Extending the Concept of Hammers

16 Feb

Hopefully now we are at a point where we can see the world as an interconnected, conceptual map, that we can navigate from point to point. Not simply in a simple line from, say black to white, with lots of  shades of greys and grays in between, but closer akin to a map of say a state.

The map of a state will show large towns, the capital, small towns, country sides, forests, and roads leading from one place to another.

So let us try this with hammers.

The capital would be the claw hammer, the most common kind.

A claw hammer has a handle to hold onto, a head that, in most cases bats the head of a nail, forcing the nail into a piece of wood. This most often joins two pieces of wood together.

Fully concepting this idea of a hammer as an item with a handle to be held and a head that does work we can conceive of an axe as an anti-hammer that splits the wood apart. It is still a hammer, it is an axe hammer, and it normally does the opposite of what a hammer normally does.

Interestingly grammar, as well as Aristotlean Logic, make it difficult for people to make the connection between the two.

Example: You can hammer with a hammer, but you can’t axe with an axe. You have to chop with an axe, even though you can turn a single-headed axe over and use it as a sledge-hammer.

This insistence that words must be used in certain ways because “you can’t” hammer with an axe or chop with a hammer, and “you have to” say it right or you are stupid, ignorant, or…Forces people into rigid reasoning patterns that reflect the either/or approach of logic.

Humans have hands at the ends of their arms and feet at the ends of their legs. Animals have paws, or hooves, — And Grammar Gurus actually talk as though humans DO have arms and hands and feet and animals actually DO have paws or hooves, or whatever.

And they don’t.

Humans have appendages we have names for.

Animals have appendages we have names for.

The reason they are so different is not so much because of biology but because of The Human Superiority Complex. Many humans feel they are too good to have paws and animals are not worthy to have feet. What save many humans from going into severe emotional trauma over monkeys, apes, etc is their lack of opposable thumbs — “Ah,” these people say, “Humanity is saved. It is still the superior species and is grammatically entitled to hands whilst those poor beasts have to survive with mere paws.”

This is fine for those who are Grammatically, and perhaps Logically, Pure, but a Map Thinker™ must grapple with the reality that hands, feet, paws, and hooves, are all both conceptually the same at one end of the concept line and conceptually different at the other end.

While it is not conceptually valid to speak of a horse swatting at an annoying dog with its hand, it is conceptually valid to say it swatted at the dog with its foot.

While it is normally not conceptually valid to say “My son grasped his glass of milk with his hoof”, it is conceptually valid to say “My son pranced in from the backyard on all four hooves neighing at me in convincing horseness.” Once it is established the child has been horsing around it would be both conceptually valid and humorous to say “He sat at the breakfast table and grasped his glass of milk with his hoof.”

As you can easily see  Conceptually Based Grammar™ would be far different from our currently Logically Based form of Grammar. For one thing it would have to be far less prescriptive and far more fluid, that is, creative. It would also be accommodating to humor as a natural consequence of Conceptually Based Grammar™ rather than an aberration from Logically Based Grammar.

By now we all should be able to see that by discarding Logic and Logically Based Grammar and adopting Conceptually Based Reasoning™ and Conceptually Based Grammar™ which are both necessary to Map Thinking™ we can easily see that our Individual Creative Potential increases exponentially.

This is done by the simple expedient of discarding the two most standard limits to our everyday thinking.

I’m going to let this blog chapter rest here.

What I want you to do is to take a week, or at least a day, and see just how far, and in what directions you can extend the concept of “Hammer” for yourself.

Hopefully you will do a better job than I.

© 2014  all rights reserved

Non-Hammer Hammers

26 Jan

The most obvious non-hammer hammers are air hammers and electric hammers. They look nothing like hammers but they perform the function and are readily accepted as such.

So what is the point of that?

A nail gun is a hammer.

As we go down to lower level structures we can trace two paths for a hammer concept.

One is a direction we are not going to pursue.  Very far, anyway. But, lets take a whiff of it. How far it can go. And perhaps why. Or  perhaps we should explore why first.

Oh, pardon me.

This is a blog proclaiming philosophy and I’m not being logical. There is no logical progression to this section of the blog at all.

That is because I am engaging in a Metalog. A MetaBlog.  I first came across the term metalog in Gregory Bateson’s “Steps to an Ecology of Mind”. If you are not familiar with Gregory Bateson, I cannot recommend him too highly.

Discussing the parts in a way that allows them to all come together in an understandable way. This is because we are dealing with the imagination, which resides in the deeper structures of the mind rather than logic which resides totally on the surface.

This is why logic is so complex and requires so much “intelligence” to be able to follow it. Because it is so divorced from reality. It is Extreme Surface Structure™ and Extreme Low Context Structure™. Once it has reached the maximum Extreme Low Context Surface Structure™ it becomes almost totally divorced from reality.

In order to keep it grounded its practitioners most negotiate a bizarre maze of rules, mostly called “fallacies” that appear to the uninitiated as unending and unimaginably complex.

Imagination is both simpler and requires less “intelligence” because it is reality itself. In fact it only requires the amount of intelligence required to negotiate the context it is faced with.

Which means an intelligence only requires the imagination that is required for the survival of the life form it inhabits.

Thus an army of ants only needs the amount of imagination required to use leaves to cross the water which prevents their progress.  Extreme Low Context Surface Thinkers™ ask, “How can an ant be so intelligent as this?”

A question that is nearly impossible to answer.

A Full Context Deep Structure Thinker™ asks, “How could an ant imagine this?”

In other words the question becomes, “What sensory experience can an ant bring to this problem of crossing water?” When asked in this way it becomes obvious. Ants walk on leaves. They have had that experience. Leaves float on water. Not sure how an ant would / could perceive that. One guess would be an accidental event some ants have survived.

Extreme Low Context Surface Structure Thinkers™ operate on the assumption the mind is designed for the purpose of discovering and determining Truth.

A Full Context Deep Structure Thinker™ assumes that all experience is processed by the mind for the single purpose of survival. A sort of Darwinistic approach to thinking.

Extreme Low Context Surface Structure Thinkers™  lump all sensory experience besides intellect as useless and totally discount all emotions as erroneous. They quickly and easily point out all the errors one can fall into when people rely on their emotional reactions.

And this is true.

What they don’t acknowledge is that “Logical Reasoning” and “Logical Reasoning” alone causes just as many errors, if not more, than emotional reactions.

The first being that there is such a thing as “pure reason”.

The second being that “truth” is attainable through a judicious manipulation of words.

The third is that Emotions and Sensory Experience should be discounted.

What the hell does this have to do with hammers?

Because where I am going to go with the concept of hammers has no Logical equivalent. There may be someone somewhere so skilled at Logical Manipulation to arrive at it, but I cannot conceive how they would, or even why they would.

It is not what logic is designed to do.

Logic takes itself seriously.

Logic is never playful.

The closest I have ever seen to logic being playful is the nine legged cat. And its purpose was to prove that you have to follow logical principles or you would make ridiculous mistakes.

A cat has four more legs than no cat.

No cat has five legs.

Therefore a cat has nine legs.

Extreme High Context Deep Structure Thinkers™ see reasoning as a survival tool that works best when treated as a mental playground.

The next blog will take the simple household hammer to this mental playground.

© 2014, all rights reserved.

Yet More Hammers

18 Jan

 

 

We discussed claw hammers, roofing hammers, and ball pein hammers.

 

Each of these at some point is used to pound a nail at some point. But not all hammers are. Club hammers and sledge hammers are specifically for smashing things to bits. Rocks, bricks, etc. Although club hammers are very useful for tapping on chisels so as to carve out wood or stone.

 

A joiner’s mallet is considered a hammer although it is normally made of wood and is used tap wooden joints together without damaging the wood of the joints.

 

Then there are rubber mallets. We are all familiar with them.

 

Is a pattern emerging here?

 

At the Extreme Surface Structure™ level a hammer is a hammer. In order to have a logical discussion of a hammer you must define your particular hammer.

 

Linguistics, as other sciences, have been heavily influenced by Logical Thinking, and this, unfortunately, has done more to inhibit science than to advance it. As such Linguistic discussion fall into either Surface structure or Deep structure. Further being limited by logic Linguists discuss words, and words alone.

 

In the reality of the mind, the Extreme Surface Structure™ is a top-level where everything is distinct and separate. This, like all other features of humanity is a survival tool and not to be considered a lesser form of thought. It is just as useful as Deep Structured thought. This gives us the ability to recognize our hammer. Either it is my hammer or it is not my hammer. Either I can use it for the purpose I need it for, or I can’t.

 

While Linguistics divides structures into two, surface and deep, a more useful way of thinking of is of levels, more like a staircase leading downwards.

 

This is where we leave the world of words and enter the world of pictures and maps. Basically the connections between things. That is what a map is. It shows relationships.

 

So we go down a level.

 

At this level we recognize that all these hammers with all their different functions, made with all their different materials, are all hammers.

 

At this level  a hammer becomes not an object, but a concept.

 

Things with handles that have heads on the ends are hammers.

 

Once we have the concept the question becomes what can we do with it?

 

Lets explore that in the next blog.

 

© 2013 all rights reserved

 

 

 

 

 

Calling All Hammers

11 Jan

Some people may find this section a bit complex. In order to discuss the simple, lowly, hammer in a way that will effectively relate to Map Thinking™ we must take on several subjects. Prescriptive Grammar and how it conjoins with Aristotlean Logic to limit our thinking rather than to expand it. Hand in hand with this we must explore a concept in Transformational Grammar called “Deep Structure”. But we will explore the latter in a slightly different way than “normal”. We will do it Mapologically™. That is we will, almost automatically discuss “Surface Structure”, what it is and why it exists. Something I have not seen tackled in my readings of Transformation Grammar. A pugnacious oversight in my opinion. (Note: The term “deep structure” doesn’t seem to be in vogue right now and I used it in a slightly different way than it is used in transformational grammar. We’ll get into that later.)

 

 

Yeah, I know. A hammer is a hammer.

What is so complicated about that?

 

We have a thing. We call this thing a hammer. From now on that is its name: Hammer.

We have named an object. A very specific object. When people say “Hammer” they normally mean an everyday claw hammer.

 

There are other kinds. In order to fully understand mapping we must understand both these other kinds of hammers and this thing called “deep structure”.

But first:

We will discuss some of the various kinds of hammers.

 

Claw hammers, most common, used by most people. Has one flat side to hit nails with and a claw on the other side to pull out the nails we have mishammered. (Oh, and please forgive me, [the] Gods of Grammar — No such word as “mishammered” has been ordained by them to exist — Therefore it MUST NOT be used even though everyone understands its meaning immediately. My sins I do confess.)

Normal people using their naturally grown Mapping skills and Deep Structure connections they will use a normal claw hammer for a lot of “inappropriate” things. Such as perhaps to use the claw for a screwdriver, or a hoe to dig in the dirt, or the wooden handle to widen a hole in drywall, or even the edge t the top of the handle to scrape away paint.

Superior people, who have mastered the concept of “Logical Necessity” are horrified by these sacrileges against surface structure. They will tell you, in no uncertain terms, that “Hammers are hammers” and “They are not designed for those tasks.”.

 

But hammers are used for some pretty odd things.

 

Roofing hammers actually look more like hatchets than claw hammers. At least on the “Claw” end.

It is possible some genius got tired of being told they were using the claw inappropriately and invented a better claw to do the job. Or it may have happened some other way.

Doesn’t matter. Point made.

 

Ball Pein hammers have an entirely different use. It is normally used to beat metal into shape. Auto body repair people rely on them extensively.

 

Logically this makes a Ball Pein hammer one thing and a Claw Hammer another, entirely different thing.

 

This is in fact surface structure. Using surface structure, in the form of Logic, we can deny there is any similarity between the two at all. A proponent of surface structure, stated as logic, will tell you, “A claw hammer is a claw hammer and a ball pein hammer is a ball pein hammer. Two entirely different things. They are used in two different ways to accomplish two different functions.”

Logical necessity forces us to agree.

A more linguistically centered approach would recognize that on a deeper level of thinking we understand that both objects are in fact the same in some way. They are both hammers, as their name implies.

 

The innate Fallacy of Logic is its assumption that extreme Surface Structural Thinking™ is The Superior way to reason.

It is in fact inferior.

The innate Fallacy of Linguistics is its assumption that Surface Structural Thinking™ is The Natural Way to Think and that Deep Structural Thinking™ is some complex function of the inner mind that must somehow be unraveled.

It is in fact simple and natural, but it is suppressed.

 

The next blog will introduce you to yet more hammers, and the opportunity to expand your map.

 

 

©2014, all rights reserved

 

 

 

 

Grammar: The Holy Grail of Simpletons.

30 Dec

The first thing you learn about grammar in school teaches you how to construct a credible simple sentence, but is a total mind destroyer. It kills creativity and it totally destroys any natural inclination the student has toward understanding reality as it is.

You are taught the basis of grammar is the simple sentence, Subject, Verb, Object.

You are taught to believe that Verbs describe Actions and that Nouns are names of Persons, Places, Things, or Ideas.

By the time you are done you believe these things.

Why not?

It sounds credible. Especially when the emphasis is on learning what you are taught, fitting in, not being different, and not asking questions that are in any way disturbing.

After all, when you ask a teacher, or any other authority, a question about something they believe they have already explained you have attacked them; you have challenged them; you have had the temerity to imply that their explanation was in some way not perfect. Their identity, their position of authority, their perfection is now on the line. They must either admit they have somehow failed in their attempt to communicate with you or they must assume you are an idiot who cannot understand their instructions.

Unfortunately for the child, and employees, those in authority all too often choose to save face than accept their own limitations.

This, as I have often told, was brought home to me as a young child in a classroom of students when a teacher chose to answer my question with the announcement, “Oscar Wilde once said a fool can ask more questions in five minutes than a wise man can answer in a lifetime.”

So you are taught to write a simple sentence.

Perhaps you are taught to diagram it.

Subject (noun), Verb (Which is of course a Verb), Object (noun).

Jack kissed Jill.

Now eventually, if you are lucky, possibly in college, but not of necessity, someone expands on what you were taught. Unfortunately by then you have just added to the list and have not examined what you were taught.

Let us look at it:

A noun is a word that refers to a person, place, thing, event, substance, or quality.

Now look at the sentence:

Jack kissed Jill.

A noun is basically a name. Jack’s name is Jack. Jill’s name is Jill. The event is a kiss. We name this event Kiss. We name the action Kiss.

In this sentence there is nothing but names.

Jack’s name: Jack.

Jill’s name: Jill.

The name of the event/action: Kiss.

Every word in that sentence is a noun. Every word in that sentence is a name.

When I asked in school why we used the word “noun” instead of the word “name” to describe this part of speech I was informed by the teacher that “It should be obvious even to you that while the name Philadelphia is the name of a particular city the word city is not a name. It is a noun that means any city at all. Therefore a noun is not a name. Only Proper Nouns are names.”

From now on in the rest of my writing all words in the English Language will be treated as Names. We have proper names: Mrs Smith. We have group names: Planets. We have concrete names: Chair. We have abstract names: Freedom. We have action names: Fight. We have event names: 911.

Every word in the English Language names something.

I get a lot of flack for this concept. From all levels of intelligence and education.

Words are not their meanings. Words are not their definitions. Words are not the parts of speech they play in their different grammatical roles. Words are the sounds we make to give names to objects, ideas, concepts.

Signs, in a signed language, such as American Sign Language, serve exactly the same function words serve.

Words and Signs refer to concrete things, abstract things, imaginary things, events, ideas, and concepts. When a word or sign has been given to one of these it has been named.

Yet the really important thing is not the name:

The Really important thing is what we do with the name.

© 2013 All Rights Reserved.

Simplicity

21 Dec

Two blogs ago I introduced The Concept Line™.  It is a simple, basic concept. Aristotlean Logic can be used in conjunction with it. And weighty subjects can be dealt with using it.

In order to demonstrate how difficult, weighty, lofty, and important a subject can be dealt with I chose to deal with “Evil”. A subject that has taunted scientists, theologians, and philosophers, for ages.

What is Evil?

Why does Evil exist?

Why does God allow Evil?

How does a good person deal with Evil in their lives?

How does Evil effect you?

All of these questions and more rely on a fallacious mental tick of the human mind that Aristotlean Logic caters too. All of the answers which follow these questions rely on the same fallacious mental tick.

All of these mental ticks can be summed up in “The Map Is Not the Territory”. A term coined by Alfred Korzybski and best explained here: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_map_is_not_the_territory.

But let us build up.

Start simple.

In order to fully understand any abstract term Evil included, one must first understand a “Concrete” term.

Such as a hammer.

Yet when we attempt to determine the simplistic, concrete term “hammer” we find ourself faced with the word and how it is used grammatically. Unfortunately “Good Grammar” has done more to inhibit our ability to reason well than it has to increase our ability to communicate well.

The next blog will start by undoing the harm that was done to your mind as a young child when you were first introduced to, and forced to learn, “Good Grammar”.

© 2013 All Rights Reserved

Understanding the Concept Line™

25 Nov

When you discuss logic, in any form, you discuss words, definitions, and meanings. In logic the first thing you HAVE to do if you are going to have a meaningful discussion is to define your terms. That is to make sure everyone involved in the discussion knows, or believes they know, exactly what they are talking about.

On the other hand when you discuss Mapological™ thinking, you must concentrate, not on words, but on the concepts involved.

Thus the concept line™.

Therefore the first term we must determine, and agree on, is What a Concept is. And what relationship it has to words, definitions, meanings, and ideas.

I shall do this by tackling what is considered a major Philosophical / Theological issue. There are three aspects of this journey we are taking: What is Evil? Why does Evil exist? Is Evil necessary?

But before we discuss such a “lofty” concept let us set some ground rules by tackling a very mundane concept.

One there can be no doubt about. A hammer. You can look at a hammer. Touch a hammer. Hold a hammer. Swing a hammer. Smell a hammer. You can taste a hammer if you like. I would recommend cleaning it thoroughly first.

Few things can be considered more mundane than a hammer.

As a word it is very specific. It has a head, usually made of metal, attached at right angles to a handle, often made of wood. It is most often used to pound nails into wood with.

The word hammer is a concrete noun.

Evil, on the other hand is an abstract noun.

While you may be able to point to examples of it that every human being will agree is Evil, you will never be able to put it in your tool belt and carry it to the job site with you.

Thus the next blog will begin our exploration of Evil by looking at the lowly, totally innocent hammer.

The Concept Line™

17 Nov

Whereas Aristotle and other logicians defined specific words we will work with concepts. To give a quick recap of what is required to be logical.

The first step is simple, but usually overlooked.

Before you can talk about anything you must first define your terms. All of them. But not just to yourself. You have to reach an agreement with whomever you are in the discussion with. This is not always easy.

People think they know what they are talking about.

They think they know what a car is.

Then they discover that the dictionary may define what a car is differently than they do. They are sometimes shocked to discover the law may use a different definition: One that may include one, two, or three-wheeled vehicles.

If you do not sit down with your discussion partner and agree on all the terms of what you are discussing you cannot be logical.

This happens a lot when people discuss deafness / Deaf.

A lot of people discuss deaf and deafness and are unaware there are people who belong to Deaf Culture. That is they have a shared language and have shared values that are different from the culture the person I am speaking with.

Some people find it impossible to believe that there are Deaf people, people who Identify as Deaf and use a Capital “D” to describe themselves.

No logical discussion can take place between us because there is no way we can agree on our terms. I am not going to change my position because I have had contact with Deaf people. The chances of their changing their opinion is slight. I have never had it happen.

Does the situation change when you use Map Thinking™?

Unfortunately no. In fact sometimes it is worse.

If the person has not been exposed to Map Thinking™ before the first thing you have to do is to convince them there is a concept of deaf / Deaf that extends from the most hearing enabled creature, which is not even a human being, to anyone or any thing that cannot hear. Including a rock.

To many people, including the most erudite this approach defies all sense of reason.

People who are inured to the logical approach, “Either you are deaf or you are not deaf”, cannot fully participate in a Mapological™ discussion.

The creature with the best hearing, that I know of as of this writing, is an owl. The thing with the least hearing is a rock, as in “stone cold deaf”. Which is an expression I have heard.

If you had the best human hearing in the world and you were an owl you would be deaf compared to other owls.

Yet sound is a vibration that transmits through air, water, and solid material. A rock has the ability to recognize sound. What it doesn’t have is a sensory system, nor a brain center, to interpret what it has received.

We are talking about a Concept Line™.

One Extreme ————————Concept———————————Other Extreme

Super Hearing ——————————————————————Inability to hear

Love ————————————Indifference —————————————Hate

In Mapping you develop a Concept Line™ by looking at whatever you are discussing and establishing its extremes. That usually means its opposites. So if you are discussing morality you place the most moral behavior at one extreme and describe/define it. Then you place the most immoral behavior at the other extreme and describe/define it.

Now you are able to discuss the concept.

Thus if you discuss running you will find as an antonym, walking.

But walking is not the opposite of running. Laying still is. Therefore standing still is at one extreme, running at the other and the concept is “self propelled motion”.

One of the most enjoyable things about The Concept Line™   is that you can narrow it down to its most specific possibility or expand it as far as your imagination allows. Thus allowing for both creativity and for Logical Analysis à la Aristotle.

One of the primary, and to some extremely subtle differences between a Mapological™ discussion of something and a Logical discussion of something is this:

Mapology™ recognizes we are discussing our concept of the thing under discussion — We are not discussing the thing itself — Even though we refer to it.

Logically it is assumed we are discussing the thing itself.

We use a concept line to define the limits of the concept we are discussing and the real world thing that generates this concept.

© 2013, All Rights Reserved.

How to Align the World by Drawing A Line In the World

10 Nov

In order to get a good handle on Aristotle’s Logic, and on Map Thinking™ as well, we need to turn to something often thought of as frivolous, or inexact, by “serious” thinkers.

 

ART.

 

If you are going to convey a piece of reality in a work of art you need to provide your perceiver with certain factors. These factors represent what the perceiver would encounter were they to have the “Real Thing” in front of them rather than the artistic representation.

 

The first thing to be considered in a work of art, especially if you are going to plan on doing one, is line. Where to place it and how “hard” to place it. Some forms of art, such as comic strips, are entirely composed of hard lines. At the other extreme you have Monet tossing dabs of paint on a canvas: You cannot distinguish a a line anywhere when looking at it up close. When you back off far enough your eye will supply the lines you need to distinguish what you are looking at.

 

In reality there are no lines.

 

Your mind supplies them all.

 

Just as happens when looking at the “Real Thing”.

 

Monet makes use of this mental trick in order to paint closer to the way reality is.

 

This may be harping, but “Our mind does not see reality the way it is”. Our mind sees reality in ways that enable the mind to process the information it receives more efficiently.

 

A Map Thinker ™ is always aware of this. When a Map Thinker™ uses Logic they are aware they are using a simplistic form of reasoning that is useful.

 

“Pure Thought” in the traditional Aristotelean Logical sense is Simplistic thought.

 

Does not mean Traditional Aristotelean Logic is not useful.

 

Logic is so useful that it does not matter what I say there will always be people who will believe Map Thinking™ is stupid and that Traditional Aristotlean Logic is a higher form or reasoning.

 

What Traditional Aristotelean Logic does is describe reality in simplistic, bite sized pieces.

 

Higher forms of reasoning.

 

People think Mathematics is a higher form or reasoning.

 

When I was in school the teachers taught that Einstein used “Higher Mathematics” to arrive at The General Theory of Relativity.

 

Wrong.

 

Einstein came up with his genius ideas, all of them, while day dreaming. He used mathematics to describe what he saw while day dreaming and predict what would prove his fantasies to be truth rather than fiction. The fact is that Imagination, as proven by Einstein and others, is The Highest Form of Reasoning.

 

Imagination allows us to boldly draw lines where they have never been drawn before.

 

 

© 2013 All Rights Reserved.

How to Aristotle

3 Nov

How to use the simplistic tools of Aristotelean logic to do real thinking.

 

There are two ways of spelling Aristotelean. The other is Aristotelian. I chose “lean” because I think of Aristotelean logic as being “lean”. Getting to the meat and leaving all the fat behind. If you cut too lean you cut right to the bone and leave all the meat behind as well.

 

To do this I am going to tackle a subject where there is no good answer — Only questions that are not even interesting enough to explore on their own — But will be explored for other reasons.

 

Ready?

 

The medium who claims to be able to read auras.

 

How do we go about a Mapological examination of the subject?

 

The best way is to start out with  — Can you guess? Aristotelelean questions separating what can be true from what can be explored.

 

Either Madam Aura Reader is telling the truth or she is lying.

 

If she is lying then she is a fake and nothing more is to be explored here.

 

So let us say she is telling the truth: Then: The Question, using A <-^- > P becomes “What is she telling the truth about?”

 

Either Madam Aura Reader sees Auras or she does not.

 

Just because you and I do not see Auras does not mean Auras in some form are not there.

Just because she sees them does not mean they are there.

 

She could just as easily be smelling something about people and seeing Auras.

 

So, giving her all the benefit of the doubt here, we are going to say she perceives something she experiences as Auras.

 

The next question is, “Are her pronouncements of the meanings of these things correct?” Are they testable? Are they con man jargon?

 

Now let us look at P -^-> FAR ( please note that time and triggers are not important here and are not included in the argument)

 

In the ^ we need to include influences, such as ridicule, which would cause her to keep quiet about her vision — And inducements such as monetary gain from people who will pay her money to tell them things that she concludes.

 

Because of the criticism many people who could see Auras (If anyone can) would never mention their “gift”.

Because there is a lucrative market for people who claim to be able to see Auras there will be charlatans who will brave the criticism for the cash.

 

A Map Thinker will be aware of all this and more.

A Map Thinker will reserve judgment about the possibility of someone reading Auras until such time as the skill can be proved or disproved scientifically. Because of the physical and psychological quirks of <-^-> this is unlikely.

A Map Thinker, even were Madam Aura Reader to be proven to have the skill, would still keep their money in their pocket until the usefulness of her pronouncements were also scientifically proven. This is an even less likely event than proving a specific individual has the skill to begin with.

 

Thus you can use Aristotlean Logic to lead you to reasonable conclusions by pointing out dead ends in thought.

To some people this reasonable line of thinking is much less emotionally satisfying than, “If you can’t prove it, it isn’t true.” School of thought.

So be it. To each his own. There is room in the world for people who believe my way of thinking is trash. So long as they don’t want to come over to my house for sunday Bar B Que and try to convert me.

 

 

© 2013 All Rights Reserved

ultimatemindsettoday

A great WordPress.com site

Don Charisma

because anything is possible with Charisma

War By Other Means

Politics & Philosophy

this is... The Neighborhood

the Story within the Story

stillness of heart

MUSINGS : CRITICISM : HISTORY : PASSION

The Guilty Preacher Man

abandoned illustrations

matchtall

A tall women amazon model WordPress.com sit

Three Wise Guys

Best not to think about it

Mister G Kids

A daily comic about real stuff little kids say in school. By Matt Gajdoš

Ray Ferrer - Emotion on Canvas

** OFFICIAL Site of Artist Ray Ferrer **

The Judy-Jodie and Kelli Memorial Blog

A great WordPress.com site

A Financial Life Coach

Your Financial Life Coach

Storyshucker

A blog full of humorous and poignant observations.

Dysfunctional Literacy

The world's most entertaining literary blog!

Top 10 of Anything and Everything - The Fun Top Ten Blog

Animals, Gift Ideas, Travel, Books, Recycling Ideas and Many, Many More

ajrogersphilosophy

A fine WordPress.com site

Thoughts

What ever I'm thinking