Magic Eye
Disclaimer: this post is an explanation of Ether Meek’s thesis in her book Longing to Know. Most of the examples are taken from this book as well.
I have dealt with knowing in my two earlier posts about the need for certainty and the three epistemic options. Meek offers this new definition: “Knowing is the responsible human struggle to rely on clues, to focus on a coherent pattern, and submit to its reality.”
Meek argues that knowing is a three step process. First, we look at clues. Then we struggle to looks through the clues, and finally we integrate the clues. Confusing? Let’s look at an example. Think of those “magic eyes.” One is shown above. You are supposed to look at this 2D image and somehow you are able to see something in 3D. Knowing is like coming to see this 3D image. We are given a list of clues to how to see this image (http://www.magiceye.com/faq_example.htm). Then we try to do it ourselves. For the longest time I couldn’t get the stupid thing to work. I was in the “struggle” part of knowing. Finally, one is able to see on the 3D image. There is this “aha!” moment when we see the image for the first time. The light comes on in our head. That is integration, or focus.
All of the sudden the clues take on new meaning. Now we really understand what was meant by “look past the picture.” Eventually we see the clues, look past through the clues, and integrate the clues so quickly we don’t even think about it. It’s like in the Matrix when Cypher tells Neo that he doesn’t “even see the code. All (he) see(s) is blonde, brunette, redhead.” Another example- when you or I look at the letters “S.T.O.P.” on a red octagon, I don’t have to sound out the letters. I just see “stop.” Meek calls this the “integration shift.” It is when we have become so accustomed to looking past the clues to focusing that we do it automatically.
So what we are tying to do in our pursuit of truth is not build a 100% certain position. Such a position is a house of cards. We are tying to look at clues and see how they fit together. Knowledge is more like a spider’s web than a pyramid. If I hold something to be true it should adequately explain the clues, if it does not I should not hold it as true. This is why I get so made at Christians who tell people not to raise hard questions. We need to integrate all the clues, not ignore them. Also, if I hold something to be true it should not contradict something else I hold to be true. For example, if it were true that “no blog post is worth reading” then it could not simultaneously be true that “this blog post is worth reading.” In other words, the Law of Non-Contradiction (A cannot be not-A at same time in same relationship) still applies.
So can I be 100% sure that this model is correct? Well, not really. But can I be 100% sure about anything? I dealt with certainty in another post. Meek argues that we need to replace certainty with confidence. Can I be totally certain I am typing on my computer? Well, I feel my hands hitting the keys, I hear the “Across the Universe” soundtrack playing, and I see words coming up on a screen. But what if my senses deceive me? What if I am in a dream? I can poke a hole somewhere in the assertion that I am typing on my computer, but I can be confident that I am typing. At least it is more likely that I am typing than that I am not typing.
Suggested Reading:
Longing to Know by Esther Meek
-Great book that inspired much of this post, easy vocabulary for a heady topic
-I would suggest this one to anyone who has not read much philosophy
Naming the Elephant by James Sire
Escape From Reason by Francis Schaeffer
Posts
I am also typing and listening to the “Across the Universe” soundtrack. Are we thus the same person? My sense of self tells me not.
“It is when we have become so acostom to looking past the clues to focusing that we do it automatically.”
Absolutely. When I saw the magic eye picture, I immediately made my eyes unfocus so that I could see the picture within the picture. Kangaroo or t-rex? I don’ t know. But I saw something.
That raises a number of interesting thoughts for me. I had to unfocus to see the “true” picture. In other words, the filter through which I normally view the world was insufficient for separating the clues (the colors and patterns) from the meaning (the KangaRex). If, that is, the hidden picture is the truth.
Secondly, the fact that the very nature of the clues in magic eye pictures always causes the image to be somewhat undefined - (Like, hey, I see some fish, but I couldn’t tell you much more than that.) - bothers me. Even once I am able to see through the clues into the reality, I still don’t have a full comprehension. KangaRex is little more than an outline. I don’t know how old she is, where she’s been, where she’s going, etc.
And all this about the clues and their automatically internalized meanings makes me want to go off on a Saussure rant. I’m refraining. But if you ever want to talk about signifiers, signifieds, and signs, please let me know.
Yes, Meek talks about the clues becoming peripheral once we have focused on the reality. The clues are still there, but they are not what we are focused on.
Also, I still haven’t been able to get this magic eye, but you have provided me with one more subsidary/ clue- “its a KangaRex!”
Shoot! I didn’t realize you hadn’t done your clue processing yet. I am, however, under the opinion that when doing a Magic Eye, knowing the eventual subject isn’t all that helpful in actually seeing it. What does that imply?
I’m not sure it really implies anything. The metaphor only works so far.
So yeah, I guess the metaphor only goes so far…. But I’m curious how you would apply it in this case, Danielle. How would that transfer over?
Believe me, I can justify a metaphor forever. I have skillz (or severe problems) like that. Ha!
And I was mostly teasing with my question as to what it implies. I should have followed it up with an oh-so-very helpful emoticon. (That was sarcasm.)
I guess I was just thinking that even when we have all the data (the colors and patterns, in this case), all the clues (go cross-eyed, put your nose next to the picture, unfocus, etc.), and even the eventual end product (KangaRex)… the end result is still not completely known.
I mean, if you’ve ever looked at a Magic Eye, you know that the hidden picture looks very flat in and of itself. There is no detail, only a shape, really, when you finally can “see” it.
I suppose it makes me wonder if we spend all this time looking and observing and trying to decipher the clues left to us here on earth, then even when we feel like we can finally “see” the hidden picture (even when it becomes almost automatic to interpret the clues and produce the hidden meaning)… well, it’s still missing the details.
And I would draw that to a comparison about destiny and free will and whatnot. Because even though the picture may be planned all along, we can still fill in some details using our own imagination (or choices).
And to answer my own question about the implications of how knowing the eventual meaning isn’t all that helpful in uncovering it… well, I would say that the meaning is in the journey. Even if you are reasonably certain, for example, that you’re going to heaven, that doesn’t mean you can just wait for the picture to turn out the way you believe. You have to work at it. Same with the Magic Eye. Just cause you know KangaRex is there, you still have to work to find her.
So… there’s my inevitably long-winded justification and twisting of metaphors. I told you I had skills/issues.
Ya know… I think I agree. We don’t have all the answers to all the questions. But we do have the answers to certain questions. Mystery is an important part of faith (by that I mean both belief and WHAT one believes). I’m glad we don’t have it all figured out. It keeps us searching, questioning, and discovering. That’s an interesting intersection of Western and Eastern epistemology you have going there. I like it!
So, since I have never been able to get a magic eye to work, does that mean I am not really a person?
Danielle and Brad-
Good stuff. Mystery is certainly part of knowledge. We can never be 100% certain, but we can be confident enough to act.
Example: If I see a long moving thing in the grass as I hike, and then I note that it contains varying shades of brown, and also that it has a diamond patern and makes a hissing sound, I can be confident that I am dealing with a snake. So what do I do? I submit to the reality of the snake and jump away so as to not get bitten!!!
Mike… I think Josh just ignored you. Ouch. How does that make you feel?
Josh,
Not getting bitten… I really like that analogy. The possible applications are spinning in my head.
I have yet to successfully view a Magic Eye picture, and I’m happy about that. All those people screwing up their eyes, sticking their noses to a bunch of colored dots, then exclaiming: IT’S A BIRD!!!! It really makes me think of The Emperor’s New Clothes. “Oh yeah….a bird…..absolutely…”
It’s funny to me that this kind of conversation really freaks me out. I mean, I get apprehensive.
We do, however, have a similar idea in certain acting techniques. There’s no special name for it; it is just understanding the process of the human mind in hearing/seeing/recognizing things. I guess this is similar to whatever Saussure thing Dani referenced. We say first you hear, then you look, then your brain recognizes what it is, then your brain processes how it affects you, then your lungs react, then your body. You can get really specific and say that the physical reaction goes in a kind of impulse ripple out from the lungs and heart, so the fingers and toes are the last bit of the body to react.
That’s not good for much beyond the stage, though.
The phrase “the journey is what counts” or “the meaning is in the journey” or any of that stuff about the “journey” has never sat well with me.
I think the meaning is affected by the process, and the process greatly shapes the end result. Like I went to college, but the “meaning” of my college experience isn’t the process. It’s how I finally reach the end in light of the process I took and cast in the shadow of what I expected from that process and result.
I just figured out why talking about philosophy upsets me so much………it requires this huge suspension of disbelief, doesn’t it? Like, I have to sort of ignore certain parts of life or certain things to really talk about it. WOW. My world. Just got. Inverted.
Kyle-
“The phrase “the journey is what counts” or “the meaning is in the journey” or any of that stuff about the “journey” has never sat well with me.”
I think you’re dead on here. Although the journey to truth may be wonderfully exciting, it cannot be an end in itself. Eventually we have to realize we are dealing with a snake (comment 9) and act on that truth.
“I just figured out why talking about philosophy upsets me so much………it requires this huge suspension of disbelief, doesn’t it? Like, I have to sort of ignore certain parts of life or certain things to really talk about it. WOW. My world. Just got. Inverted.”
Could you elaborate on this? I’m not sure I totally understand.
I’ll try, sure, but probably I’ll have to journal about it or bounce it off my comrades a lot before it solidifies.
It’s like, to discuss things like post-modernism (which, by the way, I totally object to using post-modernism or modernism is defining a mode of life or a worldview; the word is meant to describe aspects of art and literature) or existentialism — or at least to talk seriously about them — it requires a certain ability to use tunnel vision. I’m looking at life through the tunnel vision of AN EXISTENTIALIST or A MODERNIST or A BUDDHIST. (maybe that last one is a poor example?) You have to kind of forget things that muddle up that philosophical idea. These are usually really human things like pain, suffering, love, irony, etc., I’m just mining away at this idea, but I think it’s so narrowing and academic, it forces a person to forget that these are a whole lot of words to describe something most people feel innately or at least on a basic level. Like the entire idea of existentialism can be told with a simple “Hmph” from the right person.
Kyle-
I can definitley tell you’re in the articist world (yea!!!) and not the academic. I will agree that that looking through one lens is limiting, but is that really a bad thing? Truth limits. It is hypocritical to approach one area of my life as a Buddhist and then another as a Christian if the two are mutually exclusive.
When we have been given enough clues to see the pattern, and we have focused on the pattern, we have to submit to its reality. If I come to the conclusion that some action of mine (say, petty shop lifting to pass the time) is wrong by way of logic, I must submit to that reality and stop.
I don’t think this is an artist/academic thing. I know loads of artists who are super academic and talk/think/act/write/paint/create works/interpret philosophical ideas in the pursuit of truth.
Okay, sure, I can see the hypocrisy you are talking about………..
But I think you hit the rub for me here:
“When we have been given enough clues to see the pattern, and we have focused on the pattern, we have to submit to its reality.”
I cannot disagree more.
*raises eyebrow*
In what way? I can see that if the reality of a situation is not the way it is supposed to be, or it is unjust (i.e. genocide in Darfur, lack of religious freedoms, economic imbalance, etc.) one should not submit to it per se. But what about ultimate reality? Do we buck the law of gravity (that would be sweet)?
I’m curious how that fills out for you…
Kyle-
I didn’t mean to degrade artists as non-academic in any way, so I apologize if I did.
At what point do you disagree. Is it that there are no clues? No patter? No focus? Or is it on submission to the reality?
I did not go on because I wasn’t sure if this was the place/time to go deeper. I’m not even sure if where I’m going is deeper or if it is just somewhere we’ve been before, Brad.
For me, law is human interaction. Desire, objective, obstacle, tactic, motive, action. Those form my law, because they are easiest for me to grasp. I cannot fathom a pan-dimensional super-being or a collective unconsciousness or a Heaven/Hell paradigm or a Celestial Kingdom or a great Earth Spirit. I mean, I can understand the concepts, and many of the ideas are attractive to me or very nice-sounding, but they don’t fit with my vision of truth.
I think maybe that’s the heart of this: different ideas of truth.
It seems like maybe Christianity starts with Christ and goes out from there, whereas I start with people and go out from there. Different epicenters of faith.
PS - No offense taken, Josh. I certainly was not up in arms about anything you said. I always just assume (online) that everything anyone says is in good fun.
I am a banana!
… Guys… Who’s job was it to give Mike his meds this morning? Seriously…
And yet as ridiculous a comment as it was, in many ways it pertains to the whole discussion.