I really appreciate the interesting and thoughtful perspective of this post and the way it challenges assumptions about logic. That said, I wonder about the visual framework referenced. Isn’t that something that varies a lot among people, with some being strongly visual and others not? Maybe you are highly visual so this makes sense to you? I also question the reliance on news examples: isn’t it a logical flaw to use anecdotal and often biased reporting (delivered through fully biased engagement platforms) as though it fairly represents the world around us?
I think that this is the only way a human individual can understand the world -- visually. And yes, developing this capacity is optional. But this being optional leads to the world full of avoidable suffering.
Or do you think that "full of avoidable suffering" is not a fair way to describe the world we live in?
I have a couple “I don't knows” here but I'll share anyway.
I don't know about the visual understanding. There is a lot of literature about the different learning (and presumably understanding) styles, with visual just being one of them. A common feature is, whichever one you are, you tend to assume others are the same. But there could be a whole field of study out there In not aware of. Seriously. I picked up my understanding in a few MBA leadership courses and perhaps a bit of extra curricular reading - not psychology.
As for “full of avoidable suffering.” Geez. I'm going to be even more out of my depth pretty here. I think there is a lot of avoidable suffering and that a lot of suffering is optional (I think of Viktor Frankl here) but I’ve never ‘seen’ is as connected to the type of mental framework you use.
Well, you are welcome :) But I'm not the first one to notice that there is something weird about people. A person can appear sensible and curios. But if you try to explain certain concepts to them, they just don't get it. Socrates and Jesus died trying to figure it out. Galileo got in serious trouble. Or have you read "The Catcher in the Rye"?
The better half of poetry, philosophical and religious texts are written by someone trying to make sense of this conundrum. So this is my theory -- the capacity to understand exists in every human individual, but only few get the chance to realize this potential. The rest walk blindly through the forest of life, hurting themselves and others as they go. That's why wars, personal conflicts, childhood trauma, and all the crap we don't even notice anymore.
I really appreciate the interesting and thoughtful perspective of this post and the way it challenges assumptions about logic. That said, I wonder about the visual framework referenced. Isn’t that something that varies a lot among people, with some being strongly visual and others not? Maybe you are highly visual so this makes sense to you? I also question the reliance on news examples: isn’t it a logical flaw to use anecdotal and often biased reporting (delivered through fully biased engagement platforms) as though it fairly represents the world around us?
Thank you for your feedback!
I think that this is the only way a human individual can understand the world -- visually. And yes, developing this capacity is optional. But this being optional leads to the world full of avoidable suffering.
Or do you think that "full of avoidable suffering" is not a fair way to describe the world we live in?
I have a couple “I don't knows” here but I'll share anyway.
I don't know about the visual understanding. There is a lot of literature about the different learning (and presumably understanding) styles, with visual just being one of them. A common feature is, whichever one you are, you tend to assume others are the same. But there could be a whole field of study out there In not aware of. Seriously. I picked up my understanding in a few MBA leadership courses and perhaps a bit of extra curricular reading - not psychology.
As for “full of avoidable suffering.” Geez. I'm going to be even more out of my depth pretty here. I think there is a lot of avoidable suffering and that a lot of suffering is optional (I think of Viktor Frankl here) but I’ve never ‘seen’ is as connected to the type of mental framework you use.
Well, you are welcome :) But I'm not the first one to notice that there is something weird about people. A person can appear sensible and curios. But if you try to explain certain concepts to them, they just don't get it. Socrates and Jesus died trying to figure it out. Galileo got in serious trouble. Or have you read "The Catcher in the Rye"?
The better half of poetry, philosophical and religious texts are written by someone trying to make sense of this conundrum. So this is my theory -- the capacity to understand exists in every human individual, but only few get the chance to realize this potential. The rest walk blindly through the forest of life, hurting themselves and others as they go. That's why wars, personal conflicts, childhood trauma, and all the crap we don't even notice anymore.