/lit/ - Literature

>>20913864
The book is already the tl;dr on the topic. It was written for the layman.

>>20913864
There's no tl;dr as it's introduction into his system of psychology.
Anyway, if you're looking for something on symbols and how they affect us, you can check out pic rel

>>20913870
Second this, best place to start with Jung imo, it was the last book he published and is a very easy to read overview of his main ideas.

>>20913870
>>20913879
>>20913880
Tl;dr on his main ideas? Just the archetype stuff? Introversion/extraversion? "Collective unconscious"? I learned about these at school and it was boring.

>>20913928
Well, that's why you can't have a tl;dr
There's a whole system of thought. Archetypes alone are fairly difficult to grasp mainly because of the nuances associated with them, so it's better to just read some essays and short works to get a grasp. Aside from Jung's essay in Man and his Symbols I've found him pretty difficult to read. If you're looking for jungian psychologist that's a bit more accesible, then you can check out Robert A. Johnson.
I used to be very interested in Jung, and then I abandoned psychoanalysis to a large extend.

>>20913937
>I used to be very interested in Jung, and then I abandoned psychoanalysis to a large extend.
Well what happened?

>>20913928
Just read the wikipedia entries, faggot. No one will give you the tl;dr here.

>>20913941
I had a moment of clarity and also got inspired by some of the stuff from Gestalt psychology, and decided to take on a simpler route of simple clean living. I enjoy reading Zen stories and I no longer want to read up all sorts of stuff on psychology. I used to want to read a lot on psychology because I was not doing too well mentally, but now that I'm better, I don't have that need anymore. Psychoanalysis, including psychoanalytic therapy I was in, led to me sort of closing myself in my thinking without much breakthrough.

>>20913953
Makes sense. Why not Christianity?

>>20913970
I don't know how to approach Christianity properly. I have a sense that there is a lot of peace in prayer and imagery and that'd could ease the soul (maybe literally). It would also seems somewhat fitting since I'm Slavic and my family has been raised with Orthodox Christianity in the background. Still, I'm not sure where to start and I haven't got anyone near me that'd be a partner for that either.
In that sense, Zen stories are good in that solitude and they are also a lot of fun when things aren't looking so great.

>>20913977
I hope you'll find God anon, a good place to start is at a nearby Orthodox Church.

>>20913928
Your request was too wordy. Can you give me the tl;dr version?

>>20913999
I'm lone wolfing too much for that, plus it's generally associated with culture that I don't want to associate myself with. I guess there is always some sort of a curse in a family and peoples that you are descendant of.

>>20914025
>I'm lone wolfing too much for that, plus it's generally associated with culture that I don't want to associate myself with.
That's your issue and why you don't know how to approach Christianity. Because you have to approach it with a pure heart without worrying about your image. When you'll do that, you'll be welcomed.

>>20914039
Well, I could approach Zen more easily. On top of that, you're proposing connecting with a community, that's not the same as finding God in the Christian sense though.

>>20914042
>Well, I could approach Zen more easily.
That's true, but Christianity may be more rewarding.
>On top of that, you're proposing connecting with a community, that's not the same as finding God in the Christian sense though.
What do you mean?

>>20914055
>What do you mean?
I didn't have to join any group to find out more about Zen and benefit from it. I don't know how to do the same with Christianity.
>Christianity may be more rewarding
How come?

>>20913953
This is Jung's entire point though. You can't analyze your way out of psychosis but have to approach unconscious. Reading psychoanalytic theory is not a curative and is likely to be worse for you if prone to neurotic overanalysis. It's no surprise from a Jungian view that Zen was good for you.

>>20913953
>>20913977
>>20913970

This is good posting, and reading it made my day better. Over the span of the internet I wish you all peace. Keep living right, you don't know how much good a good example does for other people.

>>20914059
But what makes you think that finding God in the Christian sense is unrelated to connecting with a community? Christianity is about love of others, so a community is important to it.
>How come?
It may be closer to what you need in this life to fill your soul. You know better than me what you need and what you lack to feel full. Christianity could have that.

>>20914085
Well, his journey seems very complicated to me.
If you cannot analyse your way out then why is it called psychoanalysis and being in analysis? You have to approach the unconscious but how? Analysing dreams seems to be almost the wrong approach here since it doesn't approach, it detaches and then analyses. With purpose of getting an insight of course, but that didn't seem to be enough. Not for me anyway.

>>20914099
>But what makes you think that finding God in the Christian sense is unrelated to connecting with a community?
It's not that it's unrelated. It's that I'm not knowledgeable on Christian doctrines and way of approaching life. So for me the starting point isn't the community. Alas, there are reasons for which I'm not a part of a wider community, but to describe it would be a different issue altogether. It's a very specific combination of outside and inside elements, and I haven't found a way to reconciliate with that yet.
Now that we talk about Christianity, I've been pretty interested in how "southern" people (Caribbean, Spanish, Italian) approach Christianity. To them, death seems much more natural part of life, and there's less depression. They also have a much bigger and more lively community. I feel like my path is a lot more lonely in that sense.

>>20914130
>It's that I'm not knowledgeable on Christian doctrines and way of approaching life. So for me the starting point isn't the community.
But what if the way of approaching Christian life is through a community? Also, going to the church is not too involved, you can easily go to liturgy without anyone talking to you at all. Just showing up there may already help with reconciliating your community issues.

>>20914165
Maybe it has to be approached through community. I'll postpone my decision on that one.

>>20914199
Makes sense, good luck anon.

>>20913953
What collections of zen stories have you read?

>>20914561
Zen flesh, zen bones

>>20913864
Read guenon instead. Jung is an agent of the antichrist.

>>20915948
So is Guenon. Also I thought Jung was friendly to Christianity

>>20913937
>I used to be very interested in Jung, and then I abandoned psychoanalysis to a large extend.
As someone who's absolutely fascinated by Aion I feel even if you think it's bollocks he definitely knew how to backup his bollocks with insane (pun) amounts of research

christfags ruined this board holy shit, literal conversion agents. Not that Jung is much better, but OP you need to understand that the Jungian path will just contrive your ability to appreciate proper psychology. His ideas are completely unfounded, and one has to contemplate what meaning a symbol can have if it was never present in a certain culture.

You want sensible analysis of global spiritual ideas? Read Joseph Frazer and Mircea Eliade. You want sensible analysis of psychology? Read Freud and Lacan. True spirituality is about sacred silence (It serves the foundation of creativity!) defining it in the way fad-loving christians do, will always deny you a proper concept of god and their creation.

You want to go further? Study physics and chemistry.

>>20916215
>Joseph Frazer and Mircea Eliade
What's the difference between them? Eliade's series is so long it would take me months to get through it. Did he really have a good understanding of other major religions?

>>20916251
same anon: I would argue that Frazer is even a little outdated. But because anthropology isn't a veritable science, understanding where perspectives began with religious anthropology is key in understanding it's trajectory. The same can be said about Eliade but to a lesser extent. But yes, he's one of at least 2 or 3 contemporary authors (at least 20th century) who try to express their topics with as little bias as possible. It's actually very hard to find contemporary anthropologists because for the most part, they've been completely overtaken by archaeologists and historians. I love anthropology, but the issue with it, is that it's still just a groundwork for global spirituality, in the 21st century, it's much easier to develop an opinion about these things yourself thanks to museums and the like.

>>20916263
>I love anthropology, but the issue with it, is that it's still just a groundwork for global spirituality,
What do you mean?

>>20916205
It's mainly backed by an insane amount of his interpretation of various mythological material.

>>20916215
>OP: interested in how symbols are used to affect our soul/unconscioius
>You: fuck conversion agents. Also, read physics and chemistry.
Very subtle demonic agent.

>>20916361
He's right though.
Whatever you want to talk about on this conversation has its foundations however far down on physics and chemistry

>>20916381
No it doesn't. Physics has its foundation in spiritual causes. There's a reason materialists can't figure out causality.

>>20913864
Read his autobiography

>>20916326
It can only be applied in theory. Anthropology is about constant retrospective about what evidence we can find, and how we can extrapolate a commonality from it. In terms of technological progress, it's very easy to discern what cultures did and didn't invent, but whether or not a serpent has the same iconography as another culture is up for debate. The desire to find that commonality is spiritual in nature, because science has little regard for defining commonality in something just because they look alike.

>>20916361
>>20916393
And yeah, OP. These are the kinds of people who are going to try and argue my stance. I'm not an atheist either, but you can clearly see how this is more about creating organisation outside of government for these sycophants, than actually becoming closer to the prima materia. I do hope you decide on this all for yourself though, be vigilant, but don't think you need to cement your spiritual beliefs to gain the creator's sympathy, more than anything they just want to see you embrace the pursuit.

>>20913864
>turning to jews for inner spirituality
lol no, even if you ignore the religious aspects, they have no inner world, they are bugs.

>>20916470
We could telll you're a pagan don't worry buddy

>>20913937
>Archetypes alone are fairly difficult to grasp

They aren't though. The claim he makes in Archetypes & the Collective Unconscious is that humanity has a shared mythological "muscle" in their brain that underlies all religions and is what makes them all look very similar to each other even if people are separated by thousands of miles.

>>20916522
Why should I take offense to your assertion if it's only to serve your cemented bias? Go think i'm a pagan, this just proves my points to the OP that symbological endeavors just serve childlike ideologues such as yourself

>>20916215
do you mean james frazer? also please elaborate on the idea of sacred silence. I am very interested because I have recently become disillusioned with the ordinary /li/ approved path of spirituality

>>20916576
>the ordinary /li/ approved path of spirituality
Which one is that? Unironically

>>20916576
Yeah, sorry. James Frazer (Not sure why I always mix his name up). Sacred silence is probably going to differ from person to person, especially because one of it's tenets is to not overly explicate it's concept, but to me, it's generally about taking a utalitarian approach to life. Technologies will inevitably supercede our ability to deny their useages, and trying to deliberate that technology in respect to human happiness is key for me.

The times will inevitably change, so it's important to try and figure out how our spirituality will evolve alongside industry. More often than not, people resort to extreme ideology because they sit in an economic belt where they've been denied elucidation on shifts in technology or infrastructure, and that extreme ideology becomes cathartic to their extreme disposition to their environment. If I want to explain the beauty of nature to my son, I often just take him somewhere nice like a forest or a historical location, and let him just digest the atmosphere.

>>20916581
the one where you end up in guenonfag threads arguing about nonduality and cryptobuddhism

>>20916359
>It's mainly backed by an insane amount of his interpretation of various mythological material.
If you're not
>>20916215
Do you have any other/better recommendations that are similar?
I don't particularly think Aion is fact but the interpretation is like nothing else my pleb mind as imagined.

>>20916381
>Psychology is just applied biology which is just applied chemistry which is just applied physics
>hhuurrrr duuurr If I understand physics I’ll understand psychology then!

Commit unlife

>>20916604
Similar to Aion that I agree with? Probably nothing. But it doesn't mean Aion isn't worth reading just because I disagree with it. The issue with Jung is that he's just as much a fantasy author, as he is a psychoanalyst, and what he represents is something of a dead-end for mental patients, but not necessarily for creative enjoyment.

This might be why he appeals to you, he creates a very romantic blueprint for the mind, which when acknowledged as just an interpretation, is totally harmless. What I find more problematic is when he is treated as a definitive framework for the mind.

Also, I already recommended some books in that first post, maybe if you wanted a more contemporary equivalent to Jung, I would recommend Nick Land's work (again, someone I disagree with, but enjoy his perspectives). Just try not to drink the ccrulaid like he did.

>>20916470
We are still waiting why someone interested in symbols influence on soul would study physics. The only brainlet here is you. Be a man and give a straight answer.

>>20916646
The only definitive symbols in this world appear on the periodic table.

>>20913928
>learned Jung at school and found it boring
>asks /lit/ to summarise Jung for him anyway
Ok, this guy fucks

>>20916670
So you wake up every day and count the number of protons and electrons something has to make sense of it?

>>20916769
This isn't a question, it's nonsense, I tried reading it 3 times and still can't figure out what the hell you just asked

>>20916534
This doesn't explain archetypes though. Archetypes are a different category. Archetypal mother cannot be a real human mother and vice versa. It does get complicated because you have to explain a whole cstegory of things. By the way, Robert A. Johnson explains how misapplication of archetypes is harmful in his book He: Masculine myth.

>>20916604
I'm not
I'm this anon>>20913879
you can check this post with the pic rel in that post. I don't agree with either Jung or Campbell as much though

>>20914130
>You have to approach the unconscious but how?
If you could logically understand the unconscious, wouldn't it be conscious? Have you read the Red Book?

Analyzing your dreams is how you explain to yourself changes and patterns, to keep yourself going insane from the real work, but it is not how you experience the spirituality latent in the unconscious, that requires union with it without absorbing or being absorbed. You're working with "magic." It's not about logic or analysis, and your "knowledge" only clouds your potential "understanding."

Zen stories and zen koans are like little teasers of magic.

>>20916807
>The only definitive symbols in this world appear on the periodic table

>actually when you put it that way looking at the world through the symbols of periodic table is nonsense

Gottem

>>20916807
>he doesn’t know what the numbers on the periodic table even mean
Embarrassing.

>>20916839
By logically you mean consciously? Well, yeah if you make unconscious material conscious, it becomes... conscious.
Zen koans give possibility for what F. Perls called mini-satori, which is a moment of waking up to the 'real life'.

>>20916848
>>20916852
are you ok, this is just further nonsense

>>20916861
I’ll speak slowly so you can understand lol fella. The periodic table is not useful for symbolically rendering reality and understanding physics does not help you understand psychology.

I've actually read it and many of his other works, what questions do you have?

>Anyone got a tl;dr on this?
>Anyone got a tl;dr on Jung
lmao, no. I mean, it's an introduction to the four major practical applications of his theory of psychology.

The first chapter, for example, delves into the distinction between what is conscious and what is unconscious. The subsequent chapters delve deeper into structures within the unconscious and how it is that typical humans come into contact with them.

>>20916872
>lol fella
Why are you so lacking in literacy ability. You keep responding but you're not saying anything to refute my points except
>uhhh except it doesn? pwned...
please, go drink a glass of water, have a sit down and collect yourself.

>>20916872
> The periodic table is not useful for symbolically rendering reality and understanding physics does not help you understand psychology.
Patently false.

Consider chemistry: you can have two atoms, both with identical atomic nuclei and yet each having unique valences (the number and structure of the orbiting electrons).

This concept can be applied to things such as phenomenological description of sensation. Consider that I describe to a blind man what the color of bright scarlet "sounds" like. I may well say that it sounds like the sudden blare of a trumpet, in that when seen it involuntarily orients the sense of sight towards itself. Both myself and the blind man are apprehending the same "essential" thing, the color of scarlet, but the "valence" of the percept is completely distinct.

>>20916885
You’re right I’ll study more physics and that will help me understand grammar better ;)

>>20916906
Are you going to tell me someone who is blind and someone who can see experiences the exact same qualia of the color scarlet?

>>20916907
you're like talking to a rebellious child that thrives off contradicting authority. I feel sorry for you

>>20916906
A blind person is never going to see the color scarlet no matter how succinct your explanation of wave forms of light

>>20916915
You talk like a fag and your shits all retarded I think you confused ‘eloquence’ for intelligence and being right.

Interesting how all the humanities brainlets jumped on that one guy like rabid dogs just because he mentioned Physics and Chemistry. For all the talk of "spiritual awakening" they really are a bunch of angry little kids with little direction to their emotional states

>>20916251
Read Eliade. Long but well worth it. If you are interested in the topic at all it will benefit you to read it. Start today.

>>20916937
>sine wave 560 is a more succinct description of the color yellow because physics is a higher phenomenological rendering of reality because it just is okay

Next time you’re in conversation don’t say yellow just say sine wave 560.

>>20916960
You're replying to me exactly as you replied to that other guy. Your response has absolutely nothing to do with the post you're replying to and by itself is complete nonsense.

Please end your suffering.

>>20916646
>We are still waiting why someone interested in symbols influence on soul would study physics.

Everyone should learn physics regardless. Its a beautiful field which conceptualizes how reality works and puts the higher order stuff into better context. Also it arms you with a good bullshit detector so you don't fall into the infinite well of brainlet takes. Especially ones concerning themselves with workings of this world

>>20916937
Physics and Chemistry are great for describing the material world for the purpose of altering it, but unfortunately it lacks the human experience. It's possible the human experience may be one day fully distilled down to physics, but that's meaningless to the one who experiences, unless they're looking for an excuse to fall to nihilism.

Most people who believe themselves to be "spiritual" have simply deluded themselves to believe in a false-god, and not transcended the real problem (meaning in a meaningless universe).

While I personally believe the anon treating science like the apex is wrong, the counters to him are trying to fight the battle on his terms, like a fundamentalist debating an atheist.

>>20916991
>but unfortunately it lacks the human experience

There would be no physics without the human experience!

>>20916914
He's trying his best to bamboozle you into admitting that a physical phenomenon is equivalent to the qualia.
> Both myself and the blind man are apprehending the same "essential" thing
He's trying to imply here that "essentially" the qualia is the physical phenomena: a wave of light, because a wavelength of light can be converted into a given wavelength of sound. So because a sound and a sight potentially can have the same physical source (even though specifically as such media they are different, ie sound and light), they are the same things, except he leaves out that it is only the common sense object which is the same, not the receptive medium ("sense organ") or specific sense object, which results in different essences.

>>20917019
The entire scientific apparatus is an attempt to abstract from the human experience. If we could do that (hence why there is such heavy investment into machine learning, despite its lack of success), physics would come much further along.

>>20917019
There would be no human study, knowledge, or understanding of physics, maybe.

>>20916960
This anon is suggesting what I mean, we can define scientifically what we experience, but we cannot define the experience itself.

Whether mathematics/physics/chemistry exists outside of the human experience is not really knowable, but our scientific mindset assumes that it exists even in a dead universe.

>>20916937
>bro stop calling me out :((((

>>20917051
Different anon
You cannot abstract anything away from human experience. The moment you perceive anything in any form, there comes a relationship between the observer and the observed.

This board is unable to discuss Jung. Many such cases. Sad!

>>20917070
>You cannot abstract anything away from human experience
Of course you can. Most of the objects of physics and chemistry are never witnessed even indirectly, they are merely handled as abstract symbolic objects which are not even perceived. It's all one big consequence of Cartesianism, where human experience is substituted with res extensae. And of course, even machines can do this to a limited extent, which do not possess "human experience", there is no subject-object relationship, just machine processes.

>>20917112
The images/symbols of physics and chemistry are perceived by humans, hence the relationship between the observer and the observed. The fact that we don't directly see something but see it through the machine doesn't mean it's abstracted from human experience. Symbols are also perceived. Everything that is perceived by a human creates that relationship of the observer and the observed and that relationship cannot be avoided since you cannot somehow get non-human perception of things if you're human. You can only toy around with various modes of perception. Human experience cannot be substitited for effectively. You can try doing that (and even living that way for a prolonged period of time), though that's a neurotic way of living. It's being possesed by a fantasy rather than living by your experience.

>>20917149
>The images/symbols of physics and chemistry are perceived by humans
They don't have to be, and those symbols are removed from human experience to begin with which is the point, just not (yet) entirely removed. Res extensae are a scientific cordoning off of the "objective" world under the sign of spatial extension (analytic geometry), which was the basic building block (Cartesian/analytic geometry) for all modern physics and other mathematically derived sciences today. As we all should know, res extensae were abstracted from res cogitantes and opposed to these objects as two separate worlds, the former being everything specifically everything to do with human experience, including subjective perception of colours. Literally everything to do with "human experience" as we know it. Everything that is not res cogitans is ultimately simple and mechanical, and therefore human experience is not needed to manipulate it or "know" it. Therefore, "human experience" is ultimately irrelevant to knowledge of res extensa, even though we still retain traces of it (for now), until it becomes completely redundant in line with the historical trend of eradicating the validity of human experience as a hamper to objectivity.
>Symbols are also perceived.
You're conflating terms here that would never normally be conflated in order to prove your point, which is only causing confusion. Yes, we see a "symbol", but we do not see what the symbol represents, or perceive it in any way. Res extensae are entirely separate from human experience, it's impossible to know them except as abstract thought objects, the key word being "know", because they are dubiously "known", and not "perceived." Hence again why this is a matter of leaving human experience behind, humanity is a fetter to scientific knowledge. Machines will supersede us in this domain.

>>20917051
I think they've come pretty fucking far already if you ask me.

>Whether mathematics/physics/chemistry exists outside of the human experience is not really knowable

You can say the same thing for objects of experience themselves.

Imo the experience itself is rendered in the brain. But how can experience itself "emerge" from happenings in the brain is a big question.

>>20917048
I wasn't going to respond to those other two because they were obviously too stupid to comprehend the concept, but since you've gone ahead and challenged me in a somewhat coherent if flatly erroneous fashion I'll educate you.

When a blind man and a man with sight speak about the color of bright scarlet they are referring to a qualitative property, not merely a qualia. In speaking of this materially instantiated property we may use many different metaphorical devices to phenomenologically transliterate one qualitatively distinct interpretation or apprehension, within the senses, of a specific materially instantiated object as a percept into another.

As a man with sight I can, in a rather unconscious fashion, think up associations to the color which do not in themselves necessitate the capacity to experience the color as a phenomena of sight. This is a messy business, and is quite subjective, but most people would either agree or disagree with the chosen metaphor and therein lies the cogency of the transliteration. If a blind man asks me "what does the color red look like ..." I may well describe it as "alike to a very intense sensation of heat, along with the strange and subtle impulse towards a passion involving the emotions of love and perhaps even rage, under specific mental circumstances".

We are both referring to the same quality, but one of us is unable to relate to it with the necessary sense, and so the employment of metaphor allows for a sort of second-hand relation to develop. It's exactly the same way that many parts of your brain comprehend the nature of color, without themselves having access to the faculty of sight.

>>20917190
>hey are referring to a qualitative property, not merely a qualia.
Are they? How do you know? In my previous post I just demonstrated the difference between a common sense object, a specific sense object, and the receptive medium. When we refer to colour, we refer to the specific sense object, not the common sense object. The specific sense object is the intersection of common medium and receptive medium.
>[...] assuming the materially instantiated property
You're assuming what needed to be proven in the first place.
>I may well describe it as "alike to a very intense sensation of heat, along with the strange and subtle impulse towards a passion involving the emotions of love and perhaps even rage, under specific mental circumstances".
This has nothing to do at all with the question at hand. Neither of you are referring to the same quality, on the one hand the blind man is referring to the presence of heat and passion and trying to link these up into a concept, you already have a tangible sense object which you are linking to concepts. The difference is enormous, equivalent to the distance in logic between inductive and deductive syllogism. Neither of you will be considering the same object (color), in your case you will be considering color, in the blind man's case he will be considering heat and emotion.
>It's exactly the same way that many parts of your brain comprehend the nature of color
No proof for this claim whatsoever. You've just given me a description of inter-human communication and then arbitrarily asserted that this process is the same for my own singular consciousness.

Your post is just more attempted bamboozling without actually gripping the substance of the matter at hand. All you've done is assume what needed to be proven and built on that.

>>20914130
>f you cannot analyse your way out then why is it called psychoanalysis and being in analysis?
because it's the analyst that is doing the analyzing not the subject. They're supposed to help you get at your subjective unconscious thoughts and feelings. Jung called psychoanalysis "a mere expedient" to the individuation process, only needed due to the modern way of hyperrational avoidance which has led our psyche astray into neurosis rather than the natural way of man to accept the unconscious and work with it.

>>20916602
What about this?

>>20917260
>Are they? How do you know?
Only the person with ingress to the faculty of sight knows for certain.

>common sense object, a specific sense object, and the receptive medium.
Your model isn't coherent. I would recommend investigating the subject of semiotics more closely. Please don't defend this point because I won't entertain it.

>You're assuming what needed to be proven in the first place.
Well, we're at a metaphysical point of disagreement and therefore further conversation is impossible.

>Neither of you will be considering the same object (color)
Of course we are considering the same subjectively apprehended qualitative property of a materially instantiated object as a quale of a phenomena. I can see, and the blind man cannot. He is asking me what it is that I see, but to use terms that pertain to my own personal description. The brain works precisely this way, you have words and thoughts and feelings which coagulate into a complex of conceptions that point towards a specific memory which contains the qualia being referred to at a lower level of vividness.

>No proof for this claim whatsoever.
If you've never read the literature on the neuroscience of perception, I suppose you're right.

>>20917285
>Your model isn't coherent.
Very powerful reasoning. Show how, otherwise I'll assume you just gave up.
>Well, we're at a metaphysical point of disagreement and therefore further conversation is impossible.
If you assert that color is inherent solely in external objects, that is a big claim and needs to be justified itself, when you consider the delicate balance between "receptor" and "emitter." Changes to either of them cause changes to the actual subjective perception, the color. So how can color merely subsist on one side of the equation? It can't. This is not even a controversial fact. Some people experience red as green because they are colorblind, they just take it on other people's word that it is "actually" red, when what is actually "red" is just the wavelength, which is not the actual qualia, because they still perceive a different color. Some people experience "red" as a far more fine-grained color because they have more cones. And this is still only at the level of names, there is no reason to think we all necessarily see the same subjective color (because our brains are all "wired" differently, irrespective of ocular impairments), just that we use the same names due to the same common sense object. So the common sense objects are the same, but not necessarily the specific nor receptor.
>Of course we are considering the same subjectively apprehended qualitative property of a materially instantiated object as a quale of a phenomena
How? The blind man is considering heat, the seeing man is considering color. These are two fundamentally contradictory qualia; they are not the same thing.
>The brain works precisely this way, you have words and thoughts and feelings
What underlies all of these are the direct perceptions. You cannot have an infinite regress of words and feelings because otherwise there would be no words or feelings at all. The terminus of the regress is the qualia itself, the singular perception of color which is directly present to awareness. If the blind man does not have access to that terminus, then he will never ever perceive or know what you are talking about. He will be imagining heat and passion, never color.
>If you've never read the literature on the neuroscience of perception, I suppose you're right.
Neuroscience is a science, ie it does not deal in proofs. Anyone who has taken philosophy of science 101 would know that (or even just read Hume).

>>20913864
Watch Jordan Peterson.

>>20917330
Are you literally too stupid to comprehend the pragmatic perspective on metaphors?

>>20917330
For example, you're experiencing qualia both within and as your consciousness; you're thinking about thoughts, right? Now, you're trying to explain to me, as best you can, using symbols which do are not comprised of the same "substance" to direct my attention towards memories that can be used to construct a perspective similar to yours, without the direct apprehension of your conscious frame of reference?

What you are doing RIGHT NOW is logically equivalent to what a man with sight does when he describes the color of bright scarlet to a blind man as alike "the blare of a trumpet".

You're an idiot, I'm a professor, and you can fuck off with your undergrad tamale' tech idiocy.

>>20917076
Excise the Jew poison from your mind.

>>20917190
Lol this is subjective as fuck. None of those things mentioned are objective qualities or "essence" of the color red itself. Maybe you could come up with a better example.

>>20917394
>Lol this is subjective as fuck.
Everything apprehended within consciousness is subjective, retard.

>>20917382
I fail to see how it is relevant to qualia from the perspective of individual human consciousness. It's relevant to communication, sure, but I'm not interested in that.
>>20917388
> using symbols which do are not comprised of the same "substance"
This was never once admitted. Why would our symbols (especially thought, which is the most universal, with access to common sensibles) not be comprised of the same "substance"?
>What you are doing RIGHT NOW is logically equivalent to what a man with sight does when he describes the color of bright scarlet to a blind man as alike "the blare of a trumpet".
It's clearly not, because as long as the termini are equivalent (as I just established in the previous post), then two people with sight can communicate about the same terminal object. Especially if the terminal object is common (ie, in this example, it would be accessible in thought and words to both).
>You're an idiot, I'm a professor, and you can fuck off with your undergrad tamale' tech idiocy.
Disappointing

>>20917408
I consider, as did Jung, as did Peirce (not that you know who that is), as did James, that the mind is a closed system. Your mind and my mind are not the same thing.

>>20917388
By the way, the only thing you have a point on is that referents CAN be mistaken, and that conversation can always be the way you described it (a man with sight describing scarlet). Conversation is in theory difficult, and you will never fully know if both people are exactly considering the same thing, you can only become more and more certain with continued interaction. However, naturally enough you will only ever be certain about what you know yourself. It's very possible that one or the other of us has not considered words or understood things properly in this discourse; that does not refute the possibility of conversation allowing to individuals to grasp the same tangible object, all it does is refute our ability to know that the other person has definitely (100%) grasped it. This is a matter of communication though, and is irrelevant to the actual topic of direct awareness of qualia to the individual.

>>20917426
Of course I know who they are, and they were all for the most part disposed of by Aristotle before they were born.
>Your mind and my mind are not the same thing.
I never said otherwise. I guess it depends upon what you mean by "same thing" though. They are the same in a sense but still individually distinct.

>>20917402
The only way this could work if your own subjective perception of color red encompasses all these qualities that you've associated with it, mostly through experience which is unique to yourself. And now you are trying to describe those subjective experiences of yours regarding the color red to the blind person.

But that's still fucking far from actually communicating to him your visual experience of the color red.

>>20913864
I read it years ago. Like most of Jung's work, it's elevated schzio-babble. It's interesting to hear his head canon but it's even more made up than Freudianism which is saying something.

>>20917330
>>20917388
Ah! I understand this argument now! You're both hypocrites.

One is too close-minded to recognize they're in the middle of an example disproving their argument, and the other is struggling to make a point by a method incompatible with their conclusion.

>>20917277
yes all of that

>>20917457
Yes, it is extremely far. But its not me just stringing random words together, it's more precise. Less precise than the experience, but a lot more precise than me farting in your face.

I'm basically arguing for the validity of symbols from the pragmatic perspective and you dingleberries are trying to use symbols, pragmatically, to prove me either wrong or incoherent.

I hate you all.

>>20917261
Okay, so the analysts analyses you and you can walk around in circles and never get to any breakthrough. Most notable example for me is Woody Allen.
He's been in analysis for over 20 years and still decided that it was somehow a good idea to marry his adopted daughter. Mentally healthy individuals behave in a different manner.

>>20917603
>I'm basically arguing for the validity of symbols from the pragmatic perspective

What's the central thesis here?

>>20917654
That you can use symbols to convey information in a pragmatic fashion.

>Could I be the smartest man alive?

>>20918583
Yeah, but the other guy's point is that not all information can be conveyed via symbols, like the color red, for example.

>>20918974
All percepts are symbols, tho.

>>20919020
Not really no, if symbols are equivalent to their definitions. You could argue red is a symbol for a certain wavelength, but it's pretty clear you can't describe red in a way that a blind man would experience red, i.e. the definition is not equivalent to the thing-in-itself, as opposed to a symbol, where the definition is an effective stand in for the symbol.

>>20917476
I'm not sure which of us you're referring to, I am >>20917330, but there is nothing in my conclusion incompatible with the method. See >>20917427

>>20919170
Correct. This >>20919020 anon is making the classic mistake of mistaking the pointing finger for the moon itself. The thing is I don't even think we ultimately disagree with each other, we only disagree on whether or not red, as qualia directly present to conscious awareness, can be conveyed symbolically, which it obviously cannot. It can only be pointed to. To argue that the moon is the same as the finger pointing to it is the same mistake. To properly comprehend any symbol (the content or object of the symbol) requires intentionality, to see the intent behind the symbol so that one can follow it to its destination and have the object directly presented to awareness, rather than the symbolic intermediary.

>>20919020
>>20919994
The point to ultimately consider (as I see what this anon is hinting at), is that ultimately "one" thing cannot describe another "one" fully, which was already admitted by the "pragmatic symbolism" anon (so even if we assume red as a symbol for something else - ignoring the fact that red cannot be fully encompassed by external symbols). We can only make circles around it via descriptive symbols; as the circumference becomes smoother it becomes better at "describing" the point, qualia, which it encircles. So there is a quantitative imbalance for the amount of symbolic information required to approximate the object being symbolized, compared to the oneness of the object itself, which gives us a ratio of 1(direct object) to x (symbolic magnitude). The object being symbolized is always simple and complete, abiding in oneness, the symbols for the object, to be heuristically accurate descriptors, must be quantitatively greater than the object described by these symbols. The ratio would likely differ depending on context, but it would necessarily be greater than 1:1 because a single thing which is different from a second cannot adequately describe the first without actually being the first (ie, being one with the first). It would be neat if the ratio turned out to be 2*pi*r for symbolic reasons, where r would be the composite factor of the direct object, but I doubt it. The point being without direct access to the object (redness), we will never fully comprehend it, with symbolic objects describing the terminal object we will require a quantitatively greater ratio of them (circumference:radius) in order just to come closer to an accurate description. Comprehending the object directly as one will always be superior to symbolic magnitude, because the latter will never be able to grasp the object itself, it can only "pragmatically" point to it.

>>20916215
>His ideas are completely unfounded
>You want sensible analysis of psychology? Read Freud and Lacan.

>>20917190
>I may well describe it as "alike to a very intense sensation of heat
Okay, sure. Then I guess blue would be alike to a sensation of cold? What color would correspond to a comfortable room temperature? What temperature would you associate with orange? Green? Purple?
>It's exactly the same way that many parts of your brain comprehend the nature of color, without themselves having access to the faculty of sight.
What nonsense are you trying to articulate?

>>20917603
>Yes, it is extremely far. But its not me just stringing random words together, it's more precise.
Precisely articulated nonsense is still nonsense.
>I'm basically arguing for the validity of symbols from the pragmatic perspective
You're doing a staggeringly poor job of it.

>>20920098
Hey this guy isn't retarded. Good point, thanks for your post.

I'M RETARDED

>>20919020
>All percepts are symbols, tho.
Baseless and ridiculous assertion, though at least fairly trivial to falsify (unlike all the most profoundly stupid ideas, which are impossible to falsify).

Any obelisks?

>>20921205
>See the color red for the first time
>Know exactly what it signifies for behavior and cognition instantaously without any conditioned learning
You're the stupid, my freind.

>>20921219
Perception is automatic, not deliberate. Perception is the result of sensory signals, but because objects are perceived through signals does not mean the objects of perception "signify" anything. What happens when a baby first sees the color red? They don't "truly" perceive it because they haven't learned about it? No, you fucking retard.

>>20913864
The book is already the tl;dr on the topic. It was written for the layman.

>>20921236
Meaning is not automatic unless it's archetypal or dealing with pain. Jung and Peirce strike again.

>>20921428
>Meaning is not automatic
Perception is.

>>20921207
no

>>20921441
Take some LSD and get back to me on that one, kid.

>>20921472
That it can be altered does not in any way change the fact that is automatic. LSD doesn't allow you to choose the way in which your perception is altered, it just happens, just as automatically as when you're not on it.

>>20921493
Define automatic.

Also, explain how meaning and perception are distinct.

>>20921236
Oh, nevermind, I just realized that you aren't familiar with Peirces semiotics model.

There is an answer to your puzzle, and it lies within that model. Definitely recommend checking it out.

>>20921500
>Define automatic.
Not deliberate. Doesn't arise from making calls to your memory, or "conditioned learning" as you put it.
>Also, explain how meaning and perception are distinct.
Pic related.

>>20921517
>There is an answer to your puzzle
I'm certainly not puzzled.

>>20921526
Since you're not getting it, and that's not an insult by the way, this is a difficult idea and you're being commendably coherent, please explain to me how meaning and pain are separate.

How can I be conscious of anything without pain? And how can unconsciousness exist unless there is also an absence of pain?

Now, keep in mind ... you'll be winning a Nobel prize in physics if you can answer this question.

>>20921583
Since when does cognition require pain?
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/meet-toddler-feels-pain/story?id=20658484#:~:text=Oct..,if%20he%20breaks%20a%20bone.

>>20921618
That person feels a lower degree of pain than others, not none entirely.

If she felt none whatsoever she wouldn't be able to sense anything.

Any sensible amount of pain is infinitely more painful than non-consciousness. You shouldn't take a tabloid click bait article to supersede a PhD in philosophy.

>>20921583
>>20921631
You're arguing from such a borderline unfalsifiable stance that I don't know where to begin. Meaning is created through a process of cognitive reflection. Pleasure and pain are the signals that provide impetus for reflection, but that does not make them meaning in themselves. They (meaning one OR the other) may be prerequisites for the mind to begin the wandering processes through which meanings are created, but neither pleasure nor pain are necessary to create meaning once these processes have started. The dalmatian picture does not require pain to parse and create meaning out of, only previous exposure to and semantic parsing of dogs or at least dog-like things. Pleasure OR pain are necessary for the development of the cognitive processes that lead to meaning creation, but not both, nor could you explain why pain specifically is required because you are arguing from your conclusions. I mean, it is on its face nonsense, and only by pure luck there happens to be a case that demonstrates for the severely imagination-deficient that pain is not a prerequisite for meaning (pic related*). And, as expected, the lack of pain leads to some psychological anomalies and emotional aberrations, but that person still creates meaning in their head.
>Now, keep in mind ... you'll be winning a Nobel prize in physics if you can answer this question.
What in the living hell are you on about? I swear modern philosophy castrates the ability to think critically.
>If she felt none whatsoever she wouldn't be able to sense anything.
Where are you getting this profoundly misguided notion? I guess they didn't teach you this in your upper division philosophy courses, but physical sensations are not the product of nerves operating on some spectrum of pleasure and pain; there are completely different neurons for pain called nociceptors. They never have to fire for someone to be conscious and create meaning.
>You shouldn't take a tabloid click bait article to supersede a PhD in philosophy.
Take some serious time to reflect on why you wrote that statement.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain

>>20913864
Perfect time for this thread, my copy of the book arrives today. Never read anything like this before, hope it turns me into a spiritually attuned schizo so I can fix my life.

>>20921940
>>>20921631 #
You're arguing from such a borderline unfalsifiable stance that I don't know where to begin. Meaning is created through a process of cognitive reflection.

Pain comes with its own meaning. We can argue about the existence of universals or abstract objects but we cannot rationally affect the inherent meaning that comes with pain.

Prove me wrong and stab yourself in the hand with a hunting knife.

>>20921940
Also, I designate all sensation painful in comparison to non-consciousness.

That little girl you referenced could still see and touch things, it's just that the sensors that connect to her brains ability to generate pain at a higher level of intensity are non functional.

That doesn't mean she can't sense anything whatsoever, retard.

>>20914130
>unfamiliar with Christian doctrine
Check out The Orthodox Way and The Orthodox Church by Kallistos Ware (may his memory be eternal) for a good introduction.

>the starting point for me isn't the community
To be frank participation in the community is the keystone of christianity, and it's just something you have to get over. I dont mean that to sound harsh, just that God is not found in books, He is experienced and participated in.

>death seems much more natural
Death is constantly reminded about in orthodox theology, in a healthy way of course. Our mortality is a gift, an opportunity for repentance from sin, and death becomes a crystallization of our natures. When we remember our imminent death, we remember to repent and (try to) live a purer way of life. In my personal and admittedly limited experience with protestantism death is an avoided topic.

>>20922326
>Orthadox christianity
My brother in Christ; man has as yet heard nothing of Christianity

>>20922079
>>20922092
>Pain comes with its own meaning.
I'm not sure that statement has any ramifying worth what so ever, but it rather goes against or at least does absolutely nothing to support your thesis that pain is a requisite for other manners of meaning such as the abstract or symbolic. You're practically arguing against yourself at this point.
>We can argue about the existence of universals or abstract objects but we cannot rationally affect the inherent meaning that comes with pain. Prove me wrong and stab yourself in the hand with a hunting knife.
No, because that would hurt. Ooooo, you really got me there!(?) Except nothing I've said hinges on dismissing that pain hurts—that's essentially it's definition—but somehow you think this lends credence to your assertion that meaning cannot exist without pain; a very simple assertion that is baseless and idiotic. "Pain is meaning therefor all meaning derives from pain" is all your argument boils down to. You're basically trying to prop up a really dumb position by semantically equating two things that aren't equivalent. And when that stance crumbles in the face of basic even-a-child-could-see-this reason AND evidence where people can't feel pain but, surprise!, can still create meaning, you move to expand the definition of pain in a desperate attempt to make your position tenable. Pathetic!
>That doesn't mean she can't sense anything whatsoever, retard.
Okay? I never said anything to that affect, you did:
>If she felt none whatsoever she wouldn't be able to sense anything. (>>20921631)
Did you get so mixed up you contested something YOU wrote thinking I'd written it?

>Also, I designate all sensation painful in comparison to non-consciousness.
Holy kek, all your philosophy PhD taught you is to argue from your conclusion while dismissing whatever is materially inconvenient (e.g. nociceptors) like a retard. Go give your diploma a kiss and a hug and then tell yourself "I'm VERY smart, I have a PhD in philosophy!". Maybe it'll make you feel better.

>>20922465
No offense, but what's your degree in, precisely?

Like, surely you know OF phenomenology, right?

>>20917190
>This is a messy business, and is quite subjective, but most people would either agree or disagree with the chosen metaphor and therein lies the cogency of the transliteration.
No one who has always lacked sight could comment on whether the metaphor is better or worse than any other. Think harder before writing; you may find that you shouldn't be writing at all.

>>20922465
>No, because that would hurt. Ooooo, you really got me there!(?)
Lmao, you did get got there. Pain is absoliteky irrational, and an irrational sense datum that isn't open to rational affectation completely shits on your argument that there is any distinction whatsoever between pain and sensation. If you have trouble with the argument, go and Google what the word absolute means.

>>20922533
Yeah but people with sight could. All words are metaphors. I wish they still taught kids Nietzsche

>>20922520
An engineering discipline, so I've never had the luxury of getting credit for sloppy thinking and semantic ambiguity.

>>20922535
>an irrational sense datum that isn't open to rational affectation completely shits on your argument that there is any distinction whatsoever between pain and sensation
Not even a little bit: pain is a subcategory of sensation and is no more irrational than pleasure. You are trying to argue that all sensation is pain because it's what you have to argue for your assertions not to be completely wrong. Instead, you'll settle for them being retarded and sloppy.

>>20922542
If the person receiving the metaphor intrinsically cannot judge the metaphor's quality, it hasn't conveyed any meaning. You're not in a position to be lamenting what others haven't been taught.

>>20922597
Is pleasure more or less painful than non-consciousness?

READ MORE JARRY OR USE THE NOOSE PLEASE

>>20922597
>I've never had the luxury of getting credit for sloppy thinking and semantic ambiguity
Kek
I'm sure "sloppy thinking" is just for plebs, surely you could not engage in such thinking. There is also no way you could engage in such thinking in a subject that's unrelated to engineering. That's absolutely out of question.
>semantic ambiguity
Yes, you speak in a crystal clear way. There is no way that what you say is not clear, and if some poor anon (bless their poor soul) doesn't understand it, they should read it more closely and then they may understand. If they still don't understand, they are a bit too stupid, I suppose.

>>20913864
>tl;dr
You got suckered
>soul/unconscioius
Really dude?>>20913870
>layman
Exactly, you gotta pay the initiation fee

Oh, look, another /x/ schizo thread on /lit/
Jannies really doing their job

>>20922520
>what's your degree in, precisely
Fuckology
Fuck you chump

>>20922603
>If the person receiving the metaphor intrinsically cannot judge the metaphor's quality, it hasn't conveyed any meaning
Just so you know, what you've said is logically impossible as long as either interlocutor has access to one of the five senses and is capable of linguistic communication on equal terms.

>>20922597
>An engineering discipline, so I've never had the luxury of getting credit for sloppy thinking and semantic ambiguity.
So you're a materialist, gotcha.

>>20922922
>is green louder or quieter than potato?

>>20923049
It's equally invisible to the jannie who should have moved this thread
Fuck you, jannie, you're a lazy cunt, and we all know it

>>20923000
If there's one thing you've made it abundantly clear you have no grasp of, it's logic.

>>20923010
Logical rigor and philosophical insight are not mutually exclusive; you only think so because you're incompetent in both domains. See the image in >>20916361.

>>20923049
I would say louder. Green as a solid color carries with it a more unusual or artificial character and therefore a greater degree of vividness wirhin the senses. A potato is a rather mundane and dull object due to its brown color and muted vibrancy.

Of course, colors can be more or less vivid in the same way that sounds can be; indeed, you've probably heard the expression that someone's outfit is "loud" (always referring to the intensity of the colors and patterns).

So, your argument is a bad one and indicates that you're both uncreative and gay.

>>20923193
Kek, I'd be glib too if all I got out of a PhD in philosophy was the confidence to ride the highest of horses before inevitably and embarrassingly losing the worst back-foot-desperation arguments.

>>20916937
What the fuck are you talking retard.

>>20923318
I'm in sales, I make 200k a year.

How does that make you feel, stencil jockey?

I found a quote from Nietzsche that I think you retards should read:

>"A painter without hands who wished to express in song the pictures before his mind would, by means of this substitution of spheres, still reveal more about the essence of things than does the empirical world".

>>20913864
I was thinking of reading that one time. Symbols are cool.

It seems like people are being filtered by the conflation of pain with its meaning. Because pain is such an ancient and basic ingredient of consciousness, it is almost(!) simultaneous with the feeling of meaning (which is, that's bad! I don't like that!) which accompanies it. The error which was made in this thread is conflating its apparent simultaneity with its actual simultaneity, due to the fact that they occur so closely together that we cannot distinguish them like we can with other direct percepts, like colour. The obvious refutation though is the fact that we as humans are capable of dissociating ourselves from the meaning attached with pain, so that in certain cases it can either become meaningful in the opposite sense (I enjoy pain) or meaninglessness, where it simply possesses no meaning in itself and is simply a sense datum.

>>20923000
>what you've said is logically impossible
Because... It just is OK! Don't ask me why!

>>20923577
let me be your bdr, philosobro

>>20921583
>How can I be conscious of anything without pain?
like this: :^)

>>20924325
>pain is conflated with it's meaning
>pain is an ancient and basic ingredient of consciousness
>pain is apparently simultaneous with it's meaning but not really
>we as humans are capable of dissociating ourselves from the meaning attached with pain
>pain can become meaningful
I suppose the source of these claims is your ass, or perhaps they were revealed to you in a dream.

>>20913864
Didn't read a single reply ITT. If you want an easy TLDR of Jung then DMT.

>>20924491
The source is the use of your mind to distinguish between two theoretically separate things (datum and association of the datum), and once you've done that, you can do as I've done and experiment empirically with the possibility of practically separating pain from any meaning associated with it, whether through meditative techniques or methods similar to Pavlovian conditioning.
>>pain is an ancient and basic ingredient of consciousness
The source for this is our knowledge of all animal life, even some of the most simple animals have nerves similar to ours which result apparently in pain and the aversion to pain that humans experience.

Interesting that you have no proper counterargument though, apart from "pain is meaningful, because it just is." It's less factually supported than even my answer, yet you still pretend as though you've actually somehow made a valid point. Pain is necessarily meaningful... Because it just is? I suppose this was revealed to you in a dream too.

>>20924325
There's literally a genetic disorder the victims of which cannot feel pain at all. Really dunks on the whole "pain is consciousness" argument

>>20924680
As you can see from this thread, they will just argue that they feel less pain.

>>20924554
Let me refute you real quick.

I don't feel any pain when drinking water.

>But you do feel (=are consciouss of) pain, you are just not aware (consciouss) of it
So I am both consciouss and not consciouss at the same time. Brilliant!

>>20924863
Nothing you just said contradicts anything in my post. Did you reply to the wrong anon?

>>20923577
lol, I don't care what you do nor how much money you make, I'm just enjoying how much you have to cope about being a retard. All the money in the world can't buy you a decent brain.

>>20923609
Wow. Oh, my, god. Wow! NIETZCHE said that??? Wow, that's like so deep. I can't wait to tell my girlfriends about this so we can make a tiktok video where we express the human experience by twerking to a soundcloud rapper. Our material expressions are totally a better expression of the essence of things than perceiving the material itself. Wow.

>>20924325
You're incorrect, unless you're a Cartesian duelist; in which case you're simply incoherent.

>>20925161
It literally can, that's what making lots of money signifies, actually.

When you wonder why you don't make what I make, remember that you're not as smart as me.

>>20925566
Present an argument is to why it's incoherent, or don't post anything at all.

>>20925572
>shapiroposting
>moneyposting
this is why this board is dying

>>20922326
>Check out The Orthodox Way and The Orthodox Church by Kallistos Ware (may his memory be eternal) for a good introduction.
Thanks, friend. I will look into it.