Outside-In vs Inside-Out Determinism

[Dglgmut]

Chopra arbitrarily claims that the whole universe is a thinking and conscious entity.

Part of the universe is. Is there a limit to the amount of consciousness allowed in existence?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... I want to present one last thing: a glimpse into a work I am writing on writing. I have not read this anywhere, but once I came up with it, I have had a much easier time analyzing text and rhetoric.

I have noticed that there are 5 main modes (or voices or roles) when writing;

1. Expert mode (I'm calling this "Big Shot" in my work in order to be colorful)
2. Witness mode
3. Compiler mode
4. Blurter mode
5. Storyteller mode

Your Expert (or Big Shot) tells you what it is. He presents facts and he implies he knows what he is talking about (or presents credentials about his expertise). But note that this is a "tone," not a "substance." You can present pure yawp in Big Shot mode.

I like the Witness mode a lot. You basically say what you have observed or reasoned out and let the reader know his mileage may vary.

The Compiler is the list-maker. Tips. Definitions. Names and addresses. Jokes. And so on.

The Blurter is expressing an opinion and reason be damned if need be.

The Storyteller puts the reader in a temporary trance with a story.

A good writer uses all of these modes in a work and each has a context where it has the greatest impact. (I have fleshed this out a lot more in the work I am writing.)

I found a video that articulated something I want to add to this concept--something I have felt and even written around. But I have never heard it articulated as well as in a video I just saw by Patsy Rodenburg, an acting teacher. Her three circles of energy are basically three postures of communication and they work very well with what I have in mind.

First circle - the energy is directed inward. Focus on the past.
Second circle - the energy is directed outward with a give and take. Huge focus on being present.
Third circle - the energy is totally directed outward to the point of taking over someone else's space. Focus on the future.

Rodenburg said we need all three, but actors spend the vast amount of their time in the second.

Using this pattern, it's easy to see how many discussions get sidetracked.

In my own discussions, I know I'm often in the first circle, then suddenly I will be accused of being in the third, or challenged as if I were. I almost always have to stop to get my bearings when that happens. (Then I become a smart-ass, but that's another story. )

In other words, I do a lot of thinking out loud without having a strong conviction at that moment. (First circle.) Then someone will treat me as if I were preaching. (Third circle.)

As an aside, people I call the preacher types operate almost exclusively in the third circle. They are always trying to take the space of others.

Here's the video, Even though I am using this post basically as a placeholder for my future reference, I believe many readers will get some value from Ms. Rodenburg. So enjoy.



Michael

[caroljane]

In other words, I do a lot of thinking out loud without having a strong conviction at that moment. (First circle.) Then someone will treat me as if I were preaching. (Third circle

Yeah, I get that a lot, too.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Yeah, I get that a lot, too.

Carol,

LOL...

I guess I'm guilty of treating you that way sometimes...

Michael

[Xray]

The first definition includes the word, "unknowable," or something to that effect.

That's the view I don't agree with.

As opposed to those forms of theism which present a belief as fact ("God's will is ..."), and as opposed to those forms of atheism that present a belief as fact ("God is an illusion"), agnosticism argues from a strictly epistemological position: one cannot claim knowledge about what cannot be known.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... agnosticism argues from on a strictly epistemological position: one cannot claim knowledge about what cannot be known.

Some versions of agnosticism do this. Not all.

Michael