Nipate
Forum => Controversial => Topic started by: kadame on October 16, 2014, 06:19:38 PM
-
Synchronicity: His way of describing otherwise inexplicable or highly improbable coincidences involving human consciousness. For example, thinking of a very rare bird in its exacts colours coming through your window moments before the bird in fact comes through that window. The sense of premonition. Having a sense that so and so whom I haven't seen in a while is coming through my front yard and five minutes later so and so does.
Jung's explanation was interesting. He was convinced there was a shared level of consciousness among humans, he called it the collective unconscious, which coincides with Eastern notions of a shared universal self underlying our own reality. His main reasons were archetypes he discovered in human consciousness, standard symbols or motifs that are more or less permanent in our mind, or part of the structure of our mind. the stuff that appears universally in fairy tales/folk tales/myths or dreams all over human cultures; the good mother, the evil step mother, the trickster (like the fox or brother rabbit), the wise wizard/old man/guardian, a sense of journeying, or seeking a home/promised land, or being in wandering/wilderness, and so many more. The best way to understand them is a sort of innate "map" on what it means to be human, or the most basic aspects of human experience that seem already known/mapped in the human psyche from the get go, rather than created through personal experience. so meeting things that trigger the archetype can cause an instinctive attraction or repulsion to us. The great works of art, visual and musical, those that move deeply are said to be able to trigger the archetypes which can be seen (images) felt (emotion/feeling) thought (like aspects/rules of logic) or trigger sensual experience. So enduring works of art are able to capture archetypes. Encountering an archetype has a sense of "recognition" or even deja vu to us, like its something someway somehow known, even if foreign. That means we have mapped something onto an archetype/triggered an archetype. Jung believed they were part of a "collective unconscious" all humans have access to/or a shared consciousness.
The syncronicity also tends to be more likely/frequent the more individuated a person gets. That is, the more "whole" or psychically healthy a person grows, into himself, possessing more and more of his unconscious aspects (the personal unconscious, that is, not Jung's much more speculative "collective unconscious") into his integral/self-actuated self, the more these "coincidences" seem likely or perhaps the more penetrative (into outer reality) a person's consciousness gets.
I disagree with the collective unconsciousness business because I think we are in our core, individuals, based on the fact that no matter how much can be shared between us or between us and the cosmos, we cannot interpenetrate each other beyond a certain level. Somethings we can only know about others when they themselves share it, and somethings of ours can only be made available to others when we open ourselves up willingly. And yet even by will, much remains only our own, unshareable. So human experience I believe supports the basic intuition of individuality. I look at the archetypes as inherited or somehow transmitted rather than belonging to some universal consciousness that we all have together.
Yet there is also a cosmic aspect to us, or an unknown way in which we are somehow connected both to each other and to the cosmos/our field of existence, connected beyond our physically discernible bodies. I say discernible because while I lean towards a more spiritual explanation (our souls are much more vast than our bodies and may possibly be able sometimes to communicate with each other or to connect to the cosmos on a much wider field than we may presume or we can know) this is because I already accept the existence of the soul, but it need not necessarily be the only explanation for the synchronicity/archetypes. There may possibly be an energy around us that reaches much further than our physical bodies, that may not yet be discernible scientifically but could possibly be. That is, there may possibly be more to our physical selves, than we discern. A soul, in its spiritual aspects a least, would always lie beyond any such discernment, even theoretically.
Just musings of mine after a simple convo that reminded me of my old pal, Carl Jung. Enjoy! (those who be interested). :D
-
Did you write this ? Wow ?
:respect:
The existence of soul has dogged theorists since the beginning of hmm. Plato..
Plato has Socrates describe a gathering of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to designate names to these shadows. The shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.
The allegory may be related to Plato's Theory of Forms, according to which the "Forms" (or "Ideas"), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality. Only knowledge of the Forms constitutes real knowledge.[1] Socrates informs Glaucon that the most excellent must learn the greatest of all studies, which is to behold the Good. Those who have ascended to this highest level, however, must not remain there but must return to the cave and dwell with the prisoners, sharing in their labors and honors.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave
I don't know much about Jung but in philosophy, "form" is widely debated. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms
-
Thanks. I don't read hard philosophy, just the lay man's version translated by those who read that stuff. :D Carl Jung was a psychiatrist. Psychology is his element, the human psyche.
-
Interesting topic
As part of my spiritual development I decided at one point to research the concept of synchronicity as it relates to a proposed theory of the quantum mechanics and electromagnetism marrying spirituality via quantum leaps (if you get that you are halfway there). Anyways one of my pals knows Deepak chopra in person (she often invites him to do talks to some green people around here) so she got me an autographed book on synchronicity. She actually invited me to meet him but I ducked fearing he would do yoga on me.
So the day I opened chapter 1 I was also reading the Google story book in parallel and I bought one of those juices with faqs below the pop and it had *the original meaning of Google. Spooky. A few min later I bump into a former classmate who now works at Google in the subway. Strange. Events like these kept repeating with different things and people until I finished the book. After that I tossed the book 2 miles from where I live lol.
-
Seems I kept the btop lol.
http://instagram.com/p/uRC65-pONX/
-
On further thought maybe I need to get rid of it. Could turn out to be another "Jumanji".
-
What's going on Brynn? What's the book called? I'm not into New Age, self- actualising etc. I'm an existentialist not by choice but my thoughts reflect that school of thought.
-
Interesting topic
As part of my spiritual development I decided at one point to research the concept of synchronicity as it relates to a proposed theory of the quantum mechanics and electromagnetism marrying spirituality via quantum leaps (if you get that you are halfway there). Anyways one of my pals knows Deepak chopra in person (she often invites him to do talks to some green people around here) so she got me an autographed book on synchronicity. She actually invited me to meet him but I ducked fearing he would do yoga on me.
So the day I opened chapter 1 I was also reading the Google story book in parallel and I bought one of those juices with faqs below the pop and it had *the original meaning of Google. Spooky. A few min later I bump into a former classmate who now works at Google in the subway. Strange. Events like these kept repeating with different things and people until I finished the book. After that I tossed the book 2 miles from where I live lol.
Deepak Chopra, is he Hindu or New Age?
I respect Hindus a great deal but have a hard time with New Agers. I think its a made up religion by western hippies who really didn't know anything about Eastern religions. They pick up elements from Buddhism or forms of Hinduism (really, a misnomer, but its the moniker we have gotten stuck with)and run with it, adding all sorts of stuff to it that's shallow. For example, that "the secret" fad where all you have to do is imagine stuff and it happens magically...nonsense.
I have weird synchronicities happen where for example I dreamt a conversation happening exactly as it happened the next day. I didn't even initiate it. It was so weird. I also dreamt being somewhere I had never been but one of those weird dreams that get stuck in the memory and then I went to exactly such a place after a few years and was hit with the strangest sense of deja vu I have ever experienced.
Another thing with moms. My classmate got pregnant by a non-Kenyan baafrika which her mom did not want for her and had told her to avoid, she met him in Dec and was pregnant in around March/April, her mom didn't even know he existed. Her mother is in the U.S, thousands of miles away. Much to my friend's shock, she called her worried right around that time in April and told her she had a terrible dream that she was pregnant and that she wanted her to be careful about tying herself before she was financially independent and that she shouldn't get pregnant at all, to be very careful etc etc. :D You can imagine how freaked out the chick was, she had been plotting how to tell her mother for weeks! :D She didn't even tell her after that until another month went by. Similarly, my dearest mommy is always calling me from Kenya whenever I am in distress, be it exams, finance or other issues, asking me if I'm ok, coz she's dreamt of me as a baby crying for her in need and feels something is wrong, and it always is. :D So strange. Mother's intuition?
-
LB, some peeps would diagnosis you as on the cusp of cuckoo. . mental peeps tend fragment like that. It could be a chemical-memory glitch. Like confusing past events for present, future for past. Seeing bits of familiarly and confusing it for premonitions. Comes with old age and an overworked mind.
-
LB, some peeps would diagnosis you as on the cusp of cuckoo. . mental peeps tend fragment like that. It could be a chemical-memory glitch. Like confusing past events for present, future for past. Seeing bits of familiarly and confusing it for premonitions. Comes with old age and an overworked mind.
He he, I'm neither advanced in age nor over-worked. :D Veri, honestly these are facts. Notice, some of these are other people's "coincidences" that come together with some real thing in another's life, like my mom's intuitions that I am stressed, or my friend's mother's much more accurate dream that her daughter in another continent who hadn't even mentioned seeing someone had just gotten pregnant. :) There's a big difference between "bits of familiarity" and dreaming something exactly as it happens the very next day, like the conversation I spoke about, dreamt I had gotten an email from someone I hadn't spoken to in forever saying something, and sure enough the next day there was a message in my mail exactly the same and when I responded, it generally went as I had dreamt. Its also possible for these things to happen in waking life. For example, the example I gave of "seeing" something before it happens, like "seeing" someone you were not expecting coming through the front yard in your mind and sure enough you open the door and there they are making their way to you, that stuff happens once in a while too. Surely you have to have experienced something like it! :D
-
An intuitive mind is more attuned to predict things with the natural algorithm processes going on in their brains. Some might call that 'wisdom.' A bond between a mother and cub is undeniable. I just don't think it can easily be explained by 'psychic' powers. It might be genetic switches in our DNA we aren't aware of yet that turn on when a cub is distressed. We don't know enough of the body yet. It can be a similar process to when you fall in love. You see the love of your life and your heart goes pitter patter, it's a physiological reaction to a seemingly magical encounter. People describe that as sparks and all sorts of ridiculous euphemism, when in actual fact it was their s-e-x- DNA switching on for pro-creation. I don't believe in psychic energy. I believe in someone being smart enough to predict things without necessarily being aware of the process.
-
I also think some folks are better at predicting large spaces rather than immediate spaces like most people do. For instance, during a football game, a skilled athlete can see the whole picture, which ways to move, kick etc. involve whole teams to get a goal. Whereas a novice concentrates on kicking that ball correctly without seeing the whole field. Same with leaders. If you spoke to let's say a skilled president of a country, he's like a walking super psychic, he can predict literally everything about you and can somehow communicate that through his "look". Why? He sees the whole country (in most instances), can predict what the little people do, the tides, make decisions, like that skilled athlete, 'tis how he got to the top. Is he really psychic?
-
Most of what we do is "psychic" the way we induce movement, perception, that can't yet be explained by science a lone. We have "black boxes" everywhere. Cognitive black boxes, health black boxes, theoretical black boxes. This black box appears in everything in spaces we don't have knowledge of. But there will always be that black box... in a way it allows leeway for individuality, creativity, discovery, mystery, things that make life worth living. Explaining that away as 'psychic energy' seems belittling. It's bigger than that.
-
Ladies
I think most women are intuitive. "Mother Nature". Most men on the other hand have to be innoculated from feeling too much otherwise they'll be scared to get some bacon lol. That's why you also find that men who are too small-minded and into women things/ behave like women also tend to be sissies.
Ps: I'm team Mother Nature here but only if you have the ticket.
-
I should write greeting cards...
Dear Love
...my s-e-x DNA switches on for procreation when I see your member quiver.
Be my valentine (idiom)
Honeybun
=
Dear Soulmate
You are the blackbox that fuels my existential dilemma.
You don't exist, because you and I are one.
Give me oxygen.
Forever,
You (as in you are me too)
=
-
Verygal go easy on the Motrin. It's mind-altering.
-
Ladies
I think most women are intuitive. "Mother Nature". Most men on the other hand have to be innoculated from feeling too much otherwise they'll be scared to get some bacon lol. That's why you also find that men who are too small-minded and into women things/ behave like women also tend to be sissies.
Ps: I'm team Mother Nature here but only if you have the ticket.
I'm past procreation age Brynn. Oh well.
Men are sissies regardless. Women get bacon and raise cubs these days. You don't want to mess with a mother. They'll butcher whole armies to protect their cub. I deal with mothers on a daily basis, they are by far the scariest things in the universe.
-
I'm drinking Berocca at the moment. Imagine if I had a cub. . little me.. .
-
Instinctively yes but I also see a lot of women that need to have their motherhood cards revoked ASAP. Where do you think all these messed up kenyans online came from? Terrible.
-
An intuitive mind is more attuned to predict things with the natural algorithm processes going on in their brains. Some might call that 'wisdom.' A bond between a mother and cub is undeniable. I just don't think it can easily be explained by 'psychic' powers. It might be genetic switches in our DNA we aren't aware of yet that turn on when a cub is distressed. We don't know enough of the body yet. It can be a similar process to when you fall in love. You see the love of your life and your heart goes pitter patter, it's a physiological reaction to a seemingly magical encounter. People describe that as sparks and all sorts of ridiculous euphemism, when in actual fact it was their s-e-x- DNA switching on for pro-creation. I don't believe in psychic energy. I believe in someone being smart enough to predict things without necessarily being aware of the process.
Veri, the reaction to thinking about/seeing the object of your affection has a clear causal relationship. The stuff we are talking about stands out precisely because it is acausal, which rules out logic alone and its predictive capabilities without an additional explanation of how the mind is acquiring the raw data its working with to make such predictions...intuition is just logic working in the unconscious part of the mind. :D
Prediction cannot be separated from a cause-effect relationship. For example, the mother-cub bond is understandable but not when there is a thousand mile distance and no previous/immediate communication between the mother and cub. At the very least, the bond signifies some communication taking place between the cub an its mother, subtle unconscious clues being picked up. Question is how that is possible with such a great distance in between the mother and cub. Whatever neurons are responsible, they are not magical. They must use actual data, but which data and how is this data being communicated to the neurons?
I don't know what you mean by psychic energy exactly, but my own thesis (belief?) is that we are more energetic than we realize, that our bodies are not just hardened/crystallized matter. It makes sense. :D This world is basically energy, all around us there's energy, all communication is energetic and we probably must be able to communicate with it somehow. This may mean we are more physically (not necessarily psychically, though I'm inclined towards it) connected to the world itself than the visually discernible boundaries of our bodies suggest.
-
Bella kweli you are a lawyer both in your loquashiasness and elucidation of details. As you can see most of my arguments are summized with simple axioms like f= ma lol. I'm not hatin I'm just admiring.
-
LB, there are conditions for causal pathways. It needs to satisfy prior conditionals i.e. predictions/history/predicates (if Bayesian) or be readily replicated at all times. Let's say you have a chap.. you aren't going to go pitter patter ALL the time years later. That 'trigger' is obviously not tethered to that particular stimulus. Therefore, it can't be causal.
This data may not necessarily need to travel. It switches on at precise moment in our life, like it was meant to be, pre-programmed. These seemingly connections may just be us trying to make sense of a perfect temporal system in the universe.
-
If you look at a plant, it reacts to the sun, grows and dies. Just because it happened to creep up behind another plant, doesn't mean there is a direct causal psychic relationship between this and that plant. It was just meant to be. It bent that way due to prior conditionals (i.e. sun beckoning it this way).
-
We tend to notice events more when there is a conditional. For instance, if a mother senses something wrong with the cub 50 000 miles away, I bet you there is another mother out there who senses their cub in distress 50 000 miles away. Is that other mother the cub's mother as well? How many times did that mother sense something wrong with the cub? How many times does a mother call and go, how are things? I sensed something wrong? We tend to hone in on probable incidences of when they do get it right (i.e. incidental findings) and cover up times they don't hit the mark as just mama being overly affectionate.
-
Veritas
The mind of a normal human being doesn't have enough gigabytes to process all the information contained in the cosmos. Think an ant trying to solve the rocket equation, ain't happning lol. The good news is that some useful information can be obtained by the spirit of the ant in a language that his mind may not be able to make sense of. It's that kind of soul tie that will help the ant play its part in the ant kingdom doing great works with a puny mind. Faith moves mole hills and mountains.
-
Not if they know how to use cloud. Or even use other minds to store their memories. I think a lot of us are like USB sticks. We imprint and forget, imprint forget more often than we think. I forget things and people all the time. Then remember then forget etc.
-
That's why I say no one mind is powerful enough to gather all the historical information and make sense of it. Those who operate on the level of the soul get a better understanding of the nature of existence by tapping into the infinite domain. The physical domain is a very limited vibrational spectrum, it can't even pick microwaves. The argument on this level goes like, if I don't understand it doesn't exist! We all knows that babies don't understand much.
-
Ladies
I think most women are intuitive. "Mother Nature". Most men on the other hand have to be innoculated from feeling too much otherwise they'll be scared to get some bacon lol. That's why you also find that men who are too small-minded and into women things/ behave like women also tend to be sissies.
Ps: I'm team Mother Nature here but only if you have the ticket.
Yes, women and men are different. In carl jung's psychological types (which is how I got interested in him in the first place) he distinguishes 8 basic functions of how the human mind works, 4 are passive/perceptive...acquiring information, while 4 are judging functions, basically sorting through the info, categorizing, making sense of it etc. Among the judging functions are what are basically ethics (feeling) and logic, and feeling is associated with women much more than men. Feeling is more like sorting through info and prioritizing in terms of good/bad, right/wrong judgments, and is inclined towards humans specifically or regarding human as "good/right"; while thinking/logic is more detached, about facts and true/false statements, objective causal connections that don't separate humans from the rest of environment, so it may seem "cold" in comparison. We have all 8 functions but they occupy different places in our minds. for many women, the feeling/ethical is nearer to the driver seat than for many men. So maybe that's why women seem more intuitive. their intuitions are naturally inclined towards humanitarian things. men have intuition too but it manifests differently. :D You should read bout it, its interesting stuff. :D Helped me understand many of my peculiarities.
-
We tend to notice events more when there is a conditional. For instance, if a mother senses something wrong with the cub 50 000 miles away, I bet you there is another mother out there who senses their cub in distress 50 000 miles away. Is that other mother the cub's mother as well? How many times did that mother sense something wrong with the cub? How many times does a mother call and go, how are things? I sensed something wrong? We tend to hone in on probable incidences of when they do get it right (i.e. incidental findings) and cover up times they don't hit the mark as just mama being overly affectionate.
Veri, that's not the issue. the question for me is how either of those mothers, biological or not, "senses" something 50,000 miles away in the first place. :o
-
My theses of human psychology is mostly Freud and Steven Pinker, I'll catch up with Jung first before I engage you but it looks very promising.
-
Just because we categorise feelings doesn't mean that's the definitive causal relationship. Naming and assigning thresholds is arbitrary when you think about it. Jung calls it this and sets it as this, that's his conditional imperative, not necessarily others.
LB, I'm going to be cynical here and get to the point, they don't sense it, you think they sense it because you heard blablabla like Chinese whispers.
Brynn, a computer with a lot of memory moves slow. It's a trade-off. How fast are you willing to move for space? Who's watching Lucy?
-
Bella kweli you are a lawyer both in your loquashiasness and elucidation of details. As you can see most of my arguments are summized with simple axioms like f= ma lol. I'm not hatin I'm just admiring.
I'm verbose, unfortunately. :) By nature. Cant help it. With too much a tendency to go into monologues when discussing a subject (I don't mean to, honestly, I am no attention hog) especially while trying to make sense of something a bit complex. You should see my papers, they are very succinct, straight to the point and compact but flowing....what the reader doesn't see, though, is the process I have gone through to get there. Usually I have redrafted that paper tens of times first from a lot of kelele and a sea of words until I reach clarity, then I'm able to summarize lol. :D On the internet/normal convos, I don't have the opportunity to hide my verbosity. :)
-
That's why I say no one mind is powerful enough to gather all the historical information and make sense of it. Those who operate on the level of the soul get a better understanding of the nature of existence by tapping into the infinite domain. The physical domain is a very limited vibrational spectrum, it can't even pick microwaves. The argument on this level goes like, if I don't understand it doesn't exist! We all knows that babies don't understand much.
Agreed, we are highly reliant on logic but logic need not necessarily be the only way to know everything.
-
Logic originated from Hellenistic frumps, logic is bounded by history which ultimately defines our species.
See the word "frump" ? I made it up just then, never seen it or used it in my life yet it popped out just then. I do that a lot. Where does it come from ? Psychic ?
-
My theses of human psychology is mostly Freud and Steven Pinker, I'll catch up with Jung first before I engage you but it looks very promising.
Brynn, when were you into psychology? psychology is too wishy washy for my liking.
-
Just because we categorise feelings doesn't mean that's the definitive causal relationship. Naming and assigning thresholds is arbitrary when you think about it. Jung calls it this and sets it as this, that's his conditional imperative, not necessarily others.
LB, I'm going to be cynical here and get to the point, they don't sense it, you think they sense it because you heard blablabla like Chinese whispers.
Brynn, a computer with a lot of memory moves slow. It's a trade-off. How fast are you willing to move for space? Who's watching Lucy?
Veri
If I can backtrack, Bella starts off by presenting us with Synchronicity as an alternative framework/open source operating system that allows the cosmic intelligence to encourage us steer along the path of least resistance by giving us hansel and gretelian clues (breadcrumbs) along the maze. You immediately discount this as some kind of psychoblabber/ psychological dysfunction even though now you turn around to try and convince me that psychology is a quack science. I'm confused.
-
Logic originated from Hellenistic frumps, logic is bounded by history which ultimately defines our species.
See the word "frump" ? I made it up just then, never seen it or used it in my life yet it popped out just then. I do that a lot. Where does it come from ? Psychic ?
I think logic is more useful for cognitive purposes/proofs. There are other truths of existence that logic does not capture even though they can be empirically determined. That's probably the domain at which intuition rules best.
-
My theses of human psychology is mostly Freud and Steven Pinker, I'll catch up with Jung first before I engage you but it looks very promising.
Brynn, when were you into psychology? psychology is too wishy washy for my liking.
Time iterates a lot of wishywashy information and as the field grows so will it's clarity. We all start from amoeba and specialize into highly functional homopithecus Zinjanthropes and Misanthropes after at least 4 million years lol. In numerological facts, we've graduated from counting numbers to rational numbers, complex and even imaginary ones. Say progress!
-
Bella kweli you are a lawyer both in your loquashiasness and elucidation of details. As you can see most of my arguments are summized with simple axioms like f= ma lol. I'm not hatin I'm just admiring.
I'm verbose, unfortunately. :) By nature. Cant help it. With too much a tendency to go into monologues when discussing a subject (I don't mean to, honestly, I am no attention hog) especially while trying to make sense of something a bit complex. You should see my papers, they are very succinct, straight to the point and compact but flowing....what the reader doesn't see, though, is the process I have gone through to get there. Usually I have redrafted that paper tens of times first from a lot of kelele and a sea of words until I reach clarity, then I'm able to summarize lol. :D On the internet/normal convos, I don't have the opportunity to hide my verbosity. :)
Being verbose is the meat on the skeleton. Without it the argument is just another graveyard thriller lol, verbosity especially skilled legalese pomposity type brings everything to life.
-
Exhibit 1
http://instagram.com/p/uU4dhhJOBP/
-
Exhibit 2
http://instagram.com/p/uU5XnopOCK/
-
You get the gist
http://instagram.com/p/uU61JMJODh/
-
When I say "wishy washy" I didn't mean black box. I meant uninformed. Psychologists need to be better trained in understanding conceptual principles. Philosophy does this. Math does this. They have systems that makes sense and flows with enough switches between what is acceptable and not. They've cultivated the ying yang if you may. . psychology comes off as a sorry excuse for not getting proper training on conceptual principles. There's too much voodoo and hullabaloo without actually thinking hey, this meta-shat has been explored in other disciplines in a more advanced manner. . I get what LB is saying. But I can also see there are things she needs to train in before she can answer the questions she seeks.
People tend to think that cosmos stuff is up in the air, but it's like asking a cosmologist what they see in the sky, they will rattle on about parsecs etc. as a means to do things that are actionable and accepted consensus which works, whereas those not trained will rattle on about zodiac symbols which isn't actionable nor accepted consensus which works.
If you don't want to get lost in voodoo, you need to be better educated.
-
Veri I get you, I felt the subjectivity while learning Psychoanalysis 101 from Freud, half the time I was like WTF. Things get even more hazy when you get into psychologically profiling personalities and sorting them into boxes the way Jung seems to have done. There just isn't enough descriptive data to foolproof the classifications, it's like a new language that needs to build up on the vocabulary so it can capture a broader more accurate sense of the human experience. I don't know how many words one needs to accurately quantify a pixel, 1000? Human experiences are as unique as the fingerprint, no 2 individuals in the whole history of mankind have identical fingerprints. Yet some conditions are so extreme that they can actually be classified eg I do believe that psychopaths exist.
By the way Bella has provided an intersect between the cosmic precog and actual events. It's worth a note.
-
I think psychology is too capitalist work-related. Understanding human behaviour from a practical perspective without considering age-old knowledge like great philosophers who explored such concepts in depth thousands of years ago.
I think what LB should do is read more physics. Linear events can be mapped. Probabilities and likelihood of experiencing this event (pre-cog) and the event actually happening can be more definitive when there are tighter estimate conditionals. I guess she should add the necessary equations to make it seem credible. To me I see... :ecomcity:
I'd perk my eyeballs in intense concentration if I saw this with it:
(http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/math-equations-16133692.jpg)
-
The Greek can interpret that, it's their alphabet :-).
i can't prove the truth of her assertions but assuming all the info she gave is true she's provided a clear intersect between cosmic intelligence and reality via set theory (axiomatic proof).
-
you mean like aliens ? when did you two become besties? I'm jealous.
-
Veritas, you've got to be kidding. :D Philosphy is the realm of fundamental realities and metaphysics, psychology is the realm of human consciousness, so saying psychology should self-decapitate into philosophy is like saying Biology should self-decapitate and turn into maths. Realms of knowledge are not identical and philosophy (which I love, mind you) is just one area of human knowledge. Philosphy is concerned with objective reality, psychology is about how human minds work based on intuitions into a breadth of human experience. There is no way philosophy can replace it.
Veri I get you, I felt the subjectivity while learning Psychoanalysis 101 from Freud, half the time I was like WTF. Things get even more hazy when you get into psychologically profiling personalities and sorting them into boxes the way Jung seems to have done. There just isn't enough descriptive data to foolproof the classifications, it's like a new language that needs to build up on the vocabulary so it can capture a broader more accurate sense of the human experience. I don't know how many words one needs to accurately quantify a pixel, 1000? Human experiences are as unique as the fingerprint, no 2 individuals in the whole history of mankind have identical fingerprints. Yet some conditions are so extreme that they can actually be classified eg I do believe that psychopaths exist.
By the way Bella has provided an intersect between the cosmic precog and actual events. It's worth a note.
Brynn, I get what you are saying. The thing about psychology in general, including all forms of psychotherapy, is that because it studies the human mind it necessarily goes subjective, built on insights gained from the study of particular/individual minds which experiences must be transmitted and cant be put in a lab for a test. Only so much personal experience can be transmitted to another. Yet, over time, there is enough data for patterns across individuals in general to begin to emerge. Which makes sense, because while we are all unique individuals, we are also a single species, so there must be a shared structure in our psyche. There's much grey area where individual experience (which is unrepeatable) coupled with individual choices and abilities meet with the more general areas. Sorting all that out is the stuff of psyche subjects like psychology/psychiatry and its necessarily messy. But it's not useless. Not all of it, anyway. :D
Jungian psychological types are not meant to explain everything about an individual. They are just an intuition of certain more or less definite patterns that humans display in their thinking. They dont' account for psychosis, personal choices or the entire breadth of experience a human grows thro'. I do find that they are very uselful, however, in some interpersonal situations. They can go along way in clearing up personality clashes that at first glance appear to be something more,--ike misunderstandings based on dislike/character etc which may not be true at all, that is, once you start knowing how to pick up the patterns. :D
-
Philosophy covers everything: politics, math (think Plato), art, music, psychology, economics etc. arbiters of discourse. Not just meta-nonsense. Psychology calls itself science. If you ask me it tries to make concepts seem sexy and mysterious when it's not that interesting. It flits over knowledge instead of sitting on it and grow roots. e.g.
(http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-be-a-sexy-psychologist-2.png)
-
Philosophy covers everything: politics, math (think Plato), art, music, psychology, economics etc. arbiters of discourse. Not just meta-nonsense. Psychology calls itself science.
Philosphy argues from a rationalist perspective, psychology is based on individual experiences, so its more empirical than philosophy, I guess that's why it thinks of itself as a science. Clearly the "data" is not as easily collected/verifiable as the scientific subjects, so there's much more room for hypothesis/theories than your usual sciences. I don't put it on the same level as the hard sciences, whatever the label though, the worth of the insights it offers is what matters. Having a label "science" is not in itself special. I also don't consider social sciences to be the same as biology either, but anthropology isn't useless. :D You cant decide that philosophy and the hard sciences are the only valuable realms of knowledge. No need to close your mind. :D
-
Philosophy has numerous disciplines. Science came from one branch of philosophy i.e. prescriptivism, empiricism, these are philosophy terms. Philosophy isn't ALL rationalist, you also have hermeneutics, like the social dialectic i.e. Marx, Frankfurt school, Habermas, Hegel - enlightenment, meta-physics.
When I think psychology, I think someone slapping a donkey intentionally then calling that behaviour evolution. It's SUCH a weirdo discipline ...anything goes... it's becoming more pop psychology when observing how psychologists conduct research these days. . what have they discovered that hasn't spilt over into neuroscience?
-
Here's one with "PSI"
(http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-be-a-sexy-psychologist-19.png)
I have to admit guy psychologists are psychotically hot. Sin.
-
Can someone please explain to me why they have a Greek letter "Psi" to represent psychology ? You see that in itself it wishy washy yet sexy. May as well be a zodiac symbol.
(http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/8400000/Libra-libra-8491752-500-375.jpg)
Psychology appears such a s-e-x driven discipline. They've sexualised the most seemingly mundane 'wink' as flirtatious hubris. ;)