I'm beyond taking my socks off to count the people I know who would give me bewildering concerned looks if I broached your topics with them. Some would put the kettle on, some would dial 999.
Not new to say you see the world again through children's eyes but the Sistine Chapel wouldn't be a starting point and the Vitruvian Man would evoke sniggers and pointing not for his proportions but that which hangs forward where his legs meet.
At which stage in life does such thinking begin? I remember a Private Eye cartoon Hom Sap explaining the curvature of the Earth by pointing to a ship on the horizon getting smaller and disappearing. The explainee has a thought bubble with a ship dropping off a precipice to its doom. The Flat Earth exists, a finite extent where speculation and imagination cease, like algebra or petrol to a caveman.
I'm pleased I've read this. Exists there a forum somewhere where ideas can be exchanged face to face?. That you should assemble your ideas on a lonely substack, a fertile ground but somehow barren is a little strange.
I find it interesting that you specifically mentioned hiking shoes rather than just general clothing because I believe the world of shoes is facing problems which mirror the ideas in this article.
Many shoes are designed for their appearance and based on people's preconceived notion of what a shoe is. They are optimized to provide support as if the human body is a rotting building in danger of collapse, and hard protection as if we were bulldozers smashing blindly through everything in our path.
There is a contrary movement which encourages people to go barefoot where possible, and if not then to wear "barefoot shoes". Such shoes are designed to match the form and function of the foot and to allow the feet to be better used as a tactile sense organ, while still providing a basic level of environmental protection. For example the pairs of barefoot shoes I wear daily for both urban and hiking activities are very flexible, have a relatively thin sole, no extra support, and are a bit wider at the ends to accommodate my toes without squishing them.
Barefoot shoes are perhaps the shoe version of Leonardo's Vitruvian Man.
These are great reflections, Rio, thank you. I haven’t tried barefoot shoes yet but now you’ve got me curious!
In a related way I’m reminded of how walking on slightly uneven ground can flex and exercise the foot and ankle in ways that doesn’t happen on flat paved surfaces. There’s another metaphor about life in there, I think.
First, I am astounded by how beautiful this article is, both in the way it's written and by the points made. Just...wow.
Second, I resonated with so many points here, I don't even know which ones to bring up. Here's a few of the ones that hit me the hardest:
A) Children being a big event horizon, and how they make you more child-like in the best way possible, because in watching them experience the world, we begin to experience the world anew, too. I had my first child almost 2 years ago now, and this is exactly what I have experienced.
B) Your reference to experiencing the REAL instead of a map — or multiple derivations — of the lived world. The article that I'm currently writing (and am very excited about publishing soon) delves into Iain McGilchrist's book that you mentioned (for my purposes, in considering problems with modern architecture). But the book itself has really shaped my whole view of the world now, and it has encouraged me to re-engage with the reality itself more rather than just my mind (or others' minds, for that matter). Your article was also a reminder of that for me. The idea that we should "wear our ideas" out into the world is, I think, the perfect way to phrase the solution. Again, I'm astounded at your ability to communicate it so beautifully.
C) Your description of Leonardo's Virtruvian Man is extremely enlightening. I never understood the piece before now. I can tell I'll be carrying it in my heart and pondering it for awhile yet.
Thank you for the beautiful, deep, thoughtful article.
I haven’t read McGilchrist's newest book, but I did read (and have frequently re-read parts of) The Master and His Emissary, which is brilliant and illuminating in so many ways.
I've only read the Master and His Emissary, as well. I figured I need to fully digest that one before I delve into The Matter with Things -- ha! All in due time...
I thought of the experience of visiting a carnival house of mirrors. In some ways the concepts of philosophy, religion, art, and psychology are like that: distortions of length, breadth, and direction serve our perception in much the same way you discussed. When we emerge back into the real, the normal world, in spite of the disorienting experience we just had, inexplicably we see ourselves and our world more clearly--a sort of super clarity. But, if we were to try to live in the distorted world we might lose forever the memory of what is real.
Thank you Peco, you always make me think better, or perhaps it's deeper. I'm not an English speaking person so forgive me if I'm not always clear. You and Ruth have also made me think better, or is it deeper, about the machines. Thing is I've now had a while to think through your perspective and I have another angle, which is perhaps relevant, even to this article. I think we should be careful to not be too dogmatic about the machines being bad, or evil, or negative, as such. A simple example is this. My wife love to read books, real physical books. I love to read kindle, on my smart phone for specific reasons. The smart phone helps me in many ways to read the book with more in depth insights than my wife. So, I feel, be careful to bee too dogmatic about these things. Rather focus on the content or effect of what we read. That IMHO is more important than arguing if machines are good or bad. So thank you if you read this Peco, hopefully I also help you to think better, or deeper!
Thanks Nicolouw for your kind thoughts! I’m glad to say that our view has never been that machines are generally bad or that we should generally avoid technology. Human beings are creators. It’s part of our nature, and part of that creativity includes tech. For me the real question isn’t “Do we need tech, yes or no”, but rather where, how, when, for whom, to what extent, and why do we need it—and what are the impacts. If it seems that we often highlight the pitfalls of tech, it’s only because so few people are doing that.
I'm beyond taking my socks off to count the people I know who would give me bewildering concerned looks if I broached your topics with them. Some would put the kettle on, some would dial 999.
Not new to say you see the world again through children's eyes but the Sistine Chapel wouldn't be a starting point and the Vitruvian Man would evoke sniggers and pointing not for his proportions but that which hangs forward where his legs meet.
At which stage in life does such thinking begin? I remember a Private Eye cartoon Hom Sap explaining the curvature of the Earth by pointing to a ship on the horizon getting smaller and disappearing. The explainee has a thought bubble with a ship dropping off a precipice to its doom. The Flat Earth exists, a finite extent where speculation and imagination cease, like algebra or petrol to a caveman.
I'm pleased I've read this. Exists there a forum somewhere where ideas can be exchanged face to face?. That you should assemble your ideas on a lonely substack, a fertile ground but somehow barren is a little strange.
“…people I know who would give me bewildering concerned looks if I broached your topics with them.”
Yes, self-examination is never pleasant!
I find it interesting that you specifically mentioned hiking shoes rather than just general clothing because I believe the world of shoes is facing problems which mirror the ideas in this article.
Many shoes are designed for their appearance and based on people's preconceived notion of what a shoe is. They are optimized to provide support as if the human body is a rotting building in danger of collapse, and hard protection as if we were bulldozers smashing blindly through everything in our path.
There is a contrary movement which encourages people to go barefoot where possible, and if not then to wear "barefoot shoes". Such shoes are designed to match the form and function of the foot and to allow the feet to be better used as a tactile sense organ, while still providing a basic level of environmental protection. For example the pairs of barefoot shoes I wear daily for both urban and hiking activities are very flexible, have a relatively thin sole, no extra support, and are a bit wider at the ends to accommodate my toes without squishing them.
Barefoot shoes are perhaps the shoe version of Leonardo's Vitruvian Man.
These are great reflections, Rio, thank you. I haven’t tried barefoot shoes yet but now you’ve got me curious!
In a related way I’m reminded of how walking on slightly uneven ground can flex and exercise the foot and ankle in ways that doesn’t happen on flat paved surfaces. There’s another metaphor about life in there, I think.
First, I am astounded by how beautiful this article is, both in the way it's written and by the points made. Just...wow.
Second, I resonated with so many points here, I don't even know which ones to bring up. Here's a few of the ones that hit me the hardest:
A) Children being a big event horizon, and how they make you more child-like in the best way possible, because in watching them experience the world, we begin to experience the world anew, too. I had my first child almost 2 years ago now, and this is exactly what I have experienced.
B) Your reference to experiencing the REAL instead of a map — or multiple derivations — of the lived world. The article that I'm currently writing (and am very excited about publishing soon) delves into Iain McGilchrist's book that you mentioned (for my purposes, in considering problems with modern architecture). But the book itself has really shaped my whole view of the world now, and it has encouraged me to re-engage with the reality itself more rather than just my mind (or others' minds, for that matter). Your article was also a reminder of that for me. The idea that we should "wear our ideas" out into the world is, I think, the perfect way to phrase the solution. Again, I'm astounded at your ability to communicate it so beautifully.
C) Your description of Leonardo's Virtruvian Man is extremely enlightening. I never understood the piece before now. I can tell I'll be carrying it in my heart and pondering it for awhile yet.
Thank you for the beautiful, deep, thoughtful article.
Thanks for these thoughts, Ren!
I haven’t read McGilchrist's newest book, but I did read (and have frequently re-read parts of) The Master and His Emissary, which is brilliant and illuminating in so many ways.
I've only read the Master and His Emissary, as well. I figured I need to fully digest that one before I delve into The Matter with Things -- ha! All in due time...
I thought of the experience of visiting a carnival house of mirrors. In some ways the concepts of philosophy, religion, art, and psychology are like that: distortions of length, breadth, and direction serve our perception in much the same way you discussed. When we emerge back into the real, the normal world, in spite of the disorienting experience we just had, inexplicably we see ourselves and our world more clearly--a sort of super clarity. But, if we were to try to live in the distorted world we might lose forever the memory of what is real.
Well said, Jesse.
Thank you Peco, you always make me think better, or perhaps it's deeper. I'm not an English speaking person so forgive me if I'm not always clear. You and Ruth have also made me think better, or is it deeper, about the machines. Thing is I've now had a while to think through your perspective and I have another angle, which is perhaps relevant, even to this article. I think we should be careful to not be too dogmatic about the machines being bad, or evil, or negative, as such. A simple example is this. My wife love to read books, real physical books. I love to read kindle, on my smart phone for specific reasons. The smart phone helps me in many ways to read the book with more in depth insights than my wife. So, I feel, be careful to bee too dogmatic about these things. Rather focus on the content or effect of what we read. That IMHO is more important than arguing if machines are good or bad. So thank you if you read this Peco, hopefully I also help you to think better, or deeper!
Thanks Nicolouw for your kind thoughts! I’m glad to say that our view has never been that machines are generally bad or that we should generally avoid technology. Human beings are creators. It’s part of our nature, and part of that creativity includes tech. For me the real question isn’t “Do we need tech, yes or no”, but rather where, how, when, for whom, to what extent, and why do we need it—and what are the impacts. If it seems that we often highlight the pitfalls of tech, it’s only because so few people are doing that.
Thanks again for reading!