The Philosophy of Impressions

.

Focus on the black cross in the center of the image below.

Give it some time.

Now, describe what happened…

I’m asking for some leniency from the moderators for a short period of time, for I would like this post to stay in the general Philosophy category.

I have a thesis but I’d rather not express it right now.

This is the last sentence on what I believe to be the most important philosophical thread that has EVER appeared on the I Love Philosophy forums.

[size=50]…[/size]

.

I’ve got an impression and it isn’t good. You have wallpapered this site with a pile of crap that could be summed up in less than two paragraphs. Being cute isn’t a substitute for reasoned disciplined discourse. This isn’t facebook. Get over yourself and if you actually have a thought, present it in some way intelligible.

There goes Bill again getting lambasted for posting pictures and spacing out sentences with 10 rows. Its obvious, you need to become, one of us… one of us… one of us.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBXyB7niEc0[/youtube]

Well, in about 30 seconds the vague purple circles in a circle around the cross seem to disappear, as if erased by the greenish circling one. But they are ‘still there’ if I ‘unlock my eyes’ - or something like that. Odd.

Say more.

Bill you’re going to cause a mass exodus of quality thinkers here by spamming the board with this kind of stuff.

It’s not thought out, it doesn’t have a point that’s apparent to the observer, etc…

It’s considered bad manners to start as many threads as you have, and it’s also considered somewhat of a faux pas to shamelessly spam the boards with this kind of stuff. Bill this is spam. You are spamming.

I’m not trying to be an asshole. I want you to fit in. But seriously, you’ve done nothing but assert opinions in cryptic language and post a bunch of pictures, that I hate to tell you almost all of us have already seen.

I think you’re underestimating the crowd here.

Give us something to work with before you get written off as a spammer without substance.
Please man. It’s driving me crazy all the pointless threads. It’s wasting my time when I’m sorting for things to read, and it’s making you look like a crazy person with nothing to say whatsoever.

Please help me out here. I’m asking you man. Think before you post. This is not philosophy, not under any proper interpretation. And you’ve posted it in a philosophy forum.

Why would you do that?

If that’s the case, I would like to see some Philosophy, please, or it will be moved to MB.

.

OK, here goes.

First of all I thank the moderators for giving me some time with this thread.

The philosophical part is when you focus upon the centered + you use your left brain; your linear thought process.

The purple circles turn a bright green then they disappear.

Now when you pull back and refocus you once again see the entire picture.

The same rule applies when we read philosophical texts. We see something very clearly but we loose the overall picture.


Philosophy - real philosophy is only valuable when we can see, not only with our left brain but with our right brain functions as well.

Using both sides in conjunction to bring us to new heights; new understandings.

Thanks again for your providing me this space.

This actually is the most important, most helpful thread that has ever appeared here on my beloved I Love Philosophy forums.

Written thesis for this thread: Philosophy - real philosophy is only valuable when we can see, not only with our left brain but with our right brain functions as well.

.

Yeah I worked with a lady who had PhDs in chemistry and philosophy. She was pretty smart. There’s definitely the type who’s line of thinking isn’t dominated by one side or the other. I’m not sure though, how you make the jump from that characteristic to increased utility.

Why do you say that?

Which philosophical texts are you thinking of, here?

So all philosophy to date is not valuable?

You’re welcome to your opinions, of course.

That’s it? That’s the most important thread in the history of ILP?

The overall picture of what?

.

I don’t get it.

You’re suggesting we make sure to utilize both sides of our brain when we read?

.

If you will notice, I actually did do what you suggested and wrote a description of what I experienced, unlike the others. I can follow the argument you are making and I think it has some merit under the hyperbole.

a suggestion:
give a concrete example, using a specific short philosophical text. IOW a direct analogue to the visual experience of the OP. You could explain what the mind’s eye misses when only half the brain is present reading it.

Making a connection from the abstract principle to a specific example with an explanation of the two different possible reads or what can be lost if only half the brain is present will strengthen your case.

It is not dependent on the text. He is arguing that the very process of reading - perhaps ‘the way we do’ - entail the suppression of one side of the brain. So it is not the text, but the reader/reading process that creates the problem. I actually think there is something to this. I think if the hyperbole was absent and the formatting was more compact people would take him a bit more seriously.

But why is that a “problem”?

That only the ‘left brain’ is present?

I can agree with that part, but I don’t think the display actually has much to do with such concerns. The noted distinction between the right and left hemispheres is that of logical deduction (left half) and language correlation (right half).

Bill, philosophy has a whole lot to do with explanation, not merely Zen style intuitive sensing of “reality”. Since you are addressing a problem in reading and understanding, it seems that more exacting writing and revealing would be appropriate. Pictures help, but they are not sufficient in themselves by a long shot.

.

Would, taking me serious be too left brain?

I don’t know.


Colin Wilson
wrote a fantastic short philosophical pamphlet called The Laurel & Hardy Theory of Consciousness. I don’t think this is available anymore.

It’s an incredible look at what I am trying to share in this simple thread. I think part of the theory is recreated in Colin’s Frankenstein’s Castle.

The is a story of WWII I believe where fighter bombers were making a run at night in the dark. They used two flood lights, one on each end of the plane to convey the correct altitude that they required. When the beams combined into on circle they knew that they could release the cargo that they had.

It’s a metaphor for what we are discussing here.

.

Proper perception requires 3 eyes.

Sure. Or that we use different hemispheres for different things. Seems to work okay.