Guest Speaker: Dr. James Mayfield “What is ‘true’? What is ‘real’?”
This is the online space for discussing the Guest Speaker, Dr. James Mayfield, “What is ‘true’? What is ‘real’? Epistemological explorations of how we understand ourselves and each other.”
To listen to the presentation, click here (the discussion starts after about 20 seconds of silence): http://www.blogtalkradio.com/dreamteammachine/2010/03/04/what-is-true-what-is-real-interview-with-james-may
For any questions and discussion on this topic, feel free to post them here.
I’m looking forward to the info and insights he will share with us.
Here are the logistics on who he is, what the topic is, and how to listen in.
ICT4CC / Axis Live Guest Lecture -
Time:
Thursday, March 4th — at 5:00pm Stockholm Time
Topic:
“What is ‘true’? What is ‘real’? Epistemological explorations of how we understand ourselves and each other”
Bio:
James B. Mayfield, PhD, Professor emeritus in Middle East Studies, author of “The Inigma of Iraq” and part of special envoy to 
Iraq to integrate a post-war democratic system: Dr. Mayfield speaks multiple languages (one of which is Iraqi Arabic), is one of the most experienced international development experts in the world, and has worked in dozens of countries, with a specialty in Egypt and the Middle East, teaching local government development. He is also co-founder and resident member of the board for CHOICE Humanitarian, an NGO presently establishing self-developing village programs in a number of countries in Latin-America and African nations.
Author of:
- One Can Make a Difference
- The Time Has Come: To Confront the Tragedy of World Poverty Through Centers of Village Progress
- The Enigma of Iraq
To Listen:
- To listen to the audio feed, you can click here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/dreamteammachine/2010/03/04/what-is-true-what-is-real-interview-with-james-may
- To listen and make comments with future lectures, here is a dial-in number: +01.646.721.9923
If you miss it live, I will post the recording of it here – for us to discuss afterward.
_____
(Before)
- What questions would you like Dr. Mayfield to address?
(After – now)
- What things to you agree with and what things do you question?
- What insights did you gain from the lecture?
- How do you think you might integrate some of those insights into this class and into your life?
March 4th, 2010 at 6:39 am
Dr Mayfield, We are physical beings and ICT has given us the virtual: but have we not also created a
division between the senses we all have into a kind of physical and virtual divide?
Generally, we accept the 5 physical senses and suppress or demit others (using social or scientific acceptance criteria) …. like intuition for example.
To what extent is truth and reality related to the senses we each accept input from and if we were to accept and use all the human senses we are capable of accepting inputs from, what would the notion of truth and reality become?
March 4th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Good question Rudi.
It seemed like when I approached this question with Dr. Mayfield, his response seemed to emphasize the remaining importance of face-to-face, although recognizing the value of Skype, etc to connect people in ways that were previously not possible.
His statement though, was that he was firmly convinced that with all the technology, it would not help unless addressing people’s ability to become aware of the constructs which they operate under.
So his main question back, was not about which senses we gain input from, but more about: How can we use whatever resources or platforms we have (including technology) — to increase awareness over how constructs influence our own and others ability to perceive “what is real” — and what is useful?
He seemed convinced that the state of our future world depends on our ability to do this.
Do you agree?
If so, what ideas might you have for what technologies or techniques might help us as humans come to awaken to awareness of their own constructs?
March 4th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
I recently have noticed a developing trend of young creative people who research and build themes in 3D virtual environments. One such I met recently on line was a 21 year old young lady from the US who spent weeks researching “Japanese Kitsune (ki·tsu·ne, the Japanese word for fox. Foxes are a common subject of Japanese folklore…” them creating a 3D world as an expression of her research inviting others to share the experience as a 3D chat room.
She commented on the days of assistance and peer reviews she had to go through and obviously enjoyed the experience based on the result.
One of the questions she asked me was: “have you ever wanted to be someone/something else?” It was a fascination question coming from a 21yr old. She also commented on how she conceptualized and internalized her experience and when she brought it into a 3D environment, she found that she modified certain thought processes, so her depiction of the many tailed fox of Japaneses folk lore became dinasours some with wings some with multiple heads. So seems, she already understood constructs and recognized a tool capable of expressing a separate mental dimension . So do we live in (as Ingo Swann suggested) reality boxes?
March 4th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Very informative!
i just watched TED talk before this conversation, and i just saw a confluence of thought. http://www.youtube.com/user/tedtalksdirector?blend=1&ob=4
However, is the perspective that all views will meet?
yes i have to admit to one thing though
March 4th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Is the view that all views will meet at some point justified?
and also the idea of tolerance. Is there a Real acceptance of differences, or we simply tolerate each other.
March 4th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Hi Daniel,
Good questions. What I gathered from Dr. Mayfield was that he was neither promoting simple “tolerance” or “acceptance of differences” just for the sake of accepting differences.
It seemed like he was saying more that when people become aware of their own “constructs” they can more fully appreciate the constructs that others look through. Not necessarily that they need to give up what they have or agree fully with other perspectives, but at least this first step allows people to see there is value in the perspectives and backgrounds of others who are different.
But what do you think? How would you (or anyone else) answer that question Daniel asks? What do you think would be an ideal future?
March 5th, 2010 at 6:33 am
It is interesting Dr Mayfield’s the story of the sand in Libya, I had a similar experience in the same country centered around their awareness of wind…they have an acute awareness of wind and have names for different winds..which have different attributes.
March 5th, 2010 at 6:57 am
Relating to Daniel’s question, using my own experience, empathy is perhaps an important ingredient in the mix, dont we establish nowledge and common experience “anchor points” when we communicate with someone? Is that whats makes the experience rich and beneficial for us? In a way it seems as if there is some bartering going on in the process. So I have to want something out of the process and so create a benificial experience? We may recognise our constructs when we see a reflection during conversations with others. So are we more apt to accept differences when we can find common personal traits/experiences with the speaker? ex is: tom is from mars, i like tom because we both like baseball, but I really don’t like the other martians. So the more we interact with different people the more constructs come to the surface and since something always has to be more important than something else, negatively takes a back seat allowing for further discovery.
March 6th, 2010 at 8:44 am
Good thoughts Rudi.
After the interview I realized I didn’t get a chance to ask how to read the sand.
Do you know how they read the wind?
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:45 am
I haven’t gotten all the way through your latest interview, but the distinction between monism and dualism doesn’t jive with a textbook I have. According to your interviewee, Dualism is akin to perspective taking, while Andrew Johnson says it’s a belief in both the physical and the metaphysical.
I find Johnson’s definition more appealing because a monist can still appreciate others’ POVs even if they believe in a single, sense-derived reality.
Good stuff, though. I’ll keep listening.
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:46 am
Hi Jeremy,
Did you ever record your lecture for the course you did on this topic?
I’m very interested in your thoughts on this topic.
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:47 am
I have two big thoughts on the issue of “what is real” and how it impacts research. 1. Too many people prescribe research methods by how we view the world. It’s usually something like, “Monists use experimental or quantitative methods while dualists and transcendental monists use qualitative.” Whatever.
2. Many dualists I’ve read portray a caricature of monism. There is a difference between believing that one “Truth” exists and our senses are the only way to find that Truth (all monists) and believing that one already knows all Truth (no monists). It seems that many dualist-sympathizers are sold on the latter description.
Take the “reading the sand” comment from your interview. A monist can well believe that the native is capable of reading the sand, and might employ qualitative (theory-building/inductive) methods to gain the know-how, then test that theory through experimental/quantitative (deductive) methods. They wouldn’t deny that sands could be read, but either the sand can be read or it can’t be read.
All dualism adds – going by my understanding, not your interviewee’s – is the notion of metaphysics. There are simply some realms of human understanding that cannot be explored through sensory experience. A monist would simply assign these as “unknowable,” while a dualist would use mediation, prayer, and other methods to uncover them.
But…
I keep coming back to this point: Society has advanced more in the ~500 years since the Enlightenment – when Descartes and others refined monism – than society advanced during the previous 4,000 years. And societies with longer lifespans, higher standards of health, and greater technological capacity are the ones most wholly driven by monism. Dualism is a beautiful concept for the individual, but can only yield individual progress.
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:49 am
I hope this doesn’t sound like I’m an authority. I spout off in hopes of either validation or correction. I value each equally.
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:50 am
You have a great way of taking in a bunch of information, pulling out distinctions, and making arguments that are interesting.
I’m curious what others thoughts are on Jeremy’s comments?