>>> Mark:
>>> Yes, I agree with dmb, if I am interpreting correctly what he is
>>> writing.  Reality is not invented, it is realized in a manner which we
>>> humans find useful.  We are simply interpreters of the given.  If
>>> somebody interprets Spanish into English, this does not mean that the
>>> English is not something similar to the Spanish.  It does not somehow
>>> make the English unreal.  Our interpretation as presented through sq
>>> is as direct as the DQ which is being interpreted.  To say that such
>>> analogue is somehow separate from the given is not correct.  Our
>>> ability to think is very real, as real as the hardness of steel.  We
>>> cannot say that we are "imagining" steel to be hard, or we once again
>>> get lost in the distractions of logic.
>>
>> Carl:
>> This is interesting.  Last night, the fellow on Coast to Coast, Dr. Joe
>> Dispranza,  (http://www.drjoedispenza.com/), commented that "Our
>> personality
>> creates our reality."  Upon reflection, I have to agree with that.  I've
>> seen too many examples walking around.  As you say, our ability to think
>> is
>> very real, and HOW we think affects most of our perceptions.  We interact
>> with our reality based on our perception of it.  The problem with
>> translations are the cultural memes involved.  A concept presented in
>> Spanish may have a totally different cultural base in English, and the
>> concept doesn't translate well.  It's for this reason that the concept of
>> quality is so difficult to grasp.  My concept of it will be different
>> than
>> yours, even though we're using the same language to describe it.  We can
>> transmit concepts, but we can never be sure that the receiver is getting
>> exactly what we're sending.  (Explain to a Kalahari Bushman who's never
>> seen
>> steel what it is, and how "hard" it is.  Better yet, explain to someone
>> what
>> it's like being in love.  I know what love feels like, FROM MY
>> PERSPECTIVE,
>> but there is no way to know what the word really means to you.)  This is
>> the
>> also the problem with analogues.  The 'given' in this instance is very
>> much
>> based on the perceiver.  I don't think it's so much a matter of logic,
>> because your logic is fine, as is mine, it's just that things have a
>> different intrinsic meaning based on our personal background, experience,
>> etc.

Mark:
> Yes, perhaps this is a good way to see things, all stemming from the
> personality.  At least we can assume some responsibility for what we
> do.  It may get us out of this economy ruled by victims.
>
> The problem that I have with Dr. D's viewpoint as I understand it from
> your post, is the same problem with the nature/nurture issue.  If I
> had to make a choice of the two (rather than blend them like a good
> politician), I would choose nurture.  That would be: what we are
> (personality) is more directed by what happens to us during life
> rather than the DNA begining.   What happens to us during the day is
> "reality".  Since you know S_ _T happens!  But perhaps it is kind of a
> chicken and egg sort of things.  It may even be something that is not
> essential for understanding reality.  We do like to isolate causes,
> however.  So my question to Dr. Joe would be: Is the personality
> somehow separate from the reality?  Can we really say that one causes
> the other?  Or is it perhaps a little messier than that simple
> statement.  I am sure that Dr, Joe went on to discuss his statement,
> and since I missed that, I am only left with questions.  Perhaps I
> agree with him, I don't know.

Carl:
I look at the nurture/nature thing and can't help but to think of my
brother.  We were raised in similar situations, obviously, yet he has
consistently made bad choices on most things.  He sees no point whatever in
going to school and learning new things, etc.  His entire life has been
spent totally on the surface.  When I first read this, I did a search on
Oprah Winfrey.  Looking at her background, she should have ended up as a
crack whore somewhere, but she didn't.  Maybe it's a combination?  She has
the inherent ability, the intelligence and curiosity, plus the hutzpah to do
what she does.  Also, from all reports, she's a workaholic.  Most of the bad
things that can happen to a child happened to her, yet she overcame them.
The flip side to that is that I've met a lot of people who had tons of
native intelligence and talent who've never accomplished a single thing
other than converting perfectly good oxygen into carbon dioxide.  Who can
say which buttons get pushed, and what the effect will be?  I don't think
there's a good answer there.  Too many variables to adequately test any
hypothesis there.  It would have been interesting to see how Jethro and
Ellie Mae's kids turned out, though.

I think there is a seperation between personality and reality.  It's called
free will.  We can choose to accept the reality that's presented, or we can
actively work to change it.  The real question is who we are serving if we
do make the effort to change it?  Is it an ego thing?  Is there a "greater
good" involved?  Interesting questions.

Carl

Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html