Learning about the World
Like a recurring dream, some underdeveloped theories come to my head several times over the course of, say, a year. And one of those is the theory that humans learn about the world through 'opposite association.' I'll introduce an 'opposite association' theory and ask for any web links you might be able to find and for your input...
I am using the phrase 'opposite association' to loosely define the way the brain processes ideas into opposites. A good example would be: hot and cold. Cold, alone, means little if there is no hot with which to contrast it.
But my main beef with this view of human learning and processing is that it implies two things:
- one: there is no absolute, as in absolute right or wrong; there is only relativity, which scares me
- two: humans can't process complex issues (example being: vision, which exists without being compared to its antonym, blindness)
Do you know of any written material on this psychological functioning? Do you think we process all mental capacity with this 'opposite association?'
5 comments:
jess asked me last night if someone would have to experience wealth to know poverty. and i think she hit on the weakness of the post, though not necessarily the argument.
i didn't really define whether or not i think people have to know one thing or the other, as in experience it. i don't think that.
i do think that we process things in terms of opposites. as in, the actual term wealth implies the opposite of poverty and vice versa. but the experiences don't need to have an intentional counterpart ot exist. for example, a soy farmer in idaho could have hardly enough to get up, eat, farm, and keep the roof over her head. she may not call her situation poverty, but that's how we classify her situation.
what i'm saying is that experiences aren't necessarily opposite, but that classifications and definitions almost always are based out of an 'opposite association.'
Im having a tough time finding the words for the point i want to make. I wish you could get inside of my head. Its kinda scary in there though. I may make it back on to post when I am under the influence.
Ben,
This has nothing to do with your post, but I want everyone to know that your fame has spread up the coast...
Last weekend we were having a minor shindig at the clubhouse where PADA is headquartered and two of my friends currently reside. During the aforementioned party, we realized that two participants had disappeared to the upstairs "bedroom".
The logical course, of course, was to throw things at the door. Waterbottles, discs, a container of lime juice, etc. This climaxed when Ali Parker grabbed a collander from the kitchen.
As she wound up to throw, one of the residents yelled "Noooo! People live here!"
Conclusion:
1. You are famous in PADA
2. Ali threw the collander and nearly nailed the guy who was butt naked and trying to shut the door.
I always liked saying 'People. Live. Here.' at a unit e party.
Actually Snausy, your story illustrates an interesting point of this story:
Pointing out that people use the party space for other purposes means that we should restrain our action. But what is this in contrast to? Pretty much all space is utilized in one form or another (though I've seen some places that really don't seem to be on my trip, such as Northern Peru's desert coastline, where only fertile riverbeds are inhabited), and living some place is just another form of utilization. So when someone says "plh," are we being asked to contrast or contain our behaviour as opposed to parties in spaces that aren't used. That assumes that we know what that would look like, which presumably we don't, as premised earlier about all spaces being utilized in some form or another. Unless of course you count parties at abandoned Salisbury hot dog factories. Or Salisbury in general.
Any excuse is a good excuse to bring that party up.
Post a Comment