Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Is "sight" really all that important?

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» Is "sight" really all that important?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

My Asian Behavior professor has been for a little while emphasizing the primacy in Indian thought of sound (whereas in Western thought it's sight). That is, the mindset in Indian thought is that what we hear is what's most important, and the rishis and gurus are those who have been able to tune into the sounds of reality, whereas we in the West think what we see is what's most important, and thus we have words like seer (one who "sees") and base our thoughts on how to unclutter the clutter that's in front of our eyes; Indians, on the other hand, think what's truly important is how to discern the "true" sounds, the vibrations of the world, from within the common sounds we can all hear. ...It would seem.

The comparison this brings up itself is interesting. Note that since Rene Descartes first proposed that what we see is really interactions of miniscule items of the thing itself, modern science, especially physics, has become more and more advanced at sensing and probing the atom. And what have we found? That the more we penetrate what we previously considered impenetrable, the more we have realized that there are, in fact, smaller and smaller components of the Universe (that is, there are things within that which we ordinarily see), and that, at its most fundamental, all matter is really condensed energy.

Thus, sound is an energy: rishis make out the subtler sounds of the world, tap into the sonic energy of the world, and that they say is reality. Sight, too is an energy: particle physicists make out the subtler sights of the world, tap into the physical* energy of the world, and that they say is reality. Are the two really different?

Is not the unification of the world, then, the energy that underlies all things?

--
*Here is that bias for sight again.

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

My Asian Behavior professor has been for a little while emphasizing the primacy in Indian thought of sound (whereas in Western thought it's sight). That is, the mindset in Indian thought is that what we hear is what's most important, and the rishis and gurus are those who have been able to tune into the sounds of reality, whereas we in the West think what we see is what's most important, and thus we have words like seer (one who "sees") and base our thoughts on how to unclutter the clutter that's in front of our eyes; Indians, on the other hand, think what's truly important is how to discern the "true" sounds, the vibrations of the world, from within the common sounds we can all hear. ...It would seem.

What a load of crap. Have you really got an Asian Behavior professor? He seems to be living in a sort of racist fantasy world. I suppose he thinks talking about gurus and stuff makes that ok. Are you really expected to sit and listen to a load of ****-rot about people "tuning into the sounds of reality"? What sort of course are you doing?

@Oh phil,

Ad hominem attack, Oh!. Dismissing the teacher based on the class name (it's called Asian Behavior and Thought and cross-listed between Asian Studies and Religion) does not do a thing to weaken my argument. It is also important to note that I took this class based on my interest in comparative philosophy (and to fill Core)...and the very same professor you just called racist has a Ph.D. in that field and was for some time the head of the philosophy department at some place called "Wake Forest" (I'm sure you've heard of it), so, Oh!, by calling what is perhaps one of the best philosophers currently employed at my school a "racist" only serves to magnify your own ignorance.

If you want to criticize my argument, you must criticize my ideas and not my sources or my institutions, especially on a personal basis.

@hammersklavier,

Going along the same lines I began with in my initial post, I realized that phonemes (the basic sonic units of language) have much the same role that particles do in electromagnetic energy; that is, a phoneme is a sound particle.

Now, the problem we always have with the wave-particle duality is that it seems like although we can make a particle a wave (think thermonuclear explosion) we cannot make a wave a particle; this leads us to ask, if what is is both waves and particles (and QM certainly seems to imply it is), how did the particles form in the first place? Reflecting that phonemes in language seem to have a particle-like nature in the waveform that is sound, and that a phoneme is, in fact, basically a chunk of the wave, we can resolve the wave-particle duality thus: particles are finite portions of the infinite wave of electromagnetic energy, and thus do particles (as phonemes) exhibit the same characteristics: many particles seem to form a wave, but the wave is inherent in every particle (that is, if you can resolve a particle enough, you'd wind up seeing the wave...think superstrings). So sight and sound are not so different after all, sight being predicated on electromagnetic waves and sound on sonic waves, but rather two different expressions of the same ultimate cause: that waves tend to coalesce (think about the nature of ocean waves as they crest) and this coalescing produces what we perceive as matter (sight) and sound.

@hammersklavier,

I think all senses are equally important, but modern society definitely stresses the need for sight. Close you eyes and try to navigate through an unknown area without vision (no peeking allowed!). I can guarantee that not only will you be lost, but you have no real capabilities of becoming unlost. Sure, sound will help, but without vision a busy intersection is nothing other than a busy intersection. Now if you even take it back before the time of modern society, vision is equally important. If you cannot see danger, how do you know where to use caution?

@Theaetetus,

I'm not sure either sense is more or less useful than the other. All of the sense seem to have their own particular function.

A great deal of the science easily slips over my head, but I can't help but wonder why and in what context sound is more important than sight. If sound has primacy over sight in some sort of meditative practice where the individual is generally not moving around too much, then the inability to navigate an unknown corridor without sight is beside the point.

Interesting stuff.

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier;46246 wrote:

Ad hominem attack, Oh!. Dismissing the teacher based on the class name (it's called Asian Behavior and Thought and cross-listed between Asian Studies and Religion) does not do a thing to weaken my argument. It is also important to note that I took this class based on my interest in comparative philosophy (and to fill Core)...and the very same professor you just called racist has a Ph.D. in that field and was for some time the head of the philosophy department at some place called "Wake Forest" (I'm sure you've heard of it), so, Oh!, by calling what is perhaps one of the best philosophers currently employed at my school a "racist" only serves to magnify your own ignorance.

If you want to criticize my argument, you must criticize my ideas and not my sources or my institutions, especially on a personal basis.

If that is the case, why are you defending your sources and your institutions (which I have never heard of by the way)?

The idea of an academic study of "Asian Behaviour" does sound somewhat racist to me. Your professor's ideas about severely aberrant sensory hierarchies in a whole geographical group of humanity seem both racist and absurd. I think your prof is talking out of his ****. I'm criticising his ideas, and expressing incredulity that such things are being taught in a university.

@Oh phil,

Oh! wrote:

If that is the case, why are you defending your sources and your institutions (which I have never heard of by the way)?

The idea of an academic study of "Asian Behaviour" does sound somewhat racist to me. Your professor's ideas about severely aberrant sensory hierarchies in a whole geographical group of humanity seem both racist and absurd. I think your prof is talking out of his ****. I'm criticising his ideas, and expressing incredulity that such things are being taught in a university.

I can see why Oh! could come to the conclusion that a class entitled "Asian Behavior and Thought" could be thought of as racist with only that information. If there was a class called "African Behavior and Thought" most would question what kind of racist garbage could be thrown around the class unless it was known to be focused on the societies of the African continent. But knowing that many Asian societies have very different mannerisms, behaviors, and thoughts than those that are generally accepted in Euro-America, I can see why the class exists.

@Theaetetus,

Oh! wrote:

The idea of an academic study of "Asian Behaviour" does sound somewhat racist to me. Your professor's ideas about severely aberrant sensory hierarchies in a whole geographical group of humanity seem both racist and absurd. I think your prof is talking out of his ****. I'm criticising his ideas, and expressing incredulity that such things are being taught in a university.

Why is studying the behavior of various societies racist?

You may think the professor is "talking out of his ***", however, you, unlike the professor, is not an expect in the field. So far, you have not criticized the professor's ideas aside from ad hominem attacks against the man and general statements regarding how the topic seems strange to you. That's not criticizing the man's ideas.

@Didymos Thomas,

I hate to jump on the bandwagon, but Oh! No!.

There are in fact several* cultures, which may place varying* degrees of emphasis on certain sorts of ideas, certain behaviors, certain senses. I don't think hammer was implying that 'the indian race' is more attuned to sound, or less adept in sight, only that there are cultural and intellectual traditions that privilage hearing over sight. Anyway, I always found sight to be most important, in a morally neutral sense of the word, meaning that it contributed most to thought; thought is composed predominently of remnants of sight: my thoughts anyhow. I always felt that sound was sort of the opposite, less ordinary, less dependent on or involved with rational thought, and therefore potentially more powerful. As some fo you might know by know, I'm a fan of Nietzsche, so I would assosciate vision with the Apollonian instinct, while associating hearing with the Dionysian.

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon, perhaps you should go back to your Thomas Mann: one must balance the Appolonian and Dionysian instincts.

@hammersklavier,

To defend Oh!, I think I picked up on the concern that Oh! was presenting. From what Oh! wrote, I am under the assumption that Oh! thought the class was not about the society, but rather the people and what makes them different behaviorally, according to an ethnocentric position. If there was a class called "Negro Behavior" more people would raise the same objection.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Why is studying the behavior of various societies racist?

You may think the professor is "talking out of his ***", however, you, unlike the professor, are not an expert in the field. So far, you have not criticized the professor's ideas aside from ad hominem attacks against the man and general statements regarding how the topic seems strange to you. That's not criticizing the man's ideas.

I certainly have criticised his ideas, specifically I criticise his idea that the sensory apparatus of a particular geographical group of people operates differently to that of people in other parts of the world. And I haven't said his ideas seem strange to me, I said they are racist and absurd, for stated reasons.

@Oh phil,

You most certainly have not. You keep persisting in your ad hominem attacks.
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/lounge/general-discussion/3458-critical-thinking-vs-ad-hominem-argument.html
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ad hominem definition | Dictionary.com

While I do admit the class seems to be a little poorly named, may I remind you that the content of these classes is, in fact, identical to any other introductory course to Eastern religion (e.g., Philosophy East & West) in a comparative mode? What you're calling a load of bull's bollocks is based in part on strong linguistic evidence (that is, etymology, semantic leanings, semantic drift, etc.) Rishi really does derive from the Sanskrit word for "to hear", just as seer derives from see. The evidence is there for anyone to see.

Theaetetus, Didydos, etc., what most interests me is the argument I developed based on matter being a sort of light cohesion (that is, a cohesion out of light) the same way that words are a sort of sound cohesion. This idea is sleeker and more economical than my previous idea, which was that matter was condensed energy, which seemed like a good idea at the beginning, but runs into a number of complications, including: if matter forms because a wave of energy collapses, then what prevents it from collapsing into a singularity due to gravity? Shouldn't everything then be a black hole? I'm following a train of thought to its logical conclusion...

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

To defend Oh!, I think I picked up on the concern that Oh! was presenting. From what Oh! wrote, I am under the assumption that Oh! thought the class was not about the society, but rather the people and what makes them different behaviorally, according to an ethnocentric position. If there was a class called "Negro Behavior" more people would raise the same objection.

Actually, it's interesting you raised that point. Here at Temple we have a course called "The African-American Experience" taught by a Temple graduate (and grad student), an African-American, and a known Afrocentrist. It's actually a very good class...too bad they got rid of its Core requirement.

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

Actually, it's interesting you raised that point. Here at Temple we have a course called "The African-American Experience" taught by a Temple graduate (and grad student), an African-American, and a known Afrocentrist. It's actually a very good class...too bad they got rid of its Core requirement.

Here at UW-Milwaukee we have a program for Africology, so I am sure that there are plenty of similar courses at my school. I do think that some courses end up with poor names that may suggest something unintended.

But anyway, now back to the topic. I don't know if matter is necessarily light cohesion, but rather energy cohesion. Matter seems to be a manifestation of organized energy.

@Theaetetus,

E=mc^2: energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. When we're talking about energy, what we're really talking about is electromagnetic radiation, and electromagnetic radiation is light. (Not just visible light: nukers and radios both run on electromagnetic radiation.) Matter can be converted into gamma waves via this equation, and gamma waves, too, are electromagnetic radiation. Thus there is no difference between light and energy.

So, let's go with this notion that what we perceive as mass and matter is really a finitized form of electromagnetic radiation. Waves, like normal light, are by nature infinite; particles finite. They have a definite discernible mass, volume, radius. It is entirely possible that matter is basically Nature's storage of potential energy.

But the question is, what makes this world real and not illusory? Phonemes, finitized sound, exist only between the moment of utterance and the moment of perception; once they have spoken, do they have a life? Only in the listener's mind--and if the same applies to light, what we see, then why is it that we can fell that which we perceive? Is it because we ourselves too are made of the same condensed energy? And does this imply that there could be all sorts of things in the medium of sound we've never noticed or known before?

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

You most certainly have not. You keep persisting in your ad hominem attacks.
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/lounge/general-discussion/3458-critical-thinking-vs-ad-hominem-argument.html
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ad hominem definition | Dictionary.com

I know what an ad hominem attack is. I'm not attacking him, I'm attacking the ******* stupid ideas he has been putting in your head.

Quote:

While I do admit the class seems to be a little poorly named, may I remind you that the content of these classes is, in fact, identical to any other introductory course to Eastern religion (e.g., Philosophy East & West) in a comparative mode?

Right. Comparative mumbo-jumbo.

Quote:
What you're calling a load of bull's bollocks is based in part on strong linguistic evidence (that is, etymology, semantic leanings, semantic drift, etc.) Rishi really does derive from the Sanskrit word for "to hear", just as seer derives from see. The evidence is there for anyone to see.

Bull's bollocks? I don't think I would ever use that expression.

Do you really think the fact that their word for "priest" is derived from the verb "to hear" has some effect on the way a whole people use their eyes and ears? It's piffle man.

I don't know where your prof is getting his info, but the lexigographer of Sanskrit, Monier-Williams, derives the word "rishi" from the root drś "to see"!

@Oh phil,

So you're appealing to ignorance then? :sarcastic: Well, so be it...

I will not respond to you again. I opened this thread to articulate a certain set of ideas and to follow those ideas to their logical conclusion and right now you are the prime inhibition in allowing me to do so. Nor does it matter from where the ideas arose: at this point, they've mutated into a form distinct from their origins.

And lastly, I feel I must remind other posters on this board that I feel comparative philosophy is an important branch to the study of philosophy in general: I would hope my previous insights culled from this field have advanced other discussions throughout this forum, and that without understanding the viewpoints of other cultures we necessarily fall into the trap of conflating our own culture--that is, falling prey to ignorance, and from ignorance, prejudice. And at this point I believe Oh!'s attacks to be more than the mere promulgation of ignorance (for if it were, he should have stopped by now), but rather the conscious expression of certain deeply-held stereotypes.

I regret I had to be led to this.

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier;46528 wrote:

I will not respond to you again

I always think it's a mistake to announce this Hammer, even if you don't intend to respond you should still keep your options open.

I think the reason you're not responding is you have discovered that your Prof really was spinning a line with the Rishi = hearing nonsense. The idea that "Asians" are different to other humans in the ways they use their sensory equipment is also nonsense. If you're building a theory on this you are building on sand, but please yourself.

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» Is "sight" really all that important?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Is "sight" really all that important?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know