Comments on: Guest Speaker: Dr. James Mayfield “What is ‘true’? What is ‘real’?”

By: Dr. Clint

Dr. Clint — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:50:05 +0000

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?

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:49:20 +0000

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.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:47:55 +0000

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.

By: Dr. Clint

Dr. Clint — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:46:54 +0000

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.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:45:37 +0000

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.

By: Dr. Clint

Dr. Clint — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 15:44:53 +0000

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?

By: Rudi

Rudi — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:57:34 +0000

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.

By: Rudi

Rudi — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:33:20 +0000

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.

By: Dr. Clint

Dr. Clint — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 04:49:39 +0000

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?

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:59:13 +0000

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.