/lit/ - Literature

>>17543670
>reddit spacing
Post discarded

>>17543670
Burn the books

>>17543670
>Independent, critical thinking is a sure path to hubris, bias confirmation, cherry picking, and a whole host of other flaws your brain was not designed to even notice much less adequately check.
If this is so, then nobody should care about it anyway; the fact that people are not rational is not news, but people have a right to creative thinking even if it is irrational.

>>17543838

>people have a right to creative thinking even if it is irrational

Why

>>17543857
>being this much of a bugman

>>17543670
The only way to be critical and independent is demand proofs for literally everything. And I mean everything, you might not understand what it entails to doubt literally everything you haven't seen proofs for. For things you don't know you are allowed to say 'this option seems more likely because it contradicts less with things I do believe have proofs' but you still have maintain doubt about almost everything.

>>17543929
>demand proof for proof
>now must demand proof of proof for proof
>sadly brother that requires I demand a proof that proves the proof for the original required proof
>end up as a limp autistic rag
What a dull life you must lead mr rag, with all these permanent organs trapped on your body.

>>17543670
>psychology book
Your problem. Also try meditation, self-awareness to avoid hubris of certainty. Critical reasoning doesnt have to end with fool-proof surety as it can can also settle on sufficiently good and pragmatic. The famous Greek maxims of ’know thyself’, ’nothing in excess’ and ’surety then ruin’ aming others guard against hubris

>>17543958
No that's autism, there is no proof for proof, you either believe your senses and reason work well enough that if you see something it actually exists, or you accept that you're insane and give up on belief. I really do not care for endless navel-gazing autism about how the senses and reason work.

>>17543670
>implying the people in authority are any batter and aren't deceiving themselves

>>17543997

Or, per the OP, you can submit to an authority that will tell you what to believe and cut short the chain of infinite regress, not rely on your faulty senses, and not doubt your own sanity.

>>17544002

I literally addressed this
>At least this way, if you are deceived, you won't have "reasoned" yourself into it by being a pompous asshole.

>>17543670
> western culture
so capitalism

making us think we're choosing a lifestyle/identity helps to squeeze more money out of us

>>17544031
The authorities you submit to also rely on their 'faulty senses' so you are simply adding in more uncertainty by relying on them since there are problems inherent to transmission of information, and incentives to lie and so on. There are cases in which groups of people have spent time gathering information about something you couldn't gather on your own, but you should still only believe them if they present to you something concrete that proves their claims in a way you can confirm, eg. certain theories in physics are vindicated by certain technological applications, you can see the machines they created and mostly understand how it works if you try. The vast majority of what authorities say has no proof of this kind so you have to reject it and remain in doubt. You can assign some probability to any given claim based on how much it aligns with things that you are sure of, but this is still a 'remain in doubt' category if you can't verify yourself.

>>17544058

>The authorities you submit to also rely on their 'faulty senses' so you are simply adding in more uncertainty by relying on them since there are problems inherent to transmission of information, and incentives to lie and so on.

I'm not disputing that, I'm saying it's better to be misled by others because you were humble and submitted to them, then to be misled because you were arrogant and fell victim to problems like bias confirmation.

>you should still only believe them if they present to you something concrete that proves their claims in a way you can confirm

Which still opens the door to cherry picking, bias confirmation, or even the simple lack of access to relevant information. You won't get closer to any objective truth this way, you'll only open yourself up to the double whammy of error and pride.

>>17543670
The logical conclusion of questioning authority is that you dismiss all authority, so you declare yourself the only authority you'll listen to which is dangerously based.
Otherwise, you could take the middle ground and listen to authority but only when they reinforce your pre-existing beliefs.

>>17544089
>'m saying it's better to be misled by others because you were humble and submitted to them, then to be misled because you were arrogant and fell victim to problems like bias confirmation.
That's a false dichotomy, you are not being nearly skeptical enough, literally only believe things you can verify. You can't use confirmation bias or cherry picking if you don't extrapolate from a few incidences to a pattern, all you can say is that 'so far this has been the pattern but I don't know what exists beyond that'.

The modern mind has been absolutely memed into thinking it's supposed to know things about hundreds of vague statistical patterns because we have been told that 'experts' know about this stuff. You do not need to even pretend you know anyhting about any of that stuff.

>>17544089
In short, you don't want to commit errors. You want a figure of authority you can defer to and point at when errors do occur.

>>17544120

I'm saying that's the best way to approach knowledge. It's better for error to be the result of a virtue, like submission, than of a sin, like arrogance.

>>17544115

>you are not being nearly skeptical enough, literally only believe things you can verify.

Then you wind up with the problem >>17543958 pointed out; you need to verify what you're verifying, right down to verifying your senses, which you can only do by relying on your senses, trapping yourself in a paralysis of skepticism.

Action requires certainty; certainty requires faith; faith requires authority. That authority is going to be yourself or another, and its the better part of virtue to submit to another.

>>17544153
Going back to what I said. You have deferred to a figure of authority and absolved yourself of direct responsibility. Further, you have branded this to be a "virtue". Whereas taking personal responsibility for your actions and decisions will place you in a position of direct risk. Which is virtuous, but you brand this a "sin". Funny how you can invert virtue and values with a simple twist of words to save your own skin in tricky situations.

You are a part of the universe. Is the river independent of the sea?

>>17544191

The world is hierarchical; each of us is a master of one, and an inferior to another. Virtue is submission to your master, and care for your inferior. The person at the top of the chain defines truth for everyone on down to keep the chain inflexible and to ensure centralized accountability. Thus your virtue is to submit to the truth he declares, and transmit it to your inferiors.

What you propose is not some aristocratic ideal of virile independence; it's anarchy.

>>17544153
You don't need to verify your senses and reason, you either believe in them, or you believe you're insane and you shouldn't even move since you might be walking off a cliff and not know it.

Action does not require certainty in the absolute epistemological sense you mean here, most everybody has certainty that their sense and basic reason are not deceiving them, and if you abandon these things you are insane, and trusting authorities doesn't matter anyway, because you can only reach authorities through your sense and reason. "submitting to authorities' fixes nothing, I have already pointed out that you throw them out as well when you question your basic senses.

>>17543857
Why not?

>>17543857
Without knowledge, even a true belief is a shameful thing, as no account can be produced to support the arrangement of ones soul.

>>17544226
Another attempt at inverting virtue and calling taking direct responsibility for your actions "anarchy".
Yes of course we are born into a hierarchy. Obeying your master has more practical significance than whatever inverted "virtue" you speak of. For if you don't obey your master and act independent of his/her sanction, you will be punished.
Whereas you are speaking of actively seeking a figure of authority on whom you can absolve your responsibility and say "I was merely following so-and-so's command" when things go wrong.

>>17544245

For the reasons I pointed out; it opens you to self-deception on account of your brains inherent flaws.

>>17544233

>Action does not require certainty in the absolute epistemological sense you mean here

But that is what you are proposing when you declare, with certainty, despite any independent and entirely self-sufficient proof, that your senses are valid. The only question is who do you trust to tell you your senses are valid - yourself or another.

All of your points are irrelevant because they rest on your own, independently authoritative assertion that your senses are valid, which is arbitrary and circular, and thus invalid. Yes, it will also be invalid if Pope-Pharoah-Buddha the Great tells you your senses are invalid, since he also can't prove it without arbitrary assertion or circular reasoning, but at least if you rely on him rather than yourself you aren't giving in to arrogance.

>>17544261

How on earth are you supporting a hierarchical vision of society and also supporting personal responsibility? Either you are a non person in the eyes of your Lord, or you are an independent and free individual with no ruler. You can't have it both ways.

>>17544278
>But that is what you are proposing when you declare, with certainty, despite any independent and entirely self-sufficient proof, that your senses are valid
What you're proposing is simply that "if I see a tree then if I go up and touch it it will be there, and other people will agree with me that the tree is there and we can do things with the tree'

Your argument is ridiculous, 'believe in the Pope's faulty authority instead of your own faulty authority because this is more humble'. Why does being humble matter, you have just thrown out the validity of senses, you are in a state of absolute skepticism, what reason do you have to give a shit about being humble

>>17544278
>How on earth are you supporting a hierarchical vision of society and also supporting personal responsibility? Either you are a non person in the eyes of your Lord, or you are an independent and free individual with no ruler. You can't have it both ways.
You can. As shown in this very discussion, seeing how you veil your attempt at absolving personal responsibility by turning it into a discussion about moral and virtue. Further, by your own statements, people within the same rank can and will have personal responsibility.
But that aside, isn't all this a convenient way of getting rid of accounts and wrongs by putting it all on the final ultimate master? Kind of like Christianity. Wait, exactly like Christianity. No one is accountable. Everyone is merely following the higher-up's command.

>>17543670
>This authority says you should just trust authority
wow

>>17544298

>if I see a tree then if I go up and touch it it will be there

But how can you prove that you are really seeing and touching a true tree? If it isn't, if its a collective psychological construct processed through faulty senses, then perhaps you can all convince each other you're doing something with the same perception, but you're no closer to actual, absolute truth.

>Why does being humble matter, you have just thrown out the validity of senses

Because the Pope/Guru/King/Whatever said to be. So did his predecessor. And so did his, stretching (ideally) so far back in time it's taken on pure authority that absolves you of the possibility of personal error.

>>17544316

>veil your attempt at absolving personal responsibility

I'm not veiling it at all, I'm outright saying that promoting personal responsibility leads to individualism, then to the possibility of error, and then to social breakdown.

>>17544346
>but you're no closer to actual, absolute truth.
You don't need it. You just need to be able to act in the world.

>because the pope said to be, so did his predecessor
You don't know this, you have to use your senses and reason to find out about that, and you just said these are suspect.

>absolves you of personal error
So what? That has nothing to do with ultimate truth, which was ostensibly your concern, and many people would disagree with you anyway, and say that submitting like that is a choice and you bear the responsibility for that making that choice instead of thinking for yourself.

>>17543670
>Independent, critical thinking is a sure path to hubris, bias confirmation, cherry picking, and a whole host of other flaws your brain was not designed to even notice much less adequately check.
It's not a sure path, it's just a likely path. "Every psychology book ever written" says that these flaws apply to quick, effortless, heuristic thinking, not careful and deliberate reasoning. Independent critical thinking is not some unfathomable cognitive impossibility you make it out to be, it's just really hard and time-consuming. Your point at its face is obviously self-defeating: if the brain was not designed to notice these flaws, how were they discovered? Of course it's not possible to apply careful critical thinking to absolutely every piece of information you get, so society as a whole may in fact have to rely on trustworthy institutions, because nobody has the time to be an expert on everything. But that doesn't stop a determined and competent independent thinker from developing a well informed worldview.

>>17544361

>You don't need it. You just need to be able to act in the world.

How do you act in the world without a certain, absolute belief in an unassailable and unquestionable truth? Assuming someone has an IQ over 70, shouldn't they be constantly harassed by the possibility that they are wrong for no other reason than their brain wasn't built to handle absolute unconditioned truth?

>You don't know this, you have to use your senses and reason to find out about that

I'm taking it on authority, an authority which has stated in that in hearing that claim my senses are trustworthy. Ideally authority should box you into a circular chain of validations which remove the paralysis of unknowing.

>So what? That has nothing to do with ultimate truth, which was ostensibly your concern

This is about how we (try to) discern absolute truth. Do we do it by risking being wrong ourselves, or do we do it by allowing ourselves to be boxed into an authoritatively sanctioned chain of circular validations that removes that risk and removes any need for error-prone independence and self-reliance?

>>17544409
>How do you act in the world without a certain, absolute belief in an unassailable and unquestionable truth
You do it every day all day buddy.
>I'm taking it on authority,
an authority you can only reach through the mediation of your fallible senses and reason, and is thus suspect like everything else, according to your perspective
>This is about how we (try to) discern absolute truth. Do we do it by risking being wrong ourselves, or do we do it by allowing ourselves to be boxed into an authoritatively sanctioned chain of circular validations that removes that risk and removes any need for error-prone independence and self-reliance?
a) As I keep pointing out to you, that second option there doesn't remove the risk, because you are right now making a choice, using your senses and reason, to submit to this authority. This authority gets thrown out with the bathwater when you enter into radical skepticism. b)even supposing it didn't, that has literally nothing to do with absolute truth, proven easily enough by the fact that there are multiple authorities you could pick, which contradict each other about various things.

>>17544346
Errors will occur even in this perfect Christian utopia where everyone enthusiastically accepts their station and leaves all decisions to higher ups, often to their severe detriment.
What will you do then? Will you conjure up Jesus 2.0 and make him an hero to absolve everyone of their mistakes?
The past 2000 years given enough counter arguments to this goal. Primary one being that it hasn't worked. Various strictly political ideologies haven't worked. Christianity hasn't worked in its goal of turning the planet into a strict common hierarchy. Deploying force hasn't worked. Deploying care and dialectic hasn't worked. Exceptions are Jews and maybe a few fringe groups here and there. Maybe even the current system is successful, but that is yet to be seen.
So you do agree this post was a veiled attempt at promoting Christianity while making it out to be some discussion about the intellect and its structure. Like >>17544385 pointed out, taking personal responsibility for your actions and decisions will require you to go through the difficult and time consuming task of critical thinking and accurate perception of the world. You don't want to do this, hence you seek a figure of authority to defer to and want everyone to quietly accept their stations.

>Absolutely decimates your position with several lengthy essays on the importance of the subjective factor.

>>17544429

>You do it every day all day buddy.

No, I rely on higher authority to remove the paralyzing fear of a world that is not as it seems

>an authority you can only reach through the mediation of your fallible senses and reason

Because it has declared those senses and reasons valid in the analysis of it. The point is to have a self-referential, unquestionable box that declares itself valid and requires no personal risk of error.

>As I keep pointing out to you, that second option there doesn't remove the risk

And as I keep agreeing, it doesn't, but it removes the risk of personal error as well as the paralysis of skepticism. Action requires certainty; certainty requires faith; faith requires authority. Submission to authority doesn't remove the risk of error, but it mitigates the breakdown of that chain.

>>17544434

>So you do agree this post was a veiled attempt at promoting Christianity

I'm not a Christian, actually, I'm Tibetan Buddhist; specifically the kind that requires absolute submission to the Guru and allows 0 room for questioning him or dissenting from what he tells you. It may or may not be correct, but at least I no longer have to take the risk that * I * may or may not be correct.

>>17543997
>you either believe your senses and reason work well enough that if you see something it actually exists, or you accept that you're insane and give up on belief.
Ugh. The idea of belief in senses or reason is so retardedly Cartesian as to be a cartoon of reason. Your reflective sensibility of reflecting on senses is already pre-determined by your being in the world prior to your being in thought. Your belief is confirmation, a twisted image-thought that’s a boring form of platonism. It’s incredibly autistic.
>>17544153
>Then you wind up with the problem(You) pointed out; you need to verify what you're verifying, right down to verifying your senses, which you can only do by relying on your senses, trapping yourself in a paralysis of skepticism.
> Action requires certainty; certainty requires faith; faith requires authority. That authority is going to be yourself or another, and its the better part of virtue to submit to another.
This idea (lol) of action bearing identity to a given reason as authority is entirely too static to line up with lived experience as such, the Greeks had paradoxes designed to show the limitations of this way of thinking
>remove a grain of sand from a pile of sand; at what point have you removed enough that it is no longer a pile?
Alternate:
>put grains of sand next to each other; at what point do they become a pile?
The issue is the static form of representativity underlying these thoughts, time represented in space rather than duration, static rather than process, chronos rather than Aion. My existence verifies the axiomatic existence of a variety of facts by dint of its continued becoming-other from what it is at a given perceptual present.
Platonism is for chomos, I am only given a stomach before I am able to eat, otherwise without the gift from god eat I cannot, no matter how much appetite I may have

>>17544482
>No, I rely on higher authority to remove the paralyzing fear of a world that is not as it seems
Yeah I doubt that, you believe your senses well enough to not jump off a building. But whatever, the rest of us do it just fine anyway. "it seems to work' is good enough.
>Because it has declared those senses and reasons valid in the analysis of it. The point is to have a self-referential, unquestionable box that declares itself valid and requires no personal risk of error.
Ok then submit to me, I'm an absolute authority. Do what I say, send me some money.
>>17544482
>. Submission to authority doesn't remove the risk of error, but it mitigates the breakdown of that chain.
Which authority, how do you choose? Are you using your senses and reason to make that decision? The sense and reason you just said are fallible?

>>17544486
>Ugh. The idea of belief in senses or reason is so retardedly Cartesian as to be a cartoon of reason. Your reflective sensibility of reflecting on senses is already pre-determined by your being in the world prior to your being in thought. Your belief is confirmation, a twisted image-thought that’s a boring form of platonism. It’s incredibly autistic.

You are telling me it's autistic to trust that if I see a tree, it will be there if I walk up to touch it? Because that's the extent of what I'm saying here. You're undoubtedly proposing something way, way more autistic about how you are totally not allowed to just trust your basic senses and logical processes, even though you yourself do so every day the entire day.

>>17543670
>submit to an authority, stop being a pompous asshole
so like Nietzsche, just for bugman cucks? Did I get that right? Why the fuck should I care if I'm a pompous cuck when I could rise to be that authority and make others submit to my image of reality?

What the fuck are you people even talking about?

This is semantically nonsensical.

>>17544486
Look at this absolute nonce peddling his waffly non-answers to non-questions.

>>17544153
Wronglyplaced submission is not virtue.

Action does not require certainty nor is good for anyone to give away your agency. Drone life is devoid of responsibility, aim and virtue

>>17544523
*asshole

>>17544506

>Ok then submit to me, I'm an absolute authority. Do what I say, send me some money.

Already picked out a religion to do that for lol

>Which authority, how do you choose?

It is a sad fact of modern society that we cannot be born into this box of self-referentially valid unquestionable paradigms and instead have to choose them. Yes, all choices are flawed and to some degree arbitrary, but at least once you make your flawed and arbitrary choice it will be the last one and all the rest is predecided for you.

>>17544532
Virtue is the potential for psychic energy, which has been integrated to a degree into the psychology of the individual; virtues may have negative or positive manifestations from many perspectives.

>>17544544
>but at least once you make your flawed and arbitrary choice
So just be my bitch, it can be your last choice ever. You have no reason to stick with the religion you chose with your fallible senses over me

>>17544544
>self-referentially valid unquestionable paradigms and instead have to choose them.
Does pain not bring along with it it's own evidence and validity?

>>17544550
Fuck you

>>17544482
So you admit this post is about your fear of taking risks and failing. Also about your neurosis and doubts about your own beliefs. Hence your desperation to defer to a figure of authority.
Complete obedience to your Guru has its place. Specifically during your education and initiation. Do you plan on remaining your Guru's student for the rest of your life? Or do you plan on finally being an adult and testing your ideas directly?
As far as effective collectivization is concerned, I agree. Teams wont function if lower-downs break the chain of command and make independent decisions. But you are a Tibetian Buddhist studying under a Guru. What "team" do you form? And for what purpose?

>>17544553

>You have no reason to stick with the religion you chose with your fallible senses over me

Well, it told me I do, and I already agreed not to question it.

>>17544560

Is it a chemical reaction? A spiritual one? A psychological illusion? An evolutionary adaptation? What are the consequences for each of these? How do they fit in with all the other mental (are they even mental?) experiences? Does it have a higher meaning? Is it psychosomatic?

It brings evidence of nothing at all, it just raises a bajillion potentially unanswerable questions that haunt you until you find a final, absolute, self sufficient answer.

>>17544520
>You are telling me it's autistic to trust that if I see a tree, it will be there if I walk up to touch it
It’s autistic to split your experience of the phenomena of the world into this internally narrated bullshit. No one sees a tree, then has belief or doubt in it. This second order image of thought is so stupidly disconnected from the experience of embodied consciousness as to be laughable ha ha ha. I don’t trust my senses, I’ve no doubt nor belief, I open up to the world through my body and act within it. Fucks sake. Cartesian bullshit
>>17544531
>Look at this absolute nonce peddling his waffly non-answers to non-questions.
No answers only explanations, the war machine is an apparatus exterior to the state, turned exterior, against the urstaat that appropriates laminar flows to establish a permanency of organs, the war machine is turned out, knowing that machines only work by breaking down
You’re too dumb. Stuck in the image-thought, time not duration, always being never becoming

>>17544580
I'm telling you not to question me, in fact I have a direct line to God, I can ask him anything. That's a lot better than some institution that is centuries removed from their prophet isn't it?

>>17544597
No. Prophet is just a dude helping you be dude, what you have is (pre?)psychotic magical thinking

>>17544597
>>17544607
>he has a direct line to god
I am substance, you are substance, anon is substance, sharing in both mode and attribute we speak the univocity of being in each event, the eternal return is in the being of each becoming, an empty square transecting the heterogeneity of each series

>>17544580
Ok so why don't you go stab yourself with a steak knife and report back to me the qualia as experienced subjectively through your conscious being and we can rationally deconstruct it.

If it is as you say, then the evidence pain brings forth will have no objective affect on your consciousness.

>>17544623
That guys an sophist caught in his own ego-gravity, all I need to know of pain I learned the first time I grabbed a hot pan

>>17544597
Oh yeah. I guess I must submit to you. Cause it is better that you make an error than me. Cause I'm a bitch who is scared to face failure and gets stuck in neurotic loops. Oh master, tell me your command.

>>17544614
Have you at least applied to a job?

>>17544585
>No one sees a tree, then has belief or doubt in it.
That's exactly what you do actually, you see something and then interpret it as some object and you form a belief that it's there. This is especially obvious if what you see is indistinct, like in the dark, and you have to work out for a second what you're looking at.

>>17544631
I have a job thank you, I hope you do too

>>17544607
don't question my authority, that's arrogant, you're not being humble if you don't submit to me.

>>17544629
The chad subjectivist.

>>17544641
Yes. I agree. It is all ambiguous and flawed. There is no self-sufficient answer to anything. I want to cry into my Guru's arms now. Pls help

>>17544659
It's uncertain in some absolute sense but nobody actually cares about that, in reality everybody does trust their senses and reason to form beliefs and acts accordingly in the world.

>>17544641
Again no, Cartesian bullshit. You see something in the dark, and as the ambiguity of perception is the perception of ambiguity you open yourself up through your body to the ambiguity and the ensuing duration of its resolution. You walk towards it and see what it is, drawn in by phenomena. Are you honestly this disconnected from your experience of being a body? Do you draw up tables and striate spaces when presented with ambiguity?
>>17544659
>There is no self-sufficient answer to anything
Bro your answer is literally in your question

>>17543670
>your brain was not designed to even notice much less adequately check.
Why is this a point? Humans werent designed to fly and have electricity, yet we have em. If anything we should awknoledge our limits and try to break em if they are in the way of making us better.

>>17544571

>So you admit this post is about your fear of taking risks and failing. Also about your neurosis and doubts about your own beliefs. Hence your desperation to defer to a figure of authority.

Yes, but I'm also claiming everyone else ought to feel the same so we can mitigate error, chaos, pride, etc

>Do you plan on remaining your Guru's student for the rest of your life? Or do you plan on finally being an adult and testing your ideas directly?

You never stop being your Guru's student. Even Buddha still referenced his teachers after his enlightenment. There's no such thing as an independent Buddhist.

>But you are a Tibetian Buddhist studying under a Guru. What "team" do you form? And for what purpose?

The Kagyu Lineage, for the purpose of experiencing that absolute direct truth beyond the scope of the human mind. Or, failing that, a good rebirth.

>>17544623

I'm not saying pain doesn't exist or that you won't experience it, I'm saying that it doesn't "mean" anything in a higher sense and is thus useless. The best you can do is repeat a series of learned steps and hope they still work when you do them. You can't know that though, and you won't know why, and you'll walk away with as much existential confusion and paralysis as you experienced when you stabbed yourself.

>>17544656
The Chad Hume vs the virgin descartes

>>17544673
>You see something in the dark, and as the ambiguity of perception is the perception of ambiguity you open yourself up through your body to the ambiguity and the ensuing duration of its resolution.
You see something with your senses, and you withhold judgment about what it is, ie. your belief about what exists there, until you can determine what it is. This is not divorced in any way from immediate experience, this is the intuitive experience everyone has. What do you think a person means when they say 'i think that's a tree there'?

>>17543670
>Independent, critical thinking is a sure path to hubris, bias confirmation, cherry picking, and a whole host of other flaws your brain was not designed to even notice much less adequately check.
There's a thing called ego death that helps with that, actually.

>>17544708
Goddam you are so fucking dumb holy shit I now just feel bad for you amigo I’m sorry but my god you’re so wrong
I don’t see with my senses, I see, I don’t withhold judgement, the perception of ambiguity and the ensuing non-judgement is a judgement. It’s not an intuitive experience, it’s how you, after having an experience, strip it down then shove it into a representation through reflection, it’s fundamentally disconnected from the experience, a non-experience a biunivocalization of a polyvocality, and a loss-poor one at that.
>getting filtered this hard by Merleau-Ponty
Fuck I’m glad I’m not you :^)

>>17544691
>Yes, but I'm also claiming everyone else ought to feel the same so we can mitigate error, chaos, pride, etc
Best way to mitigate error is by testing your ideas and learning from your mistakes. Because you receive immediate feedback from the world. Whereas pure contemplation is divorced from the world. The only criteria for acceptance is internal consistency. It need not even have resemble anything in this world. So obsessive pursuit of self-sufficient truth does nothing except create more people like you.
>You never stop being your Guru's student
Nope. You grow up. If you truly believe this then you will forever remain subservient to your Guru and never directly test your ideas or instincts.
>The Kagyu Lineage, for the purpose of experiencing that absolute direct truth beyond the scope of the human mind. Or, failing that, a good rebirth.
Good luck.

>>17544737
>, the perception of ambiguity and the ensuing non-judgement is a judgement.
That doesn't contradict anything I said, that is just another belief you hold, about the ambiguity of your belief 'i am not sure what i'm seeing'.

>i dont see with my senses
Yes you see with your sense lmao, you know what your vision is and you have a belief that your vision corresponds to actually existing objects, which allows you to form beliefs based on what you see.

>>17544691
>I'm not saying pain doesn't exist or that you won't experience it, I'm saying that it doesn't "mean" anything in a higher sense and is thus useless
So, go and stab yourself and we can deconstruct it - rationally.

>>17544766
>Yes you see with your sense lmao
Dude you’re so trapped in representing experience to yourself you lack the ability to understand experience is non-representational until reflection. I don’t belief in my vision or the world, I interact and experience the world through my body. Fucks sake lad get it together.
I am not saying the same thing as you, and I am contradicting you; if I wanted to say the same thing I’d use the same words. You’re a fool.

>>17544691
I should stop poking you and just explain. Pain brings it's own meaning along with the experience as evidenced by the fact you will not willingly subject yourself to it.

It MEANS that you WILL behave a certain way, and will not subject yourself via your own volition to unneeded or unjustified pain.

Which means it's a fundemental experience and you cannot hand wave it away, when you are in pain there is nothing which can assuage your senses - you are mired in the deepest meaning possible.

>>17544797
>I interact and experience the world through my body
yeah your eyes are the part of your body that gives you the sense of vision, which lets you form beliefs based on what you see. And yes you do ahve a belief that your vision lets you gather information from the world outside you.

>>17544812
>willfully missing the point this fucking hard
You are given over to experience in a unity of perception, not a split multiplicity of senses and judgement. You are so stupidly disconnected from the experience of being a body. Fucking permanent organ having dipshit

>>17544839
The parts of the brain related to vision are connected with the parts related to forming beliefs, the two are in a feedback loop together of course, but they are still different regions. I'm quite connected with my experience of being a body and I can easily distinguish between my vision and my belief about what exists. Again think about when it's dark, you explicitly wonder 'what am i looking at, what exists out there that my vision is imperfectly reporting to me'. In most situations you just trust whatever you're looking at.

The 'unity of perception' you're referring to is not some homogenous whole, it has qualitatively different elements to it that are all present in any given conscious moment.

>>17544865
>>17544839
You're both idiots, just so you know.

>>17544872
I'm sure you have a really good counterargument, you just have better things to do than explain it lel

>>17544865
Ughhhhhhh you’re so fucking stupid it’s amazing
If you have to have recourse to the biological realities of organs to explain perception you’re not explaining perception
>he thinks thinking is in complete sentences
> you explicitly wonder 'what am i looking at, what exists out there that my vision is imperfectly reporting to me
If you’re autistic, sure, otherwise no. My
God.
> The 'unity of perception' you're referring to is not some homogenous whole,
By nature of it being given over to my as a whole and my experience of being shit through by it, and the way my organs come to be and comport themselves to phenomena yes, it entirely does. Your problem is confusing biological realities with the experience of consciousness, and represented thought for though. They are not, and never will be the same.

>>17544920
>If you have to have recourse to the biological realities of organs to explain perception you’re not explaining perception
The two directly relate to each other and show the same thing in this particular topic.
>By nature of it being given over to my as a whole and my experience of being shit through by it, and the way my organs come to be and comport themselves to phenomena yes, it entirely does.
No it doesn't, it has different parts all in one moment, vision, hearing, emotion, touch, ideas, etc. These all register as different things intuitively despite being part of one conscious moment.

>>17544891
A cogent understand if neurophysiology is all that's needed to draw practical conclusions about the origin of experience. Consciousness, on the other hand, is mysterious in the extreme and anyone who claims to have demonstrable and indubitable insight into the structure of its perceptual frameworks from a teleological or phenomenological perspective is, in my very educated opinion, an idiot.

Hence I called you both ones.

>>17544920
>If you’re autistic, sure, otherwise no. My god
missed this part, I assume you just have never been in the dark and wondered what you were looking at, perhaps you have lived in a very bright room your entire life.

>>17544944
Not really related to anything I said, and you didn't address any particular statement I made.

Every dogma the Church ever defined passed peer review

>>17544941
>The two directly relate to each other and show the same thing in this particular topic.
As biology they relate to each other, as experience they do not. Do you feel the motion of atoms in your neurons as they fire off? No, you feel sensations of consciousness. That’s like saying that the thuroarytenoids play a role in giving a speech; it willfully misses the point.
> No it doesn't, it has different parts all in one moment, vision, hearing, emotion, touch, ideas, etc. These all register as different things intuitively despite being part of one conscious moment.
Demonstrably false, what you’re describing is clinical schizophrenia. We regularly have the various sensations given over to us recede and come to the front. No one is experiencing smell at all moments, but it comes to the forefront when it does. My skin is in contact with countless discrete surfaces I can feel, yet if I felt all of them in one moment I’d be completely overwhelmed. What my mind holds it’s intention on, by way of intentionality brings to the forefront the organs required for it. I’m driving I am not holding the idea of a red octagon in front of me, I am stopping. In looking at a clock I see no white circle cut up by regular black lines, I see that I am late or early
>>17544955
Come on now that’s not how dark is experienced.
>>17544944
>no one had practical conclusions prior to neurophysiology
>consciousness is a mystery
Is this your brain on materialism? Pure cope.

Why aren’t any of you posting images? This is an image board

>>17544991
>As biology they relate to each other, as experience they do not.
What I mean is that the senses belong to different organs and brain regions, and we experience them as different senses, they aren't melded into one type of sense.

If you actually can't feel an emotion and see something at the same time, and think it's schizophrenia to do so, I think you have brain damage. When you look at the clock you see the clock, and you have a belief about being late or early, these are separate types of experience you have at the same time. And that is how dark is experience you actively question the relation between the content of your vision and the objects that exist there, it brings to the fore the difference between the sense and belief.

>>17545014
>these are separate types of experience you have at the same time
They aren’t separate, you separate them after you have them. Jesus Christ that’s the core thing I keep saying. You keep representing experience qua signified as a series of signifiers related to finite pieces of experience rather than having an understanding that representation fundamentally requires time to have already past in order to represent the experience to yourself.
And yes, that’s what schizophrenia is, the inability to experience a constant, consistent world and being over penetrated by unrelated, non understandable experience that can’t be composed into a meaningful world; there’s a reason there’s never been a blind schizophrenic

>>17544278
>For the reasons I pointed out; it opens you to self-deception on account of your brains inherent flaws.

Is being lied to/manipulated by someone else really better than tricking yourself? At least you can learn from your own mistakes. With an authority figure you can correct their mistakes because “they’re always right”

>>17545045
Forgot image I’m sorry

>>17545045
>They aren’t separate, you separate them after you have them
No they are separate as they are given, you immediately recognize an emotion as an emotion, and a vision as a vision. You can then have higher-order beliefs about these things, but they are separate right from the beginning, you are confusing the fact that they all exist in one conscious moment together with the idea that they are the same thing.

And there could be any number of reasons why congenitally blind people don't suffer from schizophrenia, the disease is not yet understood so you can't take that as evidence for anything.

>>17545080
Where are you drawing these ideas from? They’re incredibly scattered and inconsistent with anything other than language
The only three books I’ve referenced
In the entirety of this convo are anti-oedpius, a thousand plateaus and the phenomenology of perception. You seem to mix varied zeitgeist ideas together into a whole tied by language. Schizophrenia is very well understood.

>>17545099
Schizophrenia is not well understood in the least, it isn't even really one disease, the mechanism is not clear at all, no mental illness is entirely understood because the brain is not entirely understood, not even close.

If the different types of experience were not separate as given how would you distinguish them as different types after the fact? How is that you don't ever confuse sight and sound, they are always immediately, intuitively distinguishable as different modes of experience? What could it even mean to confuse two of these types of experience, our brain literally can't even conceive of it, because they are fundamentally different types of experience.

>>17545117
Oh okay so you have no actual education, you’re pulling all of this out of your ass. Schizophrenia remains well understood, independent of your clear inexperience with it.

>>17545141
You did not respond to any of the arguments I made, and the mechanisms behind schizophrenia are not well understood, there are some tentative studies about various brain processes and genes that may be related to it

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn3155
>Schizophrenia, autism and intellectual disabilities are best understood as spectrums of diseases that have broad sets of causes. However, it is becoming evident that these conditions also have overlapping phenotypes and genetics, which is suggestive of common deficits. In this context, the idea that the disruption of inhibitory circuits might be responsible for some of the clinical features of these disorders is gaining support. Recent studies in animal models demonstrate that the molecular basis of such disruption is linked to specific defects in the development and function of interneurons — the cells that are responsible for establishing inhibitory circuits in the brain. These insights are leading to a better understanding of the causes of schizophrenia, autism and intellectual disabilities, and may contribute to the development of more-effective therapeutic interventions.

>>17545166
>nature.com
>paywall article
Lol you can’t even mention a book, a school of thought or a theorist you’re engaging with. What a hack.

>>17545179
You cant even respond to the arguments I'm making, give it a try, reply to what I said about the senses and other modes of experience being fundamentally different. It is not in the least controversial that the mechanisms behind schizophrenia are not understood, try to link a paper that says it has figured it out, it doesn't exist.

>>17545193
I’ve responded repeatedly to it with the same point in different words in hopes it would stick in the sieve you call a brain. And I did, I listed three books that answer your high-school educated argument 3 different ways

>>17545207
Reply to this post
>>17545117
>If the different types of experience were not separate as given how would you distinguish them as different types after the fact? How is that you don't ever confuse sight and sound, they are always immediately, intuitively distinguishable as different modes of experience? What could it even mean to confuse two of these types of experience, our brain literally can't even conceive of it, because they are fundamentally different types of experience.

Naming books is not an argument. Show me a paper that says it has figured out the mechanisms behind schizophrenia.

>>17545207
Forgot peek chore

>>17543670
>If this is the case, why does western culture continue to cling to the fallacy of independent thinking?
Because Western culture is based on the fallacy of independent existence.

>>17545215
lol dude you’re so fucking dumb it’s great. That’s like asking how after looking at a clock face I can tel it’s also a circle. Or after looking at my foot after a pain I can tell it has five toes.
You understand that academic books are like big long academic papers right?
“On a question prior to any treatment of psychosis” by Jacques lacan
“Toward a theory of schizophrenia” by Gregory Bateson
“The intertwining-the chiasm” by Maurice merleau Ponty
The point of naming books is to contextualize points that someone who is educated would then be able to have a greater understating of the background from which points are drawn lmao
Speaking of missed points, why don’t you post images on our image board?

>>17545260
So you can't formulate your own argument, you can't even begin to do so, but you think namedropping books counts as some kind of win. Your sources on schizophrenia mechanisms are...Lacan and Bateson, who are not even doctors, and have nothing to do with the medical literature on schizophrenia. Acting like the 'theories' these guys shit out are respected by the people that actually study schizophrenia and other mental disorders is laughable.

Not only are you so bad at thinking you can't make your own arguments, the sources you choose to mindlessly fellate in place of thought are complete bullshit themselves.

>>17545299
Oh great you’ve moved from not understanding what I’m saying to not being able to read the people I draw from. Nice man, real proud of you. Nice image too. And yes, we still use Lacan and Bateson here, as well as Klein and Luhman in our approaches to mental health. You’re very clearly an American, only someone from that country would discount entire swathes of research in the human mind without even reading it.

>>17545318
Psychoanalysis is a fucking joke that nobody in the actual psychological or neurological communities respects.

And you are again entirely incapable of responding to what I said yourself, how do we distinguish between these modes of perception after they happen, by what mechanism? How do you account for the fact that they are different sense organs and regions of the brain, and we intuitively experience sense as fundamentally different from each other?

You've reduced yourself to repeating 'read book' and 'y arent u posting picture' because you are a brainless piece of shit

>>17545352
I keep saying the same thing over and over. If you honestly want an explanation that’s better than what I can write, read the merleau Ponty piece, one of the bases of his writing is answering the second paragraph of your post here. He had an entire book, the phenomenology of perception where he discusses it. What’s nice about skilled writers is often they have entire books that are hundreds of pages long that explain more than a post on 4chan can. Additionally, if you were drawing on actual sources I’d word my responses in a way that would fit more into the perspective you’re coming from. But you have no perspective, no actual point, just fragmented views from the zeitgeist of America, pressed pieces of an assemblage, lines of drawn by the faceless abstract machine, countless collective assemblages of enunciation speaking indirect discourse through your arrogant mind that claims these flows for your own.
Bet you won’t understand that either.

>>17545352
>Psychoanalysis is a fucking joke that nobody in the actual psychological or neurological communities respects.
This is your brain on america

>>17545414
>read book
Yeah thanks for that post again, you've already proven dozens of times you can't make your own arguments, but do it again a few more times if you want.

>>17545425
>>17545414
funny that these two posts are almost exactly 1 minute apart from each other, just that couple extra seconds you tend to see when...

>>17545428
Okay, respond to my part about the assemblage and indirect discourse then, since you’re discounting the rest.

OP, I’ve stood by long enough to verify that you are retarded. You are the authority on retardation, and when I metaphysically sat with you, you showed me why, faggot.

>>17545352
>Psychoanalysis is a joke.
Nigga have you even read Jung?

>>17545441
Explain what you're talking about and I'll respond to it. You reply to what I said about differentiating between the different senses

>>17545445
I’m
Not
The
O
P
You
Faggot

>>17545454
Then you’re even stupider. Stop fighting for a crusade whose implications you don’t understand.

>>17545452
I did explain it, it’s in my post. Maybe if you were smart enough you could understand words not taught in the American school system

>>17544002
The claim "asbestos is a great insulator" is still true and that's not the problem with asbestos.

Also non-ionizing radiation does not ionize, but it can still be dangerous for other reasons.

>>17545470
>Cartesian butthurt
Keep responding to me please

>>17545471
Quote your post and the relevant text. And again still waiting on your argument about differentiating between the senses.

>>17545487
>But you have no perspective, no actual point, just fragmented views from the zeitgeist of America, pressed pieces of an assemblage, lines drawn by the faceless abstract machine, countless collective assemblages of enunciation speaking indirect discourse through your arrogant mind that claims these flows for your own.
Oh and I’ve explained about the senses 4 different ways above lol. That’s why I recommended the article by merleau Ponty after you asked for an article, at which point you told me you wouldn’t read the article you asked for.

>>17545512
That's an argument about what i said, that's a random string of insults about where you think my views come from you gigantic retard.

Quote the post where you explain how we differentiate between the senses and why it is impossible to be mistaken about which sense you're experiencing, and why these different senses also correspond to different organs and brain regions. Recommending an article is not an argument.

>you might make mistakes, so let others make mistake for you!
Interesting

>>17545446
What’s neat is that psychoanalysis has a massive influence on a bunch of different fields, Jung pops up all over the place in literary theory, business and marketing, film studies, comparative mythology and of course psychology.
Lacan’s in the same place, but take away business and marketing to replace them with linguistics. It’s a shame that it’s so undervalued in the Anglosphere when it silently influences so many of them

>>17544031
but rely on others faulty senses? How does that fix the core of the issue you are talking about? You know that the authority is like you... and thus are deceiving yourself by accepting their rule.

>>17545543
>academics quote psychoanalysts in their literary theory, therefore the unsubstantiated gibberish these retards spewed about schizophrenia matters
based faggot

>>17545527
>that's a random string of insults about where you think my views come from you gigantic retard.
Lol, filtered entirely
> Recommending an article is not an argument.
Then why did you ask me for them?
Man you’re really mad. You should take a breather, then look at the responses you gave. That will let you see what I’ve said
several
Times
Over
For someone who’s made claims about the mind and mental health, you’d think you would be able to stop yourself from being so mad at the internet. Guess you don’t know what you’re talking about, huh?

>>17544089

>I'm not disputing that, I'm saying it's better to be misled by others because you were humble and submitted to them, then to be misled because you were arrogant and fell victim to problems like bias confirmation.

Simplistic, binary thinker detected. There really is not middle ground with people like you.

If you are studying anything philosophical or scientific then give up. You lack the critical thought to proceed.

Critical thought is a balanced capacity for self-criticism. It isn't what you are labeling it as.

The Enlightenment required that we be taught that no spiritual universe exists; all things are a mere mechanical computation in an energy vacuum, and any hopes for our souls are insubstantial beyond what we can immediately observe.

>>17545571
Yes that’s quite literally how fields of study work. Psychoanalysis necessarily engages with litterature, especially things in the realm of schreber and Nijinsky. It’s really a cool field, working at different clinics for my PhD was one of my favorite experiences

>>17545543
>Jung
>Swiss
>undervalued in the anglosphere

nigga what are you on?

>>17545592
>energy vacuum

thats spirit, nigga.

>>17545576
It is literally a string of insults about where my views come from, not their content.
>fragmented views from the zeitgeist of america
>pressed pieces of an assemblage
>speaking indirect discourse through you
Not a single thing about the content of what I said. You're actually incredibly fucking stupid

>then why did you ask me
I asked you to reply, yourself, with the brain you claim to have in your head, with an argument about what I said myself. You can even just paraphrase the views of the people you dicksuck as long as you can apply them to the specifics of what I said.

>>17545601
Meanwhile people that actually study the causes of schizophrenia, try to identify the mechanisms responsible and possible treatments, laugh at you

>>17545603
Compared to something like Klein’s development of partial objects or Lacan’s signifying chain, Jung is much more popular, especially with self-help types, his idea of shadow or how Jordan Peterson loves Jung. Psychoanalysis as psychoanalysis is much less popular than Jung as a cool mystic guy.
>>17545628
Lol I laugh at myself?

>>17545618
>You can even just paraphrase the views of the people you dicksuck as long as you can apply them to the specifics of what I said.
I’ve done this repeatedly lmao
And no, you really keep getting filtered, and madder at each filter you fail to pass

>>17545643
Quote your post where you made an argument yourself, with your own words about this
>>17545527
>Quote the post where you explain how we differentiate between the senses and why it is impossible to be mistaken about which sense you're experiencing, and why these different senses also correspond to different organs and brain regions. Recommending an article is not an argument.

As in the content, not where you think my ideas come from, that is not argument. Saying 'filtered' is also not an argument. Posting frogs isn't either

>>17545661
>Saying 'filtered' is also not an argument. Posting frogs isn't either
Where do you think you are gay boy? Ever since you showed that you have literally no background in this topic outside of whatever ideas breeze into your head from your lifestyle I’ve been posting to make you madder and madder. You came all the way to this board, a literature board, just to argue about the bland Cartesianism laying around in the world that you have no conception about. Dude you really are dumb, here’s a quote of mine for you
>Goddam you are so fucking dumb holy shit I now just feel bad for you amigo

>>17545708
Yet another post showing you can't make an argument, by all means keep adding them on. If anything this makes you even more pathetic that you can't argue with someone you think has no background. And it's obviously not that you have better things to do since you just keep posting and posting. You could have made a basic reply to that post quite a while ago, but you're not going to, because you actually can't

>>17543670
You've convinced me anon. Now which authority should I submit to?

>>17545726
Lol man you’re so fucking dumb it’s great, I’ve yet to meet someone like you irl and I relish the opportunity to keep talking to you, to see your inability to grasp at straws. If you think I’m not forming an argument, you can add arguments to the list of things you don’t know about

>>17545750
You can't quote a single post you've made in this thread related to that simple question I asked you about differentiating between the senses. When I asked you to do so last time you made a random series of guesses about where you think I got my ideas rather than replying to what I said, and unbelievably sadly, that was actually the closest you've gotten to responding, you've now degraded into just saying 'im trolling lel ur mad' because you realized you can't reply.

>>17545628
Psychfag here.

We don't know anything about schizophrenia and Jungs work is the best we have. Anyone who tells you anything different is a liar. Consciousness is an absolute mystery.

Schizophrenia is exceptionally difficult to comprehend outside of the Jungian frame of reference.

>>17545782
We know a little bit about it, there are studies about brain processes and genes related to it. It remains poorly understood and Jungian theories don't explain it adequately at all. Consciousness is an absolute mystery but mental disorders are not the same thing as the question of what consciousness is.

>>17545761
Anon, he's obviously too smart. I can tell because he's called you "so fucking dumb" at least twice now. Would an emotional idiot say something like that? Of course not. Only a true philosopher would.

>>17545799
Well, how would you describe schizophrenia outside of the Jungian model?

His evidence and arguments are exceptionally compelling. What else could explain the idiosyncrasies of the objective unconscious manifesting themselves through individuals via the production of symbols and imagistic representations across vast stretches of biological time and cultural distances?

>>17544797
My God, not even that guy but you are a moron. Reflection isn't a distinct thing separate from experience.

>>17544226
This is either pilpul or pathetic. Either way, you're wrong.

>>17545860
>Reflection isn't a distinct thing separate from experience.
Yeah, reflecting on past experience is separate from the perception of phenomena. The experience of reflection is distinct from the experience of phenomena in the world

>>17545840
I wouldn't describe it at all yet, because we'd just be guessing at this stage, any number of theories could 'explain' the situation but we don't know. If Jungian therapy helps people that is another matter.

>>17544278
>But that is what you are proposing when you declare, with certainty, despite any independent and entirely self-sufficient proof, that your senses are valid. The only question is who do you trust to tell you your senses are valid - yourself or another.
Stop with the pilpul. All proofs require basic axioms like "I can trust my senses and logic". Without those axioms, a proof isn't possible. Your point is sophomoric and idiotic.

>>17545885
No it is not. Experience itself is the taking-in of phenomena reflection on them simultaneousy. Your desire to strip away what is essential to Being, to human person as human person, into discrete entities of perception and reflection that follow one after another in a time-series is simply put erroneous.

>>17545840
Schizophrenia as process and schizophrenia as disease are two different things, which is really interesting. But schizophrenia is the inability to consistently assign phenomena to a given world within the life of the schizophrenic.
>>17545885
Based Pontychad

Better to be irrational and based than rationally cringe.

>>17545888
It's not so much that it helps the patient in so much as analyzing them provides an opportunity for insight which can then be articulated up into something like a methodological application of the abstracted idea of unconscious processes and their identifiers.

If his model isn't objectively correct it's, without doubt, the most useful one we have for extracting wisdom from the suffering of schizophrenic patients.

>>17545914
Dude what that’s fucking ridiculous, action and reflection are incredibly separate. Have you never played a sport before, chopped wood, narrowly
Missed being in a car crash, had good sex, a decent conversation, made a quip or played an instrument? All of those require pure intentionality devoid of reflection

At no point in human history has any biologically-functional man stood in the state of "perception of phenomena" without reflection happening at the very same time, if this was actually the case you'd be looking at someone who is completely non-responsive and likely stares into space with a blank look on his face and being unresponsive to stimulus.

>>17545929
Sweety reflection isn't simply some deep thought about your past experiences. Perception without reflection is an impossibility in the human person.

>>17545945
People with dementia do this, you're still right though, just made me think of my father.

>>17545921
>extracting wisdom from the suffering of schizophrenic patients.
I'm not terribly interested in this. My interests are understanding the brain and mind, which will explain schizophrenia at least to the degree that it has explained eg. how our eyes and basic visual cortex works(obviously not explaining consciousness itself); and anything that allows schizos to suffer less.

>>17543670
>The only way to have any confidence that you are not deceiving yourself is to submit to an authority that will tell you what to believe
Speak for yourself. Some of us are actually capable of rational, empirical thought, even if you aren't

>>17545957
You’re arbitrarily using terms that contradict each other. Reflection quite literally requires an action separate from perception, it’s in the definition and etymology of the word.

>>17545916
I would disagree. From my experience it's an inability to control consciously the faculty which identifies meaning in the world. We have a mechanism in our brains which ascribes phenomena meaning and significance based on associations made unconsciously, and in schizophrenics this mechanism appears damaged or maladjusted and incapable of differentiating probabilistic possibilities.

For example, you hear your name in a television show and it provides an instant of fascination which quickly fades to a suppression of the manifested associations, i.e, it means nothing to you very rapidly.

A schizophrenic hears their name on the television and the unconscious throws up all sorts of identical associations, but the schizophrenic cannot consciously control or suppress into irrelevancy the associated feeling toned ideas. There is an activation of complexes and no way to assuage the mind of their significance - all manner of theories populate the field of ego-consciousness to rationalize the images and feelings erupting from the unconscious, i.e, their name on the television is of indeterminate or subjectively powerful significance.

>>17545965
You can't understand people unless you are interested in extracting wisdom from them. You may as well turn your scientific faculties towards literally anything else and you will produce far more useful insights.

>>17545981
>A schizophrenic hears their name on the television and the unconscious throws up all sorts of identical associations, but the schizophrenic cannot consciously control or suppress into irrelevancy the associated feeling toned ideas.
Perhaps I’ve worded myself poorly, but that’s quite literally what I mean. Similarly, the way that they often present the idea of their thoughts being stolen and put on tv or the radio to mock them.

>>17545981
>You can't understand people unless you are interested in extracting wisdom from them. You may as well turn your scientific faculties towards literally anything else and you will produce far more useful insights.
Well that's not entirely true, there are eg. people that develop erratic behavior that have brain tumors, and identifying the tumor and getting rid of it helps them. On some more complex level that should apply to most of what goes on in the brain.

>>17546000
>On some more complex level that should apply to most of what goes on in the brain.

>>17545996
I would recommend studying projection and introjection. They are very important for properly articulating schizophrenic symptomatology.

>>17546000
A comprehensive understanding of both the psyche from the objective and subjective perspectives are needed to develop any useful theories regarding consciousness.

If you're going to exclusively study the brain as an object you may as well do something else. Even physics has had to come around to including the subjective factor of phenomena in their quantum theorizing.

>>17545978
This will be my last post because you are clearly an idiot. First I am not speaking about action despite you fucking retardedly repeating this. Refer to my first post: >>17545914

I said experience is perception and reflection simultaneously as essential to human person and its Being. Never have I said anything about action. In the human person, reflection isn't simply some thinking over tea about a thing that happened 10 years ago. It also happens instantenously that you reflect on what is given in perception and act on it without sometimes even conscious thought, that is the condition of the human body. Mere sense perception is not enough to cause any act, nor does any man exist in a state of sense perception without reflective tendencies no matter how minute, thoughtful or bodily they are, if that was the case you'd be looking at an unresponsive man with a blank look who does nothing at all.

>>17546032
>I would recommend studying projection and introjection. They are very important for properly articulating schizophrenic symptomatology.
Ahh yeah man the problem here is most of my clinical language isn’t in English, unless I’m writing a paper or presentation being bilingually conversant in my field is a hard

>>17546050
You write it very fluently, you're about twice as fluent as the typical American so congratulations.

>>17546010
The brain is a physical object, and again we have understood things like the visual cortex with a fair amount of success, which has helped us understand some things about our experience of sight.
>>17546032
I agree that the subjective and objective are needed to study the mind/brain, I'm just not sure what you mean about wisdom here.

>>17546072
Why would you studying people if you weren't interested in extracting wisdom from them?

You may as well studying ants.

>>17546129
What definition of wisdom are you using here? Anyway I already said a)just to understand how the brain/mind work, and b)to help relieve the suffering of people like schizophrenics.

>>17546137
We seem to be having an arbitrary conversation here.

By wisdom I mean the dictionary definition of wisdom.

>>17546149
Wisdom is a very vague word, and I'm assuming you are using it in some way related to Jung

>>17546166
Studying people without the express intention of extrapolating insight into the way you should live your own life is the equivalent of studying atoms with the express intention of developing your interpersonal skills.

>>17546186
I don't think the analogy holds, the problem with studying atoms for interpersonal skills is that you are dealing with massively different scales, the same holds with studying atoms for large-scale thermodynamic processes. The only meaningful way we can approach interpersonal skills is observing much higher level processes, however we could understand some brain-level processes, eg. brain processes related to autism, which relate to interpersonal skills.

The two things in the first comparison are different in a different way, 'how you should live your life' is an ethical question, while studying the behavior of people is descriptive.

>>17543670
>independent thinking

The tradition of "individual thinking" in the west (particularly as opposed to submission to authority in eastern traditions) isn't the same as "isolated thinking." Practically the entire strain of western though since Plato has relied on natural teleological principles of reason, justice, and beauty. The "independence" is simply the idea that everyone has some capacity to think in accordance with these principles, and to basically navigate them, with more or less help in terms of reflective meaningful dialogue with others (or even yourself, if you are patient enough and self-critical). If "independent thinking" were "isolated thinking" we'd have no coherent strains of anything; it would be /lit writ.

>>17543670
that authority is me