Jill Bolte Taylor’s insight (stroke) was one that most
people would see as a moment of devastation; she instead saw it as one of pure
realization. Noah Charney’s “moment of realization” relates more to his
expansion of knowledge through a different perspective. Due to their different
experiences I believe that if they were to have a conversation over their
process of thinking it would not be argumentative but instead collaborative.
After reading/listening to their work, both authors seem to have an appreciation
for different forms of thinking. This understanding would help a constructive
and insightful conversation flow about what certain perspectives would create
and bring to our society, while also discussing why other ways of thought would
be less beneficial to us as a species. Of course since both authors are passionate
about their beliefs, I would imagine Taylor struggling to accept any other
thinking that required more left brain usage, such as “bottom-up” thinking
would require to some extent. Charney strongly advocates for this thinning
process, which could possibly lead him to argue against overly using one side
of our brain versus the other. However, though both authors don’t speak of or
favor the same forms of thinking and processing, they both recognize that
different perspective should always be taken into consideration, making a
conversation between the two to be one of intellect and understanding.
I agree with your statement that Taylor might struggle with the bottom up thinking, as it is similar to the left brain thinking. I wrote something like that too in my blog. If I were sitting at the dinner table with these two writers, I would agree with Charney when you said we favor one side of our brains over the other. I think it’s natural that it is like that. I think some people would like to be more logical and organized rather than creative and sensual, or vise versa. Now, I could relate to Taylor in the beginning of her video, but I would ask her why or how she felt Nirvana and “one” with the molecules around her. I would ask because I don’t usually use the right side of my brain, but try to create a sense of how she felt that way during her stroke.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the conversation would be collaborative and not argumentative. I think that all of the authors of the texts we have read thus far would relish the opportunity to listen to someone who is as passionate about the human brain as they themselves are. The authors are simply to intelligent to let any sort of bias ruin what could be such a constructive conversation. Each would be far too concerned with trying to impart their knowledge, and take in what the other had to say for it to be an argument. However, I could possibly see Bolte coming on stronger than the others because of the emotions involved in her experience that the other authors don’t have.
ReplyDeleteThe view point of whether the conversation would be argumentative or not has been mentioned in a few other blogs but I feel it is described best in this blog. They both have very different experiences and use different sides of their brains, their discussions would be quite interesting. Both trying to prove one another why the side of the brain they use is the best. If I were in the same room I would like to hear what they had to say on what side of the brain they used and I would like to hear what type of thinking they use, whether it be bottom-up or top-down, or right or left side thinking. Both of them would bring some great insight about the mind to the discussion especially since the topic is about something they are so passionate about.
ReplyDelete