Each synaesthete is more or less unique in his or her cross-sensory associations, though they are durable within each person.

Have you listened to the work of Messiaen at all? He had synaethesia as well and composed his works according to different color schemes. I cannot even begin to imagine what that would be like.

Thank you. You raise a good question. I would answer it in part by saying that our relationship to truth is at best one of pursuit, and not one of complete possession.

David,

Thanks for the book recommendations. I agree that not every question has an objective answer, and even when answering questions that do have an objective answer, we understand and frame that answer in ways that stem from our subjectivity.

Liam,

Very interesting points about synaesthesia and argumentation. Where could one learn more about this topic?

Most of my friends and family consider me an arguer with an deadly capacity for identifying quickly the Achilles’s heel of many arguments, including my own – I do consider incumbent on good arguers to be at least as familiar with the weaknesses of their arguments as their opponents should be. (Preferably more familiar.)

But the reason for this capacity of mine is funny, and so not linear: it’s because I am a synaesthete – I read in color and to a lesser extent hear in color. And synaesthesia is a tremendous asset in making leaping cross-connections generally, because (at least according to neurology studies I’ve seen described) it gives added dimensions of memory. (I won’t even going into neurological studies that show that how our “intuitive” processes help us see faster than our ordinary physical sight processes.) Anyway, what I realized over time is that, when people complimented me on a particularly “logical” argument or dissection of argument, I had pretty much composed it according to color patterns. While I don’t think everyone’s a synaesthete (though it appears to be more common than formerly though), I do suspect that a lot of what passes for argument has roots in things that are not quite linear as we commonly understand it.

I just wish growing realization of this would encourage greater epistemological and rhetorical humility in argument….

An interesting question, of course, is whether when two people disagree (here on Vox Nova, for example). Is one of them right and the other wrong? They could both be partly right. They could both be totally wrong. Or they could be disagreeing on things that are matters of opinion. (And I am not saying here that there is no objective truth. There may or may not be, but even if there is, not every disputed question has an objective answer — e.g., is blue a prettier color than red?)

A very fine piece of writing.

I too have gone through (still not enough times, it seems) the humbling process of realizing that I often get passionate most about what I know the least.

Even with such insight, the inclination is there to still get spirited most about what is familiar, pleasing opinion to me, instead of knowledge.

And the defenses and rhetorical maneuvers I seem all too willing go through to belittle an opponent are astounding.

What does this say about how hard true love of wisdom is and how much metanoia we must go through to come on kindly terms with the Truth?

Publishers Weekly
What is going on in the brain of a pilot deciding how to handle an emergency or a man trying to escape a wildfire? Does reason or emotion rule our decision making? Seed magazine editor-at-large Lehrer (Proust Was a Neuroscientist) brings recent research in neurobiology to life as he shows that the view, dating back to Plato, of the decision-making brain as a charioteer (reason) trying to control wild horses (emotions) comes up short. As Lehrer describes in fluid prose, the brain’s reasoning centers are easily fooled, often making judgments based on nonrational factors like presentation (a sales pitch or packaging). And Lehrer cites a study of investors given varying amounts of financial data to show that our inner charioteer also can be confused by too much information. Even more surprisingly, research shows that “gut instinct” often does make better decisions than long, drawn-out reasoning, and people with impaired emotional responses have trouble coping with the decisions required in everyday life. Lehrer is a delight to read, and this is a fascinating book (some of which appeared recently, in a slightly different form, in the New Yorker) that will help everyone better understand themselves and their decision making.

Another book on my list is is A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives by Cordelia Fine. The Scientific American review at Amazon is fascinating.

When I’m in a debate here on Vox Nova, I do sometimes ask myself how it’s possible that I can be so right all of the time. On the other hand, not too long ago I read the annotated version of Alan Sokal’s essay Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity, in his book Beyond the Hoax: Science, Philosophy and Culture. As most probably know, Sokal, a physicist, decided to write a “postmodern” paper filled with utter nonsense, which he got published with no trouble in Social Text, Duke University Press’s postmodernist cultural studies journal. I realized that when I try to read something that is totally intimidating and seems way over my head, and I think there are some things I just can’t understand, it’s possible that it may be meaningless nonsense. (Of course, it may also be very profound and truly way over my head.)