|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Freedom]
#28565384 - 12/02/23 02:34 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Emotion is really in motion. Animi motus. soul movement. When the movements of logos and emotion combine, you get Romeo and Juliet.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Freedom]
#28565400 - 12/02/23 02:41 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Here is an example of a piece of music that says exactly this. It is the very title of the piece. Notice as well "synesthesia," quite associated with neuroplasticity and the strengthening of understanding a thing. Many great musicians claim to be able to see sounds. Look in the comment section of this video. One person says how this song gave him hope and feeling when he had none, or something like that.
-------------------- ☆✮★⋆I ♡ the music, not the bling⋆★✮☆ https://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/1730news.htm 𝔦𝔫 𝔫𝔬𝔪𝔦𝔫𝔢 𝔟𝔬𝔫𝔦 𝔭𝔢𝔰𝔰𝔦𝔪𝔦 𝔪𝔞𝔩𝔬𝔯𝔲𝔪 𝔣𝔦𝔲𝔫𝔱 May I ask what your bud type is? ❂ LXIV⁶⁴AMOR ❂Profundæ lātissimæque vēritātēs amandæ sunt, sīc ideo necesse est: rēs maxima amanda est; pōtus sit is bene scīmus cum nōs id adeō explet, cum altō hīc movet īmus: rēs maxima omnis amor.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Freedom]
#28565409 - 12/02/23 02:48 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
I have mild musical synaesthesia and that song always makes me see snapping and opening yellow and lime green triangles without the bottom. But they open with each sound, and there are many of them. It is most likely however just coincidence that the symbol of therefore is almost exactly that ∴ it is the caret or circumflex ^
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28565417 - 12/02/23 02:55 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Blue_Lux said: Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Freud thought the unconscious consisted ONLY of personal contents. This means tabula rasa. This is Jung's main disagreement with Freud.
mea culpa - you are right (but Freud's integrated psychic structure [INCLUDING THE SUBCONSCIOUS] is just as flawed)
now the sequence of word association proceeds but it is a secondary process to the experience that the subject is subjected to
namely you - you, the experimenter have infantalized the subject, and then tasked the infantalized subject who dutifully responds to the best of his ability from an infantile frame of reference.
just guessing.
another person less impressed by your genius might think of the last chair they sat in, or of a car seat which is a kind of chair that they might sit in if they had the car that was just advertised to them on insta
because of the visualization step in your question people may only think of what they can draw.
language and psychodynamic interaction (role interpretations) can make a mess of this kind of data collection
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,850
Last seen: 33 minutes, 1 second
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28565446 - 12/02/23 03:18 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Blue_Lux said: Consider then the work of Beethoven. The emotion is undeniable in his Moonlight Sonata. I claim it is only the emotion that could have ever facilitated the piece. Logic and Emotion go hand in hand just as any essay is meaningless if only adhering to logos without pathos. I think this can also explain bunk science. The intention means everything. What delivers someone to create is emotion. It cannot be brought about by mere adherance to logic or ethos. Pathos, ethos, and logos go hand in hand. Another example is in Latin when they would say the equivalent of "I like music," it is all from the word Amor. Musicam amo. Te amo. Love and Like are the same word in Latin.
I think this separation from emotion and logic is really incredibly specious and misleading. Anything anyone knows best and or does best must have those neurotransmitters of amor, enjoyment, arousal active about it. Is this wrong?
I see geographical, categorical or temporal organizing prinicpals of network association strength as being different processes than logic. For example take geographic.
Lets walk a trail. Lets mark the trail with blue blazes. Those blazes then become associated with the trail because they are in the same location. This may happen consciously or unciously, but does not need a logical process. In fact its suceptible to being fooled. You could bring an ipad and look at green blazes every 5 minutes when hiking and come to associate green blazes.
I don't see these different modulators of association strength to be seperate at all. In fact their complex interconnectednes is part of what makes being human so "interesting" lol
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Freedom]
#28565454 - 12/02/23 03:23 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
I find this wonderfully apt here.

|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Freedom]
#28565477 - 12/02/23 03:47 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|

Compare this above from Freud with what I wrote just the other day below about Cicero talking about Socrates with "Ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat" (subj. mood sciat). The optative mood is closely related to the subjunctive.
Quote:
Subjunctive expressions concerning the words areand is use the words sit and sint in Latin, as opposed to just est (is) and are (sunt). although sum is i am and sumus is we are, etc. etc. The confusion of philosophical language in English really has everything to do with the ill-defined subjunctive and the tendency for colloquialisms and hypostatizations, wherein the subjunctive is taken literally.
I am amazed frankly at the association.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|
Yes, yes, good point! I thought about perhaps the position of authority I took in that exchange directing the thought could have oriented him into an infantilized position wherein I assumed the position of his father or childhood authority. I am surprised you picked up on this, but I cannot be certain of that, and I think actually this is not likely to be the case, not only because he was actually over 20 years older than me but because a demand wouldn't necessarily do that. I confess I haven't considered all the ends and outs of this objection, but I shall.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,530
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux]
#28565563 - 12/02/23 04:50 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
that may be true, but the dream analysis literature is pompous. Freud is explaining the "tissue of thought" which means he is making it up .
However his use of associative links to explore the psycho-history is valuable. the rest is made up mumbo jumbo realistically.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
durian_2008
Cornucopian Eating an Elephant



Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 16,681
Loc: Raccoon City
|
|
Nothing counts as a valid form of proof to a skeptic, nor are you worthy to ask.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 15 seconds
|
|
Well, both of those statements are false. If I actually explained why the first is false I’m not sure you’d even pay any attention because of what I perceive to be bad attitude on your end. And the second statement is just nonsensical.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|
You have to admit, he is quite funny.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 15 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux] 1
#28566085 - 12/02/23 10:30 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Well that went straight over my head. I have to stop taking these things so seriously 😂
|
durian_2008
Cornucopian Eating an Elephant



Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 16,681
Loc: Raccoon City
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28566090 - 12/02/23 10:35 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bardy said: I perceive to be bad attitude on your end
No offense was intended toward present company, per se.
But, the decision is ultimately left up to milieu control.
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 15 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: durian_2008] 1
#28566112 - 12/02/23 11:17 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Sorry mate ❤️ I had you wrong
|
Bardy


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,184
Last seen: 12 minutes, 15 seconds
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28566120 - 12/02/23 11:32 PM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
It’s so hard to gauge what people mean or what their intentions are based on text. I need to remember to always assume the best intentions first I think.
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28566451 - 12/03/23 08:51 AM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
I think there is actually a wordless apprehension, as in a grasp, not anxiety, necessary in order to understand complex writing. It is not necessarily mood but personality within the text itself. Maybe personality isn't the right word. But any great writer has a certain air, a pathos, an atmosphere in which the subject matter is treated. I think this is actually crucial to be aware of, but to my knowledge nothing like this is taught. A good way of explaining it is like if you read Plato or Freud or any person who developed a complete system of thought, after you have read a certain amount, you don't necessarily have to read anything else from them, because the wordless worldview organizing the structure of conceptions becomes like a mode wherein you could answer any question in their 'style,' for lack of better words. It is not however just a style. That would reduce it to mere aesthetics. It isn't mere aesthetics. I think, therefore, the present day consideration of postmodernism under the notion that a text can be interpreted in any way is completely ridiculous. This is just an excuse for being a poor reader. It takes practice and a cultivation of interest. Truths revealed are not mere playthings of a literary environment, unless you read completely removed from exactly that personal atmosphere of the writer themselves, which you begin to understand beyond words the more you read them.
|
durian_2008
Cornucopian Eating an Elephant



Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 16,681
Loc: Raccoon City
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Bardy]
#28566455 - 12/03/23 08:54 AM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Be doubtful of me. Prove what I am saying.
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,229
|
Re: Can anything be proven? [Re: Blue_Lux] 1
#28566505 - 12/03/23 09:29 AM (1 month, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Blue_Lux said: Consider then the work of Beethoven. The emotion is undeniable in his Moonlight Sonata. I claim it is only the emotion that could have ever facilitated the piece. Logic and Emotion go hand in hand just as any essay is meaningless if only adhering to logos without pathos. I think this can also explain bunk science. The intention means everything. What delivers someone to create is emotion. It cannot be brought about by mere adherance to logic or ethos. Pathos, ethos, and logos go hand in hand. Another example is in Latin when they would say the equivalent of "I like music," it is all from the word Amor. Musicam amo. Te amo. Love and Like are the same word in Latin.
I think this separation from emotion and logic is really incredibly specious and misleading. Anything anyone knows best and or does best must have those neurotransmitters of amor, enjoyment, arousal active about it. Is this wrong?
Agreed. Logic is in service to emotion as a tool is in service to building something. The underlying premise for me is that existence isn't fundamentally logical so how can any effort be fundamentally logical?
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
Blue_Lux
τό κᾰτᾰπεπτωκός φροντιστής


Registered: 12/07/19
Posts: 2,151
Loc: chillin' on Charon's skiff
|
|
If you haven't taken much interest in graphology... I pride myself on my graphology. I'd like to be seen more books printed in people's actual handwriting. The issue of ghostwriting would surely be eliminated... I think however handwriting is extremely important. I did a project on even this in highschool, which crystallized what I already loved about handwriting. I remember as a very young child, still unable to spell, I would scribble what I thought was cursive on a dry erase board. I would make lots of loops and circles in a continual line, stopping in between fake words. Cursive handwriting actually contains elements of personality, and I know this is true because I can remember the character of the cursive writing I would try to mimic. Both of my grandmothers have extremely interesting cursive handwriting. They are very different as well. There is a science developed about this, but a lot written about it is dubious. It isn't a magic trick either. A lot of it has to do with having first made connections from certain people and their personalities to their handwriting. I find it very interesting to look at people's handwriting. There is truly so much there. I personally like chicken scratch handwriting from people who really know how to speak, particularly in a unique way, but don't write a lot. I feel like I can see who people even used to be, and how they have even become wiser. Some is a playful spirit. Some seem suppressing emotion. So many things find expression. Graphology requires taking personal instantiations of writing and comparing the results between other people's evidences of their own writings. There are many many similarities between people as evidenced by their handwritings. This same thing that can be developed allowing the faculty of seeing more in words themselves can be done in the sort of font you see on screens and most books. All the letters are the same, but still there are intracontextual meanings in how series of sentences run together.
Edited by Blue_Lux (12/03/23 10:16 AM)
|
|