"Other ways of knowing," aka Different Cognitive Styles

[okasha]

It's long been recognized that not everyone aquires information/knowledge in the same way. Anyone who is even remotely associated with eduction, from first-grade teacher aides to University professors, knows that some students learn visually, some learn aurally/orally, some kinaesthetically. There are even a few who take in the world around them most readily from their sense of smell. There's really no argument about this.

In his Drawing from Observation, Brian Curtis defines two different cognitive styles, which correlate roughly to left-and right-brain activity (pp. 32-33). He presents them as follows:

RATIONAL COGNITIVE STYLES: INTUITIVE COGNITIVE STYLES:
Logical Emotional
Scientific skill Artisitic sensitivity
Intellectual Sensuous
Deductive Imaginitive
Rational Metaphoric
Discrete Continuous
Pragmatic Impulsive
Directed Free
Objective Subjective
Sequential Gestalt
Clear and direct Complicated pattern
Constructive/step-oriented Global/simultaneous
Temporal Non-temporal
Verbal reasoning Non-verbal understanding
Symbolic/abstract Concrete
Analytic (linear) Synthetic (holistic)
Successive Simulataneious
Trial and error Educated guess
Rule of laws Open to ambiguity, complexity and paradox
Explicit Tacit
Narrow focus Encompassing

He argues that the art student must rely on intuitive rather than rational information processing in order to draw accurately from observation.

It strikes me that the difference in these cognitive styles is also the difference between "ways of knowing," though I think it would be more accurate to call them differences in ways of perceiving or experiencing the world. Most of us are able to shift back and forth between these two styles at need: rational to balance the budget, intuitive to paint. Rational to pursue science, intuitive to experience relgion. There's a spectrum, of course, with extremes at either end. At the "rational" extreme is the devotee of scientism who insists that no knowledge exists except through application of the scientific method; at the "intuitive" extreme, the spaced-out druggie humming with the universe right through the red light and into the telephone pole.

I think Curtis' definitions also support a point made in another thread: the greater the number of people who share an experience, the greater the likelihood that the experience is valid. This applies to religious as well as to scientific areas.

[notadmblnd]

1. I think I disagree with your last statement

Take for example, the Salem Witch Trials. More than one person was executed on the testimony of a group of people. Just because those people testified that witches made them experience things that was the work of the devil, did not add to the validity of their experience. Hysteria, peer pressure and group think- also must be taken into account.

[cbayer]

27. I agree that there are situations to which the theory does not apply,

particularly when you are dealing with a group that is divided on a subject.

The issue came up when there was a comparison made to believing in a god versus believing in flying unicorns.

Belief in god is not a psychotic state, despite what some people here say. It is relatively normal because it is shared by so many.

But a firmly held belief in flying unicorns would most likely be psychotic because it is held by so few.

So, one might conclude that the religious have experiences in this spectrum that are shared by many others and lead them to a similar place. That is, they have ways of *knowing* that are shared but not by all.

[tama]

30. OK, so 'normality'

is defined by social conformism and ability adapt to and cope with consensus reality of "group-thinking". "If you believe in democracy majority cannot be wrong" and so on...

But the game of "normal" vs "insane" is not just purely a numbers game of "They say I'm crazy, I say they are crazy, they voted me down", if we accept also qualitative factors in addition to quantitative?

So let's suppose we start from some ethical axioms and define "faithfulness" to Golden/Silver rule as normal and sane, and deduce from that axiom e.g. that all believers in power hierarchies (religious, statist etc.) are suffering from collective insanity, regardless how the majority of authorities and authoritarian followers regard those they consider different, dissenting and unnormal?

And further, let's suppose someone has shamanistic visions and in those visions a flying unicorn called Bruce as her/his spirit teacher, teaching the wisdom of Golden/Silver rule... ? Would you like to be considered "psychotic" for having such experience and shut in mental asylum if you open your mouth and tell publicly about your experiences and the wisdom of Golden/Silver rule by a normative power hierarchy obviously not acting according to that ethical axiom?

[cbayer]

32. While I respect your POV on this and can see the validity of your arguments,

there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

People who hold unique "truths" may or may not be psychotic. And if these do not interfere with their ability to care for themselves and does not present a threat to themselves or others, there is no need to even label them, let alone intervene.

But for some, this is not the case, and their unique truths can cause very serious problems.

I guess the question becomes not whether they are more or less real that what every else is experiencing, but at what point it becomes necessary to label them so and act on their behalf.

[tama]

35. That's why

I chose ethical axioms as the qualitative marker. And now back to our normative consumerist consensus reality and globalized capitalistic civilization causing very serious problems such as robbing all that it can and destroying the carrying capacity of this planet in obviously suicidal manner... so the question was, where do you draw the line? Is it past the point of labeling our consensus reality - and ourselves as products and parts of this culture - as psychotic or insane or loony or what you prefer?

[cbayer]

36. tama, you are talking over my head.

Could you put this in simpler language or concepts that I, someone without a lot of education in this area, can understand?

[tama]

38. Sorry, I'll try, and thanks for asking

Basically just thinking on level of societies and cultures instead of their individual members and applying the same criteria you suggested: harmful and dangerous to themselves and their environment.

If you need to ask how our consumerist culture is dangerous to itself, the answer as simply as I can put it, by destroying the capacity of it's environment to carry and sustain it.

So by very simple logic and criteria, if the culture we live in is insane, so are we who are brought up into this insanity of which we are parts of, not outside it. And as they say in AA and elsewhere, first step of getting better is admitting that you are ill.

If you haven't already stopped reading and turned away in disgust, or don't do it right now, next phases that may be useful are recognizing and admitting that mechanisms of denial and projection are not just what others do. And recognizing those mechanisms in one's self can become a constant practice, and awareness of those mechanisms can help to act accordingly, but less mechanically and more creatively.

Also, not denying one's own insanity as member of insane culture can help identify with empathy and compassion with those individual members who react to this insanity in their various ways, including reactions and symptoms that this culture normatively defines and externalizes as insanity. Of course it can be wise to learn to live in way that you can cope with the insane system and avoid being labelled insane and outcast, but that wisdom does not come at the cost of abandoning and not listening to your conscience.

To tie up with this group, the kind of "awakening" I'm describing is not dissimilar to religious awakening. And can be in many cases very painful process, as the knowledge does not stay at purely intellectual level, which can be always easily rationalized away from guiding actions, but becomes more and more fully embodied knowledge.

[cbayer]

39. Thanks, that makes more sense.

There are true psychiatric disorders that have biochemical bases. These have nothing to do with being in an insane environment, though it certainly doesn't help.

What you are talking about sound more like what Freud would call neurotic illnesses - those that are not necessarily biologically based, but due to environment, experience, trauma, inability to make sense out of things. Nature vs. nurture, as it were.

I would agree that in the latter (neurotic) group, the "symptoms", explanation and cure would be very different and could be unique to each individual.

But in the case of a biologically based illness, the approach might be vastly different.

I think there is value in trying to make the distinction.

[tama]

40. Well, the "quantum looney" etc.

philosophical sceptic that I am, I don't subscribe to that biochemical world view, but see phenomena of classical matter and "thought" (Mind-Body -problem) matter just as two different aspects of deeper level of nature. There are correlations, but no a priori reasons to assume that those correlations necessarily mean causal relations. Or deny causal processes going both ways (metaphor of pendulum or oscillator between mind and body aspects might work?), for that matter, most importantly we are organic wholes.

A good example is "mental" training by professional etc. athletes using mental images of going through the motions with perfect success. Muscles and body do physical training when guided by mental images just like during "actual" physical training.

[cbayer]

41. This is where we will part ways pretty dramatically.

I know that psychiatric disorders exist and to make them all "mind" or "mental" is a great disservice to those that suffer from them.

While there is clearly a lot of overlap between mind/body, sometimes it's just chemistry and no different than having diabetes or another purely physical disorder where you would no expect someone to just overcome it by force of will.

[tama]

42. Hmm

I'm not so sure you are "dramatic" disagreement with the position I described and is called in philosophy neutral monism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism

[okasha]

50. Thank you.

That says it very clearly. Real "mental" illness is basically a physical illness in the brain--serotonin, dopamine, whatever--out of whack. That physical illness produces behavioral symptoms outside the "norm." If this were not true, medications would not be effective in treatment.

[NoOneMan]

56. If you recognize the condition, how can you continue to suffer from it without being equally insane?

Firstly, I feel most of civilized mankind is suffering from some collective psychosis to engage in perpetual acts that push them towards cataclysmic bottleneck events and suffering (whether it be first-hand, or suffering of others we exploit). The very fact these processes are ignored or twisted into notions of "progress" (towards what?) illustrates how deluded our people are. The Gods of Infinite Growth and Technology are unquestionable and their absence is unthinkable; people would rather die often then resign themselves to a fate without these new Gods.

But I am a member of that society without the practical ability to leave to the degree I wish. All around me, I see an unrecognized dystopia that I am disturbed to be a part of. My children's toys come from slave shops made by "lesser" children who put them together by hand. Every dollar I spend for my family activities is derived in some way (either first-hand or secondarily) from the exploitation of others, who slave so that I can sit behind a desk and comfortably make a living doing very little useful work. Every bit of that spending, in some way, shape, or form, contributes to the degradation of our very earth.

So I sit here understanding this, and in some way teaching these truths about our system to my own children who benefit from mass exploitation and destruction of this ecosystem. But, such an act almost teaches the permissibility of my actions. To act in such a manner while accepting and acknowledging it must be insane in its own way, is it not?

Yes, the "awakening" is painful, but no matter what I do to change my own patterns, once you understand how much of a part of the system you are, you almost must become sociopathic (to the environment and 3rd world) to carry on and sleep at night (thus bringing up Zerzan's solution).

[tama]

65. And then... what the heck do we know?

Human technological civilization could be just Mama Gaia using this species to develop an antidote against nasty meteors that occasionally knock her evolution of biosphere cortex largely out of function. And after humans build robot civilization to manage the antidote, etc. that Mama deems useful and necessary, buh-bye humans, thanks and sorry for the trouble.

Or some other narrative. Or letting go of narratives and all the drama

If - and when - one becomes tired of being angry at the external world, all the seemingly mindless suffering and injustice, one can turn attention inwards, for a while, and see what kind of answers arise from deep within. I've received such as these:

Everything is precious. Experience all that you want and need to learn from this life what it is that you want to learn.

Feel well, because feeling well is perfectly OK, best way to be helpful (you are not helping much if you are not feeling well and in need of help ), and what all compassionate beings ultimately wish for each other.

Help is welcome, but not necessary. Why would you want to help to "fix" the world?

***

My answer to the last question was: to feel important. Maybe because that answer gave me experience that I had been looking for. So, follow your own path, get your own answers as they come. Because all that is and will be as precious as everything else.


PS: Happy New Year!

[NoOneMan]

69. "using this species to develop an antidote against..."

Na, I have a "feeling" thats absolutely incorrect and our existence is less significant than we think (which will be apparent in a million years). Meteors are but a part of this very universe we all belong to after all, and their impact has always been an integral part of the evolutionary process that has brought forth a conscious, intelligent species in the first place. If anything, our actions of creating a cataclysmic event is acting in place of a meteorite to further evolution after our intelligence has subverted it.

I'm not alone with this "feeling" (which may be derived from a subconscious logical/mathematical process of evaluating our surrounding systems). We are part of the natural world that we are attempting to domesticate/eradicate due to a pervasive culture that spreads a collective psychosis (diminishing many of our abilities to understand these "feelings&quot .

But hell, what the heck do we know.

[tama]

70. No

you are not alone with that feeling.

[Laochtine]

43. From what you said

Popular thoughts are normal, unpopular thoughts are likely to be psychotic.
So a lot of people make a religion, a few make a cult.
The firmly held belief that Iraq war was a good thing, not so good a psychotic break.
Hmm, 1930's Germany and Japan come to mind, I'll let you do the work on that one.

I find this way of knowing extremely flawed.

[cbayer]

44. I did not say that.

I am only saying that the possibility that something is true might be correlated with the number of people who believe it.

It's not an absolute by any means and I brought it up to counter the argument that belief in god is equivalent to believing in flying unicorns. It's not and the comparison is only used to mock.

[humblebum]

45. In silent agreement. Well put.

[trotsky]

46. The possibility that something is true has no relation to the number of people who believe it.

That's such an absurd statement, it even has its very own logical fallacy.

[humblebum]

47. So then, if one juror thinks a defendant is guilty, he's guilty, but if all 12 say he's not guilty,

is he still guilty?

Seems to me that in that case numbers do matter.

If a hundred people see a space ship land with little green men, but no one else believes them and one person sees the same event and no one believes him. Is either more or less true?

What we are talking about here is the probability of something being true and in that case numbers do matter and there is no logical fallacy.

[EvilAL]

74. If one juror 'thinks' he's guilty

it doesn't change the reality of whether the guy did it or not. So the numbers do not matter. The beliefs of the jurors don't change anything.

[humblebum]

83. Never said it did. But I did say that there was a higher probability of guilt

if 12 people think he is guilty vs. one person thinking he's guilty. And that is exactly what we are talking about. No logical fallacy.

[EvilAL]

113. I don't see it like that,

if you want to say there is a higher probability of guilt that's fine, but it doesn't make it so. Maybe I misread the earlier comments and came in on the wrong point, but believing something doesn't make it real and it really doesn't make it any more possible that the claim is true regardless of how many people believe it.
Here's a hypothetical for you then, if 11 people say they saw a sasquatch walking through a field and the 12th person says it was a bear, is it more probable that it was a sasquatch?

[Laochtine]

88. Justin Beiber is the best singer?

Lotsa people think lotsa things, monsters on Mars, Moon made of cheese and so on. The belief in Thor is equivalent to the Jesus,
Loki, Atlanta, Quetzalcoatl, and Poseidon, popularity means nothing except to the people that are being oppressed by the popular.

[okasha]

49. I think I should probably have added

that the "rational" and "intuitive" dichotomy has refers as much to processing sensory information as to perceiving it.

Because I grew up and as an adult largely remain in a religiously diverse environment, I have been struck by how the religious experience remains consistent across divides of geography, culture and theology. Which is another essential point here: religion is something that is experienced, rather like sex or the transcendence of nature. It's when it becomes intellectualized that we have theology, which is something different altogether.

[cbayer]

60. I have been struggling with putting a similar idea into the right words and

like the way you have done it.

It is hard to understand how those that ascribe to otherwise diverse religious groups can have such similar experiences at time. It causes me to wonder if there is not some type of experiences that transcend understanding and whether everyone has them or are even capable of having them.

I also like the distinction you make between religion and theology. Since the god debate will probably never be resolved, it suits me better to discuss religion rather than theology.

[okasha]

62. I recently saw an article about a local group of matachines,

ceremonial dancers whose traditions go back to pre-Columbian roots in Mexico. They were performing in honor of Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Holy Cross. Their descriptions of their experience were totally consonant with what I have read/heard of the experiences of Protestant Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Native Americans, etc.. I've seen the Quran quoted as saying "Many doors open on God." I think that's true, and something that the Buddhist image of the dharma wheel also expresses.

I don't know if the capability to have such experiences is universal, even for those who believe on the basis of theology. Thomas Aquinas was arguably one of the most rational thinkers of his own or any other day, yet he had that transcendental experience very late in his life, and for him it rendered all his rational, Aristotelian theological work "as ashes." You raise another important question here, I think.

[tama]

71. I see no reason to presume otherwise

also anthropological study of shamanhood and religious/spiritual experience points to lot of common universal elements, which then are interpreted according to contexts of cultural variation.

And given the universality, why would not the experiences in some form or other be potentially open to all individuals?

I also consider the "Cartesian Egoism" of 'Cogito Ergo Sum' profound and universal spiritual experience: I am, this way of experiencing, here and now.
And as solipsism is seldom satisfactory position, next stage is the question and creative force of "What Else?".

[NoOneMan]

76. If this is the case,

It is hard to understand how those that ascribe to otherwise diverse religious groups can have such similar experiences at time. It causes me to wonder if there is not some type of experiences that transcend understanding and whether everyone has them or are even capable of having them.

Wouldn't cultural or religious filters that dictate how one must interpret these experiences--if they are even important to the human experience--be malevolent or distracting from the purpose of the experience (presuming there may be an evolutionary purpose)?

If there is a purpose to having similar "spiritual" brain phenomenon, I'm not sure having 2000 year old books and organized religion interpret them for you in a specific context is useful.


Clearly, I'll go out on a huge limb here and say there is value to this experience and there are some similar messages we get from them that our civilization ignores or withdraws from.

[cbayer]

77. In terms of their adaptational advantage, for humans, being part of a tribe could be critical.

And that tribe could revolve around a religious theme or a religious individual who has had exceptional experiences of one type or another.

I can't make the case for organized religion, I can only acknowledge that it exists, has existed for a long time and many, many people find it important in their lives.

[NoOneMan]

78. Why of course people find religion important

It tells them what these immense and powerful experiences mean, in such a way that it reinforces the importance of the church itself ("oh, but that's the Christian God talking to you&quot . Religions harness these experiences, and I would go so far as say that they exploit them.

Maybe our brain is wired to tell us to live in harmony with the ecosystem, to realize our integral position in the global community, to revel in the mysteries of life and the wonderment of nature, to love each other and promote the flourishing of life, etc. (messages that are as much of a part of mankind as the instinctual urge to have sex and eat food). Then culture comes around and tells us we "felt" the need to tithe, or take the oath and pursue asceticism, or to spread the word and expand the authority of the church.

Religion becomes important by usurping the power of meaningful, natural human experience (erm...maybe. Again, my 2 cents).

[cbayer]

79. It is interesting that those most discriminated against or who suffer the most have

been the most likely to turn to religion.

While I can't deny that religion has exploited these people at times, it is not always the case. Religion has also provided solace, asylum, community, acceptance, hope, in addition to many more concrete things like housing, food and access to treatment for those in need.

I don't agree that it usurps the power of meaningful, natural human experience because I think it is a meaningful, natural human experience for many, many people.

[NoOneMan]

81. Where else are they to turn?

To the shamanistic traditions that civilizations has eradicated, due to their non-conducive nature that conflict's with the goals of modern man? Or to the familiar, culturally acceptable church down the street that has canned theodicies to explain the people's suffering--previously ruled as benign or beneficial for growing the machine?

The popularity of a belief is more indicitive of its acceptable nature to civilization than its truth (refer to the logical fallacy of appealing to popularity).

I think it is a meaningful, natural human experience for many, many people

Religious spiritiuality may be meaningful, but I seriously doubt that it allows people to have unadulturated, unfiltered experiences that impart the intended knowledge onto the individual; rather, it will reinterpret the knowledge according to the bounds of the religion (which is bounded by the containing culture).

What has manifested from religion is a civilization on the precipice of disaster from ecological breakdown, despite its experiences and knowledge of its adherents. We live in the complete antithesis of what is advocated by simpler, shamanistic experiences that civilization has widely rejected. Sure, religious experience may be meaningful, and even useful insofar as the lessons advance the goals of civilization. But those goals may very well be contradictory to the intended, raw meaning of the experiences and leading to our impending extinction (or evolutionary bottleneck).

[tama]

84. Also

Path of shamanistic experiences and initiations - in the widest sense and regardless of various terminologies, if that is acceptable - is often initiated by some sort of personal crisis.

While it can be said that at the root of all religions there is religious/shamanistic experience before and under the culturally and linguistically dependent interpretational level, the distinction between religions and shamanistic experience is also useful and meaningful. Not least because shamanistic experiences and empirical knowledge at least in this day and age tend to come with very strong precautions against starting new religions and cults centered on worshipping someones personified shamanhood and "miraculous" experiences etc.

Of course such things keep on happening, as creating a cult centered on worshipping You is not at all difficult, as for example the founder of Sahaya Yoga etc. etc. etc. proves and testifies (Sri Mataji tells somewhere that she thought that if that daft Osho can start a cult and gurubusiness of personal following, so can she and so she did ). And as more and more cults and religions get founded, the more stories on pages of victims of religions and cults. The thing is, the experiences of cult and religion founders are usually genuine enough and the methods they teach work to some extent, but as the whole thing is built around the trap of self-importance it remains a trap. Of course we learn also from traps and mistakes, so there is no need for categorical condemnation.

So while nothing is fool-proof, including in-built shamanistic precautions against starting cults and religions, I would say those precautions work generally well enough and it's more than OK to have trust and confidence in world and in yourself.

[okasha]

48. I see what you mean.

But in the case of the Salem witch trials and executions, the possibility that the accusers simply lied must also be taken into account. If you look at the trials in detail, the accusations came almost entirely from one family and their associates, and there was an underlying property dispute.

Also in the case of Salem, you're looking at a a relatively isolated community. It's true that many in the larger span of society also believed in Satanic witchcraft, but their numbers were decreasing. The Salem incident was just about the last sputter of the European witch persecutions that began about 200 years earlier.

[tama]

82. There were three stages

1) legal procedures only against using witchcraft to harm others - which go way back. And have been as misused as all other legal procedures.
2) the period of hystery, criminalizing all witchcraft, at the dawn of "New Age" and during the bloodiest period of religious wars in Europe - including most if not all traditional herbal etc. healing methods, all kinds of shamanistic (/religious/spiritual) experiences etc. as Satanic.
3) denial of reality of the phenomena in question and medicalization of them as mental diseases instead of criminal matters, that occurred at the beginning of 18th century, the Age of Enlightenment.

Being constantly water boarded, electrocuted etc. tortured with "psychiatric" methodologies of those (and also latter) days did not necessarily mean improvement to being jailed, beheaded or burned alive.

Of course the hay day of European colonialist expansion, ethnocides of indigenous peoples and banning and destruction of their shamanistic traditions was big part of the whole picture.

[skepticscott]

2. As usual, this discussion is not of much use

Without defining specifically what qualifies as "knowledge", as opposed to simply experience, or the ability to convince oneself of something.

Mitt Romney "knew" that he was going to win the election. Fred Phelps "knows" that god hates fags. Do those (along with a plethora of other examples) qualify as "knowledge" in any meaningful or useful sense, any sense worth mentioning? Sure, you could define "knowledge" so broadly as to include anything that any single individual can convince themselves of, but what would be the point? Under such an umbrella, the delusions of an insane person are just as valid "knowledge" as the most well-supported historical or scientific facts.

And what does it mean to say that an experience is "valid"? Lots of people have "near-death experiences", and the experiences themselves are certainly real, but that doesn't add weight to the claim that they represent an aborted passage to a real afterlife. It may just be that human brains under stress will often behave the same. People may "feel" what seems to them like the love of "god" at a revival meeting, but that doesn't mean that their god actually exists or is showering them with warm fuzzies.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. The two examples you chose actually illustrate two disjoint sets of "knowing".

Romney knows he is going to win the election.
Phelps knows god hates fags.

RMoney's belief can be tested by falsification. If Romney does not win the election his belief is false. We conducted that experiment. It was false. Romney had false knowledge of the real world, a theory that could be tested.

We can't test Phelps belief because it is entirely outside of the real world. Phelp's claim that god hates fags is simply an opinion without evidence, and with no possibility of being tested. His claim is no different than all the other claims about god, for example "god loves all of us". We'd prefer the latter to be true (unless you are in the phelps clan), but there is no rational way to judge either of these claims as true or false. We can make real world assertions about these beliefs, for example "society would be better if more people believed that god loves us all than believed that god hates fags", and as those assertions are about the real world they could be tested for validity. But the underlying claims are not.

[skepticscott]

4. The distinction may or may not be valid

If the god Fred Phelps believes in actually existed, and (for a change) chose to communicate with humans in a way that left no reasonable doubt of it, then his claim could in theory be tested. In the world we actually live in, of course, things don't seem to work that way.

In either case, it still leaves open the question of what qualifies as "knowledge" for the purposes of this discussion and what doesn't. Many of the religious "experiences" that the OP seems to be alluding to would probably fall in the same class as Phelps'.

[tama]

23. You may think so

and define knowledge the way it pleases you, e.g. something to be defined.

Others see no reason to define "knowlegde" as a definition, or even any sort of thought. How do you, for example, knowwhere your hand is?

[skepticscott]

25. It's not my OP

So I haven't tried to define what is meant by "knowledge" in that post. If you were capable of reading and understanding, you'd know that I asked what was meant by that, since any discussion is useless without that understanding.

I know that in your post-modern quantum drooling, you like to deny that words mean things, but they do.

[tama]

29. Oh, words can mean things

but do you define knowledge as a "thing"? And the verb "to know"?

And do you claim that your view of what is "useful" and "useless" is not your subjective view?

Here's what you said and claimed and implied: "discussion is not of much use without defining specifically what qualifies as "knowledge", as opposed to simply experience, or the ability to convince oneself of something."

Is it acceptable to you that people can "know" also without thinking? E.g. know-how of playing music, sports, etc., instead of limiting the use of the word "know" only to know-what truth values of claims based on bivalent logic?

[DCKit]

5. Should've been posted in GD.

And I really don't get the naysayers above. At 49, I'm still not even sure how I learn.

[Thats my opinion]

6. Discussions in 'religion' have always dealt with ways of knowing,

usually posted by the non-religious.
The objection usually comes when someone who may not be religious but is reasonable, says something positive.

[skepticscott]

8. False, as usual from you

The objection comes when someone, always religious, touts the existence of "other ways of knowing", but fails (just as here) to define what they even mean by "knowing" or "knowledge", and fails to respond to challenges to describe in detail these "other ways of knowing", and exactly what they produce that qualifies as "knowledge"

You know, this, Charles...you've read the threads. So why are you being so dishonest about them now?

[humblebum]

10. "fails to respond to challenges to describe in detail these 'other ways of knowing'" - still

banging the same tired old broken drum, aren't you?

[skepticscott]

11. Yes, fail

As you always have and as you did so again here. Everyone reading this can see you failed miserably to answer those challenges, bummy.

Rounds are over.

[humblebum]

14. Yep. Same old tired excuse - 'It never happened' - but we know it did,

don't we?

[skepticscott]

19. Thanks for proving my point

over and over, bummy...and for responding exactly as predicted...with nothing but "wahwahwah! I already did that and you can't make me prove it!"

[humblebum]

20. Yep, same old tired excuses, er um uh - LIES. As per

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=57136

[AlbertCat]

90. Yep, same old tired excuses

Because the same old tired claims with nothing to support them are once again brought up by you and your ilk.

Please... what ARE these other ways of knowing? We ask over and over and you have yet to do anything but insist they exist and we are wrong. You never offer any kind of example that cannot be thoroughly debunked. Catch phrases and platitudes don't cut it.

But don't bother to run through it all AGAIN. We've been to that lame place with you too many times. Besides, you have nothing to offer.

[humblebum]

91. Don't make me laugh. The subject has been covered and examples given ad nauseam as

per the post you reference and DU search. You and your shadow don't have a leg to stand on. So if you want to continue entertaining yourself, have a ball.

[AlbertCat]

94. The subject has been covered and examples given ad nauseam

all thoroughly debunked...as usual.

The rest of your post made no sense whatsoever.... as usual.

[Igel]

7. This is one of those areas where a suggestion in the scientific literature ...

Led to a lot of iron-clad conclusions in the educational and other communities.

Rather like a conversation I had with an English professor. I was a linguistics grad student. He was into Whorf. And said that everybody knew that Whorf was right, since his work with Navajo proved his point.

I said that pretty much nobody in mainstream linguistics thought Whorf had a leg to stand on, that his Navajo work was pretty much discredited, and that every study that showed that even the weakest form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis failed the replicability test.

Same with things like "phonemic awareness." A meta-analysis of 300+ phonemic awareness studies showed that two passed methodological muster. Most claimed to teach phonemic awareness but taught phonics and tested phonics. Along the way they also failed to control for vocabulary growth, which is implicated in the view that phonemic awareness is an emergent phonological property once there's sufficient number of phonetic tokens of a large enough number of lexical items to be processed and draw conclusions. Two studies that remained standing dealt with Hebrew or English. One found some value in teaching phonemic awareness, but not a great amount. The other found that teaching phonemic awareness actually delayed student progress.

Same with "learning styles." Not a lot of cognitive work that supports it. Lots of educational research that assumes it, has shitty methodologies or research protocols and which manages to prove it. The little cognitive work tht supports learning styles essentially says everybody learns every way, but for some people there's a slight advantage in one modality or another. Usually a few percentage points difference. For a very small number there's a larger percentage. However, after years of training some people manage to shut out the learning styles that they're convinced can't work for them and don't even try--and then fall behind or let the use of that modality atrophy.

Had one student, literate and smart, proudly shut down because she was a "kinesthetic" learner and could only learn by doing. Then I watched as she memorized a bunch of dance moves she only saw once, without moving, and recited back all the contents of a popular magazine article that she had just read and hadn't acted out. "Self-deluded" isn't the right word. "Manipulative" was. Visual, aural, all the learning styles were there--until it was something she had to struggle with. PV = nRT in chemistry--the ideal gas law.

(Same kind of "stuff" about right/left brain. Do you know how much language, a "left-brain" process in most righties, occurs in the right brain? And what about lefties, with fairly well distributed language faculties? Then there's the fairly good research showing that musicians "hear" music much more "left-brain" than right brain, not that most people don't do both? Yeah. Pop science, popped science, pop corn, all pretty much the same. If it makes money for the seller.)

Seems I'm still cranky.

[Thats my opinion]

13. Very interesting.

I appreciate your background and argument and the way you stated them.

[skepticscott]

17. Do you have anything substantive to say, Charles?

Any, you know, thoughts, comments, critique, discussion, etc. about a very meaty post? Anything other than that you appreciate his background and his tone? Those things seem to be far more important to you than the truth, I'm sorry to say.

[tama]

22. Scottie

it's you who sticks to blatant lie and keeps repeating it ad nauseam most irrationally.

[skepticscott]

24. Is there a remotely relevant point here?

Let alone a factual one? Or is this just more post-modernist quantum diarrhea?

Apparently you DO have definitions for "blatant", "lie", "repeating" "ad nauseum" and "irrationally" that everyone reading this is supposed to share and understand, while denying above that "knowledge" can be meaningfully defined.

You don't even realize what a joke you are, do you?

[tama]

31. Yup

TMO just said something nice and kind to a poster, you jump on him with your standard knee jerk reaction of being unkind jerk. And that was all the substance of your post.

[mr blur]

34. Actually, TMO was condescending and patronising to a poster,

which is what he does when he's not being lofty and "authorative" and whining on about the poor persecuted progressive christians who are trying to save the world.

We all just do what we do. I'm being scornful about one of your heroes who drones on and says nothing of substance. You are mixing up a nice word salad that makes no more sense than usual. So it goes.

[tama]

37. That's your interpretation, then

I prefer reading words as such and erring on the side of benevolent interpretation.

I also very much dislike bullying behavior and a bully gang constantly ganging up on one fellow human being, and I see value also in the "conservative" or traditional value of respecting older people. But I don't see how that makes TMO my "hero" anymore than any other DUer.

"We all just do what we do." and "Bullies just do what bullies do" may sound valid nice and cozy rationalization to you and so be it. But it's just word salad to me.

[digonswine]

9. There really is argument about this-

Kids learn using all of those methods. Some tend to learn better with stress upon certain methods.
I am remotely associated with education, and kids, in general, learn best when many techniques are used. The idea that a child can only learn from one method is silly.

We all learn from using all of our senses working together-not from a single one. I wonder what I would learn if I had only used my sense of smell during my upbringing.

All of those categories merely represent the different ways we interpret the world. People cannot be put into those categories.

These are styles-they do not tell us much about an individual-generally.

[skepticscott]

12. The claim by utterly failed claimants

is that there are all these wonderful "other ways of knowing" that provide oceans of knowledge without using the senses or reason, which it is claimed are horribly limiting. You'll see bummy jump in here and puff up about it, but you'll know he's full of shit, because he will provide NO examples and NO evidence, and he won't respond to any of the challenges and points I've raised. He'll just try to dismiss it all and say he already gave it, but he won't be able to link to it or prove it in any way.

[humblebum]

18. You have been so thoroughly debunked in the past from telling this same lie

over and over, but you just continue on as if no one remembers.

[digonswine]

33. I seem to remember a big discussion about this-

at about the time of the switch to DU3. I also seem to remember that I saw no evidence presented that there are ways of knowing/learning other than what you mentioned.

[okasha]

51. You're correct

that children--and adults, too--learn through more than one sense. I did not mean to suggest that anyone learns only through one modality. I have, however, had students whose learning styles were so strongly biased in one direction that it was virtually impossible to reach them through others.

[Phillip McCleod]

15. just stopped when i hit 'scientism'

and didnt bother with the rest

[skepticscott]

16. Doesn't surprise me that okasha

would post this and then run away from any real discussion. She's learned that tactic from the best.

[cbayer]

28. That's ok. In that case, you only skipped the last two sentences.

[Deep13]

54. Yeah, let's chuck out the one thing that we know works. nt

[LeftishBrit]

21. Curtis' description here is pretty misleading

He is no doubt an excellent artist and art educator, but he has picked up some very misleading myths that go around about the brain.

In particular: the right and left hemispheres do not have fundamentally different cognitive styles and personalities in the way that's often implied. There are some important differences between the hemispheres: the left hemisphere in most people controls language, and the right is more involved in spatial awareness. It is also true that in visual processing, there is a tendency for the left hemisphere to be better at perceiving features and the right hemisphere at perceiving wholes - though this is not cut-and-dried. However, it is not the case that the left hemisphere is analytical and logical, and the right hemisphere intuitive and creative. Both hemispheres are heavily involved in all complex mental tasks, whether 'logical' or 'creative' (the two are not mutually exclusive in any case). Nor do most people consistently 'prefer' one to the other, insofar as they can be divided; it tends to depend on the task and context.

As regards preferences for visual/auditory/kinaesthetic, etc. learning - it is certainly true that some people seem to rely more on particular senses than others, though even here on the whole, except for people compensating for a disability (e.g. blind people emphasizing learning through hearing and touch), sensory processing is influenced by task differences at least as much as through individual differences.

Moreover: most complex activities involve a wide variety of skills, and can't be reduced to two different cognitive styles. For balancing the budget, approximate 'intuitive' arithmetical estimation is at least as important as systematic arithmetical reasoning in working out what you can afford. And mathematical reasoning can be quite important to art.

This is not a comment on religion - and indeed there is some (controversial) evidence that particular areas of the brain are particularly activated by religious emotions and experiences - but attempting to counter some of the 'neuromyths' that have become prevalent.

[cbayer]

26. One of my favorite movies is Rashomon by Kurosawa.

I've spoken of it here before, but will summarize. It is a story of a wedding party going through a forest. They are accompanied by several people and there is an attack during the trip.

The story is retold through the eyes of each person there - the bride, the groom, the driver, the footman, the robber.

Each tells the story differently, but none is lying. They have experienced a single reality, but experienced it differently.

Is one recollection more valid than the other?

This movie had a profound influence on me, as I came to realize that there might not be a single truth and that it is important to listen carefully to others at times, even when their perception of an event or idea is completely different than my own.

Excellent post and worthy of consideration when looking at people's spiritual experiences.

Thanks, okasha.

[Deep13]

53. "Is one recollection more valid than the other?"

Yes. We may not know which account comes closest to the objective truth, but one does. This includes the implicit decisions of what information to include and what to leave out as irrelevant.

[cbayer]

61. But who is to say which is more true? And does it really matter?

Every human filters an experience in one way or another so even if there are no implicit decisions about inclusion, two people may report the same event very differently.

In that case, who is to say that one is right and one is wrong?

[Deep13]

66. It matters, and often, as I said, we just don't know.

And right and wrong may not be the best gauge. More accurate and less accurate may be better.

We have procedures for ascertaining the truth. The procedures that rely most on objective evidence and least on subjective impression are the most reliable. We know this because decisions have measurable consequences. Take antibiotics and your infection will go away. Take a homeopathic "remedy" and it might get better or worse, since it is untreated. Take arsenic and you'll die. It matters.

Juries rely mostly on assessing the veracity of witnesses. Obviously that system has serious limitations. Lab scientists isolate all variables so they are only testing one specific thing and use procedures to eliminate bias (the person figuring out the results does not know what the the scientist who devised the experiment is looking for). It's not always reliable as people sometimes cheat or just make mistakes, but it is far better than the jury system or worse, assuming ones subjective experience proves something.

[cbayer]

72. When you talk about the most objective method, you describe science.

Scientific inquiry does whatever it can to minimize subjectivity, though we all know that eliminating it completely is not always possible. But it certainly does matter when it comes to science, as you point out.

Human experience doesn't address objectivity much at all. So my question remains, to what extent does it matter what actually happened.

What may be important is to listen carefully to ones that have had a markedly different experience under the same circumstances. That may tell you a lot about their filters and POV.

It may also give you insights into why some religious people are religious. For whatever reason, their experience leads them to a belief in something that you may not believe in. That doesn't make it more or less true, just different.

[okasha]

55. Thanks, cbayer.

I hope the paired dichotomies came through clearly even though the formatting went south when I posted. In the original, they made two nice, neat columns.

[jamtoday]

134. When you turn fiction

into some verifiable truth that has something to teach all of us are you not on dangerous ground. After all was not all of it Kurosawa's telling of each individual story. I understand what culture can do, but it is after all one man's opinion of how many disparate characters would react and how they would filter and relate their experiences which gives too much bias to make it a worthwhile quote in this context.

Working in a reception class I found mimicry, hinted at in one of the replies, an absolutely wonderful learning tool. My personal favourite by far and a source of much mirth for the tots.

This takes us back into the area of the collective experience and how much veracity can be given to anything just because a large number of people experience it.

[Deep13]

52. This has nothing to do with the veracity of religious claims.

And your concluding statement seems to recognize that. If gods or other religious claims were accurate, they would be accurate and similar for everyone. As it is, religions are a cacophony of conflicting claims, usually mutually exclusive of each other.

People may process information differently from each other, but that does not make the results of those different means equally valid. Likewise, the starting point is always sensory information.

[okasha]

57. No, you're only assuming that

"if gods or other religious claims were accureat, they would be accurate and similar for everyone." That's merely circular reasoning. It's not the religious experience that's different; it's the theologies, which are something quite different.

[Deep13]

58. No, theologies--whether folk or official--are the religion...

..."religious experience" is just "experience" with confirmation bias.

[okasha]

59. Wrong.

It requires absolutely zero knowledge of theology to have a religious experience. Some religions--such as Native American beliefs--are almost entirely experiential. There is almost no theology in such belief systems.

[sanatanadharma]

63. As further evidence in your presentation...

...the total teaching of Advaita Vedanta is that, for any of us, the witness-power, the "I" behind the the embodied-mind-sense complex eyes, the "experience-er", is not-other than the Existent-Sentient-Limitlessness (satchitananta, Brahman).
All "experience" is Brahman experience is religious experience

The "experience-er is the constant.

[Deep13]

68. How po-mo can you get?

You and Joan Scott should have a discussion on the meaning of "I."

Anyway, that description is theology.

[Deep13]

64. Wrong.

First, I'd like to know what you're basing that on, as my understanding of native religion involves quite a bit of mythology. And if the experience is interpreted as interacting with supernatural entities, then it's theology however rudimentary.

And if a religious experience can be independent of religion, what does that say about religion. We can scrap Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, most varieties of Buddhism, animism, Taoism, voodoo, and anything else with an actual belief structure.

[tama]

75. Mythology and literalism

Speaking as one belonging to an indigenous native culture (anthropologically as "informant&quot and also educated in Western culture so that I can try to interpret and translate to the best of my ability between our world views, the essence of mythological language is that it is open to interpretation, and interpretation can happen on many levels, from thoughts to life experience, shamanistic transformations etc. The function of mythological language is that of guiding maps in worlds of experiences, but without trying to limit the ways to experience. I feel that the Greek word "metaphorical" relation catches the relation of mythological language and world as whole beautifully.

And from what I understand, languages of science and scientific theories are not usually not meant to be taken literally as world-as-such, but as metaphoric relations. "Map is not the landscape" as they saying goes, and it applies both to mythological and scientific metaphoric language.

Like humans and human languages mythological language is part of natural world, as are experiences of interacting with spirit worlds in indigenous cultures. "Supernatural" seems to be wholly Western concept as it presupposes ability to "step out" of nature and look at it as externalized object from above. In that sense, the Western concept "supernatural" reveals the European sickness of mind and soul, as they confuse nature, world as whole, with an metaphorical image that allows them to imagine they can control world as external object from above, instead of belonging to world as integral and organic part. Considering world as home, not external object that you can step above - and crush under your feet.

[Deep13]

111. Well that may be true...

...although I disagree about scientific language. It very much is meant to be taken literally. The whole point is that experimental results are not open to interpretation. Alive mouse equals one result. Dead mouse equals a different result. Larger theoretical models are built on those results and are tested to see if they are in fact accurate descriptions of reality. Sometimes, what is being tested cannot be reduced to laboratory conditions--pretty hard to build a neutron star in a laboratory--so other tests need to be devised to eliminate possible explanations. Granted, explanations for non-scientists are often reduced to analogies or superficial explanations that cannot be taken literally, but that's only because most of us are scientifically illiterate.

Anyway, what you say is all well and good, but what does it have to do with divinity? If it is all interpretive, then it can really mean anything the practitioner wants it to mean, which again raises the probability of confirmation bias and other other shortcomings in human perception.

If a Creator made the universe as claimed by the other poster who responded, then there is a deity that is separate from nature. If true that is a basic fact of the universe that is either true or false. And if true, then it is a religion. In any event, supernatural is not by any means an exclusively "western" concept, however you define that. The Christianity had its origins as a Jewish heresy in the Middle East. Judaism and Islam are both Middle Eastern in origin. Animism is certainly supernatural, envisioning a spirit world where natural spirits and ancestors dwell. The various versions of Hinduism and Buddhism also envision incorporeal deities living in a supernatural realm.

[tama]

119. Thanks for your response

There are many levels of interpretation of experience/experimental level in science. If we talk about physics and other fields of natural philosophy, the word "theory" is usually reserved for the level of mathematical description of phenomenological world, and the math is in turn "interpreted" into natural languages.

So if you say that - and I don't necessarily disagree - that mathematical level "map" is not just interpretation, but it is the landscape, then you are also strongly implying a metaphysical statement about meaning and ontology of mathematical Platonism. Which on the levels of philosophy and metaphysics is of course a matter of interpretation, plausibility and belief. And myth. Plato's Academy is very much the founding myth of Western science.

The field of scientific mathematical etc. languages is generally and normatively much more narrow than that of mythical language. It basically deals with only the extroceptive externalized and objectified world - and mathematical imagination. Not generally with introceptive areas, ethics, "alternate states" of mind and shamanistic journeys, foundations of social customs and rituals and nature relation of the community, etc.

If we mean by nature the whole of being and experience, not just extroceptive world that science concentrates on exploring, there is nothing supernatural in experiences of communications with spirit worlds, most usually in dreams etc. "alternate" states of consciousness. Sure, those experiences have various culturally and linguistically differing interpretations, but the experiences as such are just as natural as all other experiences. To repeat, for something to be deemed "supernatural", you have to start from an exclusive definition of nature. For ingidenous peoples generally "nature" does not mean and is not an exclusive definition (which in any case would be unprovable myth or metaphysical belief, not a testable fact) of being and experience, but inclusive participatory relation of being and experiencing as part of the whole, not outside the whole of nature.

Question about degrees of freedom of possible interpretations is very interesting. As mythical language generally deals with life's journey on all levels, There would be two basic principles. A well functioning mythology gives good guidelines as a map to life's journey, which is a limiting principle, but also does not want to limit the possibilities of experience, learning and creation.

[okasha]

103. Mythology is not theology.

Native American theology can be summed up rather briefly:

1. Creator made the universe and everything in it.

2. Creator is present in the universe and everything in it. (Your basic pantheism or panentheism. Either will fit.)

3. Creator's desire/purpose for all beings (some of which Western thought would not recognize as "beings&quot is for them to live in harmony with each other.

Ceremonies and cultural narratives ("mythology&quot are the means for retaining or restoring that harmony where it has been broken. They do not involve disquisitions on the nature of God, soteriology, creeds, or proclamations about "true" faith. There is no separation of "natural" and "supernatural." If a thing exists, it is natural. (See point 2.)

You're attempting to impose Western, European categories onto societies and phenomena which grew up quite independently of such classifications and happily ignore them.

[Deep13]

108. So what's the difference?

If the premise of Christianity is that God made us, we sinned and are therefore "fallen," and that we must believe that Jesus is God's son and our savior to escape damnation, what about that is myth and what is theology.

[okasha]

116. That's all theology.

See the Apostles', Nicene and especially the Athanasian creeds. They state the core Christian beliefs about the nature of God, the relationship of creation to creator, and the soteriological nature of Jesus' mission.

Let me put it to you from the opposite perspective. There are many extremely funny stories about Coyote, a spirit who figures in many Native American mythologies, and the misadvertures of his wandering penis. Are they theology? Or are the monitory tales about keeping it zipped?

[okasha]

132. A quick and dirty distinction, Deep 13.

If it tells you what to believe, it's theology.

If it tells you what to do, it's myth, and the doing is religion.

[humblebum]

97. Where do you get the idea that there is no theology associated with Native American

religion and spirituality? For example, Sioux ceremonies and traditions and Pawnee cosmology depended for generations on adherence to ritual and belief passed down from generation to generation.

[tama]

98. humblebum,

To quote a member of Siberian shamanistic tribe: "Religion? No, we don't have religion, that's what Russians have. We have only our shamans."

The point of the story is that "religion" (and religious "theology&quot is Western concept and as such not directly applicable to indigenous experiences and ways of life. To which Western civilization has been extremely hostile.

In history of cultural evolution the general view is that "shamanism" (which is also Western concept) was universal feature of "primitive" tribes and "religions" are later development that grew together with hierarchic class societies called "civilizations".

[humblebum]

99. The particular subject being addressed was that

Last edited Wed Jan 2, 2013, 12:19 AM - Edit history (1)

"Some religions--such as Native American beliefs--are almost entirely experiential." I referenced the Sioux and the Pawnee cultures who developed their spiritual rituals centuries before any contact with Western culture. These two nations were quite different from each other, coming from entirely different cultural backgrounds, but each developed very structured traditions, rituals, and rules for living and dying.

However, they were certainly experiential in that beliefs were derived largely from observations of the physical world around them.

[tama]

100. Native rituals are experiental

much more deeply so than e.g. typical western religious practice of top down dogmatic theological preaching. I assume that was the
point.

[humblebum]

101. Agreed, though all of us came from tribal cultures similar in many ways to those

of the Native Americans if we go back far enough.

[tama]

102. Yes,

all cultures have shamanistic roots.

[okasha]

104. I get that idea

from being a Native American who practices Native American religion.

Once again, ceremonies and traditions constitute praxis, not theology.

[humblebum]

109. There does seem to be some equivocation regarding what constitutes theology.

The religious practices of the Lakota, for example, dealt extensively with their relationship to a creator Wakan Tanka and to their natural environment. Their ceremonies and beliefs were highly structured and places in society were well defined according to age and gender. And ceremonies and certain objects were considered sacred and essential, e.g., the Sun Dance, The Sacred Pipe, the Seven Sacred Rites, the White Buffalo Calf Woman, funeral ceremonies,and mourning observances, etc.

So do (did) these traditions only "constitute praxis" or did elders, leaders, and medicine men expound upon man's relationship to the earth and to the creator? And were there consequences for violating such events? And were there certain behaviors that were required of members in Lakota society pertaining to religious beliefs? A 'yes' answer to these questions could lead one to conclude that a theology did exist. But again, there is bound to remain a sense of ambiguity.

In any case, I do not think that it is anything to be overly annoyed about.

[okasha]

115. Please see my post #103, above.

I would change your first paragraph only by substituting "expressed" for "dealt extensively with." The Sun Dance, which was revived in secret by Frank Fools Crow and Bill Eagle Feather in the 1930's, the Ghost Dance, revived in 1973 during the siege of Pine Ridge, and all the rest of Native American ceremony consist of doing religion, not theorizing about it. Ie., they're praxis.

Human relgionship to the earth, the Creator and other beings as taught by the elders and shamans are pretty well covered by the three points in 103. They're the theology behind the praxis.

I'm not sure what you mean by "violating such events." Certainly there were consequences for violating certain social norms. Among the Lakota, banishment was the punishment for killing a member of one's own band. Tschunka Witco ("Crazy Horse&quot lost his status as a Shirt Wearer, a group of young men charged with providing for widows, orphans, and others who couldn't hunt for themselves, over his involvement in a sex scandal, to use the tabloid term. Again, these were practical ways of dealing with a difficulty, the means of expressing harmony rather than the justification or explanation of it.

[humblebum]

117. Again, there does seem to be an ambiguity here. I hardly see theology as related solely

to western culture. But I do accept your POV as legitimate.

[tama]

110. Would you like to tell more about your background and practice?

And are you OK with European word "shamanism" to generally describe and classify indigenous ceremonies and traditions, including Native American?

[okasha]

114. I'm Tsalagi (Cherokee).

I grew up doing ceremony with my maternal family and learning Native medicine and tradition from my grandfather, who was an adeweh. My great-grandfather was also an adeweh, but he managed to be a Baptist deacon at the same time--and no, I have no idea how he managed that. Or maybe I do, since his fellow Baptists came to him and his son for healing for themselves and their livestock. (Never piss off the guy who can save your prize heifer and her calf!) I have been a Christian (Episcopalian) and found myself becoming what's referred to as an Episco-pagan, seeing that faith as encompassed by, rather than opposed to, pantheistic beliefs. It was only a small, lateral step back to Native religion. Currently, I do ceremony with an "ecumenical" group of Native Americans who include people of Seminole, Apache, Comanche, Northern Ute and European backgrounds.

I have no trouble at all with "shamanism" or "shaman," since it not only covers a wide array of practices but saves having to look up "adeweh" when you're talking to a Tsalagi, or "haatalii," when you're speaking with a Navajo, or "winan wakan" when you encounter a Lakota. The term I emphatically don't like is "witch doctor," and am not that fond of "medicine man," either, since it's generally used in ignorance of what the term actually means to a Native American.

[tama]

120. Thanks

Strange enough, many if not most of the "official" publicly recognized and practicing shamans I've met have belonged to some Christian nomination, both local (Finnish) and Native American shamans who've been here. Sounds almost "objective" practice and ritual.

Our word is "noita", same as Sami "noaid", possibly from the same root as Indo-European "gnosis" and "know". I've heard the term "Wheel Man" in Native American context. Is that familiar to you? I've wondered if it has older roots, or does it come from car driving?

[okasha]

121. Should have added:

The other advantage of "shaman" is that it's gender-neutral, though I've seen, and made, tongue-in-cheek references to "shamen" and "shawomen."

"Wheel Man" isn't familiar to me. Could that be "Road Man?" A Road Man is a leader in the Native American Church, which is a synthesis of Christian and Native belief and traditions.

[tama]

122. Yup, Road Man :) nt and thanks again

[Leontius]

127. Could you define "medicine man" ?

Admittedly knowing little about the culture I have always thought of the meaning to be someone who was not just a healer but a combination of that and a teacher or guide to traditions and religion practices. Is that anywhere close or am I way off as to it's meaning?

[okasha]

131. What I really dislike about the term

is not only that it blurs distinctions among types of healers but that it fails to convey just how wide the diversity is. It also doesn't make a the distinction between curing and healing. Curing, in this instance, means mediating recovery from illness or injury. Healing refers to restoring the patient to harmony. It may involve a ceremony for a person who has not necessarily been injured but has been involved in violence. This is frequently done for returning soldiers and for peace officers who have been involved in a killing. Or healing may involve a ceremony to bring peace and acceptance to somene who has a terminal illness. Healings are done by shamans, who are spiritual leaders as well as healers and are designated by a different title, e.g., "Man/Woman of Power." Healings may also be done by persons who are not shamans but are in a temporarily heightened spiritual state. Sun Dance pledgers, for example, will perform laying-on-of-hands and prayers for ill persons during the ceremony.

A medicine person, who can be either a man or a woman, primarily works to cure a patient. Among my people and the Lakota, for example, the medicine person is the band's pharmacist, responsible for seeking out, preparing and distributing remedies. A Navajo medicine person, on the other hand, is mainly a diagnostician who determines the nature of the ailment and "refers" the patient to a haatallii, who will perform the necessay healing rite.

Any of the above, of course, will refer the patient to an MD or clinic where necessary and available, though the patient's wishes will have a lot to do with this. For example, Russell Means, one of the AIM leaders in the 1973 uprising, recently died of throat cancer. He refused conventional medicine in favor of traditional Lakota practices. My guess is that he knew he was in the last stages of his illness and chose traditional healing over further conventional, and probably painful, attempts at curing.

To quote the Man for all Seasons--I trust I make myself obscure?

[Silent3]

67. Are you trying to claim there's a thing called "the religious experience"...

Last edited Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:44 PM - Edit history (1)

...which is the same experience for everyone, regardless of how differently different people express that experience? Regardless of the many theologies are employed to explain, justify, or explicate this supposedly unified or universal experience?

Whether your answer to my question is either yes or no, how does this have anything to do with what leads to "knowledge"?

[NoOneMan]

73. Maybe these "experiences"...

(brain phenomenon that religions & cultures try to coral, re-frame, redefine and domesticate)

...are about transferring self-evident knowledge (instinctual or otherwise) from the subconscious to the conscious.

Just my lousy 2-cents.

[Silent3]

87. Can you give an example of "self-evident knowledge"?

I think there are things that we can't ultimately prove or subject to objective verification (such as whether or not there really is such a thing as "objectivity&quot , things we have to accept as postulates, or matters of definition of terms, simply to escape paralyzing existential doubt. I'd avoid calling any of that "self-evident knowledge" myself.

[tama]

93. This came first to mind:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

But no doubt it is possible to raise intellectual doubts and objections against that "self-evident knowledge".

But what no cartesian or other philosophical skepticism can honestly deny is that experiencing - self-evidently - happens.

[okasha]

105. You're making some assumptions for which I see no basis.

I am saying that variations in theology are irrelevant to the religious experience itself. Religious experiences, as reported by persons who have them, show consistency across theologies, cultures, languages, etc..

The Oxford American dictionary defines "knowledge" as "an awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. . .facts, information and skills acquired through experience or education....theoretical or practical understanding of a subject." All experience either confirms knowledge already present, questions knowledge already present, or adds to one's body of knowledge.

[Humanist_Activist]

80. I find Curtis' explanations, to be simplistic and demeaning to human variety, but your last....

sentence takes the cake, basically you are claiming that reality is determined by popular vote, which is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard of.

[cleanhippie]

85. basically you are claiming that reality is determined by popular vote, which is the most idiotic...

Pretty much nailed it, right there.

[tama]

86. But isn't that

how "objective" consensus reality is usually defined?

[okasha]

106. Aka, "consensus reality."

n/t

[Humanist_Activist]

124. Learn about things before spouting off about them otherwise you come off...

As ignorant.

[humblebum]

125. He seems to know exactly what he talking about and what he is talking about IS taught

in many classrooms. Not understanding that, and dare I say KNOWING that, is kinda being ignorant.

[cbayer]

133. I just can't imagine why you complain that people don't listen to you.

[Humanist_Activist]

123. No, because that isn't accepted as evidence alone...

If you don't understand the basics of science and observation, I recommend an education. I cannot debate on such a remedial subject, that would be absurd.

[tama]

128. No, but

for evidence to be accepted as such, there needs to be consensus about observations, doesn't there? So for example when testing new fibres, if 100 people see that Emperor has a pretty robe and just one little boy doesn't, the 100 people form a strong consensus that the little boy must be hallucinating.

[Humanist_Activist]

129. A problem with your example, the word "pretty" is itself subjective...

beauty is in the eye of the beholder, after all. Now, if you were talking about whether we can see if the Emperor is clothed at all or not, we wouldn't rely on 100 people alone, there are other methods, recordings, we can feel his clothes, assuming he allowed it, etc.

After all the boy may not like gaudy robes, doesn't mean he's wrong or right, that is personal preference. Correct, or incorrect are meaningless in such contexts.

[tama]

130. The example was bit tongue in cheek

but the point remains about sensual perception of the "other methods, recordings" etc. There is perceptual adult consensus reality of roughly of five external senses, of which phenomena like synaisthesia, imaginary friends of children, various "hallucinations" etc. are considered exceptions.

[AlbertCat]

89. He argues that the art student must rely on intuitive rather than rational information processing ..

... in order to draw accurately from observation. "

Baloney!

Drawing is a skill. You must learn (with your brain) to draw what you see, not what you know. Children often draw what they know. Therefore you get a blue streak at the top of the page because the sky is above you and a green streak at the bottom because the grass is below you. But of course what you see is blue and green meeting at a horizon that is about level with your eyes.

You learn this the same why you learn everything else.... with your brain using chemicals under the law of physics. There are a myriad of exercises (like drawing the space between objects) to train yourself to draw what you see. There are even very rational rules to perspective you learn. Drawing is rationally translating what you see into a bunch of techniques that satisfy the brain with a 2-d, stripped down representation of something 3-d. Some people may be inclined to pick up these long evolved "rules" and "tricks" better than others, but they are rational rules, not some "other way of knowing".

[tama]

92. Are you an artist?

Do you speak as informant, from experience of artistic creation? Or just from purely theoretical outsider point of view?

My experience from artistic creation (poetry) is mostly about what is called "inspiration", which is a clearly recognizable physical state.

[AlbertCat]

95. Are you an artist?

Yes. I draw and paint (nothing great alas) and used to design and make costumes for film and theatre.
Inspiration happens in your brain....informed by the things you know.

[tama]

96. You have your theory of inspiration

which you obviously strongly believe in. I see no point arguing against that, but at least for me inspired state felt like very energized whole body state, not just something in the brain. And I'm satisfied to leave the input-output aspect of inspiration as unexplained mystery and just go with it.

[okasha]

107. You're arguing with a number of things that neither Curtis nor I said.

Of course drawing is a skill. Just personally, I find people who tell me I have "talent" irritating, especially when they're "just looking" and not buying. (People who actually write checks can say anything they want to.)

Of course you learn drawing in your brain. Who said you learn it in your elbow or your pancreas?

The rules of linear perspective are essentially mathematical. Try to draw a rounded subject with 1- or 2-point perspective, though, and you'll find yourself in trouble rather rapidly.

Not everything that goes on in your brain is "rational" in the sense you're using the word. Have you ever used a grid in your drawing? On its face, this seems a "rational" technique since it involves measurement and drawing rectangles or triangles. But since it actually reduces the subject to separate, abstract parts which ignore the division of subject and background, or background and foreground, or anything at all besides contrast, you're forced to put aside the idea of "object" and rely on parts of your brain that do not depend on such "rational" divisions.

[AlbertCat]

112. rely on parts of your brain that do not depend on such "rational" divisions.

A grid IS a bunch of rational divisions.

And drawing rounded objects in perspective follow the same rules as non round objects.


Because there are no other "ways of knowing". You're just describing the usual ways of knowing we usually don't even think consciously about (background and foreground, boundaries). It all goes on in your brain...following the laws of physics.

[okasha]

118. May I suggest that you try to draw a rounded object using 1- or 2-point perspective?

I learned in Drawing I that that doesn't work--it distorts the object considerably.

And yes, it all goes on in your brain. Who's arguing about that besides you?

[humblebum]

126. Then tell us how one determines whether a drawing is good or not?

And don't tell me by observation. A standard by which to measure the degree of good vs. bad must first exist before it can be said a drawing is good or bad and that is established by a consensus, aka another way of knowing.