Beyond Pandora

[Attila]

Beyond Pandora

Basically here I am asking if the vehicle of information necessarily has to be perfect in order to facilitate the transit of information expediently? For example; if you wish to tell me there is a cube drawn upon the paper, then you need only show me the paper and I will get the message perfectly, even though my eyes are imperfect and the way they carry info to the brain is imperfect and my interpretation subjective. If we accept that we cannot know anything then are we not left in Pandora’s box?

We often speak of subjectivity as if it cancels out any ‘true’ representation of reality, and we are left with a vacuous Pandora’s box where we don’t know anything within the vessel of the mind [pandoras box was originally a vessel sometimes large enough to contain a human, so I am using both the original and the modern meaning here]. However if we reach into that confused state, I do believe it is possible to extrapolate ’true’ information from it.

Do we need perfect instrumentation to gain knowledge? I remember watching Richard Dawkins [on tv] show how the eye is imperfect, and expect the brain has its imperfections too. Yet I am wondering if you need a perfect or just an adequate transport of information in order to gain ‘truths’ from a given source? if for example we see an image of a blonde girl on the TV, we see an imperfect representation of what she looks like, and indeed if she stood before us we still do, and yet the knowledge in our minds are perfect items of knowledge, a cube is a cube and girl is a girl etc, and we only need to marry a rather more vague representation of that to know what it is. If we see a box we know it is a cube even though we can never see a perfect cube in the real world ~ but we can see one in the minds eye.

So lets do a bit of ‘shotgun philosophy’ on this; we don’t get all the information we need from a given source, but we do get some information [probably all we need]. We see the girl and most of her attributes, we know what these things are so we can attest to the idea that we have seen the girl because the image fits into our bank of knowledge. We only get small amounts of correct information, but with everything we observe we get some more grains [or pellets of the shotgun] of info, eventually from simple forms and ideas we build up a vast collection of verified information ~ even though every part of it is only ever partially true in transit.

“What makes the most sense to me is that the brain forms an archetype of objects after it acquires a small collection of experiences of them. It builds sort of an 'average' and then uses and refines this average with more and more experiences of the same object. To know that we see a woman is for the brain to identify the sight of one with the archetype of 'women' it has formed from past experiences of them. We feel fairly certain when the archetype has been fortified by means of numerous experiences and when the next instance of one in experience bears similar enough features“.

The universe needs to know how to be a universe. It started as a singularity rather than chaos, so I would think something made it that way ~ it formed a singularity by the given principles and archetypes.
To form a thing like e.g. a particle, you need the principle of balance which itself is composed of many archetypal ideas, and you need the archetypes of positive, negative, neutral, then sphere [kinda] centre epicentre etc. once you have these ideas then the thing can take shape, this is how I would define the original causal relationship of things.

Having archetypes in the mind allows us to compare a worldly object with the archetype, which it would seam impossible to otherwise decipher Pandora’s box ~ where it contains a reality we cannot read.?

Without archetypes would we not be blind?

[treegod]

One thing that has amazed me is the rate at which my 18 month old nephew has been able to "absorb" abstract information from the world, especially through words. And I suspect there is some pre-structured "archetype" type thing going on (though I still think nurture has more a say in most human behaviour).

Sometimes I can use just one word with people that are familiar with me and that I am familiar with and suddenly a whole world of understanding opens up to them, usually because it is built on previous experience. At other times words on their own have no meaning and need the context of a sentence to make sense.

My Spanish isn't so good, but at sometimes I can understand sentences, not because I understand any of the words but because of physical context, tone of voice as well as body language. It all contributes to understanding. I'm learning how much communication is non-verbal.

Here's an experiment...

"Mudblood"

Harry Potter, muggles and magic probably spring to mind and perhaps even racism. Maybe you can even think of a few scenes (in books and films) where that word was used (I can, one connecting with slugs... "That's disgusting.")

Or "times".

Is it a newspaper, quantity, maths, era, moments? Without a context it has no sense.

But even if I gave it context people project their prejudices and pre-concieved ideas onto what people are saying

Communication needs good listening as well as good speaking in order to be properly understood. It's a two way street. It takes two to tango.

Understand?

What I think is archetypal about the above writing is the way that the human brain can absorb and structure abstract information into something meaningful and useful. Some concepts might also be hard-wired into us, but some aren't, and certainlt the words that carry these concepts are not archetypal and can only be learned from "outside" the brain.

[FoxPhantom]

Not everything has the complete truth. even though we do have a piece of the right answer, but it's always is left incomplete. If we did have the complete truth then there would be a lot of answers explained. wouldn't it?

[Dendrias]

Do we need perfect instrumentation to gain knowledge? I remember watching Richard Dawkins [on tv] show how the eye is imperfect, and expect the brain has its imperfections too. Yet I am wondering if you need a perfect or just an adequate transport of information in order to gain ‘truths’ from a given source? [...]
So lets do a bit of ‘shotgun philosophy’ on this; we don’t get all the information we need from a given source, but we do get some information [probably all we need].

Is, Attila, the modern meaning of "Pandora's box" in common usage, as I can't understand the connection to the myth and the original meaning. But that's an example for part of the topic later.

In a human's life, before the "invention" of theory-driven science, philosophical idealism, all the information you could get by your senses were all informations you needed. And they were all informations you needed to know the truth. Somehow on the way, between telling a sabretooth-tiger from a bush (and run away) and telling a quark-collision from an atom-collision, the feeling that "truth" or: all there is to be known about the world shifted from the senses into scientific methods, theories and measuring. You can go back to Greek natural philosophy to find the questions arise whether or not your senses could possibly tell you the truth, or whether truth is what the senses tell you. And that's, partly, the question You ask. I wouldn't want to ask You "What's truth, anyway?" - because that would be inadaequate, wouldn't it, though necessary to answer above question. But Your usage of the word "truth" is quite loose.

When You see Your blonde, You don't need to know blood pressure, cholesterol, intestinal workings, composition of elements on her skin and in her hair, You don't even need to know that she consists of atoms rather than skin and bones (and fat - You name, she consists of it). If You want to marry her and have some children with her, that is. You don't need to know that Your sperm has zinc in it, as long as You're having fun.
Your senses tell You one thing about the world, science can tell You a different thing about the same world. Which one is Your "truth"?

Let's take treegod's experiment - some time later.

[Attila]

treegod FoxPhantom Dendrias

I suspect there is some pre-structured "archetype" type thing going on (though I still think nurture has more a say in most human behaviour).

Archetypes would be involved in nurture too, as info is exchanged between parent and offspring for example, so even there we need a marriage of experience and archetype. Of course we should probably consider archetypes in terms of original [and universal], with created, as we make up new ones as we learn [as like the difference between culture and genetic transferral of info].
I agree about words and meaning associations [can be many or few for the same word].

My Spanish isn't so good, but at sometimes I can understand sentences, not because I understand any of the words but because of physical context, tone of voice as well as body language. It all contributes to understanding. I'm learning how much communication is non-verbal.

Interesting point. I presume this is the whole language that animals use, funny I spoke to a science student chap who said ‘animals don’t think’ lols.

I agree with your experiment though I don’t wish to get to much into semantics here, this is why I used a visual example [the blonde], words add another level of interpretation where images speak for themselves [except with optical illusions]. I think it better to go down the previous path of context and more immediate language [how one acts etc].

Is Attila, the modern meaning of "Pandora's box" in common usage, as I can't understand the connection to the myth and the original meaning.

Yes I was using the modern ‘pandoras box’ notion, coupled with the original ‘vessel’ and 'all-containing' meaning. In short if we cannot get past the imperfect vehicle for the transit of info as facilitated by the senses and brain, then we are left in a kind of pandoras box where we don’t really know what’s in there ~ what reality is.

I wouldn't want to ask You "What's truth, anyway?" - because that would be inadaequate, wouldn't it, though necessary to answer above question. But Your usage of the word "truth" is quite loose.

My usage is indeed loose, the way I see it is that there are no absolutes [even in science], therefore we cannot arrive at absolute truth ~ strangely enough except with abstract ideas and metaphors [math, principles, law etc]. our reality is transient and hence one truth moves into another, so we only ever have vague or ‘representative’ examples of truth and reality. However I think that is enough and certainly truer than if we accept that we don’t know anything at all.

As for the example of the blonde, yes there is the person truth and the science truth, I would happily accept both as true.

[Dendrias]

Without archetypes would we not be blind?

You think of something like agnosia, don't You? I think, yes, without what You call archetypes perception would be very difficult. You would be seeing colours in shapes, hear unconnected sound and so on. At least, I could imagine. Like hearing a foreign language: it's just buzzing or snarkling sound going up and down in one way or the other. You can't recognise words, where they end and where they don't, you can't recognize sentences and so on.

But, what is pandora's box in Your meaning, Attila? You haven't answered my question whether Your "modern meaning" was in common usage, but googling I couldn't find it. Is Your box somewhere in the mind or around the senses? treegod's experiment fails at this point, You know, because this box is commonly understood to be the can of worms, afaik. Could You go deeper into the image?

[Attila]

what is pandora's box in Your meaning, Attila? You haven't answered my question whether Your "modern meaning" was in common usage, but googling I couldn't find it. Is Your box somewhere in the mind or around the senses? treegod's experiment fails at this point, You know, because this box is commonly understood to be the can of worms, afaik. Could You go deeper into the image?

Well if we go by the basic wiki definition then it seams problematic….
Pandora's box is an artifact in Greek mythology. The "box" was actually a large jar (πιθος pithos) given to Pandora (Πανδώρα) ("all-gifted"), which contained all the evils of the world. When Pandora opened the jar, the entire contents of the jar were released, but for one – hope. Today, opening Pandora's box means to create evil that cannot be undone.

However what I was imagining is a kind of ignorance [I tend to consider all evils as ignorance] and that leaves us in a position of ‘no hope’ of understanding reality. For me druidry is partly about realism and perception, so it is key that we can find a means by which ‘seeing’ isn’t simply being blind [because there is no way to see except by imagining what things are].
My understanding of Pandora’s box is a little different, I visualised it in terms of the unknown e.g. I saw a film once where someone had to put their hand into what seamed like an empty box [pandoras box similar], if they did not fear the unknown then nothing would happen, if not then all manner of evils would happen. There is also a similar mentioning of this meaning in my hermetic tarot deck.

Hope that helps, sorry for presuming that others would see it the same way, I tend to not over elaborate in my opening posts because people don’t bother with long posts.

[Dendrias]

Well, thank You, that definitely helps.

Do You know something about Sokrates? You can find Your thought about ignorance and evil-doing somewhere in Platon's dialogues (perhaps "Protagoras").

You're not thinking of "Dune" with Your box, are You? I have only imperfect memories about that film, but a scene with a hand in a box and massive torture was in it.
Apropos movie: I knew a girl at school called Pandora.

[Attila]

I know a little about the greek philosophers and most people say my ideas are pretty similar, I suppose that’s what happens when you work with the mind rather than experiment.

Yea I think it was dune.

[treegod]

Archetypes would be involved in nurture too, as info is exchanged between parent and offspring for example, so even there we need a marriage of experience and archetype. Of course we should probably consider archetypes in terms of original [and universal], with created, as we make up new ones as we learn [as like the difference between culture and genetic transferral of info].

The terms I usually think of as differentiating innate from learnt it archetypes and stereotypes. In general terms one starts inwards and works outwards, the other from outwards and works inwards. Both I refer to as "models of human perception, roles and functions that are often represented by symbols and personalities" in this article here

I think there is a subtle but very important difference between the two.

My Spanish isn't so good, but at sometimes I can understand sentences, not because I understand any of the words but because of physical context, tone of voice as well as body language. It all contributes to understanding. I'm learning how much communication is non-verbal.

Interesting point. I presume this is the whole language that animals use, funny I spoke to a science student chap who said ‘animals don’t think’ lols.

I have "conversations" with my dogs. Never about what has happened or what will happen, only about what is happening now. They really ground my language in the Now. Still don't know if they think, but they are intelligent in some ways that humans have forgotten.

There was an article I read recently in the Catalunya Chronicle all about language development. I'll try and dig it up.

[Attila]

treegod, hi

In general terms one starts inwards and works outwards, the other from outwards and works inwards.

Thanks for the link.

The external [experience] and internal [insight, intuition] aspects come together in the conscious epicentre of the self ~ that which knows.

e.g. when we first feel love [perhaps in the mothers womb] we have no knowledge of it, however that experience gives us the knowledge, it tells us what love is by the experience [even if we cannot explain it further]. When we first see light then that experience tells us what light is, one then has a memory of what light is where the memory records that experience ~ as what we summed it up to be in the experience of it.
When we know inwardly I see it a bit like reading a map in the dark, to find insightful and intuitive info [internal perception] we take the mind on a journey where one item of knowledge lights up a place on the map etc, until we reach a destination [see also below]. On that internal level there are no physical distances between locations of info [as like infinity is], so it is simply a case of matching informations to facilitate communication. a function of communication is the matching of informations from different locations. is this not how we can sometimes finish off another’s sentence [esp with twins], or how we gain insights, sometimes distant teams of scientists working on a thing appear to act as if working together in the same place. I often post the very same thread on 5 or more forums and sit back and watch how the debates occur as if only on one forum, a chap on TV said how his cattle in the Australian outback and spread over many thousands of acres of land, seamed to communicate when a few cattle at one end of the lands first touched an electric fence, then cattle at the other end ’knew’ not to go into the fence.

It seams that inwards thinking simply needs to connect to a thing via knowledge or the transmission of that ~ as if all our thoughts are within a single sphere of thought.

These we can call the level of archetypes relative to emotional experience.
Then there would be those of sensory experience [partly an outer level of the above]. Of objects and environments.
Then we have the level of communicative and knowledgeable archetypes, where perhaps the above two are brought together.

I have "conversations" with my dogs. Never about what has happened or what will happen, only about what is happening now. They really ground my language in the Now. Still don't know if they think, but they are intelligent in some ways that humans have forgotten.

Much of our thought happens before it becomes language, we often make decisions [it has been shown to be as much as 6 seconds before the linguistic expression of thought] well before it becomes language. I think animals ‘think’ on this level, of natural real things they are experiencing now.

[Ben Wood]

however that experience gives us the knowledge, it tells us what love is by the experience [even if we cannot explain it further].

Is it possible that as Plato argues, instead of learning from experience we simply remember or 'recollect' innate ideas we already have? This is certainly where Socrates is coming from in the Meno.