open". In other words, there isn't a "meaning out there" if only we could juuusst find it, get to it, trap it, state it and declare, There!!, We've got it! A very simply example is The Naming of Things: When we "name" something, the question is almost always closed. When we "teach" names to young people, ("That 'bird' is a 'Robin'), the assumption is that we "know" what "robin" is and of course, we don't. Philosophical questions, (ontological, epistemological) are more complex in nature, but the phenomena of "naming" and "assuming we NOW have knowledge" is the same. In suspending judgement, meaning and interpretation is forever "on the move" and constantly re-emerging in the discourse. To one raised on Cartesian interpretations of knowledge (epistemology ), such a state of amorphous affairs without seeming "rules" is likely to lead to an intellectual (if not physical! ) nausea. These are not easy areas of engagement. But as with all philosophy, relevance to "everyday life" is obscured by the language. Philosophy in fact, is extremely relevant to everyday life for the examination of the assumptions by/through/under which we "decide" how we are to act are grounded in philophical assumptions. To me, that is why it is so important to "keep the question open", which, to put it another way, is "the vortex of process". Its another way of not living through ideologies, an act or decision which permits one belief system or another to impose from the outside, its understanding on one. All this said, there are absolutely those areas of "knowledge" (how-to knowledge ), where conclusions are of crucial importance such as the work we all do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.