/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10974451]

What's a 21st century version of this?

[Anonymous No.10974468]

>>10974451
ready player one

[Anonymous No.10974476]

>>10974468
I already saw the movie. How about something less young and more adult?

[Anonymous No.10974550]

Nothing. Cogsci fuckheads think they are doing phenomenology of perception but they aren't. Lots of phenomenologists of perception are doing lots of work, a lot of it with Merleau-Ponty specifically because he's experiencing a surge of interest lately, but they are all worthless derivative garbage and rehashes typical of the academic anus spewing dozens of redundant clinamen books all over the floor every month. Lots of applied phenomenology of perception (the buzzword is "embodied cognition") in fields staffed by what we call "retards," like social psychology and anthropology, but those are even worse. Lots of meta-philosophy from shit-eating sinecured neoliberal apologists or deluded former intellectuals like Hubert Dreyfus telling you that life is all about relaxing on a futon and smugly assuring yourself that transcendence is gay because the weight of a century of philosophers you don't really understand (why else would you be reading borderline-pop meta-philosophy digests of real philosophers otherwise?) can't be wrong: ontological and moral quietism is the only defensible stance, and those kooky orientals were right all along about "openness" and "oneness" (and having normalised slavery, rape, and literal cannibalism for thousands of years, and being borderline sociopathic, LOL!). Time to get in the sense deprivation chamber with Lilly while a hippie girl jerks off your cock and your legions of brown slaves toil to make you a new hat with cool Youtube celebrity slogans stitched into it. Oops? All culture has disappeared and the world is doomed? Sweden is Somalia? What happened? I don't know. Hubert Dreyfus, write me another book about how I gotta chill out. I'm going to take FOUR PILLS now. Four different pills to make my brain chemistry "normal." I define "normal" externalistically, you know, the way we define whether an algorithm for sorting Amazon users into unit-consumers is functionally "normally."

Have you considered reading cognitive science periodicals, OP? It's almost like reading real science, if you are stupid as fuck!

[Anonymous No.10974583]

21st century phenomenologist man
*guitar riff*

[Anonymous No.10974688]

>>10974550
>All culture has disappeared and the world is doomed? Sweden is Somalia? What happened?
Why does everything today lead back to the demographic changes of America and western Europe? It's like this is the fundamental subtext of every conversation. lol I'm not joking, can someone deconstruct this for me?

[Anonymous No.10974864]

there isn't, really. m-p was one of the last of the elevated, the elect, the Great Thinkers of our kind
ironic to have had such penetrating insight into the character of 'natural' consciousness so close to its total subsumption to 'technique'
oh well. maybe ghost-boxing some virtual anime biddies will recover some of the loss
>>10974550
ain't no way off this boat, fren

[Anonymous No.10975072]

Hi.

[Anonymous No.10975098]

>>10975072
post moar

[Anonymous No.10975108]

>>10974451
What I'm currently writing. I'm not joking when I say it will transform science of the mind and the philosophical conception of it.

[Anonymous No.10975154]

>>10975108
post excerpts
or an abstract
or something

[Anonymous No.10975158]

[Anonymous No.10975171]

>>10975158
now this i can get into

[Anonymous No.10975172]

>>10975072
>>10975158
are you niggers even reading the thread?>>10974550

[Anonymous No.10975176]

>>10975108
Give us some teasers

[Anonymous No.10975180]

>>10974688
the answer can be found in the last two digits of your post

[Anonymous No.10975196]

>>10975172
tl;dr

[Anonymous No.10975221]

>>10975172
hm yes let me see *makes it 2/3 of the way through yet another disaffected twentysomething white male bitchpost* hmm maybe this is a waste of time, but i will continue nonetheless... haha he said "fuck"

[Anonymous No.10975315]

>>10975221
your whole being is a cliché

[Anonymous No.10975323]

>>10975315
you're run of the mill bog standard (heh, bogs) /pol/poster, make a better post and we can try again

[Anonymous No.10975333]

>>10975323
oh nm you're just a compiler bot
i guess you pass the turing test
or i failed it
either/or

[Anonymous No.10975336]

>>10975333
nice triple

[Anonymous No.10975358]

>>10974550
5/10

[Anonymous No.10975536]

>>10975154
>>10975176
To give you an overview, I'm developing theories that model the development of specific capacities of the imagination and how they are tied up with and influence perceptual experience. It in part explains things like why certain people seem to be capable of having classes of aesthetic experiences that are outright inaccessible to others, and what structures need to be developed in order to enable them. As such, it allows a comparative understanding of aesthetics that explores how the individual capacity for apprehending structure is necessarily determined by the freedoms of imagination that are a prerequisite for certain kinds of artistic understanding. The most important underlying insights involve how specific imaginative capacities which allow an individual's working memory to intuitively apprehend different forms of hierarchical structure can spontaneously develop, leading to capacities which allow kinds of thoughts that otherwise would not be possible. I then use this to place relative limits on the forms of thought that an individual is capable of thinking, making predictions about what should be possible based on how different structural components interact and how I have observed this taking place within myself and others, and showing what happens when these limits are overcome and new thought forms become possible for an individual. These claims, I can demonstrate the empirical validity of through various tests and mental exercises that can be performed by an individual along with predictions that are being supported by existing and current research. It is the examination of the relative freedom and restriction of the imagination, in ways that range from the relatively concrete to the abstracted, and what I believe this might say about the nature of possible thought that I hope will prove to be the most fruitful aspect of my work.

[Anonymous No.10975567]

>>10975536
Any way to follow your work?

Working on something similar for several years now. Surprisingly similar even in our long term aims.

[Anonymous No.10975571]

>>10974550
thank you based rageposter

[Anonymous No.10975654]

>>10975536
>the imagination and how they are tied up with and influence perceptual experience
Uh, buddy, sorry to break it to you but "imagination" and "perceptual experience" are the same thing.

>It in part explains things like why certain people seem to be capable of having classes of aesthetic experiences that are outright inaccessible to others
This, I like to see. Will you be available on Patreon?

What do you you think of this post: >>10974833

>intuitively apprehend different forms of hierarchical structure spontaneously
I know this one, through reflexive ideation of an archetypal man whose form is the intersection of partially related mental images/signatures because of memories associated with intense emotion during childhood. Those with an apprehension toward authority behave in accordance with hierarchical structures.

>>10975567
There are like a thousand versions of you circling the drain in common order.

[Anonymous No.10975661]

>>10974550
>This level of buttblastery

[Anonymous No.10975675]

>>10974550
Nietzsche-mode

[Anonymous No.10975679]

>>10975536
Sounds hella gay
Have you read Deleuze

[Anonymous No.10977004]

>>10975654
>Uh, buddy, sorry to break it to you but "imagination" and "perceptual experience" are the same thing.

I'm not claiming otherwise, I don't actually believe that they are separate things and that "imagination" merely influences "perceptual experience" or the reverse. But at the same time there's no justification to say they are simply identical when their causes aren't. I'm just using terms this way because it's easier to give an overview in a single post like this without elaborating on the nature of these things and examining the phenomenal complexes of perception/imagination/memory and how they are constituted in various modalities, so it's easier to assume imagination as a 'base' (since that allows me to easily include experiences without counterparts that seemingly result 'directly' from "sense experience") instead of using a different word.

>I know this one
Clearly not. I mean very specific forms of ability to organize the cognition of 'things', which include sentences, which can be cognized into poetry, melodies, which can come to be perceived as tonal themes, and visual forms, as art. These require the mind to be biased towards, and receptive of the particular hierarchical structures that these art forms demand the subject is able to cognize from mental impressions in order to understand them. These acts cannot be performed by large numbers of people, as there seem to be mental barriers which prevent them from doing so, and crossing these barriers and unlocking the cognitive possibilities this enables through training (which isn't always necessary) opens up the mind to process these objects of perception differently, in ways that will show up on MRI scans in distinct ways.

>Will you be available on Patreon?
Hopefully, when I work through the sections that give more serious empirical weight to my work and I'm confident I can support my claims I'll open myself up to a larger audience. I have a small number of followers who are excited by my work (largely consisting of musicians) and how I attempt to show in detail how the fully developed musical and poetic mind (which ultimately end up being the same thing) differs from 'ordinary' consciousness.

[Anonymous No.10977050]

>>10975536
>what structures need to be developed in order to enable them
The answer is European colonisation. No need for a book.

[Anonymous No.10977100]

>>10975536
So does this mean that i am able to overcome myself? To reach higher levels of understanding and clearer conceptual thinking through hard work and practice? How does this impact ideas like psychometrics and iq testing?

[Anonymous No.10977257]

>>10977004
>there's no justification to say they are simply identical when their causes aren't
To even distinguish them as such seems false. You're always experiencing imagination so to delineate another mode of experience as "perceptual experience" isn't a functional concept. I guess there are sensory inputs which alter the imagination according to external stimuli which can be taken as "perceptual experience", but that optically encoded sensorial information in itself is limited to meaninglessness. Semiosis begins at an unconscious threshold of the compiling mind which is inextricably imaginative.

>I'm just using terms this way because it's easier to give an overview in a single post
I understand.

>These require the mind to be biased towards, and receptive of the particular hierarchical structures that these art forms demand
Yes, archetypes, like I said.

>These acts cannot be performed by large numbers of people, as there seem to be mental barriers which prevent them from doing so, and crossing these barriers and unlocking the cognitive possibilities this enables through training
Are you talking about making art? Clever people are just those who make meaningful connections between disparate symbols. Of course these abilities are confined to a sliver of a given population since only the wittiest people in a given group are smart enough to produce something most of their peers are willing to patronage. Something is only cool and attractive when its limited to the periphery of those cool and attractive enough to figure it out.

>in ways that will show up on MRI scans in distinct ways
Every single mundane thought that arises in a given mind has a physical correlate as real as the shining sun it just happens that MRI scans aren't fine-grain enough to detect such changes, but they're no less real than any mental breakthrough of paradigm-shifting thought.

>when I work through the sections that give more serious empirical weight to my work
Evidence and all that, which I will leach for my own pet theories and essays.

>how I attempt to show in detail how the fully developed musical and poetic mind (which ultimately end up being the same thing) differs from 'ordinary' consciousness
Brilliant. "Personal matters," like what's really going on in our heads in the midst of given experience are off-limits from today's philosophical and political consideration. The next paradigm will be beautiful in which we think and speak more clearly through greater sophistication/profound realization leading to a better understanding of the order in our cognitive processes and how we can better get what we want so as to overcome the neoliberal muck with functional concepts more conducive to lucid communication. You're a pioneer for that bright future, Godspeed in completing your work.

[Anonymous No.10977313]

>>10975536
v kantian
especially the notion that aesthetic sensibility is something that requires cultivation, development. (he also links this development to that of the moral sense)
do you have a theory as to why /tv/ is so enormously stupid, as a collective, and incapable of discerning and understanding any of the aesthetic categories or even 'formal principles' of their supposedly favorite medium?

[Anonymous No.10977330]

On a New List of Categories
Charles S. Peirce
Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 7 (1868), 287-298.

[Anonymous No.10977372]

>>10977330
Then you get books like

[Anonymous No.10977397]

>>10977372
And
Not to mention the rest of peirces work. His earliest account of his categories barley scratches the surface.
Of course I mention this because peirces semiotic does exactly what Merleau-Pontys phenomenology does but it really gets in there deeper with the teridenitity relationship and triadic sign model. It's also much more useful.

[Anonymous No.10977403]

>>10977397
https://books.google.com/books?id=fmYhudVu5rQC&pg=PA197&dq=biosemiotics&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwieneG82a3aAhUo9IMKHbNoAvs4FBDoAQgpMAE#v=onepage&q=biosemiotics&f=false

[Anonymous No.10977406]

>>10977004
Notice me sempai god damnit. I want to follow your work.

[Anonymous No.10977423]

>>10977313
>especially the notion that aesthetic sensibility is something that requires cultivation, development.

I don't always believe that this is strictly necessary though. Three year old can develop genuine appreciation of Bach, what matters is that the right capacities of imagination become active in the appropriate ways, then musical structure will naturally fall out of the processes involved when active attention is directed to artworks.

Moral sense is naturally related to aesthetic sense, but not in ways that require you to actively be a moral individual. It's more important that you are capable of caring deeply and honestly reflecting than that you are a 'good person' by the judgement of some moral system.

>do you have a theory as to why /tv/ is so enormously stupid, as a collective, and incapable of discerning and understanding any of the aesthetic categories or even 'formal principles' of their supposedly favorite medium?

/tv/? No, because I'd have no idea what formal principals, if any, would actually apply to that medium in any specific sense, beyond those that might apply to drama in general.

/mu/, on the other hand, I can talk about.

[Anonymous No.10977436]

>>10977313
>especially the notion that aesthetic sensibility is something that requires cultivation, development.
Sophistication is a real thing, isn't it? Are we not building ON our past selves through a desire for something we deeply intuit as greater? To rearrange substratum of historical chronology as though each is of equal value seems depraved as though modern medicine and the capability for life-saving procedures are of comparable quality as anything our mudhut-dwelling ancestors were doing? Who can assume the contrary without contradicting their own actual desires/ambitions?

I'm a man now, the ideas I had as a boy have no place in my mind. To regress to the state of the ideation of a five year old would be a disturbing violation of a trend in character, the confusion and grotesque meaning of such behavior would likely be destructive. Physical and emotional forces bending me in the opposite direction are certainly moral, the precise rules of which we know intuitively.

[Anonymous No.10977508]

>>10977397
>teridenitity relationship
???

[Anonymous No.10977529]

>>10975536
Check this out, its about kuaffman's adjectent possible and peirce's semiotic.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610715001236
I think biosemiotics would be very useful for you as it puts perception in an ontology of sign relations.

[Anonymous No.10977576]

>>10977508
You don't necessarily need to understand teridenitity to get the triadic sign model.

https://www.uni-log.org/ULS6-peirce.html

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://users.clas.ufl.edu/jzeman/ExistentialGraphsandThirdness.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjljJzf4a3aAhUs54MKHYJsBcsQFjAFegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw0xqxjKIEXSx99XCobeRsvf

[Anonymous No.10977610]

>>10977100
>So does this mean that i am able to overcome myself?

Yes, very much so. Exactly how this is possible is something I plan to elaborate on much more in the future, but I can assure you that while the barriers are difficult to surmount and can take enormous amounts of time and effort effort, it is possible to do so. You can go from being a fundamental plebeian to being able to comprehend the heights of human achievement, though it will be rough in the beginning.

>>10975567
>>10977406
I'm glad you're interested. I want to be somewhat cautious of directly posting my identity to 4chan and being thought of as being from here, but I'll happily give you info by other means on request. I'll have to get back to this tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.10977784]

>>10977576
is there a 'guide for the perplexed' you could provide for someone trying to get into peirce's work, but overwhelmed by its magnitude, diffuseness and, uh, frequent opacity? for someone lacking a background in math and natural science, and with only a cursory education in logic, but with a genuine interest in the subject and a desire to learn more?

[Anonymous No.10978071]

>>10977784
bumping for this

[Anonymous No.10978585]

>>10977784
>>10978071
Literally: 'Peirce, a guide for the perplexed'
But First
http://www.iep.utm.edu/peir-log/
See the other articles on iep sep even Wikipedia.
Also pic related for semiotic

[Anonymous No.10978634]

>>10974550
based

[Anonymous No.10978639]

>>10977784
Cambridge Companion to Peirce