The Message

[Nihil]

We live in a world where our thoughts are based in language (obvious... :o )
But I would like to discuss this with you:
When somebody speaks to you something (any fact of life, any opinion etc.) and you agree/disagree, don't you understand that, in fact, you are interpreting the words and that the message you received lost its identity when you "translated" to you?
That is why I see this fact as a main problem of the world of today: people disagree with each other mainly because they do not receive the message that the other one wanted them to ear; it's like a filter of sensations that inhibits us to have harmony (completely) with each other.
Think about this and coment this idea if you see it as interesting.

[sonrisa]

mmmm.... this sounds like asheera's dept....

[Nihil]

Explain yourself please :uhoh:

[DavidS]

Hi Nihil -

We live in a world where our thoughts are based in language (obvious... :o )

The way I see it, there is a correspondence between 'elements' and 'sequences' (or 'compound-relations') of thought and 'elements' and 'sequences' (or 'compound sentences') of language, language providing 'symbolic' (words are symbols) (cross-)reference to thoughts we have in our minds, a means of com*uni*cation between minds which, generally speaking, on the level of 'normal' human consciousness at least, cannot directly 'see' or 'read' or 'influence' and 'direct' the thoughts others are having. If anything, I would say that the relation between them the other 'way' than what you say; 'language' being based in 'thought', language-elements which have no inherent life, or meaning, in themselves, but rather simply/thoughtfully being used as 'signposts' to 'point to' elements of thought (as well as, I dare say, emotion), which have inherent meaning in relation to life and living.


When somebody speaks to you something (any fact of life, any opinion etc.) and you agree/disagree, don't you understand that, in fact, you are interpreting the words and that the message you received lost its identity when you "translated" to you?

Both translation (into word-symbols) and interpretation (of or from word-symbols) are always involved, in the case of language-facilitated communication, IMO. (There are other modes of comunication, such as a 'picture story' mode of 'revelation, but the same kinds of potential and reasons for 'screwing up' a 'message' is always present.) People screw up a 'message' by translating it into words 'poorly' or even stupidly or possibly conivingly completely 'mispeaking' (engaging in hypocritical double-talk, for instance), just as much and often as they screw up a 'message' by intepreting it 'poorly' or even stupidly or possibly conivingly (hypocritically? deliberately?) misunderstanding what is said using misattributions of cross-referential 'meaning' .

That is why I see this fact as a main problem of the world of today: people disagree with each other mainly because they do not receive the message that the other one wanted them to ear; it's like a filter of sensations that inhibits us to have harmony (completely) with each other.

Yes, 'problems' accrue due to people's ignorance and stupidity as well as their selfish-biased-ness. And since vast numbers of people fall into such functional (dysfunctional, really) modalities, there is much disharmony between people and with nature in the world. However, IN THOSE CASES where words are appropriately (intelligently? dis-selfish-passion-ately? discerningly? successfully?) used and understood (even if not in exactly identical ways), there may be and often is[!] meaningfully 'accurate' communication leading to the kind of 'harmony' of mutual understanding between people that (I think) you speak of.

IOW, both 'sides' of the 'coin' are present. It occurs to me that your 'nihilism' (assumed on my part because of your choice of screen name) may in part at least be the result of not having encountered and experienced the latter 'case', at least not reliably so, or often enough for it to have become part of your world-view or reality-'acknowledgement'. Or it may be that you, at some level 'selfish'ly, want to see the world as being that way. Seeing it differently may 'necessitate' your responding to goings on around you in ways that you would rather not. Or something else entirely may be the case. I'm just speculating to give you something to thought-bounce off of.

[thirst4sun]

Originally posted by Nihil@Sep 24 2004, 07:24 PM

When somebody speaks to you something (any fact of life, any opinion etc.) and you agree/disagree, don't you understand that, in fact, you are interpreting the words and that the message you received lost its identity when you "translated" to you?




When someone speaks to me I listen to more than the spoken language. I also read the body language, hand motions, facial expression, ect.......... I don't think any 2 people will translate a message EXACTLY the same and this is why everyone has different ideas, thoughts, values, and views.

[rich]

Dear Nihil,

The very fact that a person replies to the message written, is testimony enough to prove that the message was heard. As I see it, is when no one replies, the message written has not been heard, or is being ignored.

How a person interprets a message will vary from reader to reader, and may differ with the opinion of the writer. One must never forget that each person is unique.

[vicente]

Nihil states:
We live in a world where our thoughts are based in language (obvious... )

DavidS replies:
...'language' being based in 'thought', language-elements which have no inherent life, or meaning, in themselves, but rather simply/thoughtfully being used as 'signposts' to 'point to' elements of thought (as well as, I dare say, emotion), which have inherent meaning in relation to life and living.


I agree with DavidS,...however, we're just viwing a part of a whole here. For example, children have thought, but not a word-based language. As a child grows, they are indoctrinated to put words to their thoughts, and thus grow to identify with words or intellect, instead of feelings or gnosis.

Ancient Egyptians believed the heart was the center of intelligence and emotion. They also thought so little of the brain that during mummification, they removed the brain entirely from bodies. The Maya and Tibetans held similar views. Why?

Why did cultures that were obviously more spiritual than our contemporary 'book religion' advocates, like the Abrahamic religions, associate with Heart, verses the brain? To echo DavidS, I'd say that 'brain language' has no inherent life or meaning. 'Brain language' feeds and sustains the intellect by removing us from natural, inherent life.

When intellect, and not the Heart, leads us, there is disharmony.

That is why I see this fact as a main problem of the world of today: people disagree with each other mainly because they do not receive the message that the other one wanted them to ear; it's like a filter of sensations that inhibits us to have harmony (completely) with each other.

[Nihil]

Hello DavidS

I agree with your reasons, but allow me to say that you have “systematized” a little bit too much.
We have a communication system that is not only based on language (as you must agree) but also in visual representation of feelings (tears when we’re sad…). We, as individuals, have our own sphere of perception – ourselves – and we have to get out of it in order to “know” the object we see, the word we ear, etc. But when we find that message (I prefer to call it like this because it is an impulse coming from outside) we have to go out of our sphere and get it the way it presents itself to us, not necessarily being itself substantially what it is, and “grab” it, and bring it to us. When we bring that codified message, our brain transforms it in impulses that only the person itself understands transforming a fact into an idea. That’s the reason why I affirm that each one of us is subjective in the language we use and that each word – symbol – symbolizes something different having a different emotional meaning.
I found interesting the fact you mentioned – that even the agreement can be erroneous – (at least that is what I understood from your words in the third paragraph); but you’re wrong when you say I never had the chance to experience that; I am just pessimistic because I know that my message is strictly personal and that the only way to have a full communion with someone is to create a person outside myself that is accessible by both of the speakers.
Another thing – I am Nihilist but not entirely; I adapt the concept to my person using the Latin word Nihil (nothing) to characterize one of my various personal thoughts (don’t comment this please – I like to keep this dogma to myself…). The fact that all that we see – understand - is merely a human creation full of errors; we are doomed to remain in our untrue condition.
But as you seem interested in this topic I would like to ask you this: would a man that never had social behaviour with similar ones (human species) have the same kind of emotional language that humans have or, in the other hand, would that human have a behaviour affected by the environment he lived in (e.g. jungle)?
Thank you

[Nihil]

Some ideas "à la minute" :D

When someone speaks to me I listen to more than the spoken language. I also read the body language, hand motions, facial expression, ect.......... I don't think any 2 people will translate a message EXACTLY the same and this is why everyone has different ideas, thoughts, values, and views.

I believe you are correct! But isn't it a little bit "confusing" to know that? I mean, when you speak something, you never think about this fact (at least I cannot remember this when I am arguing with someone)

The very fact that a person replies to the message written, is testimony enough to prove that the message was heard. As I see it, is when no one replies, the message written has not been heard, or is being ignored.

How a person interprets a message will vary from reader to reader, and may differ with the opinion of the writer. One must never forget that each person is unique.

When I talked about message, I meant oral message - my mistake?!
But your point of view is rather interesting to be discussed - this and the way a simple word can make someone cry and somebody else smile...

I agree with DavidS,...however, we're just viwing a part of a whole here. For example, children have thought, but not a word-based language. As a child grows, they are indoctrinated to put words to their thoughts, and thus grow to identify with words or intellect, instead of feelings or gnosis.

Ancient Egyptians believed the heart was the center of intelligence and emotion. They also thought so little of the brain that during mummification, they removed the brain entirely from bodies. The Maya and Tibetans held similar views. Why?

Why did cultures that were obviously more spiritual than our contemporary 'book religion' advocates, like the Abrahamic religions, associate with Heart, verses the brain? To echo DavidS, I'd say that 'brain language' has no inherent life or meaning. 'Brain language' feeds and sustains the intellect by removing us from natural, inherent life.

When intellect, and not the Heart, leads us, there is disharmony.


VERY INTERESTING FACTS :thumbsup:
Sometimes we have the tendence to use the expressional word "Heart" because it is a remaining of that time - but the truth (or what is true today) is that the brain is the responsible for all - chemically and psychologically! And the fact that children associate words with ideas: don't forget that ideas com from experience and children associate THEIR experience with a word that is given by their parents - word that comes from their experience!
FOR ALL

These ideas aren't the absolute truth - as I believe there is no such thing in life - but they are interesting topics of discussion in order to understand the complex world we live in and to think about the things we forget usually
;)

[sahyo]

greening
golding
russeting
falls
floating
not
leaf
nor
color

[Nihil]

greening
golding
russeting
falls
floating
not
leaf
nor
color

I do not understand what you mean with this!
Is it an artistic way of showing how inconsequent can words be if there is not a specific topic of discussion set or is it a message I shouldn't understand?

[Owen]

Nihil:

QUOTE

greening
golding
russeting
falls
floating
not
leaf
nor
color

Nihil:
I do not understand what you mean with this!
Is it an artistic way of showing how inconsequent can words be if there is not a specific topic of discussion set or is it a message I shouldn't understand?


Evidently, understanding is not a pursuit of this forum.

Sadly ... poetry, lyrics, smileys, and assorted gibberish, are the currency here.

[Nihil]

Owen said


Evidently, understanding is not a pursuit of this forum.
Sadly ... poetry, lyrics, smileys, and assorted gibberish, are the currency here.


Leave all have their own ideology and do not be influenced by it: if you want to discuss about the thread, go ahead, if you don't, do not bother criticising all the other ideas: it is not worth :nono:

[DavidS]

Hi Nihil -

I appreciated the 'comprehensivesness' of your response.

> That’s the reason why I affirm that each one of us is subjective in the language we use and that each word – symbol – symbolizes something different having a different emotional meaning.

I personally think we, indeed everything in existence, including all kinds of appreciation of 'meaning', is subjective. This does not necessarily result in completely 'idiosyncratic' personal-bubble isolation. There are psychospiritual 'connections', you might say 'bleed throughs' where we share the same 'blood', between us in the existential 'fields' of 'thought' and 'feeling'. Thus, for simple instance, what I 'see' as the color blue is in significant quality at least the same as what you 'see' as the color blue, unless you are blue-color 'blind' in person.

In regards any and all displayed or reported perception and experience, one always has the option to focus and com*uni*cational-flow-y 'harmoniously' build upon convergences OR (optionally, again) to focus on and reinforce
facets of reported perception and experience that are divergent (i.e. 'isolating') OR to 'schizophrenically' flip-flop about in some sort or 'mixed' focus and response regarding the same.

> I am just pessimistic because I know that my message is strictly personal and that the only way to have a full communion with someone is to create a person outside myself that is accessible by both of the speakers.

Whatever turns you on.

The fact that all that we see – understand - is merely a human creation full of errors; we are doomed to remain in our untrue condition.

Your logic is impeccable. I have merely undertaken to give you feedback which 'challenges' your premise.

> But as you seem interested in this topic I would like to ask you this: would a man that never had social behaviour with similar ones (human species) have the same kind of emotional language that humans have or, in the other hand, would that human have a behaviour affected by the environment he lived in (e.g. jungle)?

In my view, the 'language-tool' was (and always will be) 'bound' to evolve in the process of 'ongoing creation' - just as other 'tools' like knives/chisels and hammers - when and wherever the 'intelligence' in a bunch of 'social' creatures reaches the 'level' of, or 'capacity' for, thought-processing. When and wherever that happens, is will be a communally-[U]determined[/I] process, such 'community' naturally-automatically including behaviorally-relevant (and tbus 'significant') environmental 'features' or 'elements'.

[Nihil]

Answering Davids

I agree with you in most of the points.
But I would like to refer this: a word does, indeed, have a social meaning that has to be absorbed by all in the community – when you say “blue”, it might mean something else in another culture, for instance – but what about ideas? Eskimos, e.g., have several words do define “snow”; this is because their culture and their environment forced and forces them to distinguish different genres of snow! Now, agreeing with you when you say that a word has, at least, the same meaning for several people, I would like to focus in ideas. If you want to transmit an idea about something abstract, do you believe that everybody will understand it the same way?
I also agree when you talk about the ongoing of language with human evolution.
Nevertheless, when I transmit a message, an idea, to you, it is always conditioned by the “place, manner and time” in which I am in! So I see that if I write something down today, it will have a different approach by those who’ll read it in a century! And now, I think, will oral language be dominant in the world of tomorrow? If I want to say somebody “I like you” can I just say it with language or is a smile going to give to my words a different emotional baggage?
To end I would like to talk about some kind of Platonic problem: the idea itself, being the “good” is or is it not able to be done by the one who is thinking about it? Just like an ideology of politics (I hope I am allowed to talk about politics in this topic of discussion…), when one says “I am socialist”, will I follow my ideology (that is inspired in someone else’s doctrine) or will I transform it? Is an idea changed when put into practice? I believe so, and you?

:dunno:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Nihil@Oct 10 2004, 09:35 AM
Is an idea changed when put into practice? I believe so, and you?
It may be, or may not be, as far as I can tell - anything 'living' is 'fluid', thus, always flow-changing, IMO - but there be many 'fossils' in this regard which many continue to hold 'fixed' and reify on their personal altars for great spans of time.

[bito]

We desire to speak One, yet cannot. But we gotta love us for tryin... :thumbsup:

[sahyo]

greening
golding
russeting
falls
floating
not
leaf
nor
color


I do not understand what you mean with this!


"mean"?



Is it an artistic way of showing how inconsequent can words be if there is not a specific topic of discussion set


no



or is it a message I shouldn't understand?


perhaps feel?


:)

[Nihil]

It may be, or may not be, as far as I can tell - anything 'living' is 'fluid', thus, always flow-changing, IMO - but there be many 'fossils' in this regard which many continue to hold 'fixed' and reify on their personal altars for great spans of time.

I find your point of view very intersting but I do have another problem :unsure:
Imagine you wish to build something, make it a be a box, you'll be forced to use the archetip of the box, the idea you have in your mind that that object will be; I know that this sounds a little bit old-fashioned as a tought due to the platonism of the fact but don't you imagine that the idea belongs to some kind of different world, the intelligible world where all ideas come from? Because when you suffer an exterior impulse, the will to do the box, you'll transmit that to the brain making that social external expectation become a chemical reaction, and, after that, it will be transformed into a neurological impulse to the hand and make the box! Don't you believe that there is a "distortion" between the will, the remembering of the idea that is the base, and the transforming into physics? Even if the man, as you say, is "fluid", the message can be mantained to a certain point? :think:

I find this a rather important point to discuss in order to understand the way a messge can be changed! :rolleyes:

[Nihil]

We desire to speak One, yet cannot. But we gotta love us for tryin...

A rather optimistic will :D
The problem is not about the "love", but conscialization of the transformation of the message during its various processes!
But it is always good to desire something :baeh:

[Nihil]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 14 2004, 02:45 AM


greening
golding
russeting
falls
floating
not
leaf
nor
color


I do not understand what you mean with this!


"mean"?



Is it an artistic way of showing how inconsequent can words be if there is not a specific topic of discussion set


no



or is it a message I shouldn't understand?


perhaps feel?


:)
Even if you do not mean anything with thy words, and that the post is not artistic, I find interesting the way we can transmit feelings with words, but, if I were you I would use Smilies B)

[bito]

A rather optimistic will

Rather than optimistic-pessimistic, I prefer Freud's idea of eros-thanatos. And, although eros is the force that moves my will, thanatos is the force that moves the force that moves my will... :think: :lol:

May I add that for a self-proclaimed pessimist, you exude a most uplifting presence.

The problem is not about the "love", but conscialization of the transformation of the message during its various processes!

In our present collective evolutionary presence (communication rather than union), yes, what you say is true.

But it is always good to desire something

It is desire that holds us in idea, no? Even if this desire is to express that which lies beyond desire. This is the ultimate paradox, our cosmic joke on ourselves. :hahaha: :think: We can fight this (suffering) or accept this (peace).

P.S. I inadvertently sent my original post to you exclusively, and when I tried to re-capture it perfectly for the board, I found I could not, ergo, this 'new' creation (which more closely expresses the meaning I wanted to convey). This was an unconscious error, but most beautifully illustrates the theme of your thread, no?

:)

[sahyo]

I find interesting the way we can transmit feelings with words, but, if I were you I would use Smilies


nihil couldn't understand the post so then thinks writing shouldn't happen?

[DavidS]

Hi Nihil -

> I know that this sounds a little bit old-fashioned as a tought due to the platonism of the fact but don't you imagine that the idea belongs to some kind of different world, the intelligible world where all ideas come from?

The way I see it, 'ideas' are 'constructions' made by 'intelligence' in the 'world' (or 'domain', or 'realm') of consciousness. What you call "the intelligible world" is not an existential 'world' in itself, i.e., but something which is created by and only exists only in the 'world' of consciousness. It is a 'function', or 'derivative', of the operation of living consciousness, as, I suppose, is "the world" of 'meaningless', or 'unintelligible', "chaos". It sure is a grand 'idea' though!

> Because when you suffer an exterior impulse, the will to do the box, you'll transmit that to the brain making that social external expectation become a chemical reaction, and, after that, it will be transformed into a neurological impulse to the hand and make the box! Don't you believe that there is a "distortion" between the will, the remembering of the idea that is the base, and the transforming into physics? Even if the man, as you say, is "fluid", the message can be mantained to a certain point?

Yes, I agree that 'meaning', or 'the message' as you put it, can be 'maintained' in the 'midst' or 'over the course' of 'flux'
(or 'change'), at least in 'significant' measure. Which supports my point regarding the fact that meaningful communication - 'the message' does NOT necessarily have to be 'lost' in (i.e., it can be 'maintained' during or 'through') the process of its being encoded (in words), transmitted, received and de-ciphered.

> I find this a rather important point to discuss in order to understand the way a messge can be changed!

I am curious and interested in your understanding of "the way a 'message' can be changed" and what you would consider 'good' or beneficial kinds of 'change', assuming there are any in your view, that is, assuming you don;t think that there's some kind of 'degradation' always involved.

Let me reiterate my initial point: take the "idea" of infinity, for example - I would say that a mathematician's or philosopher's "idea" of infinitymay be almost unrecognizably different from the "idea" of infinityentertained by the 'average' Jane or Joe. I would say that both such "ideas" or "sets of ideas" (since there are always 'corrolaries') live in the 'world' of consciousness. I would say the same about the "idea" of an, or this or that, "archetype." However, I don;t think that the "archetype" itself exists in a world of its own, except maybe the "archetypes" represented by 'true' numbers.

I appreciate the sincerity and intensity of your thoughtfulness, Nihil - please know, that I regard 'mine' as just another way of 'thinking' in regards the above subjects, no more and no less.

Salut!

[Nihil]

Originally posted by bito@Oct 15 2004, 03:39 PM
A rather optimistic will

Rather than optimistic-pessimistic, I prefer Freud's idea of eros-thanatos. And, although eros is the force that moves my will, thanatos is the force that moves the force that moves my will... :think: :lol:

May I add that for a self-proclaimed pessimist, you exude a most uplifting presence.

The problem is not about the "love", but conscialization of the transformation of the message during its various processes!

In our present collective evolutionary presence (communication rather than union), yes, what you say is true.

But it is always good to desire something

It is desire that holds us in idea, no? Even if this desire is to express that which lies beyond desire. This is the ultimate paradox, our cosmic joke on ourselves. :hahaha: :think: We can fight this (suffering) or accept this (peace).

P.S. I inadvertently sent my original post to you exclusively, and when I tried to re-capture it perfectly for the board, I found I could not, ergo, this 'new' creation (which more closely expresses the meaning I wanted to convey). This was an unconscious error, but most beautifully illustrates the theme of your thread, no?

:)
Answering bito

I understand your Freudian conceptualization of the problem and I am forced to agree with you (although it doesn’t fit with the context of the thread)
When I say I am pessimistic (and don’t forget that each word has its proper time to be said) I don’t mean I want to put others unhappy; I feel like I have the “docta ignorantia” and so I understand that there is no logical salvation for the world nor absolute truth – you can call it negativist if you please but that is a philosophical doctrine and not a manner to be in life indeed.
And when you say that we have a cosmic joke, I prefer to remind about the religion gap: how a little “microbes” like us want to understand the ultimate principle of the world?
The better thing we’ve to do is to try to understand Mona Lisa’s smile!
And yes it is desire (most properly interest) that holds us in the pursuit of an idea; metaphorically speaking, the “eros” that may or may be not forced by any “thanathos” (if you believe in myths or in pure desires for the human species)!

By the way, there is absolutely no problem at all – I only took 2 hours to figure out what happened and how to fix it :P ! Next time, be more careful to not “illustrate” my thread with such “beautiful unconscious errors”!

[Nihil]

Answering Davids

I like the way you put a 2000 years idea in today’s conceptualization! But I don’t think that people have conscience that when they do something, their Idea comes from their world of consciousness – I’d rather believe it comes from a super conscious level of the mind (if that exists).
About the 2nd topic, it is the same old Heraclites vs. Parmenides question; when a fraction of the idea, fact or life form is changed, does it change the whole thing (i.e. does that think stops existing) or only a part if that remains the same core?
When I said ideas changed during their transition, I didn’t want to say that there would be any degradation – I said that ideas might suffer some changes because the adaptation of the individual is totally subjective. In another point I referred about the neuralgic message and the way it is changed when the idea is put into practice. I do not believe in the World of Ideas but, as I read about it, I became so involved in the argumentation that I was forced to, if not believe, at least put in doubt my convictions!
The idea of infinite is very peculiar (your examples are so :D ); it is always hard to make the image translation of that idea. I’ll explain: people, when they think, they do so by images (this is why a Greek Philosopher said that there was no movement as you could understand by reading about the Hercules vs. Turtle or the Arrow story example) and, due to that, have the habit to, when they are asked to think about a word, make an image of that in the brain – the contemporaneous archetype. When you talk about “infinite” what should I think? Even if, as you say, that idea has the same basis as the average people, it is because it is humanly unbearable! The infinite (if that really exists for philosophers), is a Human creation that serves to talk about undiscovered features of the universe. Therefore, the message that that impulse (the one that forces me to think about “infinite”) is, or can be, different from each other but have the same heart – the confusion of an abstract idea!

I’m flattered about your compliments Davids! Of course that I assume that what you say is merely your opinion; this is a forum of discussion not a God Council, so I believe that everybody needs to have that in mind before saying a word. But as I see you are an expert in this matter, I am convicted that your self-called opinions are very valuable in any discussion and should be considered with time! Feel free to disagree: It is dialectics that move the world of thought!

Cheers!

[bito]

And when you say that we have a cosmic joke, I prefer to remind about the religion gap: how a little “microbes” like us want to understand the ultimate principle of the world?

Why would we not want to understand? There may never be an answer, but in the asking, wow, what a love-journey! The Neverending Story... :) ...(see also jesupocaplyse's post in the Why vs. How thread, Science forum).

As far as the philosophy of pessimism, or any philosophy for that matter, it is my experience that the self will explore all that it desires to explore, be it emotions of personal joy and sorrow or feelings of existential rapture or despair. Duality calls at all levels of consciousness and self heeds the call...

And, if we know I Am, then the duality play doesn't get us all tangled in knots...

As for the Mona Lisa's smile...it knows...it calls... B)

[Nihil]

Originally posted by bito@Oct 18 2004, 07:34 PM
And when you say that we have a cosmic joke, I prefer to remind about the religion gap: how a little “microbes” like us want to understand the ultimate principle of the world?

Why would we not want to understand? There may never be an answer, but in the asking, wow, what a love-journey! The Neverending Story... :) ...(see also jesupocaplyse's post in the Why vs. How thread, Science forum).

As far as the philosophy of pessimism, or any philosophy for that matter, it is my experience that the self will explore all that it desires to explore, be it emotions of personal joy and sorrow or feelings of existential rapture or despair. Duality calls at all levels of consciousness and self heeds the call...

And, if we know I Am, then the duality play doesn't get us all tangled in knots...

As for the Mona Lisa's smile...it knows...it calls... B)
It’s rather sad but true indeed: we do not understand that what we believe we understand is only our private truth…
I am a little bit confused about the dualism concept; are there only two opposites? Perhaps you could help me to figure this out… :think:
That reminds me about the Esher figure of a stripe of paper that, twisted, only has got one side :hahaha:

[bito]

It’s rather sad but true indeed: we do not understand that what we believe we understand is only our private truth…

To say there are private (subjective) truths leads one to the logical conclusion that Truth must be Absolute Subjectivity, no?

I am a little bit confused about the dualism concept; are there only two opposites? Perhaps you could help me to figure this out…

There are countless progeny from the primary dualism of perceiver and perceived (me and you, time and space, good and evil, optimistic and pessimistic :), etc.)

That reminds me about the Esher figure of a stripe of paper that, twisted, only has got one side

:thumbsup:

[Nihil]

To say there are private (subjective) truths leads one to the logical conclusion that Truth must be Absolute Subjectivity, no?

I believe so! Although we must never forgot that one's subjectivity always come form its social environment and, thus, is not as personal as you might claim :unsure:

There are countless progeny from the primary dualism of perceiver and perceived (me and you, time and space, good and evil, optimistic and pessimistic , etc.)

The problem is that, as each concept is subjective, so the dualism is! And the word that that ideological message stands for is a little bit radical to me - and not to forget that something that is dualistic in terms of action may not be in terms of message, i.e., when I kill someone, it may be good for me and bad for the one one who died, but the guys in the newspaper may think the opposite because they interpreted the message that came from the action in a different way! :o

As you like the other exmple I'll use another that fits in this :D
A picture that seems like a vase may be two eads worried with each other (I assume you saw the picture I am talking about) It's all a question of INTERPRETATION :thumbsup:

[slayer]

Hey Bizarro Nietzsche,

First, change your avatar, because you don't understand anything Nietzsche believed. Go find an Ayn Rand avatar or something equally stupid.

Next, it's not just a matter of interpretation. There just is a matter of fact about how things are. Your subjective experience of the world doesn't change that fact. How could it? How could you go from some epistemological premise to a metaphysical conclusion? And yet despite the fact that we experience the world subjectively, that in no way precludes us from acquiring objective truths.

And what would you say to someone who thought the picture you'd been discussing was a picture of a monkey ****ing another monkey? Don't you think we'd be able to say, "Hey, dude, you're way off on that"? Of course we would, and that's because the picture is a representation of something, and we can say what that something is, just like we can say what a rock is when we see it. There's no relativistic hedging needed here: we can say what it is and what it isn't.

Will the real Zarathustra please stand up -- please stand up?

slayer

[sahyo]

The problem is that, as each concept is subjective, so the dualism is!


is "concept" happening? ;)

[bito]

Although we must never forgot that one's subjectivity always come form its social environment and, thus, is not as personal as you might claim

One's subjectivity due to social environment exists only until you see that in silence, in pure awareness, that this is not so. In silence, all thoughts about one's limited self disappear, so where is the social self? Where did it go?

It is here, at this juncture of silence and the chatter of the fearful ego that we make our choice - to return to the 'safety' of the known - fear - or peek into the silence and see what 'lives' there.

At first, this silence seems more frightening than the familiar fear-badgering of the ego...

Metaphysical subjectivity is a horse of a different color...once the fear of the silence subsides, there is an opening to seeing 'form' in a whole new way...transparent 'duality'/joy-in-oneness-manyness...the cosmic dance...

A picture that seems like a vase may be two eads worried with each other (I assume you saw the picture I am talking about) It's all a question of INTERPRETATION

From the fearful ego's perspective, it's two heads worrying. From the transformed ego's perspective, there are no heads AND there are two heads, there is no worrying, but compassion for belief in worrying.

Let me add, Nihil, that I do not believe that there is anyone living, nor has there ever been anyone living, who has permanently silenced his fearful ego. Not even Jesus Christ himself, for did he not cry out in fear before his crucifixion and as he lay dying on the cross ? (whether one believes in the historical or metaphorical crucifixion is a moot point).

[Nihil]

Originally posted by slayer@Oct 31 2004, 08:57 AM
Hey Bizarro Nietzsche,

First, change your avatar, because you don't understand anything Nietzsche believed. Go find an Ayn Rand avatar or something equally stupid.

Next, it's not just a matter of interpretation. There just is a matter of fact about how things are. Your subjective experience of the world doesn't change that fact. How could it? How could you go from some epistemological premise to a metaphysical conclusion? And yet despite the fact that we experience the world subjectively, that in no way precludes us from acquiring objective truths.

And what would you say to someone who thought the picture you'd been discussing was a picture of a monkey ****ing another monkey? Don't you think we'd be able to say, "Hey, dude, you're way off on that"? Of course we would, and that's because the picture is a representation of something, and we can say what that something is, just like we can say what a rock is when we see it. There's no relativistic hedging needed here: we can say what it is and what it isn't.

Will the real Zarathustra please stand up -- please stand up?

slayer
Answering slayer

1. The fact that I have Nietzsche avatar doesn’t mean I am his follower; I could argue that I find his portrait interesting but the fact is that I admire some of his thoughts – though I am thinking in changing it – and his orientation, specially in terms of religion.
2. The only stupid is the one who claims the others to be stupid – Ayn Rand had her philosophy, a well created and consistent one, and I also find her ideas the most interesting – don’t say that someone is stupid because they have different ideas than yours: it shows you don’t really believe in your creations!
3. Interpretation is totally subjective but, as you say, some ideas may be accepted objectively. There is some truth in that… The fact may not change but the perception you have make it different for you than from anyone else. The metaphysics that I used were simply an example of how ideas could be totally abstract based on subjectively adopted concrete facts. About objectivity, I believe it is impossible to be totally subjective but, in a matter of conscience, we can avoid some conditioning forces of the subconscious.
4. About the picture, and your obscene description of an example, you have to understand that I was talking about an optical illusion. Rocks will be rocks if you don’t call them “pierres” or “pedras”! Each language and each culture therefore, puts in the word a emotional meaning that only a native speaker or someone who lives in the ambient where the language is spoken can really perceive. The fact that someone says that “we’re far away from the point” is simply a social matter. Society believes in something and the common individual who is immerged in that idea mocks the other one who, because of a different idea association, sees something else. Not every picture is the same – it’s just like an idea: it depends of the interpreter and the environment he’s in! The relativity exists but it is not well accepted and the fact that everyone has to see what his neighbour sees will destroy the free thinking and subjectivity of the human mind.
5. With such mentally ill ideas and socially affected behaviour, I could even say that you should go to the mountain Zaratustra came from: only there you’ll be able to see how the individual can think by himself away from mining ideas from social forces.

Nihil

[Nihil]

Originally posted by bito@Oct 31 2004, 02:06 PM
Although we must never forgot that one's subjectivity always come form its social environment and, thus, is not as personal as you might claim

One's subjectivity due to social environment exists only until you see that in silence, in pure awareness, that this is not so. In silence, all thoughts about one's limited self disappear, so where is the social self? Where did it go?

It is here, at this juncture of silence and the chatter of the fearful ego that we make our choice - to return to the 'safety' of the known - fear - or peek into the silence and see what 'lives' there.

At first, this silence seems more frightening than the familiar fear-badgering of the ego...

Metaphysical subjectivity is a horse of a different color...once the fear of the silence subsides, there is an opening to seeing 'form' in a whole new way...transparent 'duality'/joy-in-oneness-manyness...the cosmic dance...

A picture that seems like a vase may be two eads worried with each other (I assume you saw the picture I am talking about) It's all a question of INTERPRETATION

From the fearful ego's perspective, it's two heads worrying. From the transformed ego's perspective, there are no heads AND there are two heads, there is no worrying, but compassion for belief in worrying.

Let me add, Nihil, that I do not believe that there is anyone living, nor has there ever been anyone living, who has permanently silenced his fearful ego. Not even Jesus Christ himself, for did he not cry out in fear before his crucifixion and as he lay dying on the cross ? (whether one believes in the historical or metaphorical crucifixion is a moot point).
Answering bito

1. The social self only exists if there is a social environment, i.e., another person, to watch your action; the desire to please or to make a certain impression on someone else will adapt your action towards a certain need. When you’re alone “in pure awareness” as you correctly affirm, you can see that the action you’ve done then was neither totally yours nor had a subjective motive. That is why I believe that the social self no longer exists when you are doing something that only depends on you (I am not including the morals that came from society and that shape your subjectivity…)
2. Even in your ego, there are subconscious acts; there are defence mechanisms that your aren’t aware they are acting through your logic conscious worries. The choice you might be talking about – the introspection - is a natural process, a subjective one that allows you to, with the “social subjectivity” inherent in you, judge your action based on your moral values. I don’t agree very much with your definition of ego: I believe that the ego is not fearful but you might have some kind of fear in the “id” that shapes your ego reactions. The silence that lives there can tell us a lot about ourselves!
3. Explain me a little bit more about your definition of metaphysical subjectivity; I’m afraid I can’t reach your point…
4. The ego will obviously try to justify the result of the super ego impulse through rationalization. But here comes another trouble; the morality message that you receive from your social environment will inevitably shape your introspection, therefore, the compassion or lack of it towards yourself. The sublimation will, then, make our ego’s defensive mechanisms justify our logical worries. Or not?!
5. I don’t now about JC; I wasn’t there! But to me, the silence of the ego is not possible because words are the flesh of the ideas and the ideas are the conceptualization of feelings; therefore JC knew he’d have to suffer physically but he didn’t say: “wait a moment; I think I forgot my cooking in the stove!” He silenced his “fearful” ego, as you say, because his defence mechanisms that I spoke back there justified his actions through some kind of “metaphysical sublimation”; I don’t believe he didn’t cried when Roman soldiers crucified him, but I believe that those “complains”, if you accept this word, are purely a result of tremendous forces that made him expel a word, expression of pain, that was an irrational result of his suffering. Understanding this is just like if you try to put a nail in your wrist…

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by slayer@Oct 31 2004, 03:57 AM

And what would you say to someone who thought the picture you'd been discussing was a picture of a monkey ****ing another monkey?

hmmmmm..... guess that would be you & the blow-up doll.....

[sonrisa]

I'm retracting my last post, I've come to realize it's an insult to monkeys & blow-up dolls everywhere. Sorry bout that guyz.

[sahyo]

:goodlaugh:

[bito]

Explain me a little bit more about your definition of metaphysical subjectivity; I’m afraid I can’t reach your point…

Perhaps this is the point, that no one can reach another's point.

So why so we come here, reaching, preaching, teaching?

Is it because to remain silent, either in receiving or sending, would be to 'end' something beautiful...even when it feels anything but beautiful?

Are our internet words, no matter how few, no matter how many, no matter how they are perceived (idiocracy or profundity), simply a means of touching self?

I don't know, but it feels true...and what the heck is that?

Time to rake some leaves... :P

[Nihil]

I don’t ask for the silence and the end of communication – in fact it is something beautiful specially when you’re in some kind of communion with your interlocutor. I just want to discuss about the communication and the message because most of our day-to-day conflicts is based on that!
I have an idea, you have another – is that a reason for punching each other? Should we harm our bodies because an abstract idea is refuted? We do have the natural tendency to dislike the counter argumentation and the people who disagree with us but if we had the conscience that what we’re fighting is completely abstract perhaps lots of wars wouldn’t exist!
What I could understand by metaphysical subjectivity is simply about this: our ideas! And the way we build our ideas – when we put them into practice – our acts, speeches etc. – they become part of our physical subjectivity.
It’s just like your avatar – to me, it seems like a rupestral painting but, in reality, or what we claim to be the reality, it could be something else; and you may thing it is another different thing! The fact that I am giving you my idea through my message is normally a source of conflict – what I am fighting for to avoid!
And I agree with you when you say words are a way of touching self – now you stay with a good idea of me due to the fact that I agree – and don’t forget that a word has always some feeling behind, even if it is not the one you think!

[bito]

I don’t ask for the silence and the end of communication – in fact it is something beautiful specially when you’re in some kind of communion with your interlocutor. I just want to discuss about the communication and the message because most of our day-to-day conflicts is based on that!

Oh, Nihil, I am so sorry if my response was interpreted in that manner, and I can see, how indeed it could be! It was the word 'reach' that I was responding to in my own subjective-metaphysical pointing. I felt it expressed the essence of my response to your response, but clearly, my arrow missed its target. A lack of understanding and sensitivity on my part - obviously my ego meter was on the fritz!

What I could understand by metaphysical subjectivity is simply about this: our ideas! And the way we build our ideas – when we put them into practice – our acts, speeches etc. – they become part of our physical subjectivity.

I agree completely.

And I agree with you when you say words are a way of touching self – now you stay with a good idea of me due to the fact that I agree – and don’t forget that a word has always some feeling behind, even if it is not the one you think!

Indeed. Do you see this as one of the biggest hurdles of internet forum discussions? Our words that 'contain' so much of our whole life experience are offered to the other, but when they leave the fingertips and land on the screen, they rarely say what we really mean. When we communicate physically, one on one, we see the person's body language, we are offered the opportunity for immediate correction of a misunderstanding, etc.

Hmmm...perhaps the very thing that is limiting about discussion forums is the very thing that ego needs... :lol:

As for my avatar, it is to express my subjective metaphysical 'seeing' of the wholeness of the divine-human experience. I tried to locate the origin or examples of 'rupestral painting', but with no success. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

If we can begin again... :)

2. Even in your ego, there are subconscious acts; there are defence mechanisms that your aren’t aware they are acting through your logic conscious worries. The choice you might be talking about – the introspection - is a natural process, a subjective one that allows you to, with the “social subjectivity” inherent in you, judge your action based on your moral values. I don’t agree very much with your definition of ego: I believe that the ego is not fearful but you might have some kind of fear in the “id” that shapes your ego reactions. The silence that lives there can tell us a lot about ourselves!

I don't know a lot about Freudian psychology, Nihil, so I pulled this definition of 'id' from dictionary.com: "In Freudian theory, the division of the psyche that is totally unconscious and serves as the source of instinctual impulses and demands for immediate satisfaction of primitive needs." So, yes, I agree, that the ego can experience fear in the 'id' that shapes our ego reactions, but is the ego not also fearful just because it is a false sense of self? Freud thought the 'healthy' ego to be the highest level of consciousness, whereas I agree with Jung, that there are higher levels, and that instead of, or maybe as well as, these levels access what Jung calls the collective unconscious - the journey of the soul, rather than that of the ego.

4. The ego will obviously try to justify the result of the super ego impulse through rationalization. But here comes another trouble; the morality message that you receive from your social environment will inevitably shape your introspection, therefore, the compassion or lack of it towards yourself. The sublimation will, then, make our ego’s defensive mechanisms justify our logical worries. Or not?!

I agree. When the ego is in charge, that part of oneself that is oblivious to the true nature of self - spirit, then it is vulnerable to all sorts of rationalization due to social conditioning. To simply be aware of this is a giant step towards consciousness evolution. And the awareness of this fact should never leave our consciouness. If we feel fear, then, my experience tells me that ego is scrambling for its position.

Thanks, Nihil, for your patience. A parting question: do you understand the ego/super ego as being the highest level of consciousness?

[Nihil]

I am going to post several times the answer to bito's last post because there is some kind of error with caracters; hope you understand ;)

[Nihil]

Oh, Nihil, I am so sorry if my response was interpreted in that manner, and I can see, how indeed it could be! It was the word 'reach' that I was responding to in my own subjective-metaphysical pointing. I felt it expressed the essence of my response to your response, but clearly, my arrow missed its target. A lack of understanding and sensitivity on my part - obviously my ego meter was on the fritz!
No problem about that! As I can see, this topic of discussion can lead us to the errors we’re trying to discuss. Sometimes interpretation can cause a lot of harm to those who don’t know how to express themselves correctly: the only way to be sure about the way a word is felt by someone else is to personally interact with the person and see in which context he/she uses the word.

[Nihil]

Indeed. Do you see this as one of the biggest hurdles of internet forum discussions? Our words that 'contain' so much of our whole life experience are offered to the other, but when they leave the fingertips and land on the screen, they rarely say what we really mean. When we communicate physically, one on one, we see the person's body language, we are offered the opportunity for immediate correction of a misunderstanding, etc.

Hmmm...perhaps the very thing that is limiting about discussion forums is the very thing that ego needs...

As for my avatar, it is to express my subjective metaphysical 'seeing' of the wholeness of the divine-human experience. I tried to locate the origin or examples of 'rupestral painting', but with no success. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

If we can begin again...


I never thought about that! It is rather interesting; the way you develop an inner conceptualization of a word based on your lifetime emotions, all of them condensed into a single word you try to make a “stranger” understand. Otherwise, I don’t believe it is only a internet forum discussion’s problem only: even when you try to give your opinion and someone says “I understand what you mean”, it can be only to shut us up or to say that they have thought about that (even if they agree/disagree). The body language, however, can be seditious: imagine a special female spy that tries to seduce you to obtain secrets – the whole language she uses is prepared and thought to lead you into some kind of error! It is very hard to fully comprehend what the other one means!
The ego needs illusion: the ego will feel realized if the perception that the impulse causes it a pleasant sensation – I report the spy example – a discussion is always an illusion: your words make me feel good or bad if I wish them to or, on another hand, if I understand them to do so!
4. About your avatar, I believe it makes sense. The search of the divine inside us can be the answer of our problems and when someone creates something – a “rupestral painting” – he/she is interacting with his inner self, his id that has a restricted access due to the super ego.
5. I don’t understand what you wish me to enlighten you – the message is not clear or my interpretation is dislocated, please rephrase :D

[Nihil]

I don't know a lot about Freudian psychology, Nihil, so I pulled this definition of 'id' from dictionary.com: "In Freudian theory, the division of the psyche that is totally unconscious and serves as the source of instinctual impulses and demands for immediate satisfaction of primitive needs." So, yes, I agree, that the ego can experience fear in the 'id' that shapes our ego reactions, but is the ego not also fearful just because it is a false sense of self? Freud thought the 'healthy' ego to be the highest level of consciousness, whereas I agree with Jung, that there are higher levels, and that instead of, or maybe as well as, these levels access what Jung calls the collective unconscious - the journey of the soul, rather than that of the ego.

If I where you I would try to build my own theories! Imagine the ego as your hands, your id as your brain and your superego as a need for sleep – stupid?! Perhaps but I am not a psychologist!
Your hands act but they do not think, they have immediate consciousness, this means that they know what they do when they do but they do not know why the do. Your brain does know all about that as he orders your hands to do so but he does not act directly with the physical world – only with the metaphysical subjectivity. The brain, therefore, will have his own “fears” that come from the interaction of the hands with the real world – you hurt your hands, they won’t complain, but the will transmit the message to the brain that will force a reaction (crying…) and shape your hands’ action towards a more secure acting. What happens with the brain is that he has defence mechanisms – unconscious ones – that will avoid some reactions that may be punished by the super ego – the unconscious morality: the need for sleep that turns of the brain’s perception of the world and, thus, the hands. When Freud says that the ego can be conscious, I can hardly agree: only if you stop acting and proceed to introspection but will that not be a travel to your hidden and silent id?
I could argue that the ego is a-rational! Not irrational because it is not against our mind purposes but I believe that the ego has not consciousness at all but can be a starting path towards that. When we feel fear, that is all about our id: imagine you burn yourself in the stove – that memory will be kept in the id and will be shaped in your ego: result: you’ll be more careful next time and you will not even think why!
The problem of social conditioning is that you put guilt in yourself due to something that is probably caused by a social impulse. The world has created your action and then gives you the guilt of that action. That repression goes against our superego directories – this reminds me about the Robocop movie… - and causes you a sensation of pain towards yourself. That superego directory will shape your personality (id) to a more social behaviour – you’ll be more normal, less original :cry:

[Nihil]

I agree. When the ego is in charge, that part of oneself that is oblivious to the true nature of self - spirit, then it is vulnerable to all sorts of rationalization due to social conditioning. To simply be aware of this is a giant step towards consciousness evolution. And the awareness of this fact should never leave our consciouness. If we feel fear, then, my experience tells me that ego is scrambling for its position.

Thanks, Nihil, for your patience. A parting question: do you understand the ego/super ego as being the highest level of consciousness?
I believe that id, ego and super ego can’t be all alone. If you wish to have immediate consciousness of your action, you’ll have to stop acting, but the external forces won’t give you such an opportunity. Your logical concerns, the ego, are obviously conscientious, but the way you care about them and the way you judge them (id-> personality // super ego-> morality) will be unconsciously shaped by your inner mechanisms of self defence and self destructing – this last one is strictly personal :)
I’ll have all the patience you need if you wish to have an interesting conversation full of… messages!!!

[bito]

That superego directory will shape your personality (id) to a more social behaviour – you’ll be more normal, less original :cry:

:lol:

I’ll have all the patience you need if you wish to have an interesting conversation full of… messages!!!

To me, interesting is sharing the journey of the death of the ego-superego that you describe in your posts. As I type this, I realize the irony of my statement, for it is the ego that is attracted to just this concept of 'interesting'. :duh: :lol:

Is this the type of 'interesting' you are seeking to share?

I believe that id, ego and super ego can’t be all alone. If you wish to have immediate consciousness of your action, you’ll have to stop acting, but the external forces won’t give you such an opportunity. Your logical concerns, the ego, are obviously conscientious, but the way you care about them and the way you judge them (id-> personality // super ego-> morality) will be unconsciously shaped by your inner mechanisms of self defence and self destructing

Do you see a way 'out' of this ego :sweat:?

[Nihil]

Originally posted by bito@Nov 20 2004, 10:01 PM
That superego directory will shape your personality (id) to a more social behaviour – you’ll be more normal, less original* :cry:

:lol:

I’ll have all the patience you need if you wish to have an interesting conversation full of… messages!!!

To me, interesting is sharing the journey of the death of the ego-superego that you describe in your posts. As I type this, I realize the irony of my statement, for it is the ego that is attracted to just this concept of 'interesting'. :duh: :lol:

Is this the type of 'interesting' you are seeking to share?

I believe that id, ego and super ego can’t be all alone.* If you wish to have immediate consciousness of your action, you’ll have to stop acting, but the external forces won’t give you such an opportunity. Your logical concerns, the ego, are obviously conscientious, but the way you care about them and the way you judge them (id-> personality // super ego-> morality) will be unconsciously shaped by your inner mechanisms of self defence and self destructing

Do you see a way 'out' of this ego :sweat:?
There is in fact a paradox in the discussion <_<
Interesting it is, indeed, for me, but for yuo I don't know!
The interest come from your id, your personality, but the contact with the subject comes from the ego!
Perhaps hypnotism can break out the ego-barrier ;)

[bito]

Perhaps hypnotism can break out the ego-barrier ;)

No wisdom in that portal ;).

There is in fact a paradox in the discussion <_<

Much better portal! :lol:

Subjectivity of communication...if all is subjective, what are we communicating?

[Nihil]

Ourselves, our history, our beings
Objectivity is only a way of giving ourselves the consciens that we cnnot be subjective everywhere!
And about the way you handle death and communicate the message "someone you love has died"? How can we do it huh? <_<

[bito]

Ourselves, our history, our beings
Objectivity is only a way of giving ourselves the consciens that we cnnot be subjective everywhere!

There is only this, yet we create that - so we may see-experience this. :scatter:

And about the way you handle death and communicate the message "someone you love has died"? How can we do it huh? <_<

There is no more powerful feeling-connector than sharing death.

[sahyo]

There is only this, yet we create that - so we may see-experience this.

not imgined reason-purpose

There is no more powerful feeling-connector than sharing death.

nothing nor something to connect, and no one which connects

death?

[bito]

There is only this, yet we create that - so we may see-experience this.

not imgined reason-purpose

Reason-purpose imagined.

There is no more powerful feeling-connector than sharing death.

nothing nor something to connect, and no one which connects

death?

Connecting is believing someone-something, believing someone-something is connecting.

[sahyo]

Reason-purpose imagined.



no reason-purpose which imagines


Connecting is believing someone-something, believing someone-something is connecting.



yes only imagined belief...yet posted:


There is no more powerful feeling-connector than sharing death.

[bito]

no reason-purpose which imagines

believing is imagining, imagining is believing

yes only imagined belief...yet posted:

Tough love = asheera :)

[sahyo]

hehehe