Lenses

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I am not literite in academic philosophy, and articulating (my?) thoughts/perseptives/ideas in “proper” philosophical speak is not my forte. I have no idea how or in what way these thoughts are going to unfold as I type them, or if a point is even going to be made. I don’t have a plan, just a vague idea of something that has been brewing in me for a long time and I don’t know what has compelled me to make this thread at this particular moment in space-time. I am saying this as a warning so that I don’t waste the time of people who will not understand and/or do not have the patience for the convoluted and rambling language that I have a tendancy to speak in.

With that said, knocks on wood, here goes it.

It seem to me that much of what we label other things, see in other situations… in objective situations, are seen through the lenses we are wearing. By lenses I mean perspective lenses. One example from my experience that has dawned on me and that I have observed and pondered over and over again is the lense of laughter. I use this example because I believe it has potential to be the most illuminating in regards to the reality I am trying to articulate.

We see something funny and laugh. We automatically assume that we laughed at it because “it” was funny, so of course, it triggered the responce of laughter.

But as I (unintentionally, at least at first) started to observe the phenomenon of my organism laughing, I started to discover something very fascinating, and as it turns out, even more comical than what I initially thought I was laughing at.

If we wear sun glasses, we will of course see light differently than if we didn’t wear anything at all. And so it seems to me to be just exactly the case when we wear perspective lenses, but often times we are unaware of the lenses that we are wearing or that we are even wearing them at all.

Going back to the nature of my organism laughing, I started to observe that whenever I was in a giggly mood, my organism almost as by instinct, found the comedy in anything and everything it could. I began to notice that what I was laughing at was not the cause of my laughter, or anything even remotely close to the cause of my laughter. It seemed to me that on and off my organism simply needed to laugh, and so it abstracted from the raw data (material/senses and immaterial/mind) anything it could in order for it to achieve that sensation. I began to observe, for instance, how my mind would effortessly create comical situations which caused me to laugh (and repeat those situations), and then when I observed what my mind was doing (creating comical situations in order to send signals to my body for it to erupt in laughter, and doing it repeatedely), that in itself made me laugh even harder, and the irony was awesome (awesome in the traditional sense of the word).

So it seemed to me that “I” (my organism) was wearing the “comedy” lenses and so everything became comical. And this, I’d imagine, is the case for all perspective lenses. If my organism needs to feel sad, it will seek out sadness in anything. If it needs to feel anger, than it will seek out anger. If it needs to engage in fantasy, it will seek out philosophers (that was a joke, but it’s also a truism), etc

What is and how we see what is are not the same thing. I know that this insight is in no way knew, but as I said initially in my post, I’m not quite certain why I have been compelled at this moment in space-time to say what I have just said and am saying. Is my organism wearing the “social” lense right now? Seeking out responses and discussion from other people on a philosophy themed message board as a possible result of my lack of finding oppurtunities to socialize, and socialize about topics that interest me, and thus, fill an emotional/psychological need? Should we spend more time and effort trying to observe the lenses we are wearing before we try and observe and interprete and theorize about objective reality and the world around us?

Thoughts? Rants? Let this discussion (if enough users post for one to even begin) be open and free and gay.

2

Those “lenses” you wear seem like natural and emotive drives. Which drive needs satisfying determines your disposition, to some degree. I’d call this satisfaction of the Will, manifested as some innate desire.

3

Last time I checked, the lens I was perspecting through wasn’t removeable, and so was unobservable. Now, given that everything was rosier than usual, I could assume that much about them… but then the lights went out and the lens changed into one better for perspecting in the dark. If external conditions influence the lens-mode we’re in, how would we separate that fact from the matter of determining some perspective on the lens we wish to reflect on? Also, once we engage in the activity of perceiving our present lens, doesn’t our lens likewise change accordingly, i.e. into an analytical lens? How would an analytical lens perceive itself?

4

There is an educational philosophy that is based on mastering these lenses, called ‘six hat thinking’. It’s pretty popular in a lot of Western countries, especially in primary schools. The idea of ‘lenses’ is also the basis of cognitive behavioural therapy.

Still, I don’t think there’s anything revlationary about the existence of these ‘lenses’ themselves. Basically all it amounts to is the belief that we react to things differently based onm what frame of mind we’re in, which is hardly controversial. The new developments are more about how we can improve our lives by consciously controlling the ‘lens’ we are wearing.

5

On a related note, an oft-raised charge against analytical philosophy is that it spends all its time examining and polishing its spectacles and never puts them on to take a look at the world.

6

You guys have all been dancing around the importance of one thing; mood (the word hadn’t been mentioned yet strangely). Our mood is vital in the way our behaviour manifests and the way we react to things. The scale of how radical the mood is alters all the time.

7

That’s because it’s Heidegger, and Heidegger makes my teeth itch. :stuck_out_tongue:

It’s a fair point, but another is that it doesn’t tell us anything about how the world is, simply how we respond to the world. Which is our business, and outside of the ethics of grumpiness and the creativity of taking alternative viewpoints, has little philosophical bearing. Whether I do my best thinking when quiet and pensive, agitated and snappy, drunk and horny, whatever - it’s a matter of personal preference.

8

Haha, good spot!

I guess it it right to suggest that it has little philosophical bearing. But I also think it’s useful to be able to experience such a range of moods, in order to reflect on them. I didn’t realise just how important mood is to our lives and thinking until I read some of good ol’ Martin.