|
dill705
Amazed



Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 3,779
Loc: The Cat's Cradle
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
|
Re: Philosophy leads to Personal Psychology? [Re: Poid]
#12011465 - 02/11/10 07:15 PM (14 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
-------------------- My advice is to find those things that give pleasure and do them often without too much attachment and relax and wait for the show to end. -Icelander- I like free markets and all. Truly I do, at least in general, but there needs to be some kind of oversight in recognition of sustainability. Life works the same way, on a bunch of sustainable systems. Why not honor what made us what we are and take some lessons? Nature FTW! ~dill705~
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Philosophy leads to Personal Psychology? [Re: daytripper23]
#12011544 - 02/11/10 07:22 PM (14 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Log in to view attachment
Decypher, I definitely agree on a basic level. Emotions are not only a part of the philosophic process, but I would say they are inextricably linked. What does it mean to acknowledge that?
So your idea has long been clear to me, but to pull it off is...circumstantial? I'm not sure. What you are suggesting seems both simple and clear, but it becomes mind boggling once you actually attempt to pull it off. It requires a leader of such genius, that you will almost never come by it. I never have.
O wait 0 you remember when you first came mod; that sure was an experience. Then some idiot turned everyone's head to think what we were talking about was a name change! It almost seems like what we are talking about may be written and labled as "psychology", like you said in the op, but that's completely missing the point IMO. So far off. Its worse honestly.
Check this post, I know its a tangled maze of words, but it seems to me that's where this leads, when you try to pull it off from a philosophic/egotistical perspective:
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/11971777#11971777
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Philosophy leads to Personal Psychology? [Re: daytripper23]
#12011599 - 02/11/10 07:29 PM (14 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
daytripper23 said: Emotions are not only a part of the philosophic process, but I would say they are inextricably linked. What does it mean to acknowledge that?
Look into Gnosticism and their distinction between the infinitely creative Life force (irrationality/emotion) and the blind, coldly mechanical deterministic material world that we find our spirits trapped in. Possibly Nietzsche also addressed this with his Apollonian/Dionysian dichotomy.
Quote:
daytripper23 said: So your basic idea has long been clear to me, but to pull it off is...circumstantial? I'm not sure. What you are suggesting seems both simple and clear, but it becomes mind boggling once you actually attempt to pull it off.
Yeah I really wasn't trying to pull anything off; this was more sort of an interesting idea I figured I'd throw out there into the collective meme complex. 
Quote:
daytripper23 said: Check this post, I know its a tangled maze of words, but it seems to me that's where this leads, when you try to pull it off from a philosophic/egotistical perspective:
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/11971777#11971777
I definitely sense that our shared ground between these words has increased; the trick is in realizing the rest of what we may have forgotten.
The real secret of magic is that the world is made of words, and that if you know the words that the world is made of you can make of it whatever you wish. --Terence McKenna
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
andrewss
precariously aggrandized


Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 8,725
Loc: ohio
Last seen: 2 months, 15 days
|
Re: Philosophy leads to Personal Psychology? [Re: deCypher]
#12012344 - 02/11/10 09:07 PM (14 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said: IMO one reason that facing one's own faults is difficult is that one's Shadow tends to project one's character flaws on the outside world rather than recognizing them for the inner events that they are.
its not realized as difficult or as anything much when that shadow is so powerful one just uses violence to discharge it
-------------------- Jesus loves you.
|
jivJaN
yes


Registered: 08/09/08
Posts: 4,245
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
|
Re: Philosophy leads to Personal Psychology? [Re: deCypher]
#12013041 - 02/11/10 10:58 PM (14 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Why are we not permitted to communicate information about another poster that may help them in the long run?
Doesn't this question alone imply a certain objectivity ? What i think might be helpful for someone could actually be the complete opposite. Maybe by bringing up something like that i might even learn something about myself ?
I do agree that if it was all done respectfully it could be fruitful and bring dynamic to these debates we have going on here.. But considering the context in which you pose this question(OP) , i find it contradictory.
The idea points to a certain norm or the superiority of ones personal philosophy over another. In addition , this forum now has the word psychology in it, which would give this superiority to those educated in this field.
and so on..
Do you see where i'm going with this?
--------------------
--------------------- All my posts in this forum are strictly fictional. They are derived from an acute mental illness , from which i am forced to lie compulsively. I have never induced any kind of mind altering substance in my life and i have no intentions whatsoever of doing anything illegal. If I have ever suggested such a thing it would have most likely been , due to my personality disorder and i probably do not remember it at all..
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Philosophy leads to Personal Psychology? [Re: deCypher]
#12013064 - 02/11/10 11:03 PM (14 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
You should make sure you read this stuff when you come down.
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Philosophy leads to Personal Psychology? [Re: deCypher]
#12013114 - 02/11/10 11:13 PM (14 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
To me, and especially concerning Hermeneutic approaches, there inevitably comes an "eruption of the state". I hate that this sounds like a psychological issue to most people, because this is not the sort of analysis I am talking about.
I do think there is external pressure, and that pressure may likely even be personal. So I am not turned off by the personal affront of being psychoanalyzed. What surprises and urks me is that the intrasubjective notion of that force or pressure, could somehow be considered the proper authority, only (blatantly) institutionalizing the problem.
Nietzsche addressed this eruption in an overwhelming way. I was recently discussing with Andrewss how it becomes necessary that the hermenuetic bubble is pricked, and what that really means. His self criticism of the Birth of Tragedy, which was directed to just such an approach itself, blew my mind like nothing else I read. What I know and can relate, was that at the same time, the notion of the Dionysian was something I was comfortably digesting...where upon reading this, suddenly came the REAL nausea.
IMO the following appropriates the famous and overwhelming Nietzschean sentiment, with the what may seem a bit divided off as his "philosophy". With the two in sight, of course this is not very philosophical passage, but more appreciated for its implications on the ego. I think that is the experience of philosophy though. Or perhaps "in my experience", or "concerning my ego", so I cannot effectively relate this...
Well anyway here is the passage at least, its from The Birth of Tragedy, the section "self criticism" - its his best work IMO, of the Nietzsche I have read. If you are not familiar, Id say its his self criticism toward making this attempt that we are talking about. (on that note, I don't see any problem with attempting, I think its admirable, even if it may likely turn out to be embarrassing.)
Quote:
Let me say again: today for me it is an impossible book—I call it something poorly written, ponderous, embarrassing, with fantastic and confused imagery, sentimental, here and there so saccharine it is effeminate, uneven in tempo, without any impulse for logical clarity, extremely self-confident and thus dispensing with evidence, even distrustful of the relevance of evidence, like a book for the initiated, like “Music” for those baptized into music, those who are bound together from the start in secret and esoteric aesthetic experiences as a secret sign recognized among blood relations in artibus [in the arts]—an arrogant and rhapsodic book, which right from the start hermetically sealed itself off from the profanum vulgus [profane rabble] of the “educated,” even more than from the “people,” but a book which, as its effect proved and continues to prove, must also understand this issue well enough to search out its fellow rhapsodists and to tempt them to new secret pathways and dancing grounds. At any rate, here a strange voice spoke—people admitted that with as much curiosity as aversion—the disciple of an as yet “unknown God,” who momentarily hid himself under the hood of a learned man, under the gravity and dialectical solemnity of the German man, even under the bad manners of a follower of Wagner. Here was a spirit with alien, even nameless, needs, a memory crammed with questions, experiences, secret places, beside which the name Dionysus was written like one more question mark. Here spoke—so people said to themselves suspiciously—something like a mystic and an almost maenad-like soul, which stammered with difficulty and arbitrarily, in a foreign language, as it were, almost uncertain whether it wanted to communicate something or hide itself.* This “new soul” should have sung, not spoken! What a shame that I did not dare to utter as a poet what I had to say at that time; perhaps I might have been able to do that! Or at least as a philologist —even today in this area almost everything is still there for philologists to discover and dig up! Above all, the issue that there is a problem right here—and that the Greeks will continue to remain, as before, entirely unknown and unknowable as long as we have no answer to the question, “What is Dionysian?” .
Ironically, after reading this I decided not to read Nietzsche any further.
I am all for this sort of pressure, but like I said, effecting this in a mutual environment, or basically expressing this, is a whole different thing than theorizing. While this particular experience may be ascribed as psychological, I am very doubtful that it may be expressed that way. I wouldn't actually call it psychological at all, more like circumstantial philosophy...or something?
Edited by daytripper23 (02/12/10 01:46 AM)
|
Scudreloaded
psychonaut



Registered: 03/15/09
Posts: 3,003
Loc: Wonderland
|
Re: Philosophy leads to Personal Psychology? [Re: daytripper23]
#12013824 - 02/12/10 01:54 AM (14 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
i read the thread sorry i am a lil fried. dunno if i got it but thought my psychonaut adventures i started trying to help myself psycologicaly. i felt like when i was tripping i could see my flaws brought str8 to me and fix them. bring out my demons in order to banish them mild luck. it hasn't been a permanent effect yet. heroic dosage changed me a lot. really sorry if this is the wrong topic or not even close. didnt get some of the words ya'll used.
-------------------- We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold. - Hunter S. Thompson
- believe what you may but take the internet with a grain of salt
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Philosophy leads to Personal Psychology? [Re: daytripper23]
#12014078 - 02/12/10 04:11 AM (14 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
jivJaN said: The idea points to a certain norm or the superiority of ones personal philosophy over another. In addition , this forum now has the word psychology in it, which would give this superiority to those educated in this field.
and so on..
Do you see where i'm going with this?
I would answer yes but that would defeat the point. 
Quote:
Let me say again: today for me it is an impossible book—I call it something poorly written, ponderous, embarrassing, with fantastic and confused imagery, sentimental, here and there so saccharine it is effeminate, uneven in tempo, without any impulse for logical clarity, extremely self-confident and thus dispensing with evidence, even distrustful of the relevance of evidence, like a book for the initiated, like “Music” for those baptized into music, those who are bound together from the start in secret and esoteric aesthetic experiences as a secret sign recognized among blood relations in artibus [in the arts]—an arrogant and rhapsodic book, which right from the start hermetically sealed itself off from the profanum vulgus [profane rabble] of the “educated,” even more than from the “people,” but a book which, as its effect proved and continues to prove, must also understand this issue well enough to search out its fellow rhapsodists and to tempt them to new secret pathways and dancing grounds. At any rate, here a strange voice spoke—people admitted that with as much curiosity as aversion—the disciple of an as yet “unknown God,” who momentarily hid himself under the hood of a learned man, under the gravity and dialectical solemnity of the German man, even under the bad manners of a follower of Wagner. Here was a spirit with alien, even nameless, needs, a memory crammed with questions, experiences, secret places, beside which the name Dionysus was written like one more question mark. Here spoke—so people said to themselves suspiciously—something like a mystic and an almost maenad-like soul, which stammered with difficulty and arbitrarily, in a foreign language, as it were, almost uncertain whether it wanted to communicate something or hide itself.* This “new soul” should have sung, not spoken! What a shame that I did not dare to utter as a poet what I had to say at that time; perhaps I might have been able to do that! Or at least as a philologist —even today in this area almost everything is still there for philologists to discover and dig up! Above all, the issue that there is a problem right here—and that the Greeks will continue to remain, as before, entirely unknown and unknowable as long as we have no answer to the question, “What is Dionysian?” .
Fucking amazing! Nothing like experiencing direct transfer of meaning only to realize that these words themselves represent structure, and so on and so forth. I feel like if our conscious minds could fully understand how to use language with all of its associated meanings and changes that instantly fluctuate through this never-changing river of information then something akin to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem would strike making the transition to a Certainty-based paradigm a rather strenuous one. Those videos you sent also blew my mind; I think ultimately everything might be Number (relationships) at some deep level.
Quote:
daytripper23 said: I am all for this sort of pressure, but like I said, effecting this in a mutual environment, or basically expressing this, is a whole different thing than theorizing.
lol
Theorizing involves and is language, no? Isn't everything language (the cosmic Aum)? What if we're capable of flapping our dream butterfly wings to spur a great change in the Macrocosm?
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
andrewss
precariously aggrandized


Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 8,725
Loc: ohio
Last seen: 2 months, 15 days
|
Re: Philosophy leads to Personal Psychology? [Re: deCypher]
#12015547 - 02/12/10 12:53 PM (14 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
-------------------- Jesus loves you.
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder


Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
|
Re: Philosophy leads to Personal Psychology? [Re: deCypher]
#12027448 - 02/14/10 01:25 PM (14 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said: O Poid the Demiurge.
Too much credit. Just 'the urge' seems more appropriate, but I'm gushing with kindness, so I'll desist.
|
|