Dynamics of Awareness

[Edvin]

I often feel that maintaining more than one explanatory structure is very useful. One can switch between them as as needed, when one has more utility for the problem at hand. Even when there are ultimately contradictions between two models this tactic can often serve well.

This is what many would label as an "bootstrap aproach" which I to think could be a good tactic when encountering something that is beyond our "understanding." Very often this lack of understanding could just be your current inability to incoroporate the experience in your existing model. But what does this say about our concept of reality, when two condtradicting models could by themselves explain a given phenomena as precise and effective as the other one? Are we simply uncovering different aspects of the object observed?

[Quatl]

Originally Posted by Edvin

But what does this say about our concept of reality, when two condtradicting models could by themselves explain a given phenomena as precise and effective as the other one? Are we simply uncovering different aspects of the object observed?

What it says about our understanding depends.

In some cases we may be mistaken, meaning one or both models may be imprecise. If the imprecision occurs outside of the domain we are measuring, then two structures could both give reasonable predictions within the domain, and differ outside, with one or both giving poor results.

Another case could be that two conceptions are functionally equivalent. I've heard it said that Heisenberg's matrix mechanics, and Schroedinger's wave mechanics are equivalent mathematic descriptions. In cases like this the choice is purely convenience. Both models are actually identical in a deeper sense.

And of course as you say two methods may be describing different aspects of a phenomenon, and their apparent disagreement may just be illusory. There seem to me to be multiple scenarios in this category. The electro-weak theory could perhaps be an example, where two theories (electro-magnetism, and the weak force) that were based on measurements of different ends of the same beast were unified into one critter. I don't understand any of these three well enough to agree but it is presented this way.

I'm sure there are scenarios.

[Edvin]

We have consensus people!

[vajrasattva]

Originally Posted by Edvin

How do you see your understandig of the world broaden? How does one become aware? An interesting take on the matter is the "mythos over logos" argument which states that all of reality has been constructed upon the metaphores of old, the mythos. If so, it follows logicaly that all we know is analogue to these metaphores. This argument may not be as valid as it once was, but it is worth our attention when reflecting upon how one becomes aware and describes reality. One could say that in describing reality you choose only the explanations that corresponds with the contemporary "mythos" and as much as possible avoid descriptions that would be in conflict with these.The implications of this argument is vast, but worth debating! As the proverb goes: "We see want we want to see." Comments?

This to me sounds like the theory of archetypes and the collective unconscious. The way that that works as I understand it is that we project the archetypes form the subconscious and unconscious onto conscious reality. this creates instinctual reactions to certain situations. However if one is aware of the archetype then treatment is not needed for that situation, because the archetype is working on both a conscious and subconscious level properly. Forgive me for any misinterpretations its been a while since i studied that.



As far as awareness is concerned i think we become more aware when we realize
1. the true nature of the self which is impermanent and
2. when we come to grips with the constant change of life.
I think this because when one becomes aware of change he watches for change becoming aware of his world. And also when one becomes aware of death one looks for something more permanent to cling to and in doing so he finds more of himself in the world at present.

[vajrasattva]

Originally Posted by Edvin

How do you see your understandig of the world broaden? How does one become aware? An interesting take on the matter is the "mythos over logos" argument which states that all of reality has been constructed upon the metaphores of old, the mythos. If so, it follows logicaly that all we know is analogue to these metaphores. This argument may not be as valid as it once was, but it is worth our attention when reflecting upon how one becomes aware and describes reality. One could say that in describing reality you choose only the explanations that corresponds with the contemporary "mythos" and as much as possible avoid descriptions that would be in conflict with these.The implications of this argument is vast, but worth debating! As the proverb goes: "We see want we want to see." Comments?

I believe that your understanding of the world deepens as your experience of the world broadens. So as such, if you apply your self in the area of understanding the world, then your experience of understanding the world will broaden. And you will become more acutely aware of reality.