Quote:
|
Originally Posted by baudrunner You have my sympathies. It is largely through visual imagery that I think. |
Well, naturally, deepest sympathies for you too. We all have our cross to polar bear. Visual imagery is so incomplete and superficial, but my first reaction on discovering I was different to most people was %*&*%! To think I got through education using only touch and hearing! All that revision for school exams! But now, I am SO glad I had such a training.
OVer a long while I realised that visual memory is generally very approximate and patchy. Studies have shown how dubious visual memory often can be. But look at this quote from Einstein, sometimes visual imagination is very clear and powerful, if limited:
Quote:
" … words or the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought. The psychical entities which seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less clear images which can be voluntarily produced and combined... The above mentioned elements are, in my case, of visual and some of muscular type. Conventional words or other signs have to be sought for laboriously only in a secondary stage, when the mentioned associative play is sufficiently established and can be reproduced at will."
Albert Einstein, Letter to J. Hadamard, 1945 |
Einstein declared he would NEVER begin to understand fluid dynamics, nor the calculations needed. To me fluid dynamics is where we must start and then navigate back to the simpler stillness with one single and consistent theory.
IN contrast apparently to Einstein, Language is very close to my heart. And my own subjective experience of my own mind, is very fluid, operating in several languages, including linguistic structural forms such as jazz progressions. Improvisation of all kinds is basically so similar to language, and my HATRED of Wittgenstein is not simply because he was a w%**%ker, but he could sight read music ridiculously fluently, which clearly distorted his ideas of symbols as shallow and simplistic meanings. My experience of music has shaped my experience of life and thinking - I prefer Paul Ricoeur's Conflict of Interpretations, ideas of developing exegesis of meaning, meaning as flow and juxtaposition.
NLP of course was the first real approach to codify the three basically different styles of cognition (VAK, or five senses make VAKOG) in modern times. NLP distinguishes different styles of thought, as NeuroLinguistic Algorithms. The ancient Veda's had somewhat similar categories (Vata = sensual & audio, Pitta = visual, Kapha = emotional/kinaesthetic??) and theories (observer & thing observed & the process of knowing...)
ANYWAY - back on topic here
Anybody else every heard of Structural Mathematics, and would I be correct to assume my flavour of thinking and ideas are indeed conveniently named by these two words?