How can I repair my conceptual hierarchy?

[ironworks soundlabs]

I have been studying Objectivism for several months now (Even though I have been into Objectivism for over a year, I haven't begun to take the philosophy seriously until recently), and I have recently realized that I do not comprehend many of the definitions needed to grasp this philosophy. I have since decided to go through all the Objectivist literature I own very thoroughly, and I came across this information I completely missed the first time I read OPAR. The following quote completely describes where I have gone wrong. (From pg. 133)

Men, however, can and often do try to move to higher levels of cognition without properly understanding the intermediate material…Such men attempt to function on the higher levels of a complex structure without having first established the requisite base; their mental activity consists of building confusion on confusion, instead of knowledge on knowledge.

I seem to do this in many aspects of my life, particularly in college. I have a 4.0 GPA, but I forget a lot of the material I learn, primarily in the sciences. I find that I study very hard, but I am memorizing the material, and not really grasping the concepts presented. Fortunately, I have a pretty good ability to figure things out, so when I am presented with problems that involve thinking (as opposed to rote memory) I can usually solve the problem using the limited techniques I have available to me (I do this in math all the time).

This is not a major problem yet, but I find that I have to study more and more as I am getting into the more advanced classes. It is obvious to me that my conceptual structure is flawed and needs immediate fixing. I am wondering if anyone has any advice on how I can begin rearranging my methodology for learning material?

Since we are on this topic, I am confused on one other aspect here. Peikoff states that one must “establish the requisite base,” before they can understand the higher-level concepts (p. 133). I, for instance, am very good at using my senses as a guide to improvisation over music. I can pick up my guitar, put on a tune, and within seconds I have the main melody figured out and I can improvise over it very fluently. When I am playing like this, I am not paying any attention to the theory involved. I do not understand why all the notes I am playing work, I just know they work. This does not seem to involve higher-levels of cognition, as it seems I am only using my senses of hearing and touch. It is as if my senses instantly guiding the actions of my hands. This concept is pretty hard to explain to anyone besides a musician. Maybe I can clear it up; when I am improvising, I am paying little attention to my consciousness. It seems that this activity, which is a very complex activity, is using very little of my mind to perform, and in a sense, I am not using a "requisite base" to create music. I only recently learned that a chromatic I though sounded nice over 7th chords was because it was the 7th chord tone. I had no "requisite base" of what was going on, I just knew it worked

I am curious as to why something like improvisation overrides our conscious acknowledgement of our existing knowledge base? Is it perhaps because the hierarchical context has such a strong attachment to reality that during the process of reduction we are able to transfer a signal from our senses to a very complex motor movement at a speed that makes it seem unconscious?

(edited for clarity I.W.S.L.)

Edited February 1, 2005 by ironworks soundlabs

[khaight]

When I am playing like this, I am not paying any attention to the theory involved. I do not understand why all the notes I am playing work, I just know they work. This does not seem to involve higher-levels of cognition, as it seems I am only using my senses of hearing and touch. It is as if my senses instantly guiding the actions of my hands. This concept is pretty hard to explain to anyone besides a musician.

You might want to look at what Ayn Rand has to say about the relationship between the conscious and subconscious during the process of writing in the first chapter of The Art Of Fiction. It sounds very similar to what you describe above, just in a different domain. (For what it's worth, I have similar experiences writing computer software. When I'm "in the groove" the code seems to just pour out from my fingers onto the keyboard, without any conscious intervention. But that's because I've automatized a lot of complex theoretical knowledge about software engineering, which my subconscious mind can call on when I'm working.)

[EC]

I've noticed a similar situation when I'm shooting pool. If I just get into a "flow" and just shoot without a lot of thinking I am a much, much better player. Also typing this I realized the skill of typing itself is much like this. You can do it with without thinking of the actual typing just the subject.

What I think is key to all this is these thing become so natural and you don't really have to think about them anymore because you already have done all the higher level thinking previously when you were learning the skill. I had to learn and concentrate alot when I was learning to shoot pool and type. And the learning process was relatively hard. Now it's automotized and I can do these nearly subconciously. But there was a complex learning process. I think this also applies to playing a guitar(which I could never learn).

I think these types of skills are similar to how past experiences cause certain emotional responces to certain stimuli also to be automatized. This causes many people to think emotions are uncaused when really they do have a cognitive basis that has become so lightning quick they don't realize their past thinking, experience, and actions are at the root of it.

[ChristopherSchlegel]

I have been studying Objectivism for several months now (Even though I have been into Objectivism for over a year, I haven't begun to take the philosophy seriously until recently)

Great! Don't ever stop studying Objectivism.

Since we are on this topic, I am confused on one other aspect here. Peikoff states that one must “establish the requisite base,” before they can understand the higher-level concepts...

I am curious as to why something like improvisation overrides our conscious acknowledgement of our existing knowledge base? Is it perhaps because the hierarchical context has such a strong attachment to reality that during the process of reduction we are able to transfer a signal from our senses to a very complex motor movement at a speed that makes it seem unconscious?)

You might want to look at what Ayn Rand has to say about the relationship between the conscious and subconscious during the process of writing in the first chapter of The Art Of Fiction.  It sounds very similar to what you describe above, just in a different domain.  (For what it's worth, I have similar experiences writing computer software.  When I'm "in the groove" the code seems to just pour out from my fingers onto the keyboard, without any conscious intervention.  But that's because I've automatized a lot of complex theoretical knowledge about software engineering, which my subconscious mind can call on when I'm working.)

I've noticed a similar situation when I'm shooting pool.  If I just get into a "flow" and just shoot without a lot of thinking I am a much, much better player. Also typing this I realized the skill of typing itself is much like this. You can do it with without thinking of the actual typing just the subject.

What I think is key to all this is these thing become so natural and you don't really have to think about them anymore because you already have done all the higher level thinking previously when you were learning the skill.  I had to learn and concentrate alot when I was learning to shoot pool and type. And the learning process was relatively hard. Now it's automotized and I can do these nearly subconciously. But there was a complex learning process.  I think this also applies to playing a guitar(which I could never learn).

I think these types of skills are similar to how past experiences cause certain emotional responces to certain stimuli also to be automatized.  This causes many people to think emotions are uncaused when really they do have a cognitive basis that has become so lightning quick they don't realize their past thinking, experience, and actions are at the root of it.

The reply posts are excellent & right on target, the only reason I am jumping here is because of the music angle.

I, for instance, am very good at using my senses as a guide to improvisation over music. I can pick up my guitar, put on a tune, and within seconds I have the main melody figured out and I can improvise over it very fluently. When I am playing like this, I am not paying any attention to the theory involved. I do not understand why all the notes I am playing work, I just know they work. This does not seem to involve higher-levels of cognition, as it seems I am only using my senses of hearing and touch. It is as if my senses instantly guiding the actions of my hands. This concept is pretty hard to explain to anyone besides a musician. Maybe I can clear it up; when I am improvising, I am paying little attention to my consciousness. It seems that this activity, which is a very complex activity, is using very little of my mind to perform, and in a sense, I am not using a "requisite base" to create music. I only recently learned that a chromatic I though sounded nice over 7th chords was because it was the 7th chord tone. I had no "requisite base" of what was going on, I just knew it worked

First, keep in mind that diatonic, tonal music is a very highly integrated system to begin with. In many ways, once you learn the fundamentals & the syntax of it a reasonably intelligent person can easily improvise. In fact after all the basics have been learned, established mentally, once you have automated this info with the mechanical aspects of manipulating an instrument, at a certain point it is actually difficult to play something that does not "work" (i.e. sound decent).

I also want to clarify something a bit here. You said, you "had no requisite base of what was going on, I just knew it worked." That is not quite accurate. You did have a base of knowledge (a basic understanding of tonality) as well as a basic level of acquired skill with the instrument. It may not be enough to completely understand everything, but it is not as if you know nothing.

Also, keep in mind that when you hear something you "like the sound of it" that is a different issue than understanding musically what is happening. You said "I do not understand why all the notes I am playing work, I just know they work." I think I understand what you are getting at here. But, strictly speaking, you do not "just know" something if you do not understand that something.

You can at any time, play any note, over any progression and make a judgment about whether or not you "like the sound of it". But understanding why it works (i.e. identifying the characteristics of the sound you like) is another issue. And it's not necessarily a simple one. Suppose you identify what chord tone it is in relation to the chord over which you are playing it. That is merely one more aspect of the entire context. Mentally, then you say, "Ah-ha! I like the sound of an 11th over a half-diminished chord ". You have identified what note you like in a small context. But, what about wider contexts? Musically, for example, the voice leading implications? What notes, over what chords, come before & after? Is there a better way to approach & leave that note? Would another way of voice leading make that note more or less effective? How does that note fit into the overall thematic statements you are making in the piece on a larger scale?

Another significant analogy is language. I remember reading once that the average person has a vocabulary of approximately 30-50K words. (Don't know how accurate that is. Whatever the amount the analogy will still hold). That is an amazing amount of conceptual info! Yet, when we talk or write, we just seem to be able to use any one of those words whenever we need it so easily it is as if it requires no thought at all. But, actually it is so automated it becomes "second nature".

Christopher Schlegel

[ironworks soundlabs]

Thank you very much.

All three posts were very informative, and make total sense. Chris really cleared up the confusion I had, I must say. Now since I look at it, even though I played strictly by ear for years, I used a rather slow process of trial and error to develop my musical abilities. For instance, one of the first songs I learned was a Green Day song, when I come I around I believe, and I was 11. I had absolutely no knowledge of theory, I only knew how to play power chords. From there I figured out the song, and the melody for the solo. From that song I remember I mapped out the notes I was playing and created a pentatonic scale (of course I didn't know what that was at the time). I realized that I could play a couple notes in this scale, and they sounded good. I also realized that I had to resolve to the first chord being played in the case of this song. Soon I was able to use this simple knowledge, and my ability to pitch match to play any random melody on the radio. So the knowledge built on top of previous knowledge, and even though I didn't know the technical terms for what I was doing, I knew what worked and what didn't. After many years it has become second nature to me, like when I type on this keyboard. I am thinking of the words, watching the screen as I type, but not consciously paying attention to the keys I am hitting. I guess I must have known that, but never really paid conscious attention to what was going on. Hm, that certaintly motivates me to learn as much as humanly possible about music.

[Dominique]

Hm, that certaintly motivates me to learn as much as humanly possible about music. 

It motivates me to learn as much as humanly possible about Objectivism

It is strange though because I feel like there is so much un-learning to do first, and that knolwledge I thought I gained was actually wrong, gives me a feeling much like what you describe here:

I have recently realized that I do not comprehend many of the definitions needed to grasp this philosophy. I have since decided to go through all the Objectivist literature I own very thoroughly, and I came across this information I completely missed the first time I read OPAR.

It is obvious to me that my conceptual structure is flawed and needs immediate fixing. I am wondering if anyone has any advice on how I can begin rearranging my methodology for learning material?

I'm probably going to get the tapes on study skill from ARI so I can be more efficient in my acquisition of the new knowledge which I want to replace the old