Ourselves, in 3D Reality ?

Jack Cummins

Sometimes, as I read and write posts, I wonder how different the discussions would be if we were sitting down somewhere, having conversations rather than writing on our devices. As it is, in most cases, we don't know what others look like, as only a few of us have put pictures of ourselves and we have not heard the sound of each other's voices.

I am thinking of the way in which meeting others in group contexts,not just video meetings, can be exciting. Of course, there were downsides, mainly the power dynamics. I am speaking of how gender, race, class and other differences and, for better or worse, the dynamics of sexual attraction.Does the sway of reason sometimes get lost in groups, amidst the intensity of verbal and non verbal interaction?

The earliest sages, including Socrates, communicated in spoken words rather than writing. Perhaps conversation is spontaneous, whereas writing allows for private space for reflection. However, the current situation is that in the information age , we can almost access the history of philosophy on our phones, although perhaps the knowledge we receive can be shallower than in exploring more original texts.

So, if you have time to stop and contemplate, I am asking you to step into my fantasy of many members of the forum, sitting in a room together ? What difference would it make to the agenda and discussions emerging? Would there be many raised voices, with others silent, but listening?Would we come to a better understanding of philosophy, as being discussed on the many threads, which are perhaps like little safe, houses, distanced from the harsh realities of the three dimensional world?

Jack Cummins

My first writing of this was a bit long, so I have edited it to make it an easier read, for relaxing on a Friday evening.

Echarmion

So, if you have time to stop and contemplate, I am asking you to step into my fantasy of many members of the forum, sitting in a room together ? What difference would it make to the agenda and discussions emerging? Would there be many raised voices, with others silent, but listening?Would we come to a better understanding of philosophy, as being discussed on the many threads, which are perhaps like little safe, houses, distanced from the harsh realities of the three dimensional world? — Jack Cummins

I think the tone would certainly overall be more amicable. People tend to get angry much more when interacting with "dead" text, without gestures or facial expressions to establish rapport. In a big setting, we'd probably see relatively few people speaking a lot, and most people mostly listening. If you split up into smaller groups, that's probably less of an issue. That would of course open up the question of group dynamics. Would people split by political affiliations? Would the idealists and the materialists form their little corners?

In terms of content, it'd probably get better for some, but also probably worse for many. Those people with overlapping interests and comparable backgrounds might get into good conversations. But I suppose for a lot of people, the lack of time to compose answers would lead to there being less concete talk, and more general (and possibly more confusing) discussion. There are also probably a lot of people who'd be more likely to avoid to obvious disagreements in a social setting and settle for some middle ground (which would be good for some of the more acrimonious and less productive topics, but might be less interesting overall).

Mijin

Im a member of a couple in-person philosophy groups, and they're fun from a social point of view, but the discussion tends to stay in first gear.
Whatever the topic, some people are not familiar with the terms and history, so we always end up just giving the pop Philo summary and not much chance to get into a real debate.
I guess some people would consider that better -- the debates here can sometimes seem impenetrable -- but I feel I learn much more from textual discussion online.

Jack Cummins

↪Echarmion

Perhaps, I should say that I am both being serious and, at the same time, being both playful and surreal in the post I created.

I do wonder what would happen if these discussion happened in real life, and how they would differ from discussion on a website. I am not used to interacting on a website and probably would have never have done so if the pressures of social distancing had not led me into this direction.

However, I am left wondering about the nature of our exchange of our ideas and communication of ideas in the social context. Personally, I found that while I was training in psychotherapy, I took part in psychotherapy training which led me to the edges of exploration of what it is to be human. I had an experiential workshops in which the facilitator led me to cry, and that was the first time that I was aware of crying in public as an adult.

Here, I am speaking of the whole level of emotion which becomes apparent in groups. I do believe that the expression of emotion is a part of the whole relationships we have with others. Perhaps it is a social dynamic, or perhaps It is part of our biological nature. In this respect, I would say that chemicals, especially testosterone, but on a lesser scale, perhaps caffeine, stop us from crying as adults.

But getting back to my post question , in both seriousnes and jest, I am still wondering about the way in which daily interactions with others influence our philosophical explorations, and how this can be deconstructed because we are still human beings relating to one another in the raw level of day to day, dimensions of material reality.

Jack Cummins

↪Mijin

I would imagine that some groups which get together to discuss philosophy remain shallow and err in the line of popular philosophy. I am certainly not dismissing the value of online philosophy and have found this site to be fantastic for exploration.

I am simply offering speculation for thought, and trying to redress the balance of people being locked in their own philosophical bubbles online but in social groups as well. But I can speak with a smile on my face, laughing at how I have woken up a couple of times, dreaming about imaginary replies on the forum.

It is not likely that any of us will ever meet, person to person, as we are many miles and countries apart. But the fantasy might conjure up imaginative possible scenarios and interactions fot lighthearted daydreams in a gloomy world,.This is about our about fantasies for inspiring us as we go forward on this forum, and in the personal and wider aspects of our philosophical adventures.

Jack Cummins

I would just wish to add that in choosing the idea of 3D for my title, I am not wishing to limit the specctrum of known realities and awareness to be conceived only in terms of the idea of three dimensions as I believe in the existence of four, five and many other dimensions.

Ourselves, in 3D Reality ?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions