/lit/ - Literature

whoops forgive the typo, i hab a colb :(

It's left me feeling pretty dead set against symbolism though.

I could expound up on the point, perhaps...

I mean, it seems to be laziness and fear on the part of a writer to actually come up with something. Laziness because that's implicit. Fear because of fearing judgment of 'not' pretending that the story was part of some esoteric checker board.

It strikes me as well that this 'symbolism' robs the story of the human elements (the telling of an 'actual' story that's about the actual story) when it makes it appear to be about other things. If the reader, then, projects symbolism across the characters and the locations and the actions within the story then those things no longer exist as they are, rather they become propping posts 'for' the otherwise unrelated symbolism; I mean like scaffolding, dull and sterile and inanimate.

Does a person, then, reading a story of symbolism actually read the story verbatim? I would say not. Like a schizophrenic they may appear to be reading or watching the motion picture version of the book, but their brain is thoroughly unplugged and unresponsive to the theatre unfolding before them:

They see the men haggling over the fish and their minds aren't drawn to the bustle of market, like the plants on the vase (see img.) they aren't listening in to the scene or the characters; they aren't "in the moment", rather they interpret the fish as this and the knife as that and the man as him and other man as him, and it's all completely fucked up in their perception.


To see, then, that which 'is' in the material, is to see fully, like an engorged labia, that which is the material-complete. Whereas 'esoteric symbolism' - the shit's all made-up, chuck.

I hope you're following along.

>>20965722
Symbolism is part of storytelling because in people's everyday lives mundane occurances have a habit of taking on a deeper meaning because people relate to those occurances through the lens of their own experiences. It is therefore totally normal to notice the similarities between random things and the situation a story character is enveloped in. I would say that annoyance at symbolism must either be directed at a certain, different sort of symbolism or an extreme excess of the sort of symbolism I just described.

>>20965722
everything is a symbol. words are symbols. people are symbols. concepts are symbols. it's all symbols. every time you unite disparate content into something coherent, you've created a symbol. congratulations!

This is an argument from inspired mediocrity. Wow, my high school english teacher was a pseud, and now I understand the entirety of literature by process of opposing what I learned in that class.
You don't know anything about symbolism, you've just chosen a contrarian hill to die on.

>>20965722
I'm with you on this, OP.

I don't know if many of the writers I've read recently are symbol crafters. The biggest problem I see is the symbol-hunting mania of people on /lit/.

I think that people feel uneasy fully immersing themselves in, or even becoming fully aware of, their aesthetic experience of a work if they're not able to provide some kind of explanation for why they find it valuable. One easy way to present your experience as valuable is, for some reason, to describe it as decoding symbols that represent some kind of Big Theme.

>If the reader, then, projects symbolism across the characters and the locations and the actions within the story then those things no longer exist as they are, rather they become propping posts 'for' the otherwise unrelated symbolism
This is true, although I think an important qualification is that in fiction nothing really is itself: I think the elements of the fictional world always hang in a weird space between concrete image and abstract concept. (Symbol-hunting obviously collapses that ambiguity.)

I think the solution is to come up with better ways to discuss what you call 'the material', and better ways to describe people's experience of it. My personal approach is to think of books as an answer to a 'What happens if ...?'-type question. Almost like a lab experiment. You have your symbols, and your themes, and your historical contexts, and your biography-drawn anecdotes, and you put them all in the vast literary Petri dish and see how they evolve and interact with each other and transform each other. As observer you should ask not 'What does it mean?' but 'What's going on here? How is it operating?'

(Your overwrought prose style is infectious, by the way.)

>>20965844
Hahahahaha this is it exactly, I know it, anon, I know it.. but what (you) do SUCKS BALLS and is very boring. I don't know what your english teacher said or thought but there's a whole world of depth you're actually missing breathing in and living in by falling back onto this ...iconodulism... is probably the word.

Believe me, I used to watch movies and read like this as well, but looking back I realized it wasn't really being "in the moment" at all.


>>20965832
Eh, we have to use 'symbolism' for the word to describe this, I think the idea of iconodulism is more accurate... but even then, not.

I don't know what I'm getting at intellectually or artistically (perhaps) with this train of thought, only that I feel a far deeper connection to the subject now than I did when I was - excuse me - being a pseud (a fake brain) by thinking I was reading hidden meanings in books and films.

The symbols are no more complicated or meaningful to produce than to use a cookie cutter to make thirty at a time, right? It's nothing at all. You see one, you see them all; the exact opposite of reading a story without any of that going on; the characters are alive, by contrast, and you're paying attention to 'them', not to the abstract inference in the belt buckle of one of them.

I get your meaning though. I don't think you'd call your description 'art' or 'meaning' but more like 'static image', right?


>>20965828
> I would say that annoyance at symbolism must either be directed at a certain, different sort of symbolism or an extreme excess of the sort of symbolism I just described.
Agreed. I agree with most of what you said. Moreso simple boredom than any real displeasure; I would find an old movie from 1960 to be more interesting in the plot and dialouge and everything else than say a symbolism packed fuckfest of modern cinema.

I put this down to shit writing on the part of modern films, but the more I think about it the more I realize it's symbolism which takes away the vitality of the story. The plot, dialogue, etc, these are written "secondary" to the symbolism, so it doesn't work 'as' a gripping story; it falls flat.

> It is therefore totally normal to notice the similarities between random things and the situation a story character is enveloped in.
sure, but when this is done by design is my point- where the difference is.

> mundane occurances have a habit of taking on a deeper meaning because people relate to those occurances through the lens of their own experiences.
mm good point.

OP

>>20965722
All ancient myths and legends are highly symbolic. We're just shit at it now because German autism spread through the Western world like wildfire, and we are millennia divorced from symbolic thinking.

>>20965722
There's no point to reading or writing anything but technical manuals if you don't see any value in symbolism.

poop-eating stinky gorillaesque take
you should KYS

>>20965722
Are you seriously confusing symbolism with allegory?
For real?
Read Croce, Borges, anyone!

>>20965926
I'm not OP, but it's so baffling that this opinion seems so common, and that people present it as if it's common sense.

Do you not enjoy stories? Do you not find value in seeing the intricacies of different types of consciousness, different types of moral dilemma, different types of human and historical experience presented in language?

Why is a symbol so self-evidently more valuable than the concrete richness that immediately leaps out at you from every page of a good book?

This thread is helping me understand why people on /lit/ never seem to actually enjoy the books they read.

My advice to you is that, if a book is only worthwhile to you because it symbolises 'the dark powers of fate' (or whatever weighty theme) save yourself the hassle of having to wade through all the irrelevant dialogue and narrative and rhetoric and just meditate on a sticky note on which you have written 'the dark powers of fate'.

>>20965899
>being a pseud (a fake brain) by thinking I was reading hidden meanings in books and films.
That's not being a pseud. That's called looking for unintended meanings. Good art captures far more of reality than what was intended.

>>20965899
>sure, but when this is done by design is my point- where the difference is.
The author is sorta stuck when trying to represent this though because literature has to be designed in order to be produced. That authors often don't even attempt subtlety sometimes is a problem, but it is a tall order.
>a symbolism packed fuckfest of modern cinema.
I agree that a lot of movies overdo it, but there is a sort of representation even here where for some people the mundane occurances in their lives takes on more importance than the original context that caused the occurrence to be singled out in the first place and their lives become a sort of vehicle for these symbols. Similar to how the movies plot becomes a vehicle for the symbols the author is currently consumed by.

>>20965868
>I'm with you on this, OP.
Brother!

> The biggest problem I see is the symbol-hunting mania of people on /lit/.
Yeah it's kind of been dumped into the culture through music videos, I remember listening to podcasts about it and thinking it was all 'meaningful'. I guess maybe it is but it seems like it's very stale at this point and certainly, as I was saying, here: >>20965899 it badly shows when a writer sets out to make a story over symbolism instead of just telling a story. The notion of symbolism in abroad sense ends itself to using film and books as propaganda as well, pavlovian style triggers placed here and there.

> (Symbol-hunting obviously collapses that ambiguity.)
exactly. The focus is gone from the people in front of you on the stage completely; the person is watching but they're watching 'for' the symbol - whether it's the ankh or an ideological or religious verbal affirmation of [local culture here]. It seems like it's the same thought process to me, the same disconnection.

> I think an important qualification is that in fiction nothing really is itself: I think the elements of the fictional world always hang in a weird space between concrete image and abstract concept.
I agree with this, but take the vase in the image as the example; if you're looking at looking 'for' symbolism then you don't know what's going on in the image or you'r considering it secondary to whatever symbolism can be inferred from the objects, so the depth of the piece itself as it is verbatim is completely passed by, so the 'art' itself is not being seen but is being recast in the brain as other various disconnected things which have nothing much to do with the piece at all.

> 'the material'
or 'verbatim' if we were talking about the literal meaning of a sentence and not an interpretation of the other meanings 'of' the same sentence.

>(Your overwrought prose style is infectious, by the way.)
=) have some hot blackcurrant wine


> As observer you should ask not 'What does it mean?' but 'What's going on here? How is it operating?'
Absolutely this. This is focusing on the true elements and dynamics and adding no preconception or bias to it. The truth itself!

>>20965926
This is like saying if you don't think the bible is the moral guideline then you can't have any morality. A conflation w/ no basis in fact.

>>20965952
It may be that we just don't realize it because we're surrounded by it so much, I guess. I think the 'iconodule' idea captures the mentality beautifully; the worshiping of static images and the value of them above reality itself, or long-time anime fans.

I don't disagree there's some vital anchor in the brain which has us latch to these things for sake of comfort and familiarity, I just think it's overly dull and not proper story.

>>20965973
>if a book is only worthwhile to you because it symbolises 'the dark powers of fate'
anon did you even read what was said

why would i go read something that 'SYMBOLIZES' anything xd

and why would YOU equate what I said with my "love of dark power of fate", jesus christ man

>>20965906
This ... is a good point. I don't disagree with it, but maybe 'this' point is the purest argument in favor of the concept and all other arguments are in imitation of it. I mean: the holy tree, the verdant meadow, sacred images, but other images are just tacky and over used.

>>20965943
>confusing symbolism with allegory?
We're using the term iconodulism now, to save confusion.

OP

>>20965952
The issue is you're completely delusional. You think you know what is "concrete" but you just mean familiar, so familiar that you don't need to think about it. In English you tend to not even really know what the words mean, the symbolism and history behind them is hidden.
>Do you not find value in seeing the intricacies of different types of consciousness
When a story manages to draw many elements together into few symbols, symbolize them then the story is interesting. It has relevance to many things because of the abstract nature, it has elements that are applicable in many instances including even perhaps your immediate life. If there's no underlying abstraction going on there is nothing of any value, just descriptions of some things.

>>20966030
>This is like
Be more "concrete". Way too much symbolism in this post, I can't understand this kind of obfuscated language.

>>20965722
Symbolism is only good when there is something in the story that is symbolic of something else IN that same story. I can't think of any off the top of my head, tho. When it's just some
>METAPHOR FOR LE CLIMATE CHANGE
Or (insert random bullshit here) it's just cringe

>>20965979
Yeah it is being a pssoood by all definition; pretending to have hidden knowledges about stuff. I understand it and find it a flat outlook, is all. It's like going to any piece of fiction or movie or painting and trying to force it into a framework that it may or may not fit into,
see: "the error of procrustes".

Hail Theseus.

>Good art captures far more of reality than what was intended.
Good art captures the life and the breath of the piece, it isn't loaded with whacky symbols like a wizards cape, that's gaudy and crass art. Ugly to behold.

>>20965936
i am proud to be a human ape, my fellow human ape. let us ascend the tree and kill the bird and feast on the eggs.


>>20965980
>. Similar to how the movies plot becomes a vehicle for the symbols the author is currently consumed by.
Right - so in that instance the author isn't actually telling a story about, e.g. Jim doing XYZ, he's got a board of symbols in his head and he's putting a fluffy toy here by one symbol and a toy car there by another symbol and he calls this a 'story'. It's not a story.

>The author is sorta stuck when trying to represent this though because literature has to be designed in order to be produced. That authors often don't even attempt subtlety sometimes is a problem, but it is a tall order.
Maybe so, but maybe not. Some of the authors I like seem to have just sat down and written and come up with cool things. I think this is because they were 'talented writers' lol

Harlan Ellison springs to mind, for a recent modern example, compare Jefty to a Stephen King or Run With The Stars to Star Wars. You'll see what I mean. Or A Boy And His Dog to... idk.. Mad Max or something like that. Notcing re that Harlan Ellison, just writing at his typewriter, was inventing genres and doing good good stories when his brain wasn't filled with symbolisms or set-plans to include symbolisms.

just something i noticed

OP

>>20966039
>Way too much symbolism in this post,
lol that's so cringe it's actually funny

you win the prize

>>20966053
>METAPHOR FOR LE CLIMATE CHANGE
The entire thread is anglos complaining because they only consciously understand symbolism when it's retarded like that.

>>20966053
Yes. This is really 50% of the point of the topic. Or even 60%.

>>20966066
If you're too worried about being a pseud, then you're destined to be a pseud. You end up ignoring a way out of your pseud fears like this post: >>20965979. You have a false pretense to intellectual humility which ironically makes you more repulsive than your typical smug pseud. You have no understanding of the vastness of the unknown unknown, causing you to fit everything into a box even harder than the most insane Freudians.

>>20966084
It's the same thought-process behind one as the other, the clownish political symbolism (ideology,pavlov trigger) is no different at all in the brain to the verdant meadow and what 'that' triggers in a person.

If one is susepitible to the latter then they are also to the former, even if they despise the one and cherish the other:

It's pavlov 101, if you want to put it like that to recognize the commonality.


(And it's still not a proper story.)

>hurr symbolism is le bad except for symbolism that isn't le bad but symbolism is still totally le bad
OP you are one dumb gorilla nigger

>>20966104
We can't just think ourselves into not being susceptible to conditioning and you don't want to, it's a fundamental aspect of the brain and training. You're apparently not conscious of either subtle symbolism or any type of related subtle conditioning so you think you're above it. This is the type of mind most susceptible to subtle conditioning.

>>20966099
ehh no. I was called a 'pseud' in error before I used the word properly:

e.g. when you say things like..
>(the word) pseud x4 (in a short sentence)
> You have no understanding of the vastness of the unknown unknown,
>You have a false pretense to intellectual humility
holy jesus
this is MASSIVE psuedary - like big fucking flowery pantaloons level peudary.

I wouldn't use this word, since it's sloppy english to fall back on colloquialisms anyway.

Telling me I'm not groovy or un-hip for not liking the andrews sisters is not a way to convince anybody of anything.
> You have no understanding of the vastness of the unknown unknown
teach bruva teach

>>20966132
No this is silliness. You're ascribing far too much power to trivial temporal fleeting things; when it's no more complex than..
e.g. at age three we both liked the teletubbies and one of us grew out of thinking they were the best and ultimate form of living.

Now, reread what you said in the above context,
>We can't just think ourselves into not being susceptible to conditioning and you don't want to, it's a fundamental aspect of the brain and training. You're apparently not conscious of either subtle symbolism or any type of related subtle conditioning so you think you're above it.

s'just moobies, man. Clearly the defender 'of' symbolism is proving some kind of later thesis of how much passion and religiosity he ascribes 'to' those symbols, when we're just speaking of stories and art.

I think my use of the term 'iconodule' has been proven more true by this.


>>20966130
yep that's me.

>>20966158
You appeal to teletubbies, "common sense" and "it just is". I'm appealing to my current ideas about how the brain physically works, how models of brains work as in AI and what generally accepted psychology says about the brain.
Which point of view is the one based on mindless conditioning? Do you have a point beyond "I believe and present baseless shit without thinking but that doesn't make me a brainwashed retard"?

Also in the /lit/ realms we might expand the brain by recalling highly popular examples of theatre ad literature that have nothing to do with symbolism;

Menippean Satire (Theatre), fuck, the entire Genre of Satire and Asurdism, Surrealism stands up at this point as a satyr-like iconoclast.

Just food for thought for those who agree with the topics premise.

>>20966134
You're way too concerned about style and not enough about substance, especially for a place like /lit/. This place is not meant to be like the Symposium. Rather, it is like a virtual cafe where Young Hegelians, if they were alive today and had no shame, would have met in secret, hiding from Prussian censorship decrees to speak frankly about subversive ideas. You're a textbook pseud: vain to the core to the point where you, you know, miss the point. Everything is destined to go over your head.

Anyway, nothing is going to get through to you. I at least gave you your fair warning.

>>20966177
>d "I believe and present baseless shit without thinking but that doesn't make me a brainwashed retard"?
Well this is obviously not the case with me, and doesn't take 5 seconds to point out which of us is actually resembling that remark in a demonstrable manner; lapping up the cookie-cutter symbols they're given in film and fiction and cherishing those images, and which of us isn't.

"(he) loves his slavery!"
Huxley

bu if you didn't spot this already..
>Which point of view is the one based on mindless conditioning?
Explain how you aren't?

You already confirmed that you believe 'your disposition' (to this) is inescapable and hardwired into you, wasn't that a confession of being what you go onto tell me 'i' am? :o


>about how the brain physically works
Not sure where you got the notion that behaviors or dispositions can't be changed from, that's the point and work of the field to do that after all.. to unlearn dysfunctional or unwanted habits. So, liking the teletubbies into your late 40's isn't something you can't work on and remedy, to stick with the example.

But I think the original point of the teletubbies still fits; as little kids we see and copy, we grew up and mature intellectually and we find it laughable to keep doing the shit we did as toddlers as our brains have developed further from that baseline point. This is no different.

>>20966209
>nyway, nothing is going to get through to you. I at least gave you your fair warning.
I'm going to bed shortly, it's fine.

I feel that half-drunk on the cold I haven't been refuted in anything that was said, making most of the subject bloody obvious. Whilst the fun of fighting with you little lads has crystallized a few certain ideas I had about this and I feel ready to put these ideas down on paper now that the arguments have been challenged.


You may enjoy your atrophy in the rich symbolism of a wizards cape and frock, of course. Pretty symbols!

>>20965722
>>20965745
Symbolism is pretty etched into today's religions as a whole anon.

https://satanslibrary.org/English/Torah_and_the_Jews_Exposed.pdf

>>20966198
Satire, absurdism and especially surrealism have everything to do with symbols and meaning. I have zero idea how you came to that conclusion.
One may say, sure, it's satire, it's not meant to mean anything other than a direct mockery of the subject, but that's such a vapid reading of fantastic works everywhere I hope you realize where the problem stands.

>>20966243
There's nothing to refute. You're right in the sense that there's meanings that are unintended by the author. But you're wrong in the sense that any author who only succeeds at creating what he intends will almost necessarily produce a crock of shit. To be an artist of any caliber, you have to be in touch with the world as is. Tapping into "hidden" meanings is just tapping into the work of art from all possible angles.

>>20966223
>Explain how you aren't?
I referenced some of the things I base my opinions on in the hope you might recognize or relate a little bit.
>you believe
Conditioning is the reinforcing of neural pathways, it's not some abstract idea you can escape. You can become more conscious of your conditioning and how to avoid being manipulated but you can't avoid the basic mechanisms.
>Not sure where you got the notion
It's your brain that made that up. Ironically if I wrote more symbolically with the intention of manipulating you instead of referencing "reasons" as if you think logically I would probably get better results.
You're completely teletubbized, the teletubbies even control how you frame your arguments. You haven't reached any next level, you just think of your familiar conditioning as "concrete" now. It's the default and needs no examination. It has "inherent meaning", not established, trained contextual associations.

I swear these are some of the worst, most misguided opinions I’ve ever encountered in my life. No wonder this board sucks so much godawful shit these days. I genuinely hope that OP and everyone who agrees with them completely abandon literature and every art form

>>20965722
Allegories are not Symbols. Allegories Bad, Symbols Good. Fuck Walter Benjamin.

>>20966498
And I'm amazed that the even the most innocuous idea that comes along is met by hissy fits and frantic hand flapping by your type of person, anon.

>>20966360
>I referenced some of the things I base my opinions on in the hope you might recognize or relate a little bit.
No, you described your opinion (or taste in media) as being hardwired in the brain and unchangeable by anybody, then you went on to tell me that I was all of those things you described about yourself whilst you weren't. If your brain isn't connecting this together then there's something wrong.

you see, you do it again:
>Conditioning is the reinforcing of neural pathways, it's not some abstract idea you can escape. You can become more conscious of your conditioning and how to avoid being manipulated but you can't avoid the basic mechanisms.

and then you do it again, you're saying you're this then you tell me that it's true about me wtf is wrong with you xd
>You're completely teletubbized, the teletubbies even control how you frame your arguments.

>It's your brain that made that up.
I'm going to name drop that I'm the anon who works in healthcare and psychiatry. As if 'this' needs to be brought up. You think the world must end or something if a person expresses bordedom in your local cultural media. Did you miss the bit yesterday where that showed how overly religiously you take these cookie-cutter films and books? or can you just not process sentences in the english language or think logically to understand cases and clauses when they present themselves..

>>20966572
>Allegories Bad, Symbols Good.
holy jesus fuckign christ are you people stupid


>>20966297
>Satire, absurdism and especially surrealism have everything to do with symbols and meaning. I have zero idea how you came to that conclusion.
Because I'm familiar with the genre and know it's absent of (what was described). Probably you've confused the concept of contrived allegories and symbolism (as described yesterday) of with basic concepts, like a dinner table setting or a parent 'in' a story.

Feels like a reductio ad infinitum fallacy - where "(what you say is meant by the word) can be anything".

> I hope you realize where the problem stands.
I do. It's never been more clear to me how symbolic religious imagery produces schizophrenia even in the most passive and unrealizing of audiences.

I think the people here who were against the topic would actually be lost if they were given a book or asked to watch a film that contained no familiar symbolism, they would be out of their depth in the real world completely, as it were, through lack of familiarity with predictable repetitive imagery and concepts of things.

I hope you recall that that ^^^ thought-process is autism verbatim.

1/2

>>20965868
>I think that people feel uneasy fully immersing themselves in, or even becoming fully aware of, their aesthetic experience of a work if they're not able to provide some kind of explanation for why they find it valuable. One easy way to present your experience as valuable is, for some reason, to describe it as decoding symbols that represent some kind of Big Theme.
Agreed and well-put!

I don't have time to write much atm so I'll dump this quote from Powys instead:
>So far from finding anything tedious or irksome in the heavy massing up of animate and inanimate back-grounds which goes on all the while in Balzac's novels, I find these things most germane to the matter. What I ask from a book is precisely this huge weight of formidable verisimilitude which shall surround me on all sides and give firm ground for my feet to walk on. I love it when a novel is thick with the solid mass of earth-life, and when its passions spring up volcano-like from flaming pits and bleeding craters of torn and convulsed materials. I demand and must have in a book a four-square sense of life-illusion, a rich field for my imagination to wander in at large, a certain quantity of blank space, so to speak, filled with a huge litter of things that are not tiresomely pointing to the projected issue.
>I hold the view that in the larger aspects of the creative imagination there is room for many free margins and for many materials that are not slavishly symbolic. I protest from my heart against this tyrannous "artistic conscience" which insists that every word "should tell" and every object and person referred to be of "vital importance" in the evolution of the "main theme."
>I maintain that in the broad canvas of a nobler, freer art there is ample space for every kind of digression and by-issue. I maintain that the mere absence of this self-conscious vibrating pressure upon one string gives to a book that amplitude, that nonchalance, that huge friendly discursiveness, which enables us to breathe and loiter and move around and see the characters from all sides—from behind as well as from in front! The constant playing upon that one string of a symbolic purpose or a philosophical formula seems to me to lead invariably to a certain attenuation and strain. The imagination grows weary under repeated blows upon the same spot. We long to debouch into some path that leads nowhere. We long to meet some one who is interesting in himself and does nothing to carry anything along.

>>20966345
>, you have to be in touch with the world as is.
Yeah that's my point.

It's very odd how people have juggled this one; I've described 'real world' and artificial symbolism... and they seem to think that a series of symbols which they're told e.g. is a farmer is 'more real' than an actual farmer on his farm going about his work.

Again, this just means that they're doing the iconodulism 'of' the symbols and not even registering the concept or work or anything about the thing in front of them itself. If the distinction is too subtle I don't know how I can explain it better...

.... maybe this: you're in a business meeting and the only thing on your brain is the kind of shoes the guy speaking is wearing.

I think the guy earlier who suggested technical manuals instead of fiction was closer to understanding the point there.


>But you're wrong in the sense that any author who only succeeds at creating what he intends will almost necessarily produce a crock of shit.
That's not what I was saying,

I said that it's a lazy way to write and that stories where the stories rely on triggers of symbolism or fall back on "and when X did this it was a metaphor" are not 'fully fleshed out' in their story, as the story is an afterthought on the part of the writer 'to' the symbolism (or the grand or small allegory).
i.e. he's not telling a story when he sits to write, he's regurgitating image tropes hoping that one of them will resonate with a reader who will proclaim that the story is good because a trigger has been pushed by the trope.

And I gave examples of how this type of fiction is flat and predictable and dull by contrast to other fiction that doesn't arrive the same way.


I think fundamentally though whats been exposed here is how deeply some people rely on third-hand symbolism to make sense of the world in a backwards kind of way (i.e. if it doesn't tick the symbolism boxes then it's not even 'real'), given the great pathos espoused by some people here on the subject of what is only really the subject of stories.

They hold the symbols to be profound and powerful in a religious sense, hence iconodulism.

It's the same as an audience watching propaganda being cued when to laugh or shout in anger, w/o the symbol trigger they would have to decide for themselves what's going on and they can't manage it - or they think they can't or they've equated not managing it with being high brow / hidden knowledge, lol, or something.

2/2

>>20966345
or to put it another way; when you recoil at seeing female gostbusters in poorly written cinema, you're recoiling at the process i describe except tht you agree with me and can see what i mean exctly;

all the symbols have been ticked for you, but nonetheless you recognize the story is fucking flat.

is that a better way to explain this?

3/2

>>20967608
>>I think that people feel uneasy fully immersing themselves in, or even becoming fully aware of, their aesthetic experience of a work if they're not able to provide some kind of explanation for why they find it valuable. One easy way to present your experience as valuable is, for some reason, to describe it as decoding symbols that represent some kind of Big Theme.
>Agreed and well-put!

yes, this! we're on the same page here.

>>20967629
>It's the same as an audience watching propaganda being cued when to laugh or shout in anger, w/o the symbol trigger they would have to decide for themselves what's going on and they can't manage it - or they think they can't or they've equated not managing it with being high brow / hidden knowledge, lol, or something.

>>20965722
>Symbolism ruins stories
Maybe for you. For centuries it allowed the illiterate to understand stories without needing to read.
>and as well as being highly localized
That's kind of the point, just as language is highly localized. It's supposed to have an immediate meaning within the context of the audience.
> as to the symbolism, it's always mangled to boot.
If it were always mangled then it couldn't be symbolism. Nyxg kujw rgwaw qiesa ibkt nljw awbaw ri ainwibw qgi jbiqa qglr l jwtviles lbs wbfkuag ua.

>>20965785
>Like a schizophrenic they may appear to be reading or watching the motion picture version of the book, but their brain is thoroughly unplugged and unresponsive to the theatre unfolding before them
beautiful

>>20967836
Retarded. Beyond the dumbest imaginable parody of a retard.

>>20967591
>No, you described your opinion (or taste in media)
Are you really completely incapable of even reading a single sentence? Everything I say you reply as if I said something completely different. I don't meet people as dumb as you in real life unless it's an American tourist.
> I'm the anon who works in healthcare and psychiatry
This does not help your point. It makes it even more insane that you can't discuss anything. That everything, including points about basic psychology go completely over your head.
>You think the world must end or something if a person expresses bordedom in your local cultural media.
What the fuck are you talking about you deranged psychopath? What is this? Why are you ignoring everything I wrote? What is the point of making up fantasies and then responding to them? I feel extremely sorry for the patients you work with. Don't let any of your coworkers or bosses know how braindead you are. I would do everything I could to avoid needing to depend on you for anything.

>>20967638
You're too dumb to even put together a coherent criticism of the ghostbusters shit. It's amazing that people this dumb just keep posting as if they're equivalent to a capable person. Why does nobody call out these retards? How can all these mindless shitheads pretend this thread has any hint of thought to it?
>it's le ironic shitposting
You can tell yourself that but all this incoherent retardation came from your mind. You really are this retarded.

>>20965722
It's been said, Americans tend to use symbolism as shorthand for 'bastardise' or lazy feints of story. I wouldn't use your prior experience as reference.

>Am I alone in thinking this overrated trend of symbolism is a pile of garbage?
nope

goethe:
>Whoever works with symbols only is a pedant, a hypocrite, or a bungler. There are many such, and they like to be together.

schopenhauer:
>If then, in accordance with what has been said, allegory in plastic and pictorial art is a mistaken effort, serving an end which is entirely foreign to art, it becomes quite unbearable when it leads so far astray that the representation of forced and violently introduced subtilties degenerates into absurdity.

>If there is absolutely no connection between the representation and the conception signified by it, founded on subsumption under the concept, or association of Ideas; but the signs and the things signified are combined in a purely conventional manner, by positive, accidentally introduced laws; then I call this degenerate kind of allegory Symbolism.

>Greek sculpture devotes itself to the perception, and therefore it is æsthetical; Indian sculpture devotes itself to the conception, and therefore it is merely symbolical.

>This conclusion in regard to allegory, which is founded on our consideration of the nature of art and quite consistent with it, is directly opposed to the opinion of Winckelmann, who, far from explaining allegory, as we do, as something quite foreign to the end of art, and often interfering with it, always speaks in favour of it, and indeed places the highest aim of art in the “representation of universal conceptions, and non-sensuous things.”

>But in poetry, as in plastic art, the allegory passes into the symbol if there is merely an arbitrary connection between what it presented to perception and the abstract significance of it. For as all symbolism rests, at bottom, on an agreement, the symbol has this among other disadvantages, that in time its meaning is forgotten, and then it is dumb. Who would guess why the fish is a symbol of Christianity if he did not know? Only a Champollion; for it is entirely a phonetic hieroglyphic. Therefore, as a poetical allegory, the Revelation of John stands much in the same position as the reliefs with Magnus Deus sol Mithra, which are still constantly being explained.

>>20965722
Read a book on semiotics, fucktard

oh you brave souls dying for hollywood, I admire you, really.

>>20968856
>semiotics
So I gotta take a phD to be able to enjoy the Avengers? I'll pass. Put cpt. america in a communist flag and tell the same story and there's no difference. This is lazy garbage for babies, is all. I'm very fucking amused how deathly seeeeethingly seriously some of you have taken this subject.

reread earlier points made w/re: this.

>>20967670
>If it were always mangled then it couldn't be symbolism.
see: checkerboard, I'm not gonna type it out a 3rd time what's meant by this: with one compared t'other.

> an immediate meaning within the context of the audience.
>For centuries it allowed the illiterate to understand stories
Again, the same 'feeling' could be recreated with pavlovian triggers verbatim; put [cowboy] in [gay romp] and the symbolism lures you in and makes you ident with with the [cowboy], and this is what modern cinema is doing. You dislike it, I dislike it, but you'll defend the process.

What is valuable, to you, about loose symbolism exactly? Why this cookie-cutter shit instead of a real cowboy story about real killer cowboys who actually existed?

>>20968655
>>20968688
>unrelated stream of angst and dissonance for the 3rd and 4th time, despite my taking the time to explain my position
Ok nice talking to you.

I'd only be telling you to actually answer the things I said if I kept talking to you, and you still wouldn't answer anything. Your mindset is that if something offends your tastes then all the words for 'bad and wrong' you know fall from your fingertips, but none of it actually follows anything that was said.

"I would not call this manner of discourse conversation, but rather something practiced in imitation of it,"
Addison.


>>20968738
>Americans tend to use symbolism as shorthand for 'bastardise' or lazy feints of story.
we know this,
but I mean it even the higher-brow way too though; and if anything moreso, because they ought know better.


>>20968849
>goethe:
>>>Whoever works with symbols only is a pedant, a hypocrite, or a bungler. There are many such, and they like to be together.
much this.

>schopenhauer:
> Therefore, as a poetical allegory, the Revelation of John stands much in the same position as the reliefs with Magnus Deus sol Mithra, which are still constantly being explained.
I think this point is why they're being forced to defend the 'ethos' of symbolism, even if they don't really know why, they know there's a long bit of barbed wire curling down the inside of their prick which if they remove it will pull out most of the insides of their manhood, in a symbolic sense.

>>20967836
=)


1/?

>>20969221
>Your mindset is
How would you know? Nothing you say relates to anything I said. Every single reply is an insane blog going off on tangents purely based on your imagination, not a single reference to a word I say.
>if something offends your tastes
What offends me is your illiteracy and braindead defense of illiteracy in general. You need serious help but you act as if any form of trying to help you is just about imposing a subjective opinion on you. It's not a matter of taste. You're braindead, it's measurable.

>>20968849
>schopenhauer:
>>allegory in plastic and pictorial art is a mistaken effort, serving an end which is entirely foreign to art, it becomes quite unbearable when it leads so far astray that the representation of forced and violently introduced subtilties degenerates into absurdity.
and much this.

I think this is where the notion of 'satire', when it does lambast and citique and straight-talk the symbols, is coming in from: the 'iconodule' is just a weak thing, easily imitated and lapped up by the unthinking person who laps it up for ulterior motives, like giving a 'like' to something political. This could be fine, let's say, but it's pure stagnancy within an echo chamber; the icons get weaker and weaker the more they're pasted in and the veneration of them becomes the habit of sad pretenders.

It's interesting how this crosses over with propaganda and social engineering efforts in media, stemming from the same basis;

drape X in The Flag and suddenly, via symbolism, all grace is given to X.

I'd think people would be sick of being fucked in the back by people who do this to them that they'd desire to break themselves out of the habit of being so easily led by such petty easily-faked little things like that.

Again, it's so .... not funny .... but .... 'invigorating'.. to see how many people in this thread of such a small subject itself have reacted as if their lives depend on 'this' process sustaining them in their funny pictures. Huxley would be rolling on the floor, I think.

2/2

>>20969274
>not a single reference to a word I say.
Because you haven't responded to anything I've said, or seemed as if you've even read the words let alone put them together to understand what I have said lol - I chose to tell you to fuck off because your replies are just schizophrenic deflection, verbatim, you've been accusing me of what you're doing since the earlier reply when I pointed this out, then you're just telling me I'm incoherent etc.

I don't buy that you're legit for a second. If you actually are then you have a mild cognitive disorder and .. various other things I could probably tell you about what you think and believe that would be true.. but I can't be bothered.

Look,
Go back to the first reply I made to you, if you want to discuss this subject, and try again. I think that was when you were describing how image-symbol triggers were hardwired into the brain and humans cannot change this, then you accused me of being like 'that' when it was evident that I don't think that way at all and that you do, right?

Still I don't hold much of a thought that you will suddenlyy switch and become reasonable about any of this after your 4 or 5 posts of random verbal recall of pejorative terms from the internet.

right

>>20965722
this has to be bait, i refuse to believe that this is a sincere belief you hold

>>20965722
nice job not offering a single literary example

>>20965952
>concrete richness that immediately leaps out at you from every page of a good book?
symbolism?

>>20969360
It's what we should expect from the anglosphere. This is seriously how fucked they are.

>>20969341
>I think that was when you were describing how image-symbol triggers were hardwired into the brain
I don't understand what makes you do this. "You think"?, why not reference my words instead of making shit up?
The mechanisms that the idea of conditioning is talking about is fundamental. You have no clue what I'm referencing? The idea of reinforcing connections through repetition etc? That's conditioning, the thing you implied you were immune to by refusing to allow yourself to think symbolically consciously, so by being willfully illiterate.
All these insanely long rambling blogs and all the real content that's possible to squeeze out any of if it is "muh shitty American movies are shitty". There's no general principle you're describing. You constantly use symbolism but say that doesn't count because it's not done exactly like your shitty examples from your shitty movies.

>>20969300
>drape X in The Flag and suddenly, via symbolism, all grace is given to X.
That you have apparently been completely unaware of associative conditioning your entire life is not the fault of symbolism or art. It's all you. The associations don't stop being reinforced just because you're all smug about it.

>>20970062
he pointed out the vulgarity of it though. if a single detail can flip entire meaning, it's not good.
t. cicero

anons recognize this intuitively in low effort memes

OP, what if I were to tell you... that letters themselves are symbols?

>>20970135
I'd be unimpressed and describe your rhetorical effort as hinging upon ignorance of myself, which is rude, to not spot an obvious reductionist fallacy.

>>20970062
>>20970122
Eh this is more like gas-lighting though, it's not a serious comment. Probably it's this guy >>20970045 who's yet to answer a single thing I've said to him directly, and has been too lazy to cntrl+f the page and find where the various things he's proclaiming have already been covered.

It's a shame. I'd like to use some of his proclamations as springboards to go into speeches about things that come to mind.

bad anon bad

>>20970045
>>20970062

yep it's a real shame you aren't doing what I told you to do earlier: >>20969341


>>20970122
>anons recognize this intuitively in low effort memes
good point. I don't think it's going to be understood though lol


Honestly more kind of sidetracked now by the aggression coming from this guy over this the most smallest subject ever. It's like he intuitively believes that taking away his symbolism (whatever the fuck we mean by this word lol) will greatly greatly harm him. It's a pathos reaction, I think, seemingly involuntarily.

See, I could bet that this person was in some way into the ego-god idea where his sanity is like held in place by a few thumbtacks on a corkboard, these being the symbols he cherishes, which he's just realized can be taken out and rearranged by anybody, and this makes him furiously vicious like a trapped animal. That's what I think anyway, that the strong reaction to such a tiny thing suggests this.

>>20970062
ok, for the sake of moving this along, since you are playing opposition.. i'll talk to you a bit more,

so,your response didn't actually address anything I said,
>drape X in The Flag and suddenly, via symbolism, all grace is given to X.
Explain to me, then, the merits of this if you support it. Or tell me whether or not you believe that this 'grace' (in that example) is actually legitimate; that the flag of x land draped over x politician makes that politician a genuine hero or an equal or equivalent to a genuine hero from x nation.


>The mechanisms that the idea of conditioning is talking about is fundamental.
I do not know whether you're aware of how malleable people have been demonstrated to be, that via this kind of trigger-symbol they can be programmed into xyz, zyx, xzy and back again. There's nothing fixed in this sense, and I don't know who's told you otherwise, only that you can't be familiar with any of the social conditioning or psychiatric experiments from the last 140 yrs.

in the argument about the brain being hardwired to operate around 'symbolism' and how this was impossible to change, etc.

on the most rudimentary level behavioral conditioning and social engineering in media have shown this 'impossible to change' notion to be radically untrue (advertising exists through the awareness that this is radically untrue, for instance); people being conditioned into accepting this this and this within very short spaces of time. There is an argument to be made about 'this' being precisely why such manipulable 'symbols' are inferior 'as' a medium, of course, as they can be rearranged to lead a person to think anything.

>reinforcing connections through repetition etc? That's conditioning, the thing you implied you were immune to by refusing to allow yourself to think symbolically consciously,
You put this very dramatically though. I do not understand why or why you ascribe so much to this, as if, literally, it would be impossible for a human not to copy what they see going on on the television.

Do you think, then, that everybody actually thinks like this?

When you say,
>you implied you were immune to by refusing to allow yourself to think symbolically consciously,
You're claiming that other people are "slaves" to the symbolisms or images 'unconsciously'. If that's what you're claiming to be true, then I have no idea why you're so mad about this since we share the same observation lol

If we 'do' agree then..
> There's no general principle you're describing.
.. then see the mentions on this page where I've used the word Iconodulism. This connects the threads together about the bits you're talking about.

1/2
(holy shit long reply)

>>20970062

However,
>The associations don't stop being reinforced just because [you're great]
I said you were making too much of the thing by this; see the "growing out of tv show" example from yesterday; one fad to another. I don't think it needs be any deeper than that as there's really nothing fixed in the human psyche that has us hardwired permanently to idolize cut-outs and ignore the real world around us. That doesn't compute with our evolution at all.

2/2

>>20970122
>if a single detail can flip entire meaning, it's not good.
In reality a single detail can flip the meaning, context is everything. The single detail of his hidden knife flips the encounter to a threatening one. A single contextual detail that explains the hidden knife flips it again.
The vulgarity of Americans is not an indictment on symbolism. That Americans can't grasp the symbolic roots of language and thinking is not an issue with symbolism.

>>20970553
>there's really nothing fixed in the human psyche that has us hardwired permanently to idolize cut-outs
How does your mind translate basic observations about how conditioning works into these sorts of claims?
What is "concrete" supposedly "non symbolic" language? It's what's immediately apparent to the monkey reader but what is apparent isn't that way because it's inherently true, it's just what that particular monkey brain is very familiar with, what he already has established representations for that can be easily and directly triggered.
The process of abstract thinking involves using established pathways to represent new ideas, basically symbolism. It's the process language is built on top of.

>>20969221
>Again, the same 'feeling' could be recreated with pavlovian triggers verbatim
>We're saying the stations of the cross erryday all day
>We're gonna put a novice at every gargoyle to explain it
>we're going to read out the allegory described in the portico in an eternal vigil
I don't think the population of medieval Europe could really cope with the amount of church lectors you'd need for this plan.
>checkerboard
Of course you're American.

>>20965722
Symbolism =/= allegory

>>20970610
>How does your mind translate basic observations about how conditioning works into these sorts of claims?
Because in order to hold your objection against (this topic) then this would need to be your claim. As you haven't been writing properly and actually presenting a case yourself I have, admittedly, had to extrapolate and make your own case for you, since you don't want to do it yourself. If you weren't arguing from that position with that claim - or something near to it - then you wouldn't be arguing with me to begin with.

>what's immediately apparent to the monkey reader but what is apparent isn't that way because it's inherently true, it's just what that particular monkey brain is very familiar with,
Oh, the "we can't trust our senses", this kind of thing?

Well this is true enough at a baseline level before we lack experience with a thing to know it properly; that was part of the earlier arguments 'against' the icons because overuse or excessive veneration 'of' the icons leads us to mistake 'them' for being truer than reality, and this can shown to be inferior or in error because it's a static and prearranged thing that may or may not be a true report from reality, and is less likely to be true at all, so the person who buys into the icon about a thing remains uninformed or misinformed about that thing itself: e.g. the actual farmer vs. the cartoon farmer. Displacement of reality by malleable very easily edited cut-outs.

> abstract thinking
> It's the process language is built on top of.
>basically symbolism.
That claim can be shown to be false very easily; we don't communicate in relation to abstract images of things we communicate in relation to things in reality itself, you're confusing here a drawn symbol on the ground which may represent a tree as coming before the tree and being more important than the tree, whereas the technical-symbol as it's drawn or spoken is a direct reference to the tree and serves as a physical reference, not something abstracted or intangible or existing at all within the brain of the person; it already exists and their speech is only truthful, as it were, when it's a clear and logical relay of that thing that exists.

I think the other person who was describing this as "concrete" understood this point already, that 'symbolism' has the problem of displacing the physical reference point with an abstract and intangible thing in the brain itself.

>>20970979
>Symbolism =/= allegory
preced. symbolism = Allegory, see: >>20968849

>>20970624
>you're American.
I'm usually the one to accuse others of this.

>church lectors
Ha, you're assuming they understand those things to be able to tell anybody about them in the first place.

That's actually a good point though; we can look at religions being recast or miscast and falling out of comprehension due to the confusion that comes from reliance on abstract symbols of "things intangible" instead of clear didactic instruction of things that exist in reality.

>>20970587
>The single detail of his hidden knife flips the encounter to a threatening one. A single contextual detail that explains the hidden knife flips it again.
Not to be pedantic but this describes an inference from partial information, not a deduction from broader evidence; i.e. it may be yes it may be no and add something else into it and it's just as "up in the air."

>. That Americans can't grasp the symbol
I don't watch a great deal of modern movies myself but it's rather bewildering that you're thinking this is actually true; take the film or the story or the political narrative (or narrative of self) and it's dependent upon a very small arrangement of symbolic-icon references in the pavlovian style via verbal command (or moving pictures), by use of this symbolism or that symbolism.

Adding happy or sad music to the same series of images of piece of film, for instance, to invoke the desired reaction of the audience is the easiest example of this. When it doesn't work or it's done too ham-fisted, it becomes unintended comedy.


So, your claim is that Americans both do not understand this (whilst being moved all the time by it) and they do not understand how good and intellectual the medium of symbolism is, whilst this dynamic is not a 'fault' of the medium of symbolism itself (although it obviously is inherent to the structure of symbolism as a medium).


Give an example of what you would consider 'good' usage of the medium of symbolism, and explain how we can avoid the 'good' usage being subverted - i.e. to avoid the good icon being "flipped on a dime" to conflate a bad thing with it's good or opposite equivalent or with some unrelated thing.

>>20967629
>I said that it's a lazy way to write and that stories where the stories rely on triggers of symbolism or fall back on "and when X did this it was a metaphor" are not 'fully fleshed out' in their story, as the story is an afterthought on the part of the writer 'to' the symbolism (or the grand or small allegory).
The thing is, you're a relatively unimaginative reader, so the great novels simply aren't going to affect you as much. You don't try to make the world come alive as you read to the best of your abilities. You're hardly even present and being moved, so all features of writing seem trite and fail to captivate you. Perhaps the other readers who annoy you with their insistence on strict symbolism are in a similar boat. The best works simply speak for themselves: symbols and themes emerge on their own, whether the author intends to or not.

You're just incapable of metaphorical thinking.

Like most people today you must have everything literally explained to you.

Symbolism is not a modern thing, your reaction to symbolism is the modern thing. It's why anti-religion is such a common sentiment now. Because for some reason people are just shit at metaphorical/symbolic thinking and they want all their information handed to them on a plate.

gawsh you didnt even dignify me with a direct response. Your reply is child-minded however and tpical of a fanatical zealot who pretends to find reasons why people think his/her childish culture of idiocy is obviously both childish and idiotic.

>>20972988
>so the great novels simply aren't going to affect you as much.
I agree with this, I find nothing in common with the tap-dancing and predictability I counter in many of the late 1800's kind of things you would call 'great'. I find even the style to be dreary. But I notice that this assrtion by some that those books are 'great' is just a matter of taste; I can, for instance, name dozens of writers from the 1700's to middle 1900's whose literary style is engaging and witty and perceptive not at all boring and flat. I put this down to poor reading comprehension, myself, as I usually hear 'the greats' mentioned by people who seem to using 'the greats' 'as' a symbol to appeal to an audience, and that such a speaker and their audience, when questioned, seem to understand relatively nothing of what goes on in the books other than the recall of a symbolism of this or this which they want to present themselves as being in tuned with.


>You don't try to make the world come alive as you read to the best of your abilities. You're hardly even present and being moved,
2nd person to do a schizophrenic turn around of my own verbatim criticism of the reader and writer of flat symbolism back onto me.

If this sentiment is 'true' from the opposite perspective then we must be coming from wildly different places, and I wouldn't like to visit your country. It sounds horrible.

>>20972999
gawsh you didnt even dignify me with a direct response. Your reply is child-minded however and typical of a fanatical zealot who pretends to find reasons why people think his/her childish culture of idiocy is obviously both childish and idiotic.


>>20972988
>so the great novels simply aren't going to affect you as much.
I agree with this, I find nothing in common with the tap-dancing and predictability I counter in many of the late 1800's kind of things you would call 'great'. I find even the style to be dreary. But I notice that this assrtion by some that those books are 'great' is just a matter of taste; I can, for instance, name dozens of writers from the 1700's to middle 1900's (as well as the ancient world and other places) whose literary style is engaging and witty and perceptive not at all boring and flat. I put this down to poor reading comprehension, myself, as I usually hear 'the greats' mentioned by people who seem to using 'the greats' 'as' a symbol to appeal to an audience, and that such a speaker and their audience, when questioned, seem to understand relatively nothing of what goes on in the books other than the recall of a symbolism of this or this which they want to present themselves as being in tuned with.


>You don't try to make the world come alive as you read to the best of your abilities. You're hardly even present and being moved,
2nd person to do a schizophrenic turn around of my own verbatim criticism of the reader and writer of flat symbolism back onto me.

If this sentiment is 'true' from the opposite perspective then we must be coming from wildly different places, and I wouldn't like to visit your country. It sounds horrible.

>>20972406
>then this would need to be your claim
No, you're simply braindead. There's no excusing any of the stupid shit you say. There's no possible explanation except you're an amazing example of how Americans are even dumber than I could predict.
>That claim can be shown to be false
Beyond braindead. There's nothing I or anyone can say to you on any subject. You're too fucked in the head to be able to think about anything.

>>20973033
Nobody can spoonfeed you meaning. Meaning is a participatory science, one that requires you to trailblaze paths for yourself. Nobody else can do it for you. If the great books aren't engaging you, maybe you're just not ready for them.

>>20973033
Like wanting everything to be obvious and apprent to you isn't childish.

But whatever. Cry some more.

>>20973045
>No, you're simply braindead. There's no excusing any of the stupid shit you say. There's no possible explanation except you're an amazing example of how Americans are even dumber than I could predict.
Haaaa
well you're just a fucking liar and I'm done talking to you, to be honest.

You've said absolutely nothing and made absolutely no case and every single response has been an unresponsive brick wall of gas-lighting on one level or another. You have only succeeded in making me more interested in pursuing this subject, because people like you who cherish it so much have been shown, by you, to be psychopaths who need what few pathetic tools they possess to be taken away from them.

>>20973055
>. If the great books aren't engaging you
No, they're just dull and crap and have nothing useful for anybody.

This is why 'western culture' failed to come up with arguments against various terrible things. and the blame for this is people like you, who when you find superior argument and superior ideas you realize they will show up your [pet ideology] so you attack those things as best as you can. A kind of pro-active nihilism.

>Nobody can spoonfeed you meaning.
Again,you're being schizophrenic. I think this about your symbols and reliance on them, I have said this, and you're just mirroring my own words back to me.

If you don't realize it then it's even creepier.

>>20973086
>no u
see previous.

still no argument being made

>>20973086
>Like wanting everything to be obvious and apprent
Great ethos, btw, instead of explaining to a person clearly how to operate this machinery step by step or do this thing or that thing, let's hope the person infers the correct sequences from these vague poems. Real genius idea. That worked out great.

>>20973103
>You've said absolutely nothing
Nothing you grasp. Do you not even understand the difference there?
Do you think the more words you type the less deranged you become? Reason and presenting a case based on it is completely alien to you so you just vomit out cancer post after cancer post with nothing in them. The process of abstract thinking I mentioned is beyond you. Monkeys can do this but you can not.
>I'm done talking
That is my deepest wish. A retarded idea can be interesting but a retard incapable of understanding anything will never be anything but cancer. That you think you're people is not adorable, it's a fucking insult to people.

>>20965722
Some authors just want to talk about themselves without letting others know that.

>>20973137
>That is my deepest wish.
No it's not. You keep replying. Thanks for bumping the thread btw, we had a great discussion about this subject before you arrived to sabotage it. It's good that you're helping promote the good thing :D

>>>You've said absolutely nothing
>Nothing you grasp.
You type abusive non-sequiturs ad hominem, and manage to half-make a claim somewhere in your few lines, I refute the claim, you don't follow up on the refutation to argue your case (because you obviously can't cos u were demonstrably wroonngggg lolz) then you type abusive non-sequiturs ad hominem again.

If you were even a tiny bit as intelligent as you want to make the reader believe you are then your insult to claim ratio would be inverted, or there would be no insults at all. All you're really accomplishing is to make me not put this subject to one side and focus on something else for this weeks writing project (it's fascinating to me whenever i hit a subject that produces such a strong and vicious reaction like this), 'and' you're making the people - harmless little doves I'm sure - who "like 'symbolism'" seem like insane sociopaths who try to bully and gas-light people in discussion threads.

obviosuly you're craazy but I wish you'd take a little tine to actually convey your position and tell us where you come from, what your religion is, which books you like, and so on, so I don't have to just guess what your "local programming" consists of that set you into this disposition. tho i'd likely be right if i did

>>20969360
it can be both, dumb dumb.

FUNTIME:
I would 'guess' the abusive anon is a catholic, with a liking for 'abstract metaphysics' as opposed to logical cause and proof (fantasy being reliant on not using logic), whereas his hostility and viciousness if not just a pathos-reaction to his habituated cultural ethos being challenged by logos, and if not just classical deflection or mirroring (schizoid echolalia or ODD), is coming from a position of blind moral righteousness whereupon his tastes have been equated with him as being God, and he rationalizes that none can know God but he so he won't make a case or offer anrgument but merely proclamations of his own subejctive feelings which without proofs offered he xpects to be taken as being literal truths,

likely,
(he has said he's not from an english speaking country) he's a German or some form of mongrelized barbarian nation whose culture has been destroyed and who feels himself a champion in a wasteland. His role model is Parsival (however that's spelled) or something much like it; a classical fantasy of the iscolated and untested barbarian who imagines himself a powerful berserker but has simply never experienced 10,000 like him dying against a roman shield wall to great him a sense of humility and perspective.

His rigidity of language and refusal against amicable discourse suggests a german or perhaps dutch upbringing. I would be sad to learn he was a Wallonian or Vlanderen.

His reading material is modern in the extreme; his knowledge of psychiatry and language hypothesis displays little depth or working methodology beyond rote recall of largely modernistic proclamations (1970's earliest), whilst he dips into older 1800's authors (and the mandatory copy of Plato) as some men might absent mindedly dip a crisp or nacho into a bowl of spiced cheese. This, he believes, has instilled him with a great depth an breadth of thorough intellectual superiority perhaps justifiably so given his likely small or absent social circle, which we may deduce is absent due to his supremely poor conversational manner.


I put £1,000 on each presumption I have just made and would make the bet without reserve of gaining more than I would lose. All this I deduce from his replies, which to the best of my recollection are to be found here (skipping some not to me personally):
>>20973137
>>20973045
>>20972999
>>20970610
>>20970045
>>20969274
>>20968688
>>20968655
>>20967670
>>20966360
>>20966209

don't even bother to screencap a ms. paint edit where half of the (you)'s are missing from the above, abusive anon. I won't believe you.

>>20973201
>I refute the claim
I tried to establish basic accepted facts, a common basis for any discussion to even begin. In response you make 40 blog posts with a variety of different fantasies about me that have nothing to do with anything I said. Mostly based on being triggered by calling you out for your retardation, which is another sign of how retarded you are.
>the abusive anon is a catholic,
You are abusing this board, this is not a place for retards like you, you can't even deal with the anonymity. The most helpful posts I've ever had called me a retard. Being corrected is the best because it tells you your methods are working and you're moving forward. You don't have any methods, everything is about vague conditioned associations like "this guy must be catholic". All your predictions are wrong because you can't think. All your ideas about the world are based on conditioning that you don't know how to critically analyze.

The ideas around AI that now are resulting in computers making symbolic art talk about a lot of relevant stuff if you're actually interested, they make predictions and show those predictions working in practice. I'm talking about well tested ideas that predict how the brain developed. You're talking about your ill informed personal opinions about things you don't understand on any level.

>>20973517
>The most helpful posts I've ever had called me a retard.
Why didn't you listen to them and stop posting here?

>I tried to establish basic accepted facts,
> a common basis for any discussion to even begin.
You tried to reframe the topic, I rejected the basis that you wanted to reframe by.

>a common basis for any discussion to even begin.
That's how I know you're a catholic (or in fairness any other brand), this is a common seminary tactic where religious apologists are taught that when they don't make an argument or can't hold a conversation that this means "they won the debate" - this is moreos your mentality; you can't make a case or defend any half-cases you manage to make and you're quite content to pretend to yourself that the other people talking to you are the ones guilty of (every instance of verbal abuse you've given).

Also, again, your language use is entirely deflective. e.g. here: you got the hint that I'm calling you delusional and so you quickly tell me that I have "fantasies" and that it's not precise and surgically noting these kind of things about you to be true, but that they're"vague" as if I won't notice when you do what I say you're going to do.

Honestly I think your reading comprehension is so poor that you're not even connecting the words together to understand 'what' I'm actually saying to you, sort of a dyslexia or a mental problem (trauma induced) where you can't process criticism or being wrong in an argument without taking it all to heart.

I mean, look at this,
>you can't think

Who's going to believe you? I'm clearly far more intelligent than you, far more respectable in my speech - good manners and logical argument - and you're just saying "retard" over and over with an air of dumb smugness about you. It's comical, and I mean that absolutely literally.


Look, I have to be going, perhaps we'll finish this off when I come home again for my supper.

Make me impressed by doing what I said yesterday, going back to the start and taking the time to make a clear and reasoned logical case.

>>20965722
Symbolism doesn't ruin the stories. It means the stories are already no longer relevant. Symbolism is actually an essential step in that natural process of decay which all things in this universe are subject to eventually.

Also, extracting symbolism from old stories is fruitful. It allows for the creation of a new foundation from which new stories can be made. The stage of analysis is crucial to the Magician whose domain is centered around crafting illusions for the next generation.

>>20973598
>That's how I know you're a catholic
I actually know, you don't. In this post it seems you're even having trouble with the concept of speculation itself, confusing random ideas that pop into your head with reality.
You managed to reduce the idea of working from common grounds to some catholic thing and you still can't see how you're subversive cancer. You're very literally subverting the basis of any reasonable dialogue.

The most interesting thing about your posts is how deranged someone can actually be. I can try to speculate about what causes that, this line of thinking led me to believe you're American and retarded, likely incapable of grasping anything said to you. You confirmed these predictions. Compare that to your speculation about me so far which has not had a single correct hit.

>>20973942
>The most interesting thing about your posts is how deranged someone can actually be. I can try to speculate about what causes
lol ok
but did you see in the post you replied to, where I was saying things like this about you and how I was sure I was right about this because I was able to predict what you'd do, and then you go ahead and do what I said you were already doing - copying my words and observations about you, etc. How can I be wrong as you say when I've managed to construct a working model to predict what you'll say and do, within only a few times talking to you?


Look, honestly, I am bored of talking to you now and I don't want to read anything more you've said so I'm going to skip the rest of it.

yawn yawn yawn


>>20973632
>extracting symbolism from old stories is fruitful. It allows for the creation of a new foundation from which new stories can be made.
sshure like a frankensteins monster of cobbled together body parts.

>>20974267
>a frankensteins monster of cobbled together body parts
That's all stories anyway.

>>20974274
I believe the name is a .,.,., errr .,.,.,., fuck i forgot. But the idea of a frankensteins monster goes back to the bronze age, it's a thing. Monsters made of different bits of different animals.

A Chimera. that's it.

>>20974290
A chimera would be a failed experiment. Even successful experiments / mythologies are built on the reflections of earlier successful experiments.

>>20974370
The point is, my chap,
"an imaginary monster compounded of incongruous parts"
that it is: "in+con+gruous"
>>20973632
>>extracting symbolism from old stories is
incongruous
It allows for the creation of a new foundation from which new stories can be made
which are doomed to be incongruous

e.g. the lesson of Procrustes can only be diminished by merging with it the fabula of some other thing, like the cyclopes or the sirens, immediately the potency of the original story is lost, or diluted, turned into a kiddie flick.

>>20974370
The point is, my chap,
"an imaginary monster compounded of incongruous parts"
that it is: "in+con+gruous"
>>20973632
>>extracting symbolism from old stories is
incongruous
It allows for the creation of a new foundation >>from which new stories can be made
which are doomed to be incongruous

e.g. the lesson of Procrustes can only be diminished by merging with it the fabula of some other thing, like the cyclopes or the sirens, immediately the potency of the original story is lost, or diluted, turned into a kiddie flick.

or, on point, better yet:
e.g. the fabula of thor and (green woman - i forget) are twisted to bits by putting thor together with a dozen other 'heroes' from separate fabula, spiderman etc.

>>20974370
The point is, my chap,
"an imaginary monster compounded of incongruous parts"
that it is: "in+con+gruous"
>>20973632
>>extracting symbolism from old stories is
incongruous
>>It allows for the creation of a new foundation from which new stories can be made
which are doomed to be incongruous

>e.g. the lesson of Procrustes can only be diminished by merging with it the fabula of some other thing, like the cyclopes or the sirens, immediately the potency of the original story is lost, or diluted, turned into a kiddie flick.

or, on point, better yet:
>e.g. the fabula of thor and (green woman - i forget) are twisted to bits by putting thor together with a dozen other 'heroes' from separate fabula, spiderman etc.

>>20974469
Your point is ignorant. ALL stories, even the greatest mythologies of antiquity, were founded on an analysis of earlier stories. These stories didn't just suddenly appear, they were developed over thousands of years of oral tradition and many emerge in various forms in other societies.

What you're ignoring is the fact that there are both appropriate and inappropriate applications of such an analysis. These days, we mostly see inappropriate applications, because modern society has forgotten a tremendous amount of tradition.

>>20967591
Make yourself get fucked in the ass.

>>20974486
>Your point is ignorant. ALL stories, even the greatest mythologies of antiquity, were founded on an analysis of earlier stories. These stories didn't just suddenly appear, they were developed over thousands of years of oral tradition and many emerge in various forms in other societies.
You're making me yawn. Are you the same guy I just said I wasn't going to talk to again?

okay refutation time,
> the greatest mythologies of antiquity,
> stories didn't just suddenly appear,
They're each recollections of a living man who was intelligent and a good leader who did something useful. Theseus or Caeculus, for instance. No, the stories didn't just appear, nor were they assembled by a team of professional nerds.

I reject your framing of this.

But for the sake of going somewhere with the thought, I'll respond as if I didn't,
> there are both appropriate and inappropriate applications of (the stories of these real men which got lost to time as they were passed along through the mans descendants)
ok, agreed.

I never disagreed with this; there is 'the symbol' of heracles, for example, a true report in origin of heracles which would not exist without heracles, and then there are people who pick up that symbol and use it to create things incongruous with heracles of whom they robbing of his authority to grant it to something else - to grant it to whatsoever they add to it.

>we mostly see inappropriate applications,
agreed. My earlier point was that we cannot help but find mtly inappropriate applications due to the flimsy nature of abstract or vague and indefinite symbols (icons in the verbatim meaning); a logical and clear recollection of heracles se tin stone, for instance, like the (biography) of octavian caesar cannot be picked up so easily and used to lend legitimacy to somebody unlike octavia caesar.

> because modern society has forgotten a tremendous amount of tradition.
Which, see above, they could not help but do given the flimsy nature of having relied upon abstractions instead of clear didactics in the first place.

e.g. the technical manual to teach yo how to operate a machine, vs. an ephemeral poem by which you are hoped to somehow interpret in such a way as to do the job of the technical manual and teach you how to operate the machine.
i said this earlier but it's worth repeating as it highlights the great drawback of reliance upon this vs. that.

>>20974524
I'd rather put a rope around your neck and kick a stool out from under you while your mother watches, anon.

>they robbing
(of whom) they are* robbing

>>20974267
You can indeed predict that I'll call you a retard again retard.
I mentioned the basics needed for any dialogue and you called it "catholic". Operating based on reason is now "catholic" and therefore bad.
How do people communicate in your world without any common ground to build on? How does that work? How does one argue without logic?

>>20974576
The reason you can't say anything in few words is you don't say things based on reason. You apparently think purely in all these vague associations so there's no commonality to anything, no mechanisms or reasons behind anything. Everything is an exception (because there is no rule) that needs multiple essays to even begin to try to describe.

>>20974600
>the basics needed for any dialogue
"You tried to reframe the topic, I rejected the basis that you wanted to reframe (it) by"
see: >>20973598

in my country we call this "queering the pitch" when a person dishonestly seeks to arrange a game or a case in a manner favorable to their own position before deigning to play or discuss.

>>20974630
>The reason you can't say anything in few words is you don't say things based on
based on vague inferences and prearranged conditions by which the bias held by yourself can be confirmed without having to construct a case. This is why you don't make a case yourself, and why you're reduced to childish insults and put-downs that you don't even realize don't work on people anymore.

You're a slow-witted eurotrash, coming with out-moded notions, I resent you speaking in my language and ask you politely to revert to your own monkey babbling.

>>20974635
>You tried to reframe the topic
"Symbolism: representing one thing with another".
>symbolism is bad
No it's even a basic function of the brain and what all abstract thinking including language is based on.
>you're catholic
Write another blog about how you're not braindead. You care a lot more about those parts of my posts than anything else. It doesn't occur to you that this reveals something about you? The "abuser" response made me think you're a woman.

>>20965722
This is the stupidest fucking board on all of 4chan

>>20974576
tl;dr

Nothing is new under the sun. Get over it.

>>20974655
lol again I reject your initial reframing of the topic. When I refused and explained why, you reverted to verbal abuse for ten or more replies, and you can't leave here without replying again lol

> it's even a basic function of the brain and what all abstract thinking including language is based on.
again, i rejected your framing of this quite fully and explained to you how this supposition you hold is a demonstrable error. You failed to defend your position, so you lost a while back.

>You care a lot more about those parts of my posts than anything else
I really don't. In every reply I've told you to stop insulting me and present a clear case w/re: the topic itself.

>The "abuser" response made me think you're a woman.
I used lots of other words as well. ODD and schizoid echolalia, as clinical descriptions for your responses, as well as the colloquialism 'gas-lighting', which is also factual as a description.

>>20974692
>Nothing is new under the sun. Get over it.
okay, so I see no refutation to my case. I win again. thanks lazy anon.

this is easy.

>>20974709
>I see no refutation to my case
You must be blind then, sorry to hear that.

>>20974721
Your response was an admission that you couldn't read or understand what had been said, then you typed out a saying popularized by gnostics.

i.e. you read and disagreed and could think of no factual refutation.

>>20974695
>i rejected your framing
It's what the word means. Representing one thing with another. If you're so deranged that you're attacking symbolism itself there is some deep issue going on that has nothing to do with symbolism.
The "framing" is about using words and reason instead of being a stereotypical brainwashed American hole. You're talking as if you have some aesthetic problem with using logic but are you capable of using it even if you don't think it's pretty?
>stop insulting me
No. Leave and don't come back. One of the biggest draws to anonymity is the ability to get harsh criticism without ruining relationships. There's no criticism harsh enough for you. Reconsider your entire thought process, how you think, everything.
You're less than worthless to any internet forum in your current state, you drag people down with your retardation. I'm sure you can provide someone something in your life but likely not through writing or anything related to thinking.

>>20974731
>Your response was an admission that you couldn't read or understand what had been said
I said tl;dr, as in I didn't even read your verbose bullshit at all. You are simply wrong in pushing against the notion that analyzing stories can lead to new ones. It's how all stories are developed. Nothing exists in a vacuum.

>>20974733
>You're talking as if you have some aesthetic problem with using logic but are you capable of using it even if you don't think it's pretty
YAWWWWWWWWN
so now you're conflating the symbolism of unproven 'ethos' (local regional traditionalism) as if it were case-constructing 'logos'.

I realize you're eurotrash but they don't still brainwash you moppets into believing this kind of shit, do they?

> If you're so deranged that you're attacking symbolism itself there is some deep issue going on that has nothing to do with symbolism.
You may believe that 'symbolism' is "all logic" but you have no basis for this assertion, it is disproven by understanding what ethos is as opposed to or distinct from logos.

>No. Leave and don't come back.
Nu uh. My thread. you go away you dirty foreigner; you who have grown up on my cultural language and have taken clownishly out-dated ideas and demand I call them fashionable.


Again, all of this you've said has been in reaction to my saying that stories that are badly written where the author employs symbols a kak-handed manner (e.g. the modern comicbook hero movies; these cookie-cutter things which are predictable) are "boring" to me. You act like I've killed your messiah or present some great threat to you and your world (fantasy tho it is) ... I found that more interesting than this topic, once we'd gotten done with the topic before you arrived that is.

>>20974747
Well you're in error, as I tried to explain to you using my big words and heretical connected sentences where my words formed a case supported by clauses and offering conclusions. I'm sorry to have disturbed you from your heroin addiction there that the light burned your retina.

>ou are simply wrong in pushing against the notion that analyzing stories can lead to new ones.
was this said?

I said that splicing unrelated things together and coming up with "new stories" (i.e. the lazy writing process I described in the OP) is an incongruous act. I'm describing Chris Chans Sonichu. I don't know what you thought I was describing otherwise.

>>20974733
>>i rejected your framing
>It's what the word means
oh hold on,abusive anon, you didn't read properly. I said I also rejected the reframig that our language is refering to symbols, as the language refers in reality to things in reality; points of reference, from which "a symbol" in the crudest sense of the word, will be first of all dervied from.

This is actually kind of vital to understand what we're saying here: see the earlier 'tree' example. You ascribe "it all" to the symbol, not realizing that the symbol has no meaning at all and does not exist without being a reference to a material thing in reality. When you use icons or symbolism, then, you go further and further away from that original reference point to the material thing from the first ape man produced the first icon in reference to, as: you value now the symbol INFINITELY GREATER than the material thing that the symbol was drawn in reference to.

>>20974799
>I said that splicing unrelated things together and coming up with "new stories" (i.e. the lazy writing process I described in the OP) is an incongruous act
Okay, well that's not what was initially suggested. Story analysis isn't necessarily "splicing unrelated things together." That's an inappropriate application of analysis, as already stated.

>>20974788
>so now you're
I'm talking about the point about working from common or at least established grounds, logically instead of using only subjective conditioning.
>You may believe that 'symbolism' is "all logic"
Who are you quoting?
Symbolism is representing one thing with another. I noted how deranged it is to attack "symbolism" in that sense, sort of expecting a clarification where you say you're talking about some specific movement or something but nope. Every post gets more braindead than the last.
>My thread
You're a fully vaxxed female nurse that doesn't understand any of the local tropes or the value in how anything is done including anonymity. You're clearly lost.
>in reaction to my saying that stories that are badly written
Great point retard, badly written stories are bad. Symbolism is everywhere, that doesn't change if you're a brainwashed nurse that can't understand anything beyond her immediate brainwashing.

It's fine, you were biologically predetermined to be a brainwashed retard. Women need to be easily brainwashed retards so they don't rock the boat. Their survival rested on accepting anything the dominant voice said no matter how dumb. The only mistake was giving women access to the internet.

>>20974851
>I said I also rejected the reframig that our language is refering to symbols
Our language is symbols. The letter A is a bull, every word has an etymology. Representing a thing with a sound is symbolism.
I am writing these words using symbols, representing ideas with words made of lines, little drawings. On every level symbolism in the widest sense is happening. You can't grasp anything but you should be able to grasp that letters are representations of one thing with another. Are you capable of that?
>the language refers in reality to things in reality
Words have some special relationship to reality? I grunt at a chair and after that you know that grunt means chair. The grunt is a representation of something else.
To a brainwashed retard "reality" is what is familiar, when you grew up representations of familiar things were reinforced over and over until it would never occur to you to question them. The symbols appear to have a direct relationship to things and everyone around you acts as if that's true. That's called language. That's how in the mind of a retard a chair becomes just a chair, as if fundamental reality is somehow made of chairs.

>>20972406
>>you're American.
>I'm usually the one to accuse others of this
You used American spelling. It's either American or an alternative form of illiteracy.
>>20972406
>>church lectors
>Ha, you're assuming they understand those things to be able to tell anybody about them in the first place.
It wouldn't matter if it were for, as you described, >>20969221 #
>Again, the same 'feeling' could be recreated with pavlovian triggers verbatim
[special emphasis on "pavlovian triggers verbatim"]
You're walking into your own argument you're so incapable of thoughtful discussion on things you've raised yourself. You should stop making the assumption you understand the words you are typing as it has not been evidenced.

>>20974907
>well that's not what was initially suggested.

Kinda was though, remember this bit?
>(i.e. the lazy writing process I described in the OP)

>>20974956
> Every post gets more braindead than the last.
I think you have tourettes. Every response includes some kind of insult.

anyway, I'm getting a little sleepy over here so let's make this one quick,

>You're a fully vaxxed female nurse that doesn't understand any of the local tropes or the value in how anything is done


.. ok no idea what you're talking about or how it's related to the topic. skip


>>20975036
> symbols
..in the crassest possible sense... you're talking about literal symbols now? I thought we were talking about those "abstract concepts" in language you mentioned.

>. The letter A is a bull,
>Representing a thing with a sound is symbolism.

Oh, I already told you this wasn't what was being talked about. I told you days ago that when you conflated this with that subject that you were doing a reductio ad infinitum by expanding the bounds of the subject into unrelated non-seq.

>Words have some special relationship to reality? I grunt at a chair and after that you know that grunt means chair. The grunt is a representation of something else.
back to language,

Yeah, this is what I said. You got it!

Now regarding "abstractions represented by symbols" which of those bits is primary in hierarchy in that scenario you described,
1) the cow itself
2) the verbal sound made by the man about the cow
3) the sound as a phonetic construct
4) what the man thinks the cow is
5) what i hear the sound as meaning
6) what the sound sounds like

because when you advocate the primacy of the symbolism itself, using that list of things in your example, you're placing every subsequent musing 'before' the material reference of the cow itself. When you take those musings out of their reference to the material object that they were about, then you're being incongruous about that material object itself and ave drifted from the "concrete and demonstrable" into the abstract and the fantasy.

Hence why I've been using the word Iconodulism to describe this mentality better than just saying "symbolism", as it refers to the reverence of images of a thing and not the thing itself.

> "reality" is what is familiar, when you grew up representations of familiar things were reinforced over and over until it would never occur to you to question them.
demonstrably untrue

> in the mind of a retard a chair becomes just a chair,
A chair 'is' a chair.

> The symbols appear to have a direct relationship to things and everyone around you acts as if that's true.
That's .. "local regional opinion" (ethos), which changes from one place to the next, the chair remains a chair no matter what mythos is given to it. The habit of making up mythos of some people is not 'fixed' in our communication faculties (language itself) as a it were an immovable constant or as if we required mythos in order to point and grunt.

>>20975332
>American spelling
did i? oh force of habit probably

>>20975332
>pavlovian triggers
holy jesus, you can't expect me to write out an essay about something so obvious and easily evidenced that you don't know this for yourself.

pavlovian triggers to arouse the same nice or bad feeling can be constructed and conditioned into a person, this is the same process 'verbatim', as for you to get an erection over some sacred symbolism you've been conditioned into respondng to.

If we both understand this dynamic as to its effect then,
1) we agree that the effect of symbolism exists on the simple-minded or children, let's say,
2) the process of it is malleable and can be constructed easily (see cookie cutter, movies)
and therefore the dynamic and the symbolism isn't to be trusted by comparison to less malleable mediums by which to convey the same essential 'feeling' that the symbolism arouses in a person.

lol oh shit
> literal symbols
i mean... uhhmm .. literal; 'actual', physical written symbols

not literary symbolism

let's not waste 2 more days on this misreading of what's been said

>>20975332
> this is the same process 'verbatim',
I mean, "this is the same process", doing the one is identical in the manner of thought and function as doing the other.

i did use the word 'verbatim' a little over-emphatically there; the two processes and manner of playing them out, form-for-form are identical, is what i meant.

i feel a semantic rebuttal coming on from the anon in the next reply

>>20975342
>remember this bit?
You mean the bit referencing inappropriate methods of using analysis? No amount of cope will change the fact that grand narratives are built off of other grand narratives. It's a gradual, unending process.

>>20975036
>>20975342
>> The symbols appear to have a direct relationship to things and everyone around you acts as if that's true.
>That's .. "local regional opinion" (ethos), which changes from one place to the next, the chair remains a chair no matter what mythos is given to it. The habit of making up mythos of some people is not 'fixed' in our communication faculties (language itself) as a it were an immovable constant or as if we required mythos in order to point and grunt.

I ran out room to type.

the element of mythos is superfluous to our language faculties, which are sown to be derived not from fantasy but directly from material references of things directly around in reality, is what I was going to add to this. Mythos, in your equation, is superfluous, so your argument about "abstract symbolism" (fantasies) forming the basis of the spoken word or thought in our brain is provable as being false.

We can make shit up and people do, of course. But this doesn't make anything made-up by such persons to be true, it's only true insofar that it's a clear and direct report on reality around them and we only know whether it's true or not by examining it.


There's no room for "abstract symbolism" in that equation anywhere, and I think you're going to be hilarious and tell me that all this time yo were talking about letters as physical symbols in the written word, which couldn't be a more crazy stupid way for you to have come into this subject after reading the OP and thinking that to be what was being talked about.

>>20975511
lol I mean obviously the OP that you replied to where what was said was nothing like what you responded to 'as if it were' being said.

>grand narratives are built off of other grand narratives.
I don't disagree with this observation, but I don't think it matters to the subject here. When we know that mythos and legends and the first men that the 'cherished icons' were crafted to recall, then... we don't need tose icons when we have the men themselves, or the knowledge of their lives and deeds; we don't ned to pretend they wer wizards, for example, when we learn that they were engineers and when we know what engineering is. Then we understand that when other people said they were wizards that it was because they were a little bit stupid and didn't know what engineering was.

With that taken into account, when you're speaking of
>grand narratives are built off of other grand narratives. It's a gradual, unending process.
ok fine, but you're speaking of stories for toddlers who haven't yet developed the cognitive dexterity to understand the 'real' story that the pretend-play story ultimately came from when the bits of the real story were confused or lost in translation.


Again, my example of the technical manual vs. the ephemeral poem, both compared as guides to operating a machine, still fits here. I don't know whether you get the point yet though.

better yet:
> it's only true insofar that it's a clear and direct report on reality around them and we only know whether it's true or not by examining it.
it's only true insofar that it's a clear and direct report on reality around them and we only know whether it's true or not by examining it, and it only 'will be true' 'if' what has been said by the person has been a true report on reality around them; in the sense of a technical manual.

>>20973254
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/therapist.htm

>>20965722
I don't like symbolism that serves as a second story to the story but I am fine with symbolism that is made to fit the story and guide us to certain interpretations. It's like the body language of writing.

>>20965722
clinical autism in a post.

>>20975342
>I already told you this wasn't what was being talked about.
You say you're not but still do. The ideas you have about symbolism in literature reflects how you're unaware of all the symbolism the ideas you take for granted are grounded in.
>Yeah, this is what I said. You got it!
You said nothing even close, you said some vague shit about words having some special relationship to reality. I think you still believe english words are somehow magic, that they're not has never occurred to you until now.
>which of those bits is primary in hierarchy
Braindead. What the fuck is this supposed to mean? What's most relevant depends on context.
>you advocate the primacy of the symbolism itself
Braindead. We can't reference a thing without using a symbol, that's not putting the symbol "primary" in some hierarchy. You can't avoid symbols, you have barely any access to the ultimate reality.
>When you take those musings out of their reference to the material object
When I do that I'm thinking abstractly. It's how knowledge about cows can be abstracted and applied in other situations.
>the reverence of images of a thing and not the thing itself.
Is what you do, then you project this lazy idolatry onto everything except your own behavior. There are many good metaphors that convey the difference between words and what they reference in insightful ways. The map is not the territory. If I point at the moon don't focus on the finger.
>demonstrably untrue
Demonstrably? Demonstrate it. This is pretty much the accepted standard model of how people learn, in few words.
>A chair 'is' a chair.
It's a million things, from one perspective it's a fluctuation in some field with no special significance over any other fluctuation. You're talking about your conditioned representation of a chair, not a chair. You're confusing the map with the territory, "venerating words" as if they're reality. You really thing words are magic.
>the chair remains a chair
Whatever it was it remains that way but you conceived of it as a chair. It's not inherently a chair. The world is not made of chairs.
You have your own local ethos which you believe is holy truth, that a chair is a chair. Your brainwashing or as you prefer to frame it, religious dogma really is at the core of everything you say.
>There's no room for "abstract symbolism" in that equation anywhere
Everything in the equation is symbolism. There's no fundamental difference in the process that's happening between highly abstract and simple representations like letters, just a few more steps of the same kind of mechanism. There's no fixed point at which abstract connections become "too" esoteric, it depends entirely on what's familiar to the reader. A working mind is capable of making more connections than a retard.

>>20975625
>a clear and direct report
Is just another way of saying "a report that only uses already very familiar concepts and framing".
It's only clear to you because you already know almost everything being said, it's adhering to a predefined format with no real surprises. Something that really inspires some new thought can't be totally clear and "direct", it can't fit into the established formats.
In reality it takes weeks to learn anything new even when it's something relatively simple. Dreaming is part of the process of converting abstract representations into concrete ones, actual physical connections in the brain. Language is one way to represent ideas abstractly, we hijack established neural connections to represent something new. When something complex is explained often we feel like we understand it in the moment it's explained but that feeling of understanding goes away soon after. To make the understanding concrete we have to think about the subject more, reinforce the new pathways, preferably dream about it.

>>20965722
Symbols are pretty intrinsic to writing and exist even at a less-defined level, for instance often the external conflict is a symbol of one's internal conflict. I think symbols are a borderline necessary to create a story of true merit, as they play a huge role in depth.

>>20976431
But also to your point about this not being the case for older stories, that's simply not true. Nearly every story in the bible can be taken as a symbolic lesson, the same for Aesop's Fables, the same for countless other myths and stories created for the sake of teaching a simple life lesson to someone.

Euthanize the autists.

The New Testament is an encrypted philosophy and science book. It's all metaphors.

>>394981762

>>20975403
>>20975474
I think you should take my advice about not trying to dig your way out of a hole you had to be told you were in.

>>20977459
>The New Testament is an encrypted philosophy and science boo
How did you come to this conclusion?

>>20965722
Symbolism and allegory is a necessary element of storytelling vis-a-vis myth, and it's inescapable. You can't avoid certain metaphor insofar as it's part of the human experience, like seasons corresponding to segments of a lifespan or darkness being symbolic of ignorance. Symbolism is essentially man looking at nature and recognizing patterns and how he fits into them.
As far as what you might be talking about, I guess symbolism if it's pushed hard by the author is a sort of pretentiousness in trying to force something that comes naturally. I think a lot of people enjoy reading things into stories that aren't there because it makes them feel smart to 'solve the puzzle'.

>>20975691
this lol

>>20976236
the exact opposite, if you knew what autism was.

>>20976143
>It's like the body language of writing.
oh gross. Yeah I agree, it's the girl noticing a man has his arms-folded or legs crossed and she decides to focus on that and nothing else, in her paranoia, and projects anger or hostility onto him, where it doesn't otherwise exist.

>>20976329
>You say you're not but still do.
Jesus, how I can convicne you that what you think is being talked about is not what is being talked about? Refer back to the OP, notice what was said, then ask yourself whether that looks like we were talking about the letters of words, those green text bits here: >>20965722

lol this is .. ugghh i am so bored of you anon..

>Braindead.
> some vague shit about words having some special relationship to reality.
What? That's what you said when you conflated third-hand symbols with the basis of language; I tell you that we derive language from material refernece points in reality, and you keep blanking this out.Then you tell 'me' that 'I' think this is magic then you go onto say that "reality can't be known", MYSTICISM(!)

You say 'vague' as if you're not even properly processing the information being given to you.

>You can't avoid symbols, you have barely any access to the ultimate reality.

This is actually "vague" unscientific false-gnostic nonsense, this belief of yours that nothing can be known of reality; it's solipsism and nihilism. You use the smbols, then, as anchors'to' reality, explaining your great veneration of symbolism, because you believe you can't actually study and figure out how a thing operates in reality - like a chair or a tree etc., without reverting to a third-hand symbolism to tell you about it without studying the thing itself.

>What the fuck is this supposed to mean?
i.e. which came first, the object or the word to the describe the object. Obviously it was the object so we study the object first of all, not the symbolism somebody attached to the object as it may or may not have anything to do with the object.

>t>he reverence of images of a thing and not the thing itself.
>Is what you do, then you project this lazy idolatry
Once again, taking my description of your behaviors and actions and repeating it back to me is an act of unconscious schizophrenia: e.g. if you're wearing a rd hat an I say you're wearing a red hat, then you say that I am wearing a red hat when I'm not. This is what you keep doing, it's not a good tactic, it's childlike gas-lighting if its just you being clever and if it's sincerely your belief then it's schizophrenia. enough.

>>A chair 'is' a chair.
>It's a million things,
> from one perspective it's a fluctuation in some field with no special significance over any other fluctuation.
that's cute, anon. Reductio ad infinitum, reductio ad absurdum.

It's unrelated to the symbolism thing, see above, "Obviously it was the object so we study the object first of all,"

1/?

>>20976329
>> when you grew up representations of familiar things were reinforced over and over until it would never occur to you to question them.
>This is pretty much the accepted standard model of how people learn
Yes it is... but it's not optimal or the only method ever devised. e can compare,for example, training a person in deductive logic to deduce the mechanisms of the same thing, vs. a person simply rote-learned to memorize bits of a book about the same thing.

What you describe moreso resembles the baseline accidental inculcation of various habits or errors into a child, which is 'ethos' (inherited tradition from local region), and has nothing to do with logic; it's blind inherited opinion which is as easily correct as incorrect, as the basis wasn't on truthful analysis (unbiased inquiry) but on the opinion inherited (bias),
e.g.
memorizing a passage from a book about a thing and refusing to investigate or study the thing itself in reality to know 'for sure' how it works. but you've neutered yourself to this in advance by postulating that
>you have barely any access to the ultimate reality.

hm.

>you conceived of it as a chair. It's not inherently a chair.
In your example is a cow not inherently a cow? What I'm saying here is that there obviously are plenty of things we can learn from the cow,or the tree, when we begin to study it. To stick with your example here, I'm suggesting that we go and study the animal and you're telling me "no" because your have a symbolism in your culture which says that cow is a holy creature and that we must not study it at all.

This as where I'm coming from w/re: symbolism tending to displace reality.

>There's no fixed point at which abstract connections become "too" esoteric
See above.


> A working mind is capable of making more connections than a retard.
It's ironic that you can't make any of these connections then, right?

But again, you've muddled this up, you think that a person who relies on being told what to think about a thing via a symbolism is intellectually superior; spoonfed simplistic stories essentially, than a person who figures out 100x more about the thing without the symbol, or by rejecting the symbolism in order to begin that "unbiased inquiry" into the thing in the first instance.

I don't understand how you'd reach that conclusion at all, it seems entirely the opposite,as if one as content with third-hand symbolism they'd never inquire into anything at all.

>>20976447
agreed.


>>20977681
I think you should go back to pre-school and ask somebody to help you with macaroni paintings, if you're a grown adult and don't know who pavlov was or how a pavlovian trigger operates.

2/3

Filtered.

>>20978139
> I think a lot of people enjoy reading things into stories that aren't there because it makes them feel smart to 'solve the puzzle'.
Yes, very much this. That's what I'm saying is the "displacement of reality" about the thing, e.g. thinking you know something about "Tunisia" but having only been exposed to a cardboard cut-out or news show (nous show lol) where a dog or a cow has been called "Tunisia", you'd be none the wiser about what or where Tunisia was.

>t, I guess symbolism if it's pushed hard by the author is a sort of pretentiousness in trying to force something that comes naturally.
much this.


>You can't avoid certain metaphor insofar as it's part of the human experience,
It's a problem though, because false narratives can easily be constructed from the use of a couple of symbolic recalls (pavlov) and the untrained human mind can be sent into hysteria on command. It's obviously a weakness that some people have that some people don't.

I mean, w/re: stories and mythology, few people actually bother to explore the things properly; the monster is a monster and they don't get far enough beyond the surface-symbol the superficiality to see what was trying to be conveyed via the original mythology - some people do but some people don't, that's why I say it's an inferior medium. As well as just being boring and babyish.

3/3

>It's obviously a weakness that some people have that some people don't.

or it's a baseline condition, as I tend to conclude it is... and it's reinforced to prolong that childlike naivety-malleability, as movies and stories when they employ these things are operating within a predictable framework, and if we hadn't figured it out then wouldn't be able to predict it.

ed.
> the monster is a monster and they don't get far enough beyond the surface-symbol the superficiality to see what was trying to be conveyed via the original mythology

I mean, I have obviously studied and read and learned about the mythologies. The story of Pandora or Apollos Mortal Year are, I think, genius. But I also notice that trying to get anybody else to study and understand the lessons is very difficult, and so if I were going to convey those same lessons myself for the maximum possible reach, I wouldn't do it by telling a fable story and I wouldn't rely on symbolism in hopes that one or two people may get it and 10,000 others won't. That's no way near good enough.

>>20978139
ed.
> the monster is a monster and they don't get far enough beyond the surface-symbol the superficiality to see what was trying to be conveyed via the original mythology

I mean, I have obviously studied and read and learned about the mythologies. The story of Pandora or Apollos Mortal Year are, I think, genius. But I also notice that trying to get anybody else to study and understand the lessons is very difficult, and so if I were going to convey those same lessons myself for the maximum possible reach, I wouldn't do it by telling a fable story and I wouldn't rely on symbolism in hopes that one or two people may get it and 10,000 others won't. That's no way near good enough.

ed. ed.
and it ought go without needing to be said that the "genius" have zero to do with any 'symbolism' in the story in any striking manner.

>>20978358
hidden illiteracy is a terrible thing, anon. I feel for your plight.

>>20978358
hidden illiteracy is a terrible thing, anon. I feel for your plight.

>They do not fully comprehend the information and ideas being received, studied, or applied and are not aware they do not understand. Their actions, feelings and beliefs are founded on their unknown wrong suppositions, ideas and understandings. The problems and results of being a hidden illiterate can range from humorous to disastrous.

>>20976329
>Braindead. We can't reference a thing without using a symbol,
>>20975036
>Our language is symbols. The letter A is a bull, every word has an etymology. Representing a thing with a sound is symbolism.

>Etymology. The term symbolism is derived from the word "symbol" which derives from the Latin symbolum, a symbol of faith, and symbolus, a sign of recognition, in turn from classical Greek σύμβολον symbolon, an object cut in half constituting a sign of recognition when the carriers were able to reassemble the two-halves ...

>>20978352
>but it's not optimal or the only method ever devised
What is wrong with your brain? How can you pretend you're not braindead? Please stop making the world suffer your retardation. Never post again. Don't lie to yourself that you're capable of thinking about any subject.

You're everything wrong with the world in a nutshell. How does this even happen? Why don't you care about reality even a tiny bit? What's the point of pretending to be curious etc when you absolutely despise all forms of thinking? Why do you have to ruin everything good? What's your endgame with your subversion? What's the goal with your posts? You're clearly not interested in thinking so what the fuck are you doing? Whatever you're doing just stop. Everyone is worse off because of retards like you.

If all your posts were parodies I would still consider you deranged for even conceiving the dumb shit in your posts.
We established you're a woman and a nurse. Over 40? Catlady? How does it make sense in your mind to keep posting somewhere you don't understand about subjects you refuse to look up the basics of?
>I'm suggesting that we go and study the animal and you're telling me "no" because your have a symbolism in your culture
Am I telling you that? Why do you keep replying to these made up stories instead of anything actually said?
Is it really that you're too dumb to say anything about any subject so you make up a new irrelevant story every post? You absolutely refuse to learn anything about the subjects you appeal to like brainwashing and blame symbolism, completely unaware of how everything you say makes brainwashing easier. You are a cancer on the world, everyone is worse off because of you.
Ironically you yourself apparently can't think in other terms than conditioned symbolism.

>>20978564
>>20978519
>You're everything wrong with the world in a nutshell. How does this even happen?
>We established you're a woman and a nurse. Over 40? Catlady?
lol wtf - none of these things were ever said

>Why don't you care about reality even a tiny bit?
>You absolutely refuse to learn anything about the subjects
> you yourself apparently can't think in other terms than conditioned symbolism
>reality
>the subject
Once again, you're repeating my own words back to me. This is schizophrenia on your part and I'm really tired of having to tell you this, it's very ghoulish that I keep saying it and you keep doing it anyway.


More importantly though, you're avoiding the subject and your 15th barrage of non-seq verbal abuse has not succeeded in making me not notice this.

I'll take this is a concession on your part that you have no response to the points raised and no way to defend against my refutations of your claims, as usual.


>>I'm suggesting that we go and study the animal and you're telling me "no" because your have a symbolism in your culture
>Am I telling you that?
yes
>Why do you keep replying to these made up stories instead of anything actually said?

Brother, I keep telling you: you're german eurotrash with a poor grasp of logic and english, you do not understand how people talk and discuss subjects, examples are given to you and cases are put before you and you can't understand what's happening because your grasp of the language and logic is poor and experience of actually talking to real humans is absent.

Even now I think you're not reading and understanding that I'm being truthful about your conduct and the problems you're having communicating with me, from a position of exhaustion of dealing with you. You're going to gloss over my words, reinterpret them as "vague insults" and tell me that I'm a retard and a cancer on the world and who is brain-dead.

look at this,
>What's the goal with your posts? You're clearly not interested in thinking
>what the fuck are you doing
>? Whatever you're doing just stop.

barrage of abuse, dealing with nothing that was said here >>20978306 and here >>20978352

It's a sad comment on mental health in your country and mine that people like you are left to atrophy in society, developing extremely violent opinions, and take out your schizophrenia and traumas on random people discussing small subjects like this one.

You are what I call a "human wrecking ball", anon; a person with obviously violent and unstable behaviors who demoralizes everybody he comes into contact with in the day-to-day world.

But I wouldn't call you a cancer on society, just a psych patient who can't help himself. I don't mistake you as representing the position of "people who enjoy symbolism in films" for a second.

We learn, then, that the maximal possible reach of propaganda is really very small and could not exist or operate at all without symbolum which itself exists only so within an absence of full information; the “god of the gaps” where the symbolum has become the God. A person, then, who was aware of a piece of information that was unknown by others could not be subjected to being manipulated by other humans using symbolum whilst the others who did not not know the same piece of information would be suddenly able, then, to be subjected to the symbolum; as to their minds the symbolum “seemed to fit with (or cover over)” the gap in their information about a thing.

e.g. there is in impartial map of a region, pieces of it have not yet been mapped, a man or woman takes a pencil and writes “monsters be here” on the unmapped areas.

I say this ‘possible reach’ is ‘very small’ for a number a reasons,

Most importantly the symbolum relies upon ignorance and ineptitude of one specific thing (the thing they do not know about), which means that the followers of symbolum are walking blind or “without sense” when they enter into that particular thing that they believe has been mapped for them and relayed accurately to them ‘by’ the symbolum - as the symbolum is a construct of ignorance about the specific thing itself then it cannot relay anything accurately; the gap in information would, then, close when the information was known to a person and the symbolum would fall away, like sliding off a smooth surface.

Secondarily in importance, though equal to the first I think, is the sheer impermanency of relying on “gaps in information” as leverages for ideologies or symbolum or religious proclamations, and so on, as the person or society which is led by a thing reliant upon a “gap in information” will quickly bridge that gap naturally by ordinary development (they will eventually map the river, e.g.) and then the symbolum and everything anchored to the symbolum will fall away, or far worse (far more likely) the person or society will be forced ‘not’ to develop for fear of discovering the information, and so they will have entered to a state of self-imposed or socially-enforced opposition toward necessary development, rendering them stagnant and suffering poverty as consequence.

>>20978669
>the symbolum is a construct of ignorance about the specific thing itself then it cannot relay anything accurately; the gap in information would, then, close when the information was known to a person and the symbolum would fall away, like sliding off a smooth surface.

>>20978519
I thought you might like a sneak peak at the little book you've inspired me to write this morning. It's all you, little brother. =)

>>20978649
Another blog where you make up stories. It doesn't even occur to you that you might be projecting some of this? No hint of an actual critical thought process? Just automatic conditioning and these pitiful attempts to elevate it, not only to frame your brainwashing as thinking but as objective truth, actual reality.
I'm supportive of most people irl and even posters here. I've been very specific about why you're braindead, you can't grasp any of it on any level. Why is that? What is it about your brain that refuses to learn anything?
>>20978677
You writing an entire book on a subject you completely refuse to explore even a tiny bit is exactly what I would expect from you.

>>20978649
>you're avoiding the subject
There is no subject to this thread except how braindead you are. There's no thread of thought to follow. You consistently undermine all attempts at establishing basic facts to work from. You don't acknowledge any kind of reason, just associative conditioning and then you project your own inability to think on to everyone using any "symbolism".
Logic and all symbolism is "catholic" so there's nothing anyone can possibly say to you in any imaginable scenario that will help you learn to think. You're an impenetrable wall of retardation with no hint of self-awareness.

>>20978731
>You consistently undermine all attempts at establishing basic facts to work from
When someone says that they reject your queering or framing of a thing to suit 'you', then the appropriate response is not to begin screaming about how retarded, cancerous and braindead they are, because it's an obvious giveaway that you were seen through in your attempt to be dishonest and that you lost your temper when it happened.

If you've never heard of this concept "reframing" then it's because you're poorly educated and unfamiliar with discussions.


>>you're avoiding the subject
>There is no subject to this thread except how braindead you are.
BAZINGA
lol foreign animal, still relying on out-dated phrases you've overheard from when you started to learn english.

>I'm supportive of most people irl and even posters here.
You're a raging psychotic, anon. The 16 replies of avoiding subject, responding with abuse and schizophrenic deflection;copying my own words and feeding them back to me, was some of the most vicious-minded and persistent non-responses I've ever encountered in this place.

>t you completely refuse to explore even a tiny bit
xd

please... telephone your caretaker this evening and ask them to increase your visits. Explain to them what happened here and show them the webpage, what you said in reply to me, and what I was saying back to you.

>>20978708
>It doesn't even occur to you that you might be projecting some of this?
>>20978731
>You're an impenetrable wall of retardation with no hint of self-awareness.

>>20978962
>establishing basics is "reframing"
>establishing premises to work from at all is "catholic"
These are both examples of you not grasping logic, one thing leading from another. In this thread you only operate using associative conditioning like associating certain ideas with "catholics" and associating all symbolism with dumb shit. You don't understand any of these well established ideas behind modern brainwashing, you caught some glimpse of brainwashing in action like "draping things with the flag" and made some inane attempt to blame "symbolism" while rejecting any hint at understanding how conditioning, propaganda and brainwashing actually works. The wording you used here with the symbolic flag you conjured is an example of symbolism getting to the point faster and better in all respects than these long mindless blogs attempting to use "direct" language.

>>20978972
>It doesn't even occur to you
The difference is that I think. I know projection is something people do and I'm a person. I'm aware of the need for things like logical thinking to counter the effects of these sorts of tendencies, the need to establish premises and work from them methodically instead of appealing to associations that already assume a conclusion. At the first mention of trying to apply any sort of logic you actually called the process of reasoned dialogue "catholic" while implying that this supposed catholic origin of logical thinking invalidates it somehow.
You talk as if the idea of conditioning/brainwashing, the thing you circle around whenever you mention "symbolism" is completely alien to you but you still act like an authority on it. The most brainwashed clown imaginable lecturing on brainwashing while pretending none of the methods actually used to brainwash people were ever developed.

>>20965722
Based
Tarkovsky spoke against it as well
http://www.nostalghia.com/TheTopics/Symbols.html

>>20979110
>>20979165
>. I know projection is something people do and I'm a person.
Actually projection is when you begin with a set narrative, and 'project' it onto other persons or things; you can project a situation, for instance. This is how I know you don't know fuck all about psychology beyond the most commonplace of misconceptions about it.

>The difference is that I think.
I don't think you really do. A lot of your responses seem to have been pathos-reactions or straight up echolalia; where I say something and you rephrase it slightly or take the keyword from it and then say it back to me, as if it had been your idea or observation. This is something that toddlers will do when they're learning a language, so it's entirely possible that you're operating from the unconscious. I haven't noticed too much going on in your replies other than this.


In fact, anon, I have no idea whether you disagree with the OP or not. Come to think of it.

>The most brainwashed clown imaginable lecturing on brainwashing
>brainwashing
This is a colloquialism that I don't use, myself. Not sure where you got this from.

And what am I "brainwashed" into? Didn't you tell me I was a 40yr old vaccinated female nurse? What kind of thing is 'she' brainwashed into believing?


>, the thing you circle around
>These are both examples of you not grasping logic, one thing leading from another.
I notice the commonality between the things and the use of icon worship and false associations by using icons as being the main toolset going on in pavlovian conditioning, mental illness and elements of these things in propaganda and false narrative building.


>. At the first mention of trying to apply any sort of logic you actually called the process of reasoned dialogue "catholic"
I explained this at the time;

that your refusal to speak when your attempt to reframe the subject was rejected was something that theology apologists usually do: walking away when they can't queer the pitch before beginning any kind of discussion so that they never experience being proven to be wrong. It's a self-defense and ego-preservation thing common amongst people who know their beliefs can't stand up to inquiry. I don't really need to know what your particular delusion is this week only that by your actions and style of non-response you're operating in the "unverifiable otherworld" that Plotinus mentioned of the early christian-gnostics.

Holding nonsense positions that can't be defended rationally forces you into a position of preemptive aggression, as a calm and reasoned discussion would show your position to be in error or baseless within the first few exchanges.

e.g. I think you began in error in this thread by believing w were talking about the "letters in words", having conflated the subject of 'symbol' in a kind of schoolboyish error way.


>>20979181
nice find.

I just remembered the idées reçues thing fits here as well.

>>20979181
>Whenever an image is turned into a symbol, the thought becomes walled in
exactly this.

>>20979110
ho shit, i missed this one- ok anon you're funny
>>. I know projection is something people do and I'm a person.
therefore we can tell you are a person because you are projecting?!
hahahahahahahaha

that's funny. was that a joke?

>>20979293
>ackshually projection is when you begin with a set narrative
Every attempt to clarify anything turns into this braindead shit. You have no grasp on any subject, what any words actually mean, even the word chair is magic.
>Actually projection is when you begin with a set narrative
That is just having rigid preconceptions. Projection is about unconsciously using your own experiences to account for the behavior of others. It's not even inherently negative, it's just when you refuse to think, to even hypothetically conceive of alternatives that it becomes a problem.
>I have no idea whether you disagree with the OP
It's one of the dumbest sequence of words I have ever read. Everything it represents is cancer. Anyone who proliferates anything close to this idea is undermining competence in general, contributing to the American dumbing down of everything and destroying understanding of history.
>colloquialism
I went into way too much detail about the mechanisms of brainwashing but no bells ring in your head, you never conceived of such a thing. Why not read at least a tiny bit about a subject before talking about it? Conditioning relies on "symbolism" in the widest sense like language relies on it. You can got down this path of picking and choosing shit only if you don't actually think.
>what am I "brainwashed" into?
Everything you believe since you apparently don't think. We talked about chairs, that's a good neutral example of conditioning. You frame everything like the chair, as if it "just is" with no grasp on why it seems to "just be" to you. This is easily exploitable by brainwashing such as common ads. All they have to do is establish an association and it "just is", you'll never question it.
>pavlovian conditioning
When you're confronted with the mechanisms of conditioning or the fact that you operate purely like the pavlovian dog when you associate these "commonalities", patterns together with no real reasoning to explain the pattern it doesn't occur to you to do any work, to think about these things because "it just is". I pointed out the obvious underlying factors that are actually exploited by a trillion dollar industry every day and you act as if it's some shit I'm just making up.
>attempt to reframe the subject
>queering the pitch
Are you selling something? Are you interested in the truth or "a pitch"? Presenting the actual mechanisms behind pavlovian conditioning to someone attributing these manipulation tactics to "symbolism" is not some catholic tactic. You live in the most diseased source of cancer that has ever existed in history that's built entirely on brainwashing but you never even thought about the subject even on a surface level

>>20979515
>>ackshually
hahaha i saw that coming,what other old cliches have you been saving up?


>>Actually projection is when you begin with a set narrative
>That is just having rigid preconceptions.
Actually, what I described is what projection is, verbatim. It's a matter of your opinion being consistently wrong and my speaking entirely from a position of proper facts.

>You have no grasp on any subject, what any words actually mean,
yup.
even the word chair is magic.
okay schizo, we're back to you pretending that my descriptions of your position are applicable to mine. But if we're both identical, what are we fighting about? derp.

>>I have no idea whether you disagree with the OP
>It's one of the dumbest sequence of words I have ever read.
>Everything it represents is cancer.
Hahahahahahahahaha

I just said I didn't know whether you were agreeing with the position expressed in the OP or not -what on Gaias Earth did you think this was saying! xD Your english is terrible. You suck at hiding it.

>I went into way too much detail about the mechanisms of brainwashing
>brainwashing
I explained to you that I wasn't talking about brainwashing or mentioned it even one time.

> You frame everything
>framing(!)
OH we're back to the schizoid shit once more, I tell you you're framing things - in detail - and suddenly the word slowly enters your head, it turns up and around and side to side, and then comes out of your mouth back in my direction.

> you operate purely like the pavlovian dog
and again. Damn.


>I pointed out the obvious underlying factors that are actually exploited by a trillion dollar industry every day and you act as if it's some shit I'm just making up.
More lies. I was the one who told you about this the other day. Although that wasn't 'really' where I was going with this, only that when you admit this exists it's actually an argument in 'my' favor because it highlights how inferior and malleable it is to rely 'on' such loose symbolum or iconolatry.

Again, I'll ask you to explain your position on this... what exactly are you arguing against? I'm not kidding when I say that at this point I have no idea where you're going with any of this, you seem to have adopted half or more of the positions I had.

Good.


>Are you selling something? Are you interested in the truth or "a pitch"?
Your comprehension of english is truly terrible.


>You live in the most diseased source of cancer that has ever existed in history that's built entirely on brainwashing but
>you never even thought about the subject even on a surface level
I didn't think about it so much that I figured out exactly how it was operating, but you don't seem to like my solution - is the problem you have.

Or, rather, you don't like the primary cause that I observe is the beginning of the thing: that being the application of the 'icon' itself as a trigger.

>>20979515
>>ackshually
hahaha i saw that coming,what other old cliches have you been saving up?


>>Actually projection is when you begin with a set narrative
>That is just having rigid preconceptions.
Actually, what I described is what projection is, verbatim. It's a matter of your opinion being consistently wrong and my speaking entirely from a position of proper facts.

>You have no grasp on any subject, what any words actually mean,
yup.
>even the word chair is magic.
>magic
okay schizo, we're back to you pretending that my descriptions of your position are applicable to mine. But if we're both identical, what are we fighting about? derp.

>>I have no idea whether you disagree with the OP
>It's one of the dumbest sequence of words I have ever read.
>Everything it represents is cancer.
Hahahahahahahahaha

I just said I didn't know whether you were agreeing with the position expressed in the OP or not -what on Gaias Earth did you think this was saying! xD Your english is terrible. You suck at hiding it.

>I went into way too much detail about the mechanisms of brainwashing
>brainwashing
I explained to you that I wasn't talking about brainwashing or mentioned it even one time.

> You frame everything
>framing(!)
OH we're back to the schizoid shit once more, I tell you you're framing things - in detail - and suddenly the word slowly enters your head, it turns up and around and side to side, and then comes out of your mouth back in my direction.

> you operate purely like the pavlovian dog
and again. Damn.


>I pointed out the obvious underlying factors that are actually exploited by a trillion dollar industry every day and you act as if it's some shit I'm just making up.
More lies. I was the one who told you about this the other day. Although that wasn't 'really' where I was going with this, only that when you admit this exists it's actually an argument in 'my' favor because it highlights how inferior and malleable it is to rely 'on' such loose symbolum or iconolatry.

Again, I'll ask you to explain your position on this... what exactly are you arguing against? I'm not kidding when I say that at this point I have no idea where you're going with any of this, you seem to have adopted half or more of the positions I had.

Good.


>Are you selling something? Are you interested in the truth or "a pitch"?
Your comprehension of english is truly terrible.


>You live in the most diseased source of cancer that has ever existed in history that's built entirely on brainwashing but
>you never even thought about the subject even on a surface level
I didn't think about it so much that I figured out exactly how it was operating, but you don't seem to like my solution - is the problem you have.

Or, rather, you don't like the primary cause that I observe is the beginning of the thing: that being the application of the 'icon' itself as a trigger.

>>20979165
>I'm a person
prove this.

>>20979805
>Actually, what I described is what projection is, verbatim.
According to your delusional brain that can't grasp any meaning of anything. It's not what you'll find if you look up the term.
>proper facts
Why does no attempt to verify any of your "facts" work out? You can read more what I'm talking about. There's no place where I can read more about projection where it's described as you described it.
>that my descriptions of your position
We talked at length about the chair and you confirmed at every step that you think the chair "just is". You don't think about how words work, you believe the familiar ones are "concrete".
>I just said I didn't know whether you were agreeing with the position expressed in the OP
And I clarified my disagreement. You can't pick up on the commonalities in the things I say because they're completely outside what you're familiar with and therefore bad. Not "concrete" enough.
>I explained to you that I wasn't talking about brainwashing or mentioned it even one time.
But why are you unable to relate anything said to the other? Even when it's spoonfed to you in the post you're replying to? You talk about misrepresenting truth through symbolism, this is a form of associative conditioning. Blaming "symbolism" is a result of you having no grasp at all on what conditioning means and barely any grasp on what anything else means including symbolism.
>you operate purely like the pavlovian dog
No clue what I'm referencing despite everything I say being about exactly this? The reasons I have given you for why the OP is the dumbest shit I ever heard doesn't register in the slightest?
>suddenly the word slowly enters your head
You didn't invent the word "framing". This is an example of how everything that goes on in your mind is completely deranged. It's a word you might understand since you used it but clearly not. I could have said "according to your worldview".
>I was the one who told you about this the other day
The first posts I made tried to explain conditioning, you pretended I was saying something like "worship for idols is inherent and unchangeable" because you can't grasp the idea on any level. It's the reason why you're braindead.
>what exactly are you arguing against?
You. Stop posting forever.
>you seem to have adopted half or more of the positions I had.
I know you believe this but it's another example of how braindead you are. You're good at lying to yourself but not at actually thinking.
Describing associative conditioning as "draping things with the flag" is symbolic language. The issue is the misleading associative conditioning not the symbolism you mindless subhuman.
>Your comprehension of english
The same question arises with this reply, what purpose do these posts serve when you have no interest in understanding anything? You really don't understand any of the points made? You can only imagine the dumbest hypotheticals only a diseased mind could dream up and respond to them over and over?

>>20979805
>Or, rather, you don't like the primary cause that I observe is the beginning of the thing: that being the application of the 'icon' itself as a trigger.
Only as far as it being the primary cause of all language and thinking. Like blaming the ability of the brain to make associations instead of people making misleading associative conditioning.

>>20980039
> It's not what you'll find if you look up the term.
>(the word) "Projection"
Er.. idk what to tell you. A quick google search isn't likely to give you a phD level comprehension.

>you think the chair "just is"
A chair is a chair. You're ascribing 10,000 things to what a chair is, avoiding the reality that it is a chair, and you believing confusing yourself and avoiding reality is some kind of intelligence.

>you believe the familiar (words) are "concrete".
It's a matter of knowing when to focus properly; a "crown doesn't make a person a king," to quote Tywin Lannister.

>And I clarified my disagreement. (with the ideas from OP)
> I have given you for why the OP is the dumbest shit
Okay, did you realize how a lot of what you're raving about has not much at all to do 'with' the OP? You started this tangent, if you recall.

>But why are you unable to relate anything said to the other? Even when it's spoonfed to you in the post you're replying to?
Possibly because you're being intensely aggressive and making a point to call me a cancer and tell me I'm braindead in every reply. It might have something to do with why people don't take what you're saying seriously. But this is boring to go over again.

>"concrete"
why do you keep air quoting this word? I wasn't the one who said it in the first place.

>you can't grasp the idea on any level. It's the reason why you're braindead.
lol

> I made tried to explain conditioning, you pretended I was saying something like "worship for idols is inherent and unchangeable"
Oh, didn't we end up agreeing about this? It seemed like you were defending the iconodulism of the "brainwashing" process - or rejecting that the use of the icon had anything to do with it;
e.g. the character is put into a black hat and this means he's a bad guy, due to the triggered association from that icon (the hat).

If you understand this 'and' hate it because you call it brainwashing, then you would'n't be replying to me telling me how retarded and braindead I am for noticing this. That's why your argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me anymore. It doesn't seem like you have anything to actually "disagree" about.. right? Am I retarded, to you, because you think I should be angry or arguing about something that I'm either not interested in or already agree with?

>You didn't invent the word "framing".
yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn
so dishonest
I said I was telling you that you were reframing and then you start using the word yourself.

>You're good at lying to yourself but not at actually thinking.
and we've gone back to schizo again, copying my words about you or tlling me that I'm doing what you're doing.

Google what GAS-LIGHTING is. I know google will give you that.

> what purpose do these posts serve when you have no interest in understanding anything?
lol because it's funny to talk to someone like you, and there's a level of psychiatric interest about it as well.

>>20980061
no...
>the primary cause of all language
I've already explained to you the other day in great detail that 'language' can be proven not to begin with an icon or a symbolum; as the static object or concept is 'derived from' the material world, it doesn't come 'before' the material world.

I'm sorry but the bible is wrong about this,"in the beginning there was the word," you silly cross-wailer.

>e blaming the ability of the brain to make associations instead of people making misleading associative conditioning.
Yeah, possibly. It's still a good idea to take potential weapons away from people who would use them to do harm though, right?


Although, again, using the black hat symbolum; a kid may be told that XYZ is what a bad guy is, and if he's educated to think of the symbol first then he can't comprehend of a bad guy who isn't wearing a black hat.

That's kind of the differences in approach (w.re: education) I was getting at the other day; how the reliance on the symbol produces weakness and is inferior and is not how people have "always been educated".

>>20980039
>>20980061
In fact, now that I think of it, anon.. you decided I was a 40 yr old female nurse when I first mentioned 'gas-lighting' - I wonder what you're like with the women in yo life who don't possess the cognitive dexterity or verbal command to understand how your head works.

hm.

anyway,
I had maybe my last thought that the reader may appreciate:

The reliance on the symbol or icon is like taking a photo almost of a thing and then mistaking the photo as being actually more real than the thing itself. I don't think a person who has this thought process could be called "brainwashed" but they're cetianly susceptible to accidental or deliberate conditioning via the pavlovian model;
but I must point out that I don't think of this as brainwashing at all, moreso it's a consequence of lazy thought processes or rigidity of thought - inflexibility in cognition.

>>20980227
>'language' can be proven not to begin with an icon or a symbolum; as the static object or concept is 'derived from' the material world
There's no response to this except to tell you you're braindead. A given word is a symbol representing some thing which is the definition of symbolism, usually the word even has roots in imagery, the kind of thing you criticize based on having no grasp on how any thinking happens on any level.

>>20980286
>The reliance on the symbol or icon is like
Is it like something else? In this post you chose to present the idea that people shouldn't represent one thing with another by representing on thing with another.
>you decided I was a 40 yr old female nurse
You said you were some kind of nurse and I asked if you were a catlady. It would explain the lack of understanding of anything if you're some deranged catlady that started posting during covid to "combat misinformation" or something. If you first came here over a decade ago and still grasp absolutely nothing you have some serious disability.

>>20980227
>the reliance on the symbol produces weakness
This hat example like the flag draping and every example given is a basic example of associative conditioning, the thing I so helpfully pointed you in the direction of in my first posts. Redirecting the issue to symbolism is not just dumb but cancerous because it prevents you and anyone that listens to you from understanding and dealing with any unproductive conditioning.

>>20980286
I mean brainwashing mostly as a pejorative form of the same idea, a malicious form of conditioning instead of always saying "malicious conditioning". When you train any skill including control over language you do it through conditioning, by reinforcing pathways. When a PR agency or government reinforces an association between a hat and bad people they're using the exact same process you use to learn and master things, just applying it maliciously, basically misusing the trust you implicitly give them by letting their voices into your house in the form of radio broadcasts or whatever.
Americans are generally brainwashed about everything, malicious propaganda controls all your thoughts, even about chairs. It's hard to find anything that doesn't have some malicious force manipulating the perception of Americans about it. It reaches to the deepest levels of your thinking, so deep that you actually come up with posts like this attacking symbolism itself.

>>20980738
>You said you were some kind of nurse
I said I happen to work in psychiatry and healthcare, I don't know how you got a nurse out of that. If you must know I do a great deal of work with people with neurological impairments who have extreme difficulties with language, so this is why it's funny to me that you're proclaiming yourself as an authority on language and how the brain works when I work with this all the time.

>by representing on thing with another
I used a metaphor. Remember, you're the one who insists I can't use language or talk about the brain without believing in your claims, I don't believe this so I can do as I please. I might even use symbolism or an allegory if it suits me.

>>20980723
>A given word is a symbol
Overly literal interpretation of what's being discussed, that is extremely funny that you hopped back to this.

unrelated. i'm skipping this.

>>20980746
>Redirecting the issue to symbolism is not just dumb but cancerous because it prevents you and anyone that listens to you from understanding and dealing with any unproductive conditioning.
Yeah and I don't understand how you've build a brick wall between one and the other, when they're obviously operating together as a dynamic and mutually interdependent sequence. That is: there's the human and there's the icon that the human is being manipulated through or confusing himself with. e.g. if the fat boy won't stop eating the pizza, you take the pizza away from him, because it's easier than pulling out his teeth and breaking his arms and legs to stop him getting the pizza.

>>20980797
>mean brainwashing mostly as a pejorative form
Yeah I know what you mean. I disagree that any conscious effort of brainwashing is necessary when people are already subjected to being fed errors, or when errors are worshiped by their local culture. If you fix the origin point of 'that' then you've immunized the person to conscious brainwashing or malicious propaganda, etc.

> they're using the exact same process you use to learn
I explained to you the difference between rote memorization or forming conflationary associations of things, and that of teaching deduction and prediction in logic. I disagree that anybody has "mastered" anything by childlike rote recall from books, vs. developing their grasp from direct practical experience. I do agree that this 'rote recall' is the norm nowadays but we can note how fundamentally inept the graduate is or how limited a doctor is by comparison to his counterpart in the older world... but ... whatever, this would drift too off topic.

The idea of association, I agree with you with. But when you say it's fundamentl to learning anything, this is untrue. At most the use of symbols is a childs thing; a very very basic manner which comprises the local baseline opinion. (i.e. ethos)

>American
That's odd. I'm not even an American.

>>20980930
>I do a great deal of work with people with neurological impairments who have extreme difficulties with language
This is extremely distressing to hear. Why doesn't it occur to you to learn anything about the subject? How can you be so arrogant to position yourself to teach anyone else about something you don't grasp the basics of?
>proclaiming yourself as an authority on language
The things I say reference basics that are easy to look up. You just say braindead shit and pretend it's true because it came from you, that's setting yourself up as an authority. Again you, the great teacher of language misuses every single concept you try to apply. Remember how you demanded I accept your personal definition of "projection" that's not consistent with any common definition? I wonder why you dropped that or the endless other deranged horseshit you made 50 blogs about. Is logic or "framing" still some kind of catholic trick?
>I used a metaphor
A form of symbolism, representing one thing with another. The post itself isn't talking about specific cases of symbolism but the widest sense, the complaint is about the reliance of symbolism causing "mistaking a photo as being actually more real than the thing itself" but then you rely on symbolism in the post, representing a thing with something else than the real thing itself. How can you not recognize this? You pretend to recognize some of it when it suits you but then you just revert straight back to repeating the braindead shit, showing again that your mind is complete mush.
>you're the one who insists I can't use language or talk about the brain without believing in your claims
You can't say anything but "no" in response to the claims. The definition of symbolism is representing one thing with another. Nobody who discusses the evolution of the human brain can do so without talking about abstract thinking, art and language as symbolic representations. Nobody can predict anything unless they work from reasonable premises. That you never heard of any of this basic shit doesn't mean I'm setting myself up as some authority. Just learn a bit about the subject before making the dumbest imaginable posts.
>Overly literal interpretation
How can you be this braindead? It's the same fucking mechanism as I've explained endlessly. The word "symbolism" does not mean "symbolism you do not like". "Projection" does not mean "being set in your opinions". You can use words and phrases differently by establishing a different context but you didn't. You repeat over and over how "The reliance on the symbol or icon is like taking a photo almost of a thing and then mistaking the photo as being actually more real than the thing itself".
Which is what you do with language, you mistake words for reality and think because you know chairs the world is made of chairs. Confusing symbols for a thing is bad but that's not symbolism. You're completely incapable of putting your finger on any actual problems.

>>20980930
>I don't understand how you've build a brick wall between one and the other
How is that possible when I just went over it for the millionth time? Even if you disagree you should still be able to conceive of different ideas about the subject. I shouldn't have to spoonfeed them to you either, a thinking person would have considered all of this long ago.
Pointing out how even language relies on symbolism is talking about the common underlying mechanism, the exact opposite of "building a brick wall".
Conditioning relies on symbolism as much as language does, pointing at symbolism as the problem is simply braindead.
You never give examples of how it's symbolism that's the problem, the associative conditioning in the hat example doesn't need any special abstract imagery. The "symbolism" is an association between a type of hat and a person, which is not literary symbolism but symbolism in the crudest literal sense, representing one thing with another, like language.
>there's the human and there's the icon that the human is being manipulated through
For example through words.
>If you fix the origin point of 'that' then you've immunized the person to conscious brainwashing or malicious propaganda
You've removed a specific case not immunized anyone. In reality you're far from immune, you are the disease.
>I explained to you the difference between rote memorization
Reinforcing neural pathways through repetition is not about rote memorization, which is a braindead thing for braindead people and doesn't work. This is another symptom of you talking about a subject that you refuse to do any work yourself to learn anything about, because "you work with (abuse) patients regarding language" and therefore you apparently believe you're some magic authority that doesn't need to justify anything that's inconsistent with every other source on the planet. You said many times now that when you abuse words like "projection" it's because everything you say is "factual". Yet it's impossible to find any mention of these facts anywhere except in this one thread clearly made by a retard.
>I disagree that anybody has "mastered" anything by childlike rote recall
Why not try to look up something related to conditioning or any of these subjects so you have some basic grasp on anything I'm saying? You disagree with the fundamentals of basically all brain research and very literally all AI research. The master becomes a master through thousands of hours of practice which reinforce the neural pathways representing the elements of the task.
>But when you say it's fundamentl to learning anything, this is untrue
Because you, an absolutely mindless shithead that refuses to even look up what words mean says so? Do you still not grasp the process I'm referencing on any level? How does a neural network like the plastic parts of brain learn? How does it represent information? Notice that it has to fucking REPRESENT it somehow.

>>20980930
>I'm not even an American.
You speak multiple languages fluently and you're still confused about symbolism? Still absolutely enslaved by anglo language tricks and conditioned associations. Watch out for the catholics, you will surely defeat them by undermining literacy, critical thinking and the ability to understand history.

Unironically a bell curve

>Left side: "This is just two men haggling over a fish"

>Middle: "The action of haggling represents a transformation from the pre-societal barbarism of war and theft, wherein developing society, shackling itself with the yoke of law and commerce, attempts to overcome the desire to inflict harm under selfish terms and instead benefit both parties through mutual exchange".

>Right side: "Two men haggle over a fish."

>>20981255
>haggling
A judeo-anglo interpretation. My people don't haggle, there's no native word for it. The image is of a fishmonger and his business-friend. "Business-friend" is how superior Aryan cultures frame the role of a client.

>>20978352
>I think you should go back to pre-school and ask somebody to help you with macaroni paintings, if you're a grown adult and don't know who pavlov was or how a pavlovian trigger operates
You just had to correct yourself on bringing up this position and now you're trying to dig back in? Your choice, I guess, but why would you assume anyone's buying this ITT? They can see your mistakes as they're on record and accessible through quote chains.

>>20965722
ITT we see the ancient battle between nominalists and realists. Neither will ever agree or understand one another.

>>20981131
>Why doesn't it occur to you to learn anything about the subject?
>How can you be so arrogant to position yourself to teach anyone else about something you don't grasp the basics of?
Uh... jeez, I wouldn't have the job if I wasn't obvioly compeltely qualified in all those things, you idiot.

When I use (the methods described) and it works and the patient is happy and can communicate, e.g., that's how I know that I'm right and that whatever you're 'telling me' that I don't know about or have never studied I either already do know and have advanced far beyond it (i.e. it was superfluous) or it's something that doesn't actually work effectively.


back to language we go,
>the things I say reference basics that are easy to look up.
And what? That doesn't mean you know what you're talking about because you've managed to remember what somebody said in a book. I've shot down all your explanation or (that hypothesis) at least twice and shown how it was in error (e.g. the word 'dog' doesn't come before a phyiscal dog is discovered). You couldn't refute this, so the matter was concluded when your case (what passed for a case lol) was shown to be in error.

I agreed with you insofar as associations with symbols are an incredibly basic and long-surpassed as means of both education or entertainment by the time we're no longer toddlers.

> "projection"
> I wonder why you dropped that
it's the same thing that a lot of your verbal outbursts are based upon: your rigid broken brain can't accept something if it's not written down exactly to the letter in front of you, if a person "colours outside the lines" in even the smallest way, you go berserk and declare they don't know 'anything at all'. Nobody acts like this in the real world about anything, your manner attempt to bully and gas-light people into silent consent is laughable and completely transparent.

>>Overly literal interpretation
>How can you be this braindead
lol


huff puff let's FUCKING DO THIS AGAIN shall we
>The word "symbolism" does not mean "symbolism you do not like"
1) this is true in 'your' brain that I am still "into symbolism" in everything I think and do. You have not shown this to be true.

>Which is what you do with language, you mistake words for reality
2) I have explained repetedly that I am not; in any of the examples given you; dog, red hat, or your cow, it is very clear that I am accusing 'you' of thinking this about symbolism: that symbol precedes the object and is more important than the object, when it does not.

i.e. when you value the endless depths to a fucking chair, "which can be anything but a chair!" you're not even doing symbolism yourself; you're not flatly ignoring the material application of the chair or the red hat or the dog, in favor of imagining things in some other unverifiable realm of non-science.

Ironically neither of our positions on this bit have anything to do with the icon or symbol of an object.

1/?

>>20965722
>to boot
>a pile of garbage
>crop up
>draped over
>bones of some symbolism
>post written in a language
wow look, symbolism!
saged btwyeah go ahead and report meyou massive fucking retard OP

>>20982232
The entire debate was already solved to begin with by Aristotle. The lesson learned is they are both correct about a certain domain. Although, in general, "realists" tend to be the more accommodating viewpoint, insofar as those like Aristotle who solved the entire debate are capable of comprehending and relativizing each viewpoint in a broader holistic scheme.

>>20981131

..okay, wait a minute, look at this,
you said,
>Redirecting the issue to symbolism is not just dumb but cancerous because it prevents you and anyone that listens to you from understanding and dealing with any unproductive conditioning.
and I said,
"I don't understand how you've build a brick wall between one and the other"

then you say here,
>How is that possible when I just went over it for the millionth time? Even if you disagree you should still be able to conceive of different ideas about the subject. I shouldn't have to spoonfeed them to you either, a thinking person would have considered all of this long ago.
Obviously you are not responding properly to me. You're being asked pointedly to explain yourself in a fucking discussion on the subject and you're refusing to,
>I shouldn't have to spoonfeed them to you either, a thinking person would have considered all of this long ago.

Then... you're presenting no case and not discussing the subject, you absolutely fucking moron.

Imean, look at this: we reached a point there where a discussion might occur ON TOPIC and you didn't engage with it. Yo think actually doing what I do and "making a case, proving a case," would be somehow bad. Spoon-feeding you call this.

Rather IRL if someone can't make a case or defend a case it means they have no case. Those people lose their cases, i.e., as if in a court law.


>Conditioning relies on symbolism
OMFG we've ALREADY DONE THIS
reread what I said here: >>20980203

last thing I said was this,
" It doesn't seem like you have anything to actually "disagree" about.. right? Am I retarded, to you, because you think I should be angry or arguing about something that I'm either not interested in or already agree with?"


> repetition is not about rote memorization, which is a braindead thing for braindead people and doesn't work.
XD I know it doesn't work,that's why when you "rote memorize" bits of fluff (IT SAID IT ON WIKIPIA) and pretend you know more about me than language or psychiatry that you can't actually 'argue' 'for' anything you say and can't understand what I say either.

>"you work with (abuse) patients regarding language"
"regarding 'language'"? the fuck? What hospital or doctor do you go to for 'language'? jesus fucking christ you are one of he most insane examples of a human being I have ever interacted with; your literalistic rigid fixation is obtuse in every single attempt you make; you look at a thing and your queer it. It's just this.

I think 'you' think what you're doing is 'clever debate tactics', but you're just coming off as extremely ham-fisted; contrived.

>Do you still not grasp the process I'm referencing on any level?
> thousands of hours of practice which reinforce the neural pathways
The process that I was explaining to you; how it disproves your cretinous perspective on rote-learning through symbols, that you're now repeating back to me as if it 'favors' your position? That process? xd


omg
2/'3'

An anecdote I heard about the musical "Cats" that is relevant to the thread:

Andrew Lloyd Webber approached a director friend of his, Hal, with the show.

Hal, after reading it over, asks, "So what is this about? Is this cat Queen Victoria, this one Disreali? I don't get it. What does it mean?"

Supposedly Webber looks at him with a pained exasperation and says, "Hal, it's about cats."

Which isn't to say that Lloyd Webber is some literary genius, but a thing is often all it is in itself. Blue curtains don't mean the character is sad - the writer will tell you if they are, directly or through character actions and traits.

>>20981197
Okay, so we've stumbled upon a glaring inconsistency here, w/re: rote learning throug symbols, which is the argument you were using to tell me that I was braindead and a retard,

If you're now no longer advocating "rote learning through symbols", then,
1) what are you trying to convince me of?
2) how do you 'use symbols' in any other manner than - what I described.
3) you finally accept, then, that relying on symbols is inferior to observation and deduction of things IRL.

Honestly, it looks like you've adopted most of my position but have just carried on raging about how braindead and retarded I am anyway, if we agree on those parts then we actually hold the same position.

again, this is why i've been asking you to stop with the verbal outbursts and simply 'make your case' so we know what exactly you're trying to convince me of............. but I can't see that you have any argument about 'symbols' anymore, if what you've just said is what you claim to believe, w/re: prearranged symbols are inferior to learn about a thing vs. observation of the thing in the material world directly.

3/3
I'm am so glad I've finished with your comments.


>>20981596
>You just had to correct yourself on bringing up this position
>this position
Position? I agreed I was over-using the word 'verbatim', isn't that what you were talking about? Not sure what 'position' you're referring to, because you didn't quote it.

If you're going to waste my time by (i presume?) denying that pavlovian trigger-theory is the same application and process as in mental health triggers and (other uses of it); to be learned and unlearned, conditioned, reconditioned or deconditioned, then you'd better have a good argument.


>>20981255
I see what you're getting at, but more realistically it would be each polarity that held a differing or oppositional opinion, w/ the middle position being,
>"This is just two men haggling over a fish"


>>20982621
>U GONNA REPORT ME
err... that's okay, I have no idea what you're talking about lol ..some pathos-reaction you've cooked up in your brain, or something, based upon a pavlovian trigger that's been ticked by one word or notion that you've read into the OP that is just a little mistake on your part.

>post written in a language
this one again lol

hyper-literalistic reinterpretations of remarks are 'always' the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum, FYI

>>20982690
What I've learned from this thread is that if you present a scene where people are and if you don't make sure there's a blue curtain behind them, then one man in the audience might throw a bomb onto the stage.

>>20982690
What I've learned from this thread is that if you present a scene where people are sad and if you -don't- make sure there's a blue curtain behind them; to symbolise their sadness, then one man in the audience might throw a bomb onto the stage.

>>20982616
>I wouldn't have the job if I wasn't obvioly compeltely qualified
Exactly like I said. You think you're immune to needing to use words properly or study anything related to the subject because some retard was dumb enough to pay you to work in the field.
Because you have built up your identity around being a nurse you think you have some kind of authority that allows you to completely misuse every concept you bring up. What you told me "projection" means is a concrete example of you being completely delusional, no hint of a connection to reality but absolute certainty that anything you say is "facts" only because it comes from you, the braindead retard who is an authoritative source because he identifies with his job.

>That doesn't mean you know what you're talking
I have some ideas which is why I brought them up, you have no clue, as if everything related to the actual subject you brought up, symbolism is a complete mystery to you. I assumed you would disagree but you can't even grasp any alternative idea than the braindead delusions you've conditioned yourself with. I understand your points, I engaged with them and explained in detail why they're retarded. You do everything you can to pretend you don't understand anything said to you for some reason.

I'm not going to read more of your deranged blogs. There's no point. You're completely incapable of communicating on any subject. I feel deeply sorry for the people you work with, it's criminal that you're placed in a position with any kind of responsibility.

>>20982714
>what are you trying to convince me of?
I'm presenting you with the absolute basics of symbolism and associative conditioning. The subjects you raised but know nothing about and think it's a great insult that anyone would suggest you learn a little about these things. Not because you already know, you clearly have no clue, it's an insult because you're the great authoritative nurse that never needs to learn anything.

>>20982232
It seems similar but it's not the same. The physical brain works the way it does if abstract principles exist or not (they do).

>>20982714
>hyper-literalistic reinterpretations
Say something retard. Every time you try to elaborate you say you're talking about symbolism in the crudest sense, representing one thing with another. Every example you give talks about how that's bad because it inherently causes people to confuse the symbol with what it references.

It's true that confusing symbols with what they reference is a trap, one you fall for easily because you don't understand anything about any subject.

>>20982998
>you have built up your identity around being a nurse
I'm not a nurse, schizo. I don't "teach language in a hospital" either.

> because he identifies with his job.
It's because I'm completely qualified in this subject 'for' my job that I possess a far better grasp of these things than you do; this means I can recognize when you're bringing up some baseline basic thing and proclaiming it to be "all important" that I can tell you're an idiot who hasn't completed or begun an education on the subject, beyond glancing at wikipedia.

Your persistent hostility 'and' refusal to speak nicely and normally with me is a trait that you're a psychotic. Whilst your use of inversion and copying my own descriptions of you and my own arguments for the subject, passing them off as your own after I've said them, is a trait that you're a schizophrenic engaging in prolonged and sustained gas-lighting to damage the morale of the person you're talking to (me in this case), except I'm smarter than to take you seriously and recognize what you've been doing.

>What you told me "projection" means is a concrete example of you being completely delusional,
My use of the term was perfectly acceptable, if you simply didn't find it as literally the first thing that came up on your googlesearch (although I test this and it did come up) is not my problem.


This is hyper-literalism on your part, which is a trait of a cognitive processing disorder or a childlike or simply uneducated person.

> allows you to completely misuse every concept
Yes, the same hyper-literalism seems to have been behind every single line of attack you've employed, over these last few days.

You're upsetting yourself, is all that's going on. Hence the 'pathos' in psycho+pathos.


> I assumed you would disagree but you can't even grasp any alternative idea
hilarious. I've told you for the last 3 replies that you're arguing for me to accept something that I agreed with in the first place. I'm a retard because I won't fight with you about some minor autistic aspect that you think is super important; and if I don't think it's important or if I agree with it, you don't notice what I say, and tell me I'm actually "brain-dead".

>I'm not going to read more
No, go on, keep going. We'd gotten to the part where I told you that we were agreeing with each other and you want to just stay angry?

>. I feel deeply sorry for the people you work with, it's criminal
Anon, I get the strong impression that you're going to be one of the people I work with one day. Based on (everything you've been raving at me about for five or so days) it's only a matter of time before you end up on a psych ward. You're highly strung and fit to snap. I've seen it 100 times. The cognitive impairments, the regurgitation of other peoples words, the constant verbal abuse, the refusal to find common ground, the hyper-literalism, the sophisticated gas-lighting techniques.


I know it's killing you that none of it has worked on me =)

>>20983052
>>20983018
skipping this. you said you were done. I'm done even if you can't help yourself and stop posting lol

>>20983052
Actually, wait a minute..
>It's true that confusing symbols with what they reference is a trap
you just agreed with me about everything we'd been arguing about (w/re: inferiority of relying on the symbol-icon).

I feel less bad about ignoring you from now, because you were hella dumb not to have just replied with this 10 or 60 posts ago.

>you fall for easily because you don't understand anything about any subject.
lol yup it's still very important for you to tell me how wrong i am anyway

>>20983018
>it's an insult because you're the great authoritative nurse that never needs to learn anything.
you say this but it's just empty words; you're telling me I need to "learn XYZ" but you're not saying anything about what it is I need to "learn" - since we agree with each other about the symbolism thing in the first place, as it fucking turns out.

This is pure gas-lighting as there can be no position that you're coming from at all anymore; i.e. no legs to your argument, no manner in logic by which you can arrive at (whatever position you claim to have).

"Hollow words" as in: telling a person they need to learn XYZ is just a verbal attack you're using.


I have found this fun, but I think I'm done with this. You've been very helpful, anon. Thanks for being my bitch over these last few days.

>>20983136
>you just agreed with me about everything we'd been arguing about
You are braindead.
To reiterate the same thing I say in every reply for you to make up more insane delusions every time:
Associative conditioning is the actual issue in every example you mention. Conditioning relies on "symbolism" like language does in the most basic sense of "representing one thing with another".
Misleading or false associations are bad but none of the problems you're talking about can be blamed on "symbolism" except in the sense that everything can be blamed on it.

Why can't you say anything without an essay where you make up entire fantasy worlds? I'm not reading any of your braindead shit. Engage with what I actually say relatively concisely or fuck off.

>>20983136
>you were hella dumb not to have just replied with this 10 or 60 posts ago.
I did, from many different angles over and over. The map is not the territory. You made all these braindead replies without even grasping that simple point? How can you lie to yourself that you're literate or even slightly capable of anything?
I said basically the exact same thing 50 times and every time you go off on the dumbest imaginable irrelevant tangents. You have no mind.

>>20983157
aw just back to plain old schizophrenia now? aww i was going to give you something nice as a goodbye present as well :(

oh well,
>To reiterate the same thing I say in every reply f
is what i've been saying you're doing; only I've been able to write it out and explain in depth, citing your own replies contrasted to mine.
>an essay where you make up entire fantasy worlds
>fantasy worlds
is something i accused you of several posts ago (w/re: unverifiable claims)
> Engage with what I actually say relatively concisely or fuck off
is also what i said to you several days ago

>How can you lie to yourself that you're literate or even slightly capable of anything?
obvious projection.

I think that proves my theory correct that you're some form of psychiatric patient, or have a history of it, if you read what I said as an insult and felt pain from it and decided to use it as a weapon back at me.


If you were ready to return to reality and stop engaging like this you might pause and wonder how it is that I'm able to deduce so much about you from the things you say.

anyway goodbye anonnonon,
no present for you.

>>20979181
Tarkovsky was a dumbfuck allegorist, has no right to be cheeky.

>>20983208
Your excuse for not being able to be even close to reasonable is.. "no u"?
But why can't you understand the basic points I presented to you at all? Disagreeing is one thing but you don't grasp any of it on any level. The most basic observations about your braindead claims.

>>20983222
>But why can't you understand the basic points I presented to you at all
Why can't you understand that I've told you that we're agreeing with each other for several posts?

>Disagreeing is one thing but
...

>Your excuse for not being able to be even close to reasonable is.. "no u"?
Yep, I said this to you very early on the first time you copied my words back to me. 99/100 times this makes the person stop doing it. You kept it up for FIVE DAYS.

>close to reasonable
this is hilarious; no self-awareness of yourself at all. You're the one with posts comprised content of 80% verbal abuse, and I'm the one asking you to stick to the subject and make a case.


This kind of reminded me of the Dr. Who episode on the tourist train, where the alien mimics the peoples words then takes control of them. In a quite literal sense this is what has happened when you began disagreeing with an aspect of my position, then agreeing with it days later, having still been raving that 'I' was retarded and knew nothing about the subject the entire time. I don't think you've quite put this together yet though; as it means that if you were correct in the first place that you're wrong now, in your assertion that I "knew nothing" I mean.

Like I said, I can justify talking to you from a point of psychiatric interest of this kind of tactical approach.

Honestly I am done at this point. You're agreeing with me anyway and that's all that objectively matters lol

>>20983221
>>20979181
I read this yesterday and I think he's in error; he doesn't seem to notice that the 'rigid symbolism' 'is' the same as the image. I don't know whether or not he'd given any great thought to the matter, or if he was using the word 'symbol' in some other way and half-reaching the correct conclusion anyway.


Somebody this to me about this subject,
>i've noticed this is particular element is getting worse and worse in movies as peoples attention spans decreases. they need to quickly read the room and directors use biases and assumptions. needs to be force fed to them. most of the "twists" revolve around: "hey, remember that guy with a crooked face who due to your biases didn't trust? well hes actually the good guy" lol

and
>It just seems to me as if 'that' audience isn't in the real world or paying attention to what they're seeing; like inferring things based on suppositions and biases, rather than deducing things from evidence.
>I always think there's a element of not understanding a thing and pretending to understand it by looking for symbols inside it, like ... not being able to read properly and scanning a block of text for a keyword, then responding to the keyword.

>>20983270
> there's (an) element of not understanding a thing and pretending to understand it by looking for symbols inside it, like ... not being able to read properly
for you also cat girl >>20982690

>>20983252
>t I've told you that we're agreeing with each other
We're not. I did predict you would convince yourself of that. You can't stick to anything you say, what you claim you meant shifts between polar opposites in the same posts, depending on what serves you in that exact moment.
>why not just say this 50 posts ago
I point out I did, repeatedly, over and over. You then change your position to the polar opposite, that I have been repeating myself and that's bad. No hint of coherent thought, in any of your posts on any subject no matter how inane. You can't grasp basic popular concepts like "projection". Most of the thread you were arguing that language is not a form of symbolism at all, despite the definition being clear. When you try to clarify the difference in your mind you give simple examples of associative conditioning with no special kind of symbolism needed, just plain common language.

>you copied my words back to me
Like when I used the word "framing"? You're completely deranged.

>>20983323
>depending on what serves you in that exact moment.
OR you misunderstood what I was saying in the first place; you might've gotten that impression when I was saying "no i don't think this," and "writing blog posts" clarifying what I actually did think (i.e. what my position was), which you stated that you didn't read.

That's probably what happened.

This was why I was trying to get you to stop insulting me and actually "write your case, state what your position was" because what you were saying 'against' my position didn't make any sense as being 'against' anything I was saying.

>>t I've told you that we're agreeing with each other
>We're not.

You just can't bear for this end, can you? You're absolutely pathetic. Find something else to do.

>>20983360
>OR you misunderstood what I was saying in the first place
You're completely incapable of coherent thought or communication. You convince yourself you're "right" and everyone agrees with you no matter how braindead what you actually said was. There's endless examples in this thread, every single post.
>you might've gotten that impression
I indeed might have gotten the impression that you believe language isn't symbolic based on the 200 posts where you say again that's what you believe.
>This was why I was trying to get you to stop insulting me
Because you're incapable of seeing past any emotionally charged content that will influence your thought process and steer it toward conditioned associations instead of using any sort of disciplined thought reminiscent of reason. This model of your behavior predicts all your posts from the start like the catholic association.
>write your case
You didn't allow any basic terms to be established, like the definition of symbolism. Instead of acknowledging language is symbolism from the start but clarifying what type of symbolism you think you're talking about you actually argued that language isn't symbolic at all. When you finally conceded that it's some specific kind of symbolism that's the problem you still gave examples that could be done using the simplest forms like language. Every post is braindead on every level.
>what you were saying 'against' my position didn't make any sense as being 'against' anything I was saying.
Only if you don't grasp anything said to you on any level. If you live in a delusional fantasy world which you clearly do since you can't even keep straight what's been said in the thread.

You even pretended you're the one that brought up conditioning. You completely erase all your posts from your memory after you post?

>>20965722
jews are prone to schizophrenia and they set up standards. its very simple.
you can see it in art, literature, musicovies everywhere
there isnt a single jewish written and produced movie that is coherent and follows the story linearly

>>20973133
your argument only makes sense when conveying information that is meant to be implemented toward some goal. the goal of art is to operate in you in ways that a bullet point step by step instructional can not. art does this through symbolic imagery and parable.

>>20983396
>I indeed might have gotten the impression that you believe language isn't symbolic

lol look, moron,
This is an off-topic discussion where you've conflated "letters in words" as being the thing talked about, this is your error. Nobody else seems to have made the same mistake (except one other idiot who shut up when he was told it was an absurdum fallacy).

I haven't agreed with you on -that- thing, but on the other thing we briefly got into; about the association of the image symbol. If I say I agree on X and you don't even know what X is, holy fucking jesus. Are you ADD or something?

If only you knew how to read english properly and didn't dismiss sentences explaining things to you as "blog posts" that you loudly proclaim you refuse to read, like some petulant little eunuch in a harem.


>>20983410
>jews are prone to schizophrenia and they set up standards.
This is a fucking good point.. I mean, I wouldn't say it's only "jews" but you seem to be onto something with the thought process of schizophrenia where it involves disassociation from the tangible real world and the solipsistic reliance on third-hand things (symbols,icons) to anchor the brain into whatever idea they want to anchor themselves in.

The narrative overlay onto potentially unrelated sequences of events so as to reinterpret something going on as if something 'else' was going; conforming to a narrative or preheld belief, this kind of thing.

Whereas the schizophrenia in that would be for the person to think that "what they believe" is actually more important than the reality, where they can be shown to be wrong, and this slides right off their smooth brain. Compartmentalization and disassociation.

But you make a good point. Taking the OT for example it's one of the stupidest things ever, where the audience is just expected to identify with XYZ and not notice how twisted up and irrational the stories are, when taken literally.

>>20983445
Well, compare the last reply ^^^, a person has a symbolic idea of what they think morality is (for instance) and it doesn't phase them in the least to be grossly objectively immoral; they still suffer the consequences of attracting negative responses for 'being' immoral (they've beaten someone up, then people come and beat them up) and then they're confused and angry about it -they did not forsee the outcome-, because culturally (via symbolism) they "believed" they were being highly moral.

There is the objective demonstrable tangible, which is learned from observing and studying reality, and there there are infinite delusions that exist in a persons head who refuses to submit himself to reality:

e.g. the person thinks a chair is not a chair, that it is "10,000 things other than a chair", his focus o think that in the first place has not begun from the starting point of the material world as it is; to learn how a thing really operates, but on fantasy instead; to pretend that their opinion or bias before inquiry was right.
>Plotinus.

>>20983445
I mean:it' like the Platos Cave thing,to but it more simply, where the 'shadow cast on the wall' is being mistaken as being a true report of reality. That's what I mean by second or third hand vs. the thing itself.

W/re: symbolism 'as' art (or stories or movies) I'm just observing a pernicious thought-process that a person seems to develop that drags them away from reality the more they get used to thinking in that way:

An audience could be shown any scenario of events, and placing a single symbol there would have the audience reinterpret all the human actions going on in front of their eyes as being whatever the thing that the symbol means to them as being.

Again, my point, is that such an audience is not paying attention to anything actually going on, but are using the given symbolism to reinterpret reality in a way that has no basis 'in' reality,

e.g.
the man wearing a black hat hs saved a baby, and the man in a white hat is trying to gun people down and kill the baby, but the audience, unusually dumbfucks as they may be, have been conditioned to always project good upon the white hat and bad upon the black hat, so they ignore the context and judge the white hat, despite his bad actions, to be good.

>>20983445
I mean: it's like the Platos Cave thing, to put it more simply, where the 'shadow cast on the wall' is being mistaken as being a true report of reality. That's what I mean by second or third hand vs. the thing itself.

W/re: symbolism 'as' art (or stories or movies) I'm just observing a pernicious thought-process that a person seems to develop that drags them away from reality the more they get used to thinking in that way:
An audience could be shown any scenario of events, and placing a single symbol there would have the audience reinterpret all the human actions going on in front of their eyes as being whatever the thing that the symbol means to them as being.

Again, my point, is that such an audience is not paying attention to anything actually going on 'in' reality, but are using the given symbolism to reinterpret reality in a way that has no basis 'in' reality,

e.g.
the man wearing a black hat has saved a baby, and the man in a white hat is trying to gun people down and kill the baby, but the audience, unusually dumbfucks as they may be, have been conditioned to always project good upon the white hat and bad upon the black hat, so they ignore the context and judge the white hat, despite his bad actions, to be good.

>>20983663
Every post is an amazing display of braindead cope.
The only problem you reference, what you're actually talking about is associative conditioning, the process behind ads and hollywood brainwashing. I suggest you call it what it is instead of dragging "symbolism" through the dirt based on your petty resentment towards catholicism or whatever and actively undermining things like literacy and understanding of history in the process.
>Nobody else seems
You decided long ago that anyone who disagrees with you is the same person. If I show you screenshots of replies with no (you) that's photoshop, remember? There's no part of you starting to suspect that you're delusional? You stopped defending some of your claims that are more easy to demonstrate are deranged like your insistence on not just confused but completely wrong definitions of words. How does your record in this thread compute in your brain? How can you look back at all this shit and think you don't need to reconsider all your methods of thinking and communicating?

Remember when you brought up conditioning first and I'm "copying your words" despite the record showing the opposite?
Remember how you confidently told me you know all about projection because you work in psychiatry and then defined projection as something nobody on the planet agrees with?
Is reminding you of how braindead you are another catholic trick?

>>20983278
That's pretty much exactly the point; symbolism becomes a crutch by ignoring the base textual evidence in favor of an reader-created meta-layer that is, by it's nature, extra-textual and relative/subjective. Webber simply created a musical about cats. His midwit friend, unable to actually grasp or understand the text properly, had to try and insert symbols he could latch onto instead - betraying his immediate and base increase ignorance.

>>20983764
Being able to conceive of more abstract patterns to encapsulate a thing enriches your grasp of it, there's no downside. Imagining a different perspective doesn't mean you assign some special importance to it. It's about cats but the effect and meaning it has to you still depends on your perspective about cats and other elements in the story.

>>20983752
>cope
he spat the word

Yeah, none of these things actually happened. I "defended" everything I said already in those "blog posts" you remind me you couldn't be bothered read, so obviously you simply don't care what I've had to say to you, which undermines your constant replies to me where you insist you didn't make a mistake and that I'm the one who's
>braindead,
>know nothing,
>can't think,
>retarded,
>cancer of the world,
>everything wrong with the world,
>an american,
>a 40 yr woman
and ... whatever else, because you've been saying this from the beginning whilst consistently telling me that you're not reading anything I'm saying.

Meanwhile I've been incredibly patient with you for five days trying to get you to make a case an explain to me what you're trying to say or what you think I'm saying, and all you've been doing is verbal abuse, projection of your flaws onto me - denying reality; i.e. gas-lighting, and telling me how I don't know anything.

I really should stop feeding you. I know.

>>20983791
>Being able to conceive of more abstract patterns to encapsulate a thing enriches your grasp of it,
It turned out that when Jim insisted that the bag of dirt he was holding was a portal to the Unicorn Universe and when he was goaded into putting his claim to the test, all he got was muddy clothes.

He had wasted his fathers bag of compost by not appreciating the value that the item possessed, and so he made shit up to amuse himself because he couldn't be bothered to study agricultural science and discover how things actually operated.

>>20983752
>cope
he spat the word

Yeah, none of these things actually happened. I "defended" everything I said already in those "blog posts" you remind me you couldn't be bothered read, so obviously you simply don't care what I've had to say to you, which undermines your constant replies to me where you insist you didn't make a mistake and that I'm the one who's
>braindead,
>know nothing,
>can't think,
>retarded,
>cancer of the world,
>everything wrong with the world,
>an american,
>a 40 yr woman
and ... whatever else, because you've been saying this from the beginning whilst consistently telling me that you're not reading anything I'm saying.

>How can you look back at all this shit and think you don't need to reconsider all your methods of thinking and communicating?
>"the record"

(Because) I've been incredibly patient with you for five days trying to get you to make a case an explain to me what you're trying to say or what you think I'm saying, and all you've been doing is verbal abuse, projection of your flaws onto me - denying reality; i.e. gas-lighting, and telling me how I don't know anything.

I really should stop feeding you. I know.

>>20983752
>You decided long ago that anyone who disagrees with you is the same person.
lol
You know, you can deny this if you want but I don't think anybody else would be so consistent with their highly specific very bloody-minded verbal abuse over a subject so small and casual as this; d you really think anybody would become so violent over a topic called
SYMBOLISM RUIN STORIES discussing film and fiction

good try at a trick, but,
If I see a reply comprised in 80% to 90% of phraseology like "cancer of the world, you know nothing, female nurse, braindead, retard," it's fair enough to assume its you, no?


>>20983764
I'm glad someone else here can understand it. Are you shocked to see this other guys replies? It's crazy, right? Who would get so violent over this subject and what on gaias earth could their underlying motive even be..?I'm stumped.

>>20965722
I think some readers just want to be immersed in a story as if it were a second life. So any thought on the story's construction "ruins" their escapism.

>>20983791
It might enhance, sure, but it can (and often does) confuse and wrest priority from the more concrete information. Might someone be able to see new patterns and meanings into Cats? Sure, I went to college too - half of what we did in lit classes was trying to "analyze" works for additional meanings (often with large leaps in logic). But at the end of the day - it's about cats.

>>20983930
This is called making up fantasies. It can have abstract value but not if it interferes with your vital work. Conflating this with symbolism is not just wrong but evil.

>>20983752
>petty resentment towards catholicism
4chan trad-cath troll confirmed.

former neo nazi who ran to a man in a dress and begged jesus to stop his brain from hurting after being exposed to a science book.

>>20984005
>but evil
How so?

How is this perspective: >>20983764 "evil"?

>>20983953
>"defended" everything I said already
There's no "defense". You said all this braindead shit and no amount of blogging will change that.
>>20983987
>you can deny this if you want
Most of the replies are me but in the specific post I'm talking about for example where you demanded it was all me, half weren't. Notice how I can talk about specifics?
>SYMBOLISM RUIN STORIES
Is one of the dumbest takes I have ever heard in my life. I could not have conceived of a creature as dumb as you before this.
>>20984020
>4chan trad-cath troll confirmed.
You made it clear that not only are people that like symbolism all catholics, so is anyone that tries to establish some grounds and definitions to work from step by step, as in applying logic.

>>20983992
>So any thought on the story's construction "ruins" their escapism.
Ah but what about "the twist" where we can show that, as I quoted a while ago,
> "hey, remember that guy with a crooked face who due to your biases didn't trust? well hes actually the good guy"
People find this to be intellectually pleasing when their symbolic expectations are inverted; they don't become angry or confused about it, they think it's 'more' interesting when the rigidity of the symbol or typecast is blown apart.

Technically it's still using a 'symbol',yes, but only so far as it's being picked up and shattered against the wall.

>>20984035
Okay, great. Good to know. Nice talking to you then, bye bye. No need to keep replying to me. I agree with everything you've said about me and concede that you're completely right about whatever you want to me say you're completely right about.

Thanks, anon! bye :D

>>20984024
Making up a fantasy and ignoring everything else isn't helpful, spreading the perspective that you should blame symbolism itself for when people retreat into fantasies is subversive, evil as in opposed to the general goals of humanity like survival and gaining knowledge in the service of future survival.
Both the idea that symbolism is bad because it serves conditioning and because it serves people attempting to ignore reality is blaming a tool with varied uses for how it's being used in specific instances. It's not the fault of the hammer that you decided to murder someone with it.

>>20984035
>>20983752
>ou decided long ago that anyone who disagrees with you is the same person. If I show you screenshots
what, like this?

>>20984076
I did suspect that wasn't you but the context established is still from your posts. You know what I'm referencing with "catholic resentment" even if that guy didn't, now he does.

>>20984069
uh huh.. but you said that "blaming symbolism" is evil, that's a pretty outlandish opinion. What would you suggest be focused on as the cause of "misuse of the symbol" in order to solve the problem of the "symbol being used for bad"?

>>20984054
>"hey, remember that guy with a crooked face who due to your biases didn't trust? well hes actually the good guy"
Probably actual propaganda to undermine natural intuitions like ones based on physiognomy.

>>20984100
>you said that "blaming symbolism" is evil
And clarified what I mean by evil. The causes for why someone does things like seek to ignore reality can vary greatly. Undermining an incredibly useful tool because you notice some people misusing it is undermining your ability to survive. If there's an underlying pattern where you generally think like this, vague associations cause you do demonize useful tools then you're generally harmful.

>>20984108
oooooooooo a connection to symbol worship and nazi pseudo-science has just made made in this thread, i didn't see that coming, but I guess.. eh, that could've been expected,

two forms of primitive backwards thinking.

>>20965979
It doesnt matter if something is intended or not in literature

>>20984128
I thought you said you weren't a catlady?
I don't know how useful physiognomy is but I can consider the idea and wouldn't presume to create propaganda on a massive scale to undermine or promote it.
Notice the difference? I'm capable of thinking about things. You deliberately don't.

>>20984123
>Undermining an incredibly useful tool because you notice some people misusing it is undermining your ability to survive.
>associations cause you do demonize useful tools then you're generally harmful.
Huh, that's rather insightful as to your position on all of this.

I wonder though if you've considered that it's the reliance 'on' such easily edited things, such as symbols, which is the psychological process that produces both the bad and the false association as well as the good and the true association; that for a person to presume they "know the man in the black hat is evil" because you associate his hat as being "the sign of evil" is the thought-process which is the mistake in and of itself?

Surly judging by actions and evidence and not
relying on mere associations is the way to avoid being misled into going along with the bad,
>the evil man with a nice smile and a white hat
and considering the actually 'good' person to 'be' bad, wit both misperception arriving due to the reliance or reversion to the symbol and not the evidence of actions or deeds,
i.e.
>the good man who does good, but wears a black hat

to borrow from earlier examples in this thread.

>>20984145
>I thought you said you
we've never spoken before.

>>20984152
>I wonder though if you've considered that it's the reliance 'on' such easily edited things, such as symbols, which is the psychological process that produces both the bad and the false association as well as the good and the true association; that for a person to presume they "know the man in the black hat is evil" because you associate his hat as being "the sign of evil" is the thought-process which is the mistake in and of itself?
There is nothing to consider there that we haven't been over in more detail already than you mention in this quote.
We can associate a hat with being bad. The misleading association, the lie that the hat is bad is the problem. There's no way to reasonably blame any form of symbolism for whatever motivated that lie. It's like saying words are evil because they lie. There's some tiny point behind that but it's a caveman point, "tool bad because bad thing".
>by actions and evidence
Referenced and reasoned about through symbols and abstractions.
>the evil man with a nice smile and a white hat
The original association came from somewhere, it doesn't have to be local and arbitrary but it can be. Even when it is it still contains information. Presumably the evil man is exploiting the association with whiteness which is then part of the story.
>the kind generous man with the big bloody sword carrying the head of my only son
Don't judge this great man based on symbolic associations bro. You're interpreting this scene purely based on your own local perspective and conditioned assumptions.

>>20984213
>There's no way to reasonably blame any form of symbolism
No no no no, nobody's "blaming the symbol (in a literal sense)" but the 'process' of the thought or conditioning which leads a person to 'have' that association in the first place.

What's being discussed here is the reliance or predisposition or sloppy-thinking by which the person takes their cue on how to interpret a whole situation though an article of symbolism, i.e. "not thinking in terms of evidence"

I don't know how you'd get around or overcome this weakness or error in thinking without learning to completely ignore the symbol, but then you still have the problem where small children or casual observers may still take the bad persons side because they haven't learned to ignore the symbol of "the white hat" and think it means he's the good guy.

>>the kind generous man with the big bloody sword carrying the head of my only son
>Don't judge this great man based on symbolic associations bro.
No,those are his actions and deeds. The symbol would be that he had a holy relic of a venerable saint around his neck or a crown covered in angels, when he was sawing off the childs head with his sword.

>The original association came from somewhere,
Right, the crown or the holy relic is supposed to be a sign of a pure and pious person; that is the association and it's being used as a cloak by the evil man.

How to solve this problem?

>>20984213
>by actions and evidence
>Referenced and reasoned about through symbols and abstractions.
This is the problem you'e been having with OP, when we get to the specifics of "the symbol" (black hat and white hat) you step back and start conflating the symbol with literally everything else,

reasoned about through symbols and abstractions.
such as,
>the kind generous man with the big bloody sword carrying the head of my only son
>Don't judge this great man based on symbolic associations bro. You're interpreting this scene purely based on your own local perspective and conditioned assumptions.

You're using the word 'symbol' in two or six different ways at once when we try to get into specifics in any example.

>>20984213
btw, anon, I think you're the trad-cath guy (i won't judge), so you might recall the mythos around the Anti-Christ as being more than a little bit relevant to this subject; in the sense that the Anti-Christ will appear wearing the symbols and fulfuling the actions of Jesus Christ, that is: the anti-christ will make himself tick the boxes of symbolic association in his appearance, and that it would only be the True Believers who would pa attention to his 'deeds' and recognize he was evil, despite him having symbolically taken on the mantle and form and everything else of Jesus.

Just something to consider if you're coming from a religious or christian background, it's different in Islam but not that different.

>>20984277
>the reliance or predisposition or sloppy-thinking by which the person takes their cue on how to interpret a whole situation though an article of symbolism
Is what you constantly do which brings to mind the word "projection".
>I don't know how you'd get around or overcome this weakness
It's this thing we call logic. The other thing you dismiss as catholic. Establishing premises and working from them in a rigid fashion reduces errors. To conceive of hypothesis to test you explore various perspectives without prejudice including through extremely abstract or symbolic thinking. The part where we apply reason, the part that doesn't occur to you at all is the part where we reduce the errors, begin to test how applicable our hypothesis is.
>No,those are his actions and deeds.
His demonstrable actions were holding the head and a sword, he like also killed the son but that's based on trained associations using abstract symbols like what it likely means if you're holding a sword, there are other possible explanations but the associated symbolic actions like holding his head tell a story and it's unlikely there really is another explanation accounting for the image.
>The symbol would be that he had a holy relic of a venerable saint around his neck or a crown covered in angels, when he was sawing off the childs head with his sword.
>I'm just talking about symbols I don't like
Then talk about them, don't pretend to be above the tools they use.
>How to solve this problem?
Reason. It doesn't even occur to you.

>>20984297
>you're using the word 'symbol' in two or six different ways
The definition of the word is representing one thing with another. Under that basic definitions language is symbolic. For most of the thread the retard was arguing against this basic definition even while I asked him to clarify if there's a specific type of symbolism he's talking about. For most of the thread he refused to acknowledge that he was talking about some specific type of symbolism and then suddenly switched positions. He still can't clarify, every time an example is given it's like the hat, just a simple general example of associative conditioning with some malicious element. The malicious element is always the problem, not whatever tool is being used.

>>20984311
I'm the one pointing at the actual mechanisms behind associative conditioning while you jerk off about symbolism just as conditioned and blind to reality as before. Why not learn about the actual mechanisms I'm referencing instead of spinning these elaborate tapestries of bullshit?

>>20984320
>>the reliance or predisposition or sloppy-thinking by which the person takes their cue on how to interpret a whole situation though an article of symbolism
>Is what you constantly do which brings to mind the word "projection".
... I ... did you read that as a person attack? No, anon, ... you're doing with me what you were doing with the OP.

>logic, reason.
I don't get how that's a response to what was said.

"What's being discussed here is the reliance or predisposition or sloppy-thinking by which the person takes their cue on how to interpret a whole situation though an article of symbolism, i.e. "not thinking in terms of evidence"

I don't know how you'd get around or overcome this weakness or error in thinking without learning to completely ignore the symbol, but then you still have the problem where small children or casual observers may still take the bad persons side because they haven't learned to ignore the symbol of "the white hat" and think it means he's the good guy."

and your answer is.. just "logic" - does that mean you would ignore the symbol also? But then how do you get around the other part?


"the crown or the holy relic is supposed to be a sign of a pure and pious person; that is the association and it's being used as a cloak by the evil man.

How to solve this problem?"

and your answer was "reason", which is another word for logic.

Not that I disagree with you but I'm asking to provide the logical answer to the problem, not to just say "logic" as if it answers the questions posed.

Logos is a very large field in Rhetoric, dealing with Cause and Proof as opposed to Ethos (I think its right because my dad said it was right) and as opposed to Pathos (I'm suffering).


>The symbol would be that he had a holy relic of a venerable saint around his neck or a crown covered in angels, when he was sawing off the childs head with his sword.
>I'm just talking about symbols I don't like

No, I was giving you a direct example,
>>The original association came from somewhere,
>Right, the crown or the holy relic is supposed to be a sign of a pure and pious person; that is the association and it's being used as a cloak by the evil man.


You're doing with me what you've been doing in this thread, acting as if every sentence is a personal attack and not connecting the arguments together.

>>20984333
>The malicious element is always the problem
The element preventing understanding can be your own preconception about the thing based in previously established conditioning. Your problem then is just being too rigid in your preconceived notions. The people that are most dogmatic about their beliefs are the people most conditioned by mainstream culture, that used to be a Christian culture in the west but isn't anymore, people are still just as dogmatic in their thinking.

>>20984333
>>you're using the word 'symbol' in two or six different ways
>The definition of the word is representing one thing with another. Under that basic definitions language is symbolic.
.. but.. you're not understanding that .. you are ...
> using the word 'symbol' in two or six different ways
and that this is why people are getting frustrated with you and you're not understanding or arguing with them over semantics. You're missing the point of what's being said to you about the subject.

>For most of the thread the retard was
I don't care about any of this, stick to the subject.

>He still can't clarify
Forget "him", "I'm" trying to clarify and you're doing the same thing to me. You interpreted my other reply to you as if I was attacking you personally when I was making a case and asking you about it.

This one, >>20984277 (you)

>>20984340
>I'm the one pointing at the actual mechanisms behind associative conditioning
>Why not learn about the actual mechanisms I'm referencing
I asked you about it and you acted as if I was attacking your character when I gave the examples. What have you said to me about "associative conditioning"? I asked you and told me I was doing a projection against you.

>while you jerk off about symbolism
that's the subject, isn't it? what?

>>20984367
>... I ... did you read that as a person attack?
No. It's an observation that's actually relevant. The reason you and OP want to demonize "symbolism" is to separate your way of thinking from it, ignoring all the symbolism you rely on.
>my thinking good and "evidence based"
>your thinking symbolic and "religious"

>and your answer is.. just "logic"
This is the answer:
>Establishing premises and working from them in a rigid fashion reduces errors. To conceive of hypothesis to test you explore various perspectives without prejudice including through extremely abstract or symbolic thinking. The part where we apply reason, the part that doesn't occur to you at all is the part where we reduce the errors, begin to test how applicable our hypothesis is.
>does that mean you would ignore the symbol also
I just explained how to use it. The symbol is supposed to represent something, how useful it is revealed by applying it, first hypothetically in thought experiments rooted in logic.
>Right, the crown or the holy relic is supposed to be a sign of a pure and pious person
And it was in some sense. White hats need cleaning, the guy with the white hat is disciplined enough to clean it or something. These could both be based on some real heuristics. All else being equal it may actually get better results to trust the white hat. Deferring to the hat over even more clear heuristic signs like the bloody sword would be an error, easily addressable by thinking reasonably.

>>20984419
>The reason you and OP want to demonize "symbolism"
No no no no, nobody's "blaming the symbol (in a literal sense)" but the 'process' of the thought or conditioning which leads a person to 'have' that association in the first place.

What's being discussed here is the reliance or predisposition or sloppy-thinking by which the person takes their cue on how to interpret a whole situation though an article of symbolism, i.e. "not thinking in terms of evidence"

>Deferring to the hat over even more clear heuristic signs like the bloody sword would be an error, easily addressable by thinking reasonably.
Okay, agreed, but this still doesn't account for the "audience" who can't think reasonably, so again,

How to solve this problem?"

>>20984419
> White hats need cleaning, the guy with the white hat is disciplined enough to clean it
>or something.
>These could both be based on some real heuristics.
>All else being equal it may actually get better results to trust the white hat.
Behold, "Logic."

So this pretty much confirms that you don't really care what logic is at all; using situational evidence and context, that you think,
...akshually there's good reasons why we should think the man in the white hat who is killing babies is a 'good guy'...

hilarious.

OP

>>20984403
>but.. you're not understanding that .. you are ...
But you can't clarify these differences. I actually did clarify, like how the symbolic association can be arbitrary and local or not. It's not inherent to symbolism in any way, not in any form mentioned.
I'm not using the word in different ways, every single way is talking about representing something with another, that's symbolism. It's not the "symbolism" movement or whatever but none of the examples given relate to any specific movement or even trend. They're all basic examples of associative conditioning which is actually a useful term to describe everything you retards are talking about but you reject because it's not useful to your goals, which are apparently centered around demonizing religious people or something since that's where you both always end up.
>I asked you about it
I repeated the point so many times but neither of you respond to it. You always make up some story, about a third of the stories are about some religion you know nothing about, another third about some mental illness you know nothing about. I know you're a different guy but you did the same thing, made up some story and responded to it instead of any post in the thread.
Look up associative conditioning. Learn about the subject if you're interested in how people are manipulated. it's mostly the same methods you use to train animals yet the animals don't grasp anything about holy relics.
>that's the subject, isn't it? what?
The subject is how symbolism ruins stories. Asked to elaborate OP gave examples of simple associative conditioning and tried to blame "symbolism", not even some specific brand but just symbolism in general until that changed. Now he says the problem really is associative conditioning like I said but symbolism is used to serve it. This is blaming a tool for how it's used.

>>20966053
I'm inclined towards the sweet and simple Tolkien quote on allegory vs applicability. Allegory is bad as it's an aesop's fable tier of "this = this", while applicability is good as it speaks to your work having a more timeless quality and reach to a great number of people.

Not all work has to be timeless however. Some can be applicable (or allegorical) to some culturally resonant experience. You just trade off that less people will be able to take applicability from your work or be able to appreciate it beyond some basic qualities of how common to humanity it is. IE we lose the allegorical/symbolism of Aristophane's plays dealing with minutia of Athenian culture. What we keep is the applicability of timelessness - how women are always horny bitches, how old men are perverts, that sort of thing.

>>20984436
>but this still doesn't account for the "audience" who can't think reasonably
There is no solution to that, it's not like when you apply reason you become immune to the conditioning either. The problem is malicious actors, things like the proliferation of the PR and ad industries. In the sense of all this conditioning talk the human is an input-output device. If the input is all lies there's no productive output.
What is the cause of these industries taking over. Greed and lack of values etc probably, the thing the religious people warned about but I can't say anything about that with as much certainty as about the basics of conditioning that reliably produce consistent results and describe all these examples better than any blog about symbolism.

>>20984463
>akshually there's good reasons why we should think the man in the white hat who is killing babies is a 'good guy'...
This post is pure OP. Pure delusional lies based on deliberately misrepresenting everything I said.
See this:
Deferring to the hat over even more clear heuristic signs like the bloody sword would be an error, easily addressable by thinking reasonably.
You're unable to relate it killing babies? Your mind is completely fried?

>>20984465
>but neither of you respond to it.
Anon, you have not understood what's been said to you, that: you are using the word 'symbol' in two or six different ways and that this is why people are getting frustrated with you and you're not understanding or arguing with them over semantics. You're missing the point of what's being said to you about the subject.

You just said,
>But you can't clarify these differences. I actually did clarify, like how
But you missed the example that was given to you in the first place, when you were given the example you "stepped back and decided thata symbol can mean everything" and you used this in order to deflect the arument being made to you.

It's not that others aren't not being clear, it's that you're choosing to muddy the water to stall the conversation from progressing to a conclusion on the subject.

> neither of you respond to it.
>You always make up some story,
when you read what I just wrote ^^^ is that what you think "making up a story is" here? t's trying to get you to stick to the subject and explaining to you that you made a mistake when you read what I said a couple of replies ago...

> I know you're a different guy but you did the same thing, made up some story and responded to it

.................................

..but.. you... honestly truly sincerely don't understand what is physically literally being said to you ... I ..... this is nuts ..... why doesn't he understand

>>20984509
>you have not understood what's been said to you, that: you are using the word 'symbol' in two or six different ways
Yet you can't clarify what different ways and how that relates to anything said. I'm talking about symbolism which is defined as representing one thing with another. OP is talking about lies being proliferated through associative conditioning. A completely different subject that has nothing to do with symbolism except in so far as basically everything is related to symbolism.
>you missed the example
What example. Why not reference it clearly? We're now talking about many different examples.
>It's not that others aren't not being clear
>But you missed the example that was given to you in the first place, when you were given the example you "stepped back and decided thata symbol can mean everything" and you used this in order to deflect the arument being made to you.
There's nothing clear about what I quoted here. There's no attempt to clarify, just muddy while you actually manage to convince yourself I'm the one muddying things by using clear definitions. It doesn't even have to be the accepted definition, just some definition.
>is that what you think "making up a story is" here?
Why pretend you don't know what I'm referencing? You made up a story about antichrist etc. It's where your mind goes automatically.
>..but.. you... honestly truly sincerely don't understand what is physically literally being said to you ... I ..... this is nuts ..... why doesn't he understand
Is this an example of the clarity you pride yourself in?

>>20984509
>why doesn't he understand
Because he's actually mentally sick.

>>20984487
yeah hi again baby boy
>This post is pure OP.
WHAT GAVE ME AWAY THERE
the fact that I signed the post
>OP
xd


>White hats need cleaning, the guy with the white hat is disciplined enough to clean it or something. These could both be based on some real heuristics. All else being equal it may actually get better results to trust the white hat.
did I not literally quote you there,anon? What was made-up? >>20984419 >>20984463

This what you said in answer to the other person asking you to explain the same thing I was trying to get you to explain, and when you were pushed to give a better answer than "logic" or "reason" with no explanation, that's what you went and said,
to trust in the symbol. CUZ MEBE THE MAN WIV THE WHITE HAT HAS DISSYPLIN TO CLEAN IT, ITS BEST TO TRUSTY IN HIM

HOLY
FUCKING
SHIT

>>20984536
>>you have not understood what's been said to you, that: you are using the word 'symbol' in two or six different ways
>Yet you can't clarify what different ways and how that relates to anything said.
I give up.

>>20984538
I'm sorry, I don't know how you can tolerate this guy.

>>20984538
>did I not literally quote you there,anon?
In the post you're replying to I repeated the part you deliberately left out of the quote. What I don't understand is how you can do that while telling yourself you're not dishonest. I don't think you're lying to me, you actually don't grasp the inherent dishonesty in this interaction.
>Deferring to the hat over even more clear heuristic signs like the bloody sword would be an error, easily addressable by thinking reasonably.
Why did you leave out this part that came directly after the statement you quoted and clarified the exact "baby killing" situation? In what world is this something an honest person does?

>pure OP
*puts on sunglasses*
dat shit wuz pure op nigga

>>20984547
>In what world is this something an honest person does?
IN A WORLD BEREFT OF SYMBOLS
WHERE THE ANTI-CHRIST HOLDS THE CROSS
AND IS WORSHIPPED AS JESUS
or sum shit like that.

GooD nIGHT everybody.

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

>>20984543
>I give up.
You didn't try. Clarify anything. Symbolism is representing one thing with another. Clarify the distinction, what type of symbolism is bad? So far the other guy said basically the type of symbolism that serves conditioning but that can be any symbol, there's no type that can't including basic language.

>>20984557
If you ignore everything else at least consider this. Why lie like you did in that post? What purpose do you think it serves? Why do you think it serves you?

>>20979181
Here's an example where a guy clarifies his criticisms of what he calls symbols. He's talking about the intent of creating art so it means something different than is apparent. He then talks about how he loves what he calls "images" which he says are intended to induce feelings, that would include using the white hat in a context where the white hat association is well established.

>>20984563
>>20984643
>>20984559
try as you might, you're not going to recover from this: >>20984538

>>20965722
you do realize that's what "meaning" is? something standing in for something more?

I used to feel the way you do but I realized it was an extremely confused escapist impulse on my part. What does a story mean if it's not representing anything? The less it represents, the less simplistic and literally less meaningful it is.

Is this entire thread just artfags getting BTFO'd?

>>20985076
>The less it represents, the less simplistic and literally less meaningful it is.

Not only does this not make sense, it's also retarded.

What qualifies the textual meaning of a work as less than any meaning a reader pastes onto it? Why does a multitude of "meanings" (in this case you're pretty much just saying "interpretations") make something "better"?

>>20985018
What do you believe happened there from your perspective? As I see it you deliberately misrepresented me and continue to do so despite knowing better. Is there even any alternative explanation? Is it a matter of hiding your retardation behind le epic trolling? That's really the most generous explanation I can think of that's plausible and it still makes you a retard.

>>20985303
>Why does a multitude of "meanings"
>why is more better
Considering more ideas is generally better than considering fewer, all else being equal. Practical concerns make us want to narrow the scope to serve useful aims. That is a skill in itself which is trained by for example reading stories with many possible interpretations. If I don't hammer you over the head with it you need to infer yourself what the hidden knife or whatever means which is also how real life works, so the less direct story is training skills that are more applicable in the world than the story that spoonfeeds you everything. That's the general principle of play according to evolutionary biology and writing/reading stories can be thought of in that context, as a form of play that trains skills including abstract ones.

>>20965722
I experienced recoil when I first read the OP and read some of the discussion going on, however I had to put myself in the eyes of a different person than I am to see why somebody would see Symbolism as such an issue, specially in modern stories.

Sometimes I consume a story on which a "symbolic" moment happens, a moment where reality shifts and something extraordinary happens and I see others (youtube commentators, art critics, etc) try to use symbolism to reject the reality of the moment intended by the creator of the story. In order for the story to make sense to them it had to be unreal, symbolic, a metaphor, just like gods of ancient are seen by the modern man as "just the forces of nature at work" and not as real entities playing real roles in the stories of man.

The way I see symbolism being used in modern discussion of stories is mainly as a sort of projection on which the interpreter forces his own reality into the story so that it fits within the parameters of his mind, instead of consuming it on good faith, lettings the story of the other unfold unrestrained by the viewers preconceptions.
A good storyteller may use universal symbols as the building blocks to tell what cannot be told by the literal (Jorodowsky is great at this) but a bad one will use a "symbol" which vaguely makes sense to himself to tell a story which only he understands which defeats the purpose of the use of the symbol in the first place.
I apologize if my wording is confusing and general nonsense, I say all of this in good faith and am open to being proven wrong.

>>20965832
>everything is a symbol
Nah, that's death of an author, where everything has to symbolize something.

>>20965828
>>20965722
mostly both you and OP have no idea what symbolism means, because both of you rarely read any book at all. Allegorization, i.e. the perfect translatability of fictional images into meanings is what OP is critizing, and you are answering on the general idea that images mean something. These are not the same thing, and both have very little to do with symbolism, both as an artistic movement (of which you know nothing) and as the general deployment of symbols in fiction, which does not imply (nor exclude) allegorization.
Nabokov has written many interesting things on the subject: if you want to take up his lectures on literature or his book on Gogol, you will, at the same time, learn how to better approach the topis of which you are talking about, and stop pestering the corpse of this board with your uninformed, poorly thought threads.
Goodbye.

my god is this thread still going xd

OP

>>20987169
>very little to do with symbolism, both as an artistic movement (of which you know nothing)
Oh, I see the objection you have then - it should be obvious to you, in that case, that we're not talking about this special meaning of Symbolism that you're defending.

Such as ... when we say "this fake stuff is boring, we need more realism" and then someone comes along saying "REALISM IS ACTUALLY SOME SPECIAL UNIQUE THING THAT MEANS SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT (UR SO STUPID)" and is just basically spazzing out on their own being a nuisance.

Sorry, I'm still jaded from dealing with that other objectionist.

> how to better approach the topis
Well we're obviously not talking about the same thing, are we? Your objection is invalidated and seems to be 'hyper-literalism' where you've mistaken the topic in the OP (which could not be more obvious as to what we're talking about) and then you've insisted to us that we're stupid and wrong for not using your particular definition - which by o means possesses a universal monopoly over the entire 'concept' of 'all' symbolism.

I don't think anybody cares about the art movement 'called' Symbolism or has mentioned it once.


>>20986128
>a moment where reality shifts and something extraordinary happens and I see others (youtube commentators, art critics, etc) try to use symbolism to reject the reality of the moment
> In order for the story to make sense to them it had to be unreal, symbolic, a metaphor,

>I apologize if my wording is confusing and general nonsense,
No, you've got it exactly.

It's that disconnection or disasscation from the situational or human tings on the stage, in favor of reinterpreting or relying on a 'symbol' to 'inform the audience' which is what is being called Lazy and Sloppy in its composition )on part of a writer) and what is at the same time, due to the formula, called Boring.

i.e. there may as well be no play at all and just an object brought onto the stage and put the for audience to look at, for an audience which ignores the play and takes their prompt on"what to think is happening" from the single symbol.


>>20985276
Apparently lol

One person misread the OP as if it were "seeking to destroy all physical symbols" (or "blaming/hating those physical symbols themselves"???) and another one believes that unless we're talking about a highly localized art movement called Symbolism that we're not allowed the use the word 'symbol' at all.

Very stupid.


>>20985303
>Why does a multitude of "meanings" (in this case you're pretty much just saying "interpretations") make something "better"?
Exactly.

That 'notion' of endless abstraction into things is the reductio ad infinitum and absurdum fallacy, when a person brings this claim into any kind of 'true life' discussion. Or it'ste same sloppy thinking as to say "X is everything and nothing" and where this guy having said 'NOTHING' believes himself or mistaken by ignorant persons to be "very wise", despite contributing nothing.

OP

>>20987169
>Goodbye.
Also anon, since you put this rather huffily, I will take a moment to tell you that nobody on the planet cares or knows about your highly localized art movement called Symbolism.

i.e.
>Gogol
To me, this is a character from Cyber City Oedo 808 which informed the name of the Search Engine called Google.

If I were to do as you are doing here I would insist that you,
>knew nothing
and
>(all forms of evil)
if you weren't aware of this highly specific and very localized cartoon show from the middle 90's.

Obviously I wouldn't be so rude or stupid as to presume or declare anything of the sort about anybody.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4VcLUcZdu0

>>20987296
>I will take a moment to tell you that nobody on the planet cares
That guy is capable of thinking and communicating. He said something. You will never say anything.

>>20987262
>One person misread the OP as if it were "seeking to destroy all physical symbols" (or "blaming/hating those physical symbols themselves"???) and another one believes that unless we're talking about a highly localized art movement called Symbolism that we're not allowed the use the word 'symbol' at all.
Everything said to you has been replying to the content of your posts. You respond by blatantly lying about everything you're challenged on, even what you said one post previously,

>>20987377
>>20987383
You again. Get lost rat boy.

I'll tell you this once last time,
>Everything said to you has been replying to the content of your posts.

look at this at the top of this webpage >>20965722 and tell me how any of your objections were related to the real topic.

>>20987400
I tried to reach you many times by many different angles. Instead of making demands why can't you consider your behavior for one second?
Can you justify this post >>20984463
How can you expect people to continue to engage with you sincerely when you do this?
You have not acknowledged even one case of your blatant dishonesty in the thread. You have given no indication that you're capable of absorbing any information. You will twist anything said to you into some delusional shit like you did in that post and every other.

You're not using words how they're defined and refuse to elaborate how you're using them except through examples. Your examples aren't examples of any kind of symbolism causing anything.

>>20987416
>You're not using words how they're defined and refuse to elaborate how you're using them except through examples. Your examples aren't examples of any kind of symbolism causing anything.
>>20979181
Here the guy uses the word "symbol" in a way it's not strictly defined but he clarifies every time. Something you're completely incapable of. When you tried, instead of saying anything you disputed basic definitions, half your posts became about claiming language was not a form of symbolism in the widest sense instead of clarifying anything about the mindless shit you think you mean.

>>20987416
>How can you expect people to continue to engage with you
I don't want to 'communicate' with you at all, and I've asked you to stop replying to me already because it wastes time and is off-topic and 90% of your posts were been verbal abuse - 'and' someone else tried to explain your mistake w/re: the topic itself, and you did the same thing with them...

and after 200 posts of abuse you finally 'said something' related to the topic, which I noted here: >>20984463 and then you've been telling me that it was a lie when you said that.

I've asked you to not reply to me anymore with off-topic circular gas-lighting.

>>20987439
>I don't want to 'communicate'
At all. You want to stay safe and unchallenged in your completely deranged delusions but still went on a public forum known for being critical.
>someone else tried to explain your mistake w/re: the topic itself
Reference these "explanations". There has been no clarification even attempted because there are no thoughts behind OP. It's mindless drivel by a mindless retard. Completely unconscious, no awareness of anything like for example what utter derangement this post >>20984463 represents. It's not the only example, every single post you make follows the same pattern of undermining any attempt at real communication. You hate thinking and communicating, both are threats to your delusional fantasy world where >>20984463 or OP are reasonable posts.
>then you've been telling me that it was a lie
Are you seriously this fucked in the head? You still don't grasp how you're misrepresenting me in that post? You're not in touch with reality at all? You still think you've not lied once about what has gone on in this thread? These aren't lies about things that can't be verified, this post >>20984463 is directly replying to a post which says the exact opposite to how you represent it. You still delude yourself after having this pointed out to you 4 times now. This is the fundamental problem, you're completely deranged.
>Deferring to the hat over even more clear heuristic signs like the bloody sword would be an error, easily addressable by thinking reasonably.

>>20987469
The hat is supposed to be a local cultural thing. It's like everyone around you saying people with white hats are trustworthy but not giving a reason. All else being equal, when you have no other criteria you would go with the consensus from the people around you.

>>20987469
>you're completely deranged.
>You're not in touch with reality at all
> fucked in the head

anon, as I said yesterday, far more patiently to you, >>20983953 90% of your posts continue to be off-topic verbal abuse and this has not changed.

There is no point in your replying to me anymore, or >>20987432 other people that you think are me lol

Go away rat boy.

>>20987487
Good point.

>not giving a reason

He gave a reason yesterday after he was painstakingly pushed to finally give one, you can read it here: >>20984463

=)

OP