Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Psychology 101

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
AuthorMessage
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:12 pm

Mistaking empathy for sympathy or antipathy exposes the modern mind as mediocre and lacking an imagination above the subjective level.
On the other extreme cold rationalism leads to apathy, which is a disconnection, rather than a connection, using the imagination.
Moderns, lacking more than a mediocre mind, can only project self in the other's position, and imagine themselves and how they would react if they faced this others circumstances or if they thought as this other does.
This method confuses self, for other, therefore someone expressing an opinion about race, or sex, that the modern cannot relate to, is immediately judged in this manner.
The modern imagines how he would be, how he would feel, what he would do, if we believed in races, or if he believes in gender differences, as more than social constructs.
Anxiety/Fear, bring more than the mother of all emotions, and the easiest and therefore first to evolve, is the one governing the baseness of the modern.
Fear is the first emotion the modern projects, or feels when placing himself in an alien, undesirable circumstance.
Fear is what drives them to their own conclusions, seeking sheltering there, so they project it into anything that exposes them to discomfort, or what is strange, unknown to them.
The first emotion the modern can feel when imagining himself in the others place, or when trying to understand the other, imagining himself believing what the other believes, so the modern immediate assumes this as being indicative of the other, and his motives.
What is the first thing the modern assumes when exposed to race facts?
Hatred, violence... because this is what he would do, feel, if he believed what the other believes.
What does the Christian imagine when thinking of a world missing an absolute one god?
Sadness, suicide, meaninglessness...so he assumes this is what characterizes the ones who reject his conception of god.
Without a threatening, promising God, he imagines how violent, destructive he would be, and assumes this is so for the non-believer.
Moderns cannot empathize... they are trapped, or limited, in their dualistic either/or paradigm, able to only sympathize or feel antipathy, or at most feel apathy.
They never know other... they only project what little they know of themselves into other, and this self-knowledge is often lacking, or minimal, and always self-flattering, self-aggrandizing, self-comforting, self-serving.

Consider the method of a simple organism, such as a dog.
How does a dog imagine a human, other than by taking itself as an example?
A dog assumes the human is another canine. A dog projects this as an identification of other, assuming that it is like the human… another human, or the human is like itself.
It has no ability to think of the human as a different species, as something similar but vastly more different. It only knows the similar, not the different.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:57 am

Multiply physical attacks over long periods of time may threaten the body's cohesion, forcing it to react by thickening the points of impact.
Time, as always, acts as a period of habituation, adapting what is not shattered to new circumstances.
Body's thickness, topical numbness, does not completely register to the mint.
It winces, every time there's a lunge towards the delicate area, even after a long period of time when thickening has made all attacks relatively less damaging and painful.
To the mind, habituated to the assault, the area is still delicate.
Each thrust makes it react in exaggerated reactions.

And so it is with matters of trust, and what is called paranoid personality disorder.
Childhood scars long healed and thickness to the point of numbness, of no-feeling, leave a mental sensitivity.
Stress energies put on standby for a fight/flight reaction, remain high-tuned to minor gestures of a threatening nature.
A child growing in a home where accusation, judgment, resulted din severe beatings, will be very defensive, very sensitive to critique, when it grows up.
In its mind every judgment can only be proceeded with a painful event.
Anger is what fear/anxiety turns into, when fight is the only option, and there is no sublimating 'love' to quiet down the mind, and expunge nervous tensions.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:19 am

Freedom is another one of those words being thrown around in its modernistic conception.
As an absolute.
Like truth, for many mediocre minds, means absolute certainty, absolute singular truth, freedom has come to mean absolute independence, and not degree of dependence.
Like strength, if defined similarly, would mean omnipotence, and not a degree of weakness, in relation to another - a value judgment, a comparison.

To Will is to will what one lacks, desires, needs, because if it is in his possession then he would not will it - he would not have to.
Free-Will is a self-contradicting concept if understood defined, in the manner moderns do.

If understood properly, by connecting words to world, then freedom is a degree of independence from a particular phenomenon, and will is a focus of aggregate energies upon an objective, only possible for living organisms...therefore only life can be said to have the potential for free-will.

But if all is ordered then what can a will be independent from, and how can its will not be determined by what is?
There would not be a necessity for choice, if all were ordered, because in time all would fall into a reactive state where consciousness would be redundant.
All interactions, reactions, could be stabilized by trial and error, over huge periods of time, requiring no judgment, no focus.
A particular ordered circumstance would produce an automatic, ordered, determined, response to it.

The only way choice would be necessary, and the development of consciousness an advantage is if randomness slightly altered order so that no two instances was ever absolutely the same.
This divergence is what makes consciousness essential.
Consciousness evolved to deal with the eternally unforeseen, since there are no absolutes, and this means there is no absolute order.
Choice is the slight modification of a reaction to the same circumstance....because insanity, as Eisenstein, I think, said, is the repeating of the same and expecting a different outcome.

Randomness, defines properly as absence of order, of repeating, consistent, rhythm, where existence is defined as that which is dynamic or (inter)acts, is what enables choice to have the leeway to liberate itself from precedent, and automated, prescribed actions.
Order would follow the path-of-least-resistance, and not apply choice at all. a simple process of (inter)action..
Only life can will, or choose a different, more demanding path - path-of-more-resistance.
Only life can choose a self-destructive path, or place an idea(l) above even its own continuance.
This is an expression of its liberation from its past, its nature, from precedent - nature = sum of all previous nurturing.
This si how life differentiate form non-life, or lifeless unities of patterns, and how one life form distinguishes itself from more base life forms.

Life is ordering, of a variety of patterns in varying degrees of harmony - balance. It depends on a degree of order, and samples precedent, past, to guide its choices, its interactions, when it opts to choose its death than to live in a world void of what it deems necessary to be dignified.

The only way this could be possible is if the world were not absolutely deterministic, and this means it is not absolutely ordered.
In religious metaphors, or Abrahamic semiology, God = absolute order - singularity, oneness, whole perfection, and Satan is the imperfection in the perfection.
Chaos in order, Yin/Yang.
The Devil is presented as the benefactor of man, because without what he represents life and consciousness would be redundant.
devil is defined as a trickster, because he is never the same, as he is a metaphor for chaos, randomness, and not chaos as hidden order, complexity.
Without the Devil the world would inevitably end, because absolute order implies an absolute knowledge, understanding of it as a probability.

Absolute order, is the opposite pole in the nihilistic paradigm = absolutes.
Nihilism needs absolutes, because it is an entirely human construct.
Whether it be in absolute chaos, or in absolute order, the world ends, as nil, or as a singularity, a ONE, where there is nowhere to go, because it is the abstraction of the implosion of space/time to a singular point - one dimensional space.

Now moderns create fanciful ways of explaining why an absolutely Good god would create absolute evil....with a anthropomorphic narrative.
But secular nihilists do no less.
they simply baptize interactivity perfection, or describe a multiplicity as a oneness, or the imperfection as a perfection.
The theoretical perfect made of imperfect parts - contradiction...where the goal is to discover it - faith...finding god.
a good god creating a world where evil exist..
The insinuation is always that of a 'testing'...as if existence were a game, a puzzle, we were placed in - a labyrinth and we Odysseus, or Theseus, trying to find Minotaur to free, or to slay, and then exit.
Although in the allegory the Minotaur represented the soul of darkness, man's denied animal nature.
Odysseus, more noble, wanted to free the beast, and Theseus to kill it - killing man's nature.
A metaphor pointing to modernity.
Nature trapped in mental labyrinths, slain, to make man fully rational, civilized - ordered.

Absolute is the new name of the one God, and man the slave, the self-negating 'hero' trying to come close to the divine.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:24 am

What is the overman, and resetniment in Nietzchean canon allegories?

It is man, dependent on order, desiring, craving order, being ordering, appreciating order as beauty (symmetry proportionality) resenting the necessity for chaos.
Overman is the acceptance, the coming to term, the surpassing of man's resentment of his chaotic dependence - fear, 'nay saying' becoming 'yes saying'.
It is the overcoming of man resenting his own nature, as ordering emerging from the interaction of patterns and randomness, of order and chaos.
It is the coming to terms with eternal uncertainty, unpredictability...that which makes consciousness, choices, possible.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:43 am

Let's put aside words, and big theories and renaming concepts to accommodate a desired outcome and ask ourselves...."Am I perfect? Do I feel perfect, compete, free, whole?"
"How can I be imperfect within perfection, even if my imperfection is not knowing how perfect I am - ignorance of my own absolution?"
"How can my imperfection, be part of a perfection, when I am a part of that which I judge?"
"How can I be perfect and die, or be dependent on other? Is my mortality, and by dependence, my lack of freedom, part of perfection, or am i simply renaming things to make myself feel better, or like I belong to a perfect, absolute one god? Have i invented a new name, and a new way of remaining Abrahamic, Judaeo-Christian/Muslim, because the alternative terrifies me and makes me feel small, vulnerable, insecure?"

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:08 pm

It's interesting that in science the slightest divergence is studied, often creating an entire discipline form the analysis of a small divergence, but the only place difference is considered too small to matter is when it comes to humans.  

Hyperbole meets Hypobole.

Hyper - υπερ-βολή: to shoot above the mark.
Hypo- υπο-βολή: to shoot below the mark.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:31 am

We've become so numb, so void of sensation, that we use symbols/words to refer to a hyper-inflation of our reactions to world, safe and sound within our man-made artifices.
In addition to all other functions the brain has the duty of protecting the organism from the stressful impact of the world.
Metaphors are like parachutes, spreading the pressure across a larger expanse, to not overburden any single point, floating down, down gently upon the ground.
They are now pushed up, up, on the hot air of organic peptic processes - mastication and flatulation.

Carrying away, free of gravity, a mind wanting to reach the sun.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:04 am

Ever since Nietzsche philosophy has become psychological interventions to rid human psychology of a linguistically carried psychosis (metaphor) – a mental parasite corrupting the very essence of philosophy.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:10 am

But this is to be expected.
Nihilism is a way of coping with the world, by turning against or away from it and hiding in symbols/words.
It's a psychosis the modern man suffers from - a memetic virus that places the patient in a comfortable half-wakefulness, a state of narcosis.
Nietzsche offered nothing new, or different from ancient pagan, Aryan spirituality, and wisdom.
Traditions going back to Heraclitus and Hinduism.
What he offered was a diagnosis, and a preemptive preventative regimentation to keep clean from the infection.
I fear he did not go far enough, nor was he clear enough.
He is now appropriated by the very disease he diagnosed...just as Jesus was appropriated by the very religious tradition he rebelled against.

Fortunately he is not the last diagnostician.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
AlphaRomeoOneFive



Gender : Male Posts : 3
Join date : 2017-11-09
Location : Planet X

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:49 am

People use language to hide from the truth, abusing language with malformed abstractions and metaphors, allegories, all sort of these types of speech that have become their form of thinking as well. An mentality-world has been created in which language can be used to reference things that do not exist, but also guarantee a feelings-based response in oneself and in others used as a kind of secret signal to say to one another “I’m with you.”

“That’s just my white privilege.” —overheard in class

Statements like the above serve not to develop an idea but to signal an allegiance, and also to violently psychologically cut oneself down. The vermin feel most comfortable when closest to the ground, where they can hide and search for food amongst the shit... as Nietzsche said.

Do you think that postmodern decadence and nihilism can never rule, because they hate truth so much? To rule, this must mean to be truthful, to embody certain truths to enliven them more in the world. Or should we see postmodernism as power’s [Rulership’s] creative playfulness with itself, because its spirit is wide and deep enough that it can afford to do that?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:59 am

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:


Do you think that postmodern decadence and nihilism can never rule, because they hate truth so much? To rule, this must mean to be truthful, to embody certain truths to enliven them more in the world. Or should we see postmodernism as power’s [Rulership’s] creative playfulness with itself, because its spirit is wide and deep enough that it can afford to do that?
Nihilism does rule, at the moment, but it must lie and deceive, otherwise it falls to an indifferent reality.
I've said that Nihilism, or positive nihilism, as I call it, can only be relevant when it infects as many minds as possible.
It has no meaning, outside the mind, and the mind is where it survives, like a virus can only survive and propagate in a host.

It rules by deceiving those who want to be deceived, because they find the world 'too much to handle' or 'not enough to gratify' their inflated needs/desires - esoteric/exoteric psychology.
Language is political....or art used to manipulate and control the mediocre mind that has no understanding of it and no talent with it.
Language evolves as a way of grooming, cultivating, creating and maintaining relationships within the group, so with Nihilism language is feminized, and has no references to anything beyond the group - inter-subjectivity.
This is why moderns insist that all is socially constructed....meaning all is a matter of human relationships - inter-social hierarchies, and this is why moderns insist on defining world as humanity.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Thu Nov 09, 2017 4:44 pm

Like everything fluid, represented using static symbols, we must account for degrees, to reflect process, because there are no absolutes.
Therefore the process of gradual detachment from reality, and a turning inward, is not sudden and immediate, but slow and methodical....just as races represent an intermediate stage in the process of species creation, because species do not emerge from nowhere, out of nothing.

Nihilism begins with a slight modification of the real, and its representation mixed with internal reactions to a real existing phenomenon, such as a tree.
We'll use the tree as a phenomena we all can and have experienced in generally the same ways - interpreted in the same simplified/generalized manner.
Colour, shape, texture....smell....in all the many types of trees have some common traits distinguishing them as trees, and not shrubs, or corals, or mice.

An artist shows his talent by painting the tree as he perceive it, and as we all can acknowledge being the phenomenon tree.
We appreciate the artist's talent, and his subjective accuracy, subtlety, using the objective phenomenon 'tree'.
A philosopher does the same with symbols/words.
We can say that the realistic artist is burdened with a more difficult task, because his depiction of the real is restricted by the real phenomenon, and all who share in it can appreciate it independently, agreeing, without collusion, and no coercion, that the artist is good, and he has painted a tree.
So, his subjectivity interpretation of the object, the objective, tree is restricted by natural order, and how trees have evolved independently of human subjectivity, and cultural influences.
His noetic representation, abstraction, refers directly to a phenomenon names tree - a combination of patterns interacting in a unity.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
How much detail, how talented the artist is, exposes the artist's quality.
How he may represent the play of light, movement, is evidence of his talent.
His talent is in transferring the three-dimensional phenomenon tree, onto a two-dimensional canvas...like a philosopher's talent is in his ability to transfer a fluid world into binary code, and then into linguistic representation.

Then we have the gradual detachment from realism, from the world, when memories, or abstractions, are recombined, modified, to represent a tree and how the artist reacted to it - the external and how the internal relates to it...or how the artist wishes a tree would be like...or how he imagines the tree hiding its spirit, or whatever nonsense he is driven by.
We enter the realm of cubism and surrealism.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The artist will claim that he is capturing the deeper essence of what a tree is, when all he is doing is projecting into the organism tree his human ideals, emotions, sensations, hopes, ideals. He is presenting an idealized tree, and he may find many who prefer it to the real.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The emotional impact is undeniable; the psychological effect is real....but the representation is of nothing in reality.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Some will say that some of the representations of trees are preferable to the real ones - more fantastic, inspiring, beautiful.
But they are not real.
In extreme cases a talent-less fArtist may scribble some lines on canvas, and name his fArt 'tree', claiming he's the next Van Gogh, or the one who takes over from where Picasso left off, or did not dare to go.
If such charlatans find enough pretentious, desperate, weaklings he may create a movement with him at its centre, as the next great 'fArtist, and accuse all who do not recognize his greatness of being envious, or of lacking the artistic acumen to appreciate his talent.  
He may, even, be able to copy styles and create some beautiful forgeries, by slightly modifying the composition, the colour schemes....but.....this is still not reality, and he presents no real tree.

Philosophy is such an art, using symbols/words...and it falls prey to the same practices.

With pure nihilism a blank canvas can be placed on the aisle and declared a tree, pronounced as being 'tree', or the negation of it - tree flipped inside out.

In Modern times we are no longer practising philosophy, no longer desiring the real phenomena, but only dealing with how man reacts, or feels, or wishes it were in an alternate reality full of theoretical trees.
There's just so many ways to paint the real before repetition makes it redundant....and the talent-less must be made to feel proud enough to present their garbage alongside the greats...in an age of fifteen minute fame and mass participation.  
So, we are forced to endure men-children and their drawings...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]...or find novel ways to equate all species as being equally artistically gifted....
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
...and if we wish to rebel against authoritarianism and the highest, and best, the talented, the gifted, that make us feel tiny, small, and remind us that we lack talent, then why not place a dot on white paper and declare it a 'tree', or name it 'tree'...and market it as better, more profound, than a tree?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Yeah...philosophy is hard....fantasy is easy.
I can daydream a variety of fascinating alternate realities, sampling myths, pop-culture, religion, philosophy, art....and find a bunch of fools to praise me. I can make it self-consistent, in its self-referential nonsensical craziness, feeding no the existential anxieties of the average man.
I can do it...but i do not. Because i refuse to lower myself to that level, and because the real world, with real trees, are better than any alternative...and if I cannot draw one as beautifully as a talented artist can, then I can appreciate the ones that can, and differentiate them from fakes, and men-children desperate for praise.

It's true that we've advanced beyond the appearance of tree. We are now trying to represent the molecular structures, the cells, the microscopic, interacting and manifesting as appearance: as phenomenon called tree.
But tree is still our starting point.
It sets the boundaries of what we can represent, just as its molecular structure is what is manifesting as the organism tree.
For an artist to dare to paint his conception of this microscopic to be taken seriously, must first display his talent with the apparent, because if he goes straight for the microscopic he can feign talent, just as a philosopher that starts from the metaphysical can feign genius, when he lacks insights of the physical.

Modern philosophy has become an endless surreal, cubist, unreal depiction of what has been done, representing the individual's reaction, relationship, emotions in relation to the real.
We no longer paint trees, but ourselves reacting, feeling, emoting, hoping, in relation to them, or as a reaction to the mentioning of the name....'tree'.
We're women painting ourselves thinking of trees...or reality.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
AlphaRomeoOneFive



Gender : Male Posts : 3
Join date : 2017-11-09
Location : Planet X

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:56 am

So you mean that any human reality simply collapses into reality as it is independent of humans? Trees exist regardless of humans, and a human experience and meaning when it comes to trees only makes sense and is proper if the experience and meaning equals that about the tree which is already true independent of anything “human”? Your philosophy seems to prescribe humanity as a means for representing reality without regard to humans, is that correct?

What of a Beethoven symphony, or a Mozart symphony? How do you categorize these sort of works of art, what are they trying to represent of reality itself, or are they nothing but nihilistic attempts to represent something of the inner human reality and self-experience? More so, how should philosophy understand the differences between a Beethoven and a Mozart symphony? We would need to go into the realm of inner human experience and self-experience: human ideas, meaning, significance, desires, impressions, how does the music work on the ‘mental universe’ in our heads? More so we will need to start to explain what that mental universe is and how it got there, what is its purpose, and how does all that relate to what Beethoven and Mozart [or any great artist, writer, musician, philosopher] were doing?

My best guess is you will be forced to see all music as vanity and nihilism. It isn’t representing something obviously clear and objective about a non-human reality, therefore it cannot be considered proper meaningful and true art, right? But why would any inner human reality and self-experience be necessarily less real and/or less meaningful than the supposed objective reality and meaning of a tree, even assuming variances between the degrees to which different inner human realities and experiences are correctly representing the objective reality? If an organism stops representing objective reality to sufficient degree then it will stop existing—we exist, therefore we must be representing the objective reality in our own inner ‘subjective’ realities at least sufficiently to keep existing: beyond that there is an entire realm of human experience and self-experience that is significant and meaningful to us humans only, and there is no reason to necessarily discount all of that as nihilistic and meaningless.

Now we come to the crucial question of what do you mean when you say reality? What is your definition for what it means to say that something is real, and to say that one thing is more real than something else?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:39 am

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
So you mean that any human reality simply collapses into reality as it is independent of humans?
Any subjective interpretation of world collapses into objective world.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
Trees exist regardless of humans, and a human experience and meaning when it comes to trees only makes sense and is proper if the experience and meaning equals that about the tree which is already true independent of anything “human”?
Do not trees exist independently from humans?
Did they not exist before there was anything human on earth?

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
Your philosophy seems to prescribe humanity as a means for representing reality without regard to humans, is that correct?
Objectivity has no regards for anything but the objective, which in the case of philosophy is the world, including humans as just another species.
How this can then be used to benefit humanity, or the particular human within humanity, is a secondary issue.  

When studying the environment, let's say a jungle, first you study it objectively: categorizing, differentiating, taking note of the different species, the geography, the climate cycles, and how they are interrelate (meaning), and then you determine the path through it.
Success/failure determines if you were more or less accurate - cost/benefit.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
What of a Beethoven symphony, or a Mozart symphony?
This is what I once wrote...
Satyr wrote:
MUSIC
First Proposition
Patterns
The brain is a forager of patterns.
It is an ordering biological tool.
The mind is its projection in time/space.
As such it is attracted to patterns and order.
The brain can only comprehend what it can store and analyze.
Storage requires ordering (Cataloguing, Categorizing); ordering the confusing or chaotic or complicated demands simplification/generalization.
We create approximations to efficiently act. We understand by finding a pattern and extrapolating the entirety.

Second Proposition
Resistance
The path of least resistance implies that repetition lessens resistances creating habituation and experience.
We are drawn to the familiar because a neural pathway, once established, is more easily reused, rather than replaced.
Continuous use makes something familiar and easy.
This attraction to the familiar creates behavioral patterns resulting in thinking, species, or culture.


Third Proposition
Energy
Energy is a resonating activity.
It is action/movement manifesting or universal flux.
Matter is resonating energy at a specific tone, making it more or less substantial in relation to our sensual acuity.

Fourth Proposition
Melody
Music is a sound exhibiting patterns and repetition.
Otherwise it is called noise.
It is energy made audible.

Conclusion
The familiarity of the pattern makes it attractive.
It awakens remembrance by stimulating neural pathways which might have become forgotten or by harmonizing with our own energies it can imitate our becoming.
This is why music can be emotional and exhibit psychosomatic effects.
We are energy and so the vibrations are intimate to our becoming.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
How do you categorize these sort of works of art, what are they trying to represent of reality itself, or are they nothing but nihilistic attempts to represent something of the inner human reality and self-experience?
All is a matter of degree.
Art is divided by the artist's motive - intent...and by his talent, his eye for details, his ability to convert four-dimensional time/space to a two-dimensional canvas, or to a three dimensional sculpture.
A desire to represent world as it is, to relate to it honestly, and the need to project upon it what you need but is missing, or what you cannot find it, so you create it and impose it as more real than the real.
Art, like language, because language is an art, and the philosopher is what we call a linguistic artist, is a neurological representation connecting mind and body - nexus where the phenomenal world meets the noetic world; where real combines with the ideal.
Two streams of data - stimulation converge in mind - from exoteric and from esoteric sources.
In the processing hub of brain, these combine.
It synthesizes within an organism, in this case the human, therefore the particular individual and its constitution, its intent, its courage, is decisive in shaping this synthesis.
Art is always a representation of the artist's relationships, using a medium.
Philosophy's medium are symbols, the abstract, representing the thinker's relationship with the world outside his skull.
The degree to which the exoteric data dominate or the esoteric data dominate, determines the quality of the thinker, and expose his/her intent.

World is indifferent to the artist's intent, as it is to the philosopher's.
This fact makes most anxious, uncomfortable; easily impressed and seduced by art that offers an alternative, a solution, salvation, inspiration, hope...something charlatans take advantage of to construct pleasing, positive, art, full of symmetrical imagery, beautiful ideals, and completely detached from reality....which is for most the seductive component. Because in the alternate, better, depiction they can escape the determined and the continuum called 'self'.    

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
More so, how should philosophy understand the differences between a Beethoven and a Mozart symphony?
As a harmony that agrees or disagrees with the harmony of their becoming - their metabolic rates.
Music, like all art, like the rhythms of a sentence resonate a pattern which is more or less in harmony with the patterns we call our mind/body making us feel an affinity.
All is pattern....including your mind/body. Vibrations/Oscillation of multiple different patterns having found balance, due to an abundance of harmony, which i equate to attraction.
I would have to get into my metaphysics to explain it better.
Attraction/Repulsion is a measure of harmony between patterns, or unities of patterns.
Harmony indicates a relative agreement of vibration/oscillation...where oscillation indicates the range of spatial effect = attraction/repulsion field of effect over dimensions.
Space = possibility.
Matter/Energy (ordered vibrations - patterns) = probability.

So, when we hear a particular song, a musical composition, we relate to the vibrations the instruments are producing in the air, interpreted by our nervous system.
If it resonates in tune with out own metabolic rates, we feel inspired, moved, fulfilled with reverberation. If it does not, we call it noise, and are disturbed, repelled, aggravated, agitated.
The particular notes placed in specific sequences can be related to our physical processes.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
We would need to go into the realm of inner human experience and self-experience: human ideas, meaning, significance, desires, impressions, how does the music work on the ‘mental universe’ in our heads?
I've offered my own theories.
The world is interpreted by consciousness....meaning it is converted from the alien external to a form that can be processed, or the intimate internal.
I've commented on all those matters extensively....and have been repeating myself for years.
Most of it is in the Adyton, but some pieces are also available in the public forums you have access to.

Satyr wrote:
Meaning of Meaning
(Meaning)
¤
Living in an age of Nihilism means we live in an age of institutionalized autism, of feminization, of idiot savants, and of literate illiterates, or educated ignoramuses.
Moderns know a lot, but understand little. They have a fluency based on two-hundred, or so, words, and of those with a bigger vocabulary few actually understand the words they are using. They know the dictionary definition, but they cannot connect the term to a real world phenomenon. Instead the symbols/words hover in a state of limbo awaiting some charlatan to connect them to their own abstractions.
As such the very meaning of the concept ‘nihilism’ has been converted to its antithesis: defining a world void of manmade concepts, such as ‘god’, ‘whole’, ‘one’, ‘morality’ taken as universal absolutes, in other words understood as a world lacking what the mind has constructed, abstracted and considers literally, rather than as representation. This world, lacking their fabrications they call ‘negative’.
Moderns not only live in the delusion inside their own had, but they refuse to exit them. They prefer the words to remain meaningless, because then concepts like ‘sex’ and ‘morality’ and ‘race’ can be dismissed as social constructs.
If this is how ‘nihilism’ has been used and abused, then what of the meaning of the word ‘meaning’ itself.
Moderns use the word but they do not really understand what it means.
All they know is the dictionary definition, and this is what they consider its meaning.
But what does meaning really mean, if we wish to connect the linguistic convention, facilitating communication, found in dictionaries, and connect it to a real world, real life, utility?
To begin let us sample the meaning of the term, in the Greek, bringing us back to a shared tradition which Anglo-Saxon English fails to fully connect with.
The equivalent of meaning, in Greek, would be {Νόημα}, comprised of two words: νοώ, or νους, and νήμα = thread.
Rooted in the word νέομαι = to turn, re-turn, as when you weave thread together.
Therefore, meaning means to turn, weave, in the mind, or to return, the thought to the world.
To place in mind and then return to world. To weave, in mind, the world.  
Meaning refers to the relationship of observed patterns (phenomena), as interested by a mind (noumenon). What we mean, by meaning, is our own understanding of how the different phenomena we experience relate to one another, as we’ve interested their relationships in our mind.
To say something is ‘meaningless’ is to accuse it of lacking all cohesive relationship.
These relationships may refer to external phenomena or may be entirely in our head, because in our head the relationships are more easily connected, whereas in reality they may refuse to abide by the observing mind’s will.
Now we add a new word: nonsense.
Nonsense refers to meaning that lacks all sensual references. It lack sensuality, it is non-sense.
When a meaning ‘makes sense’, it has an internal relationship corresponding to an external one. The esoteric abstractions is in harmony with an observable external relationship between phenomena, or patterns interacting.
It is possible for a nonsensical relationship to be constructed din the mind, and in fact most Moderns live within these constructs – they live in a nonsensical world of their own making that has no reference outside their own minds.
They may have given their constructs meaning, by abiding by a dictionary definition, but instead of referencing a world outside their brains, they have established noetic relationships inside their head, where the real world cannot contradict them.  
They live in a world full of meaning, but of no sense – a nonsensical world, or a world of meaningful nonsense.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
More so we will need to start to explain what that mental universe is and how it got there, what is its purpose, and how does all that relate to what Beethoven and Mozart [or any great artist, writer, musician, philosopher] were doing?
Though I am currently more interested in how Nihilism is corrupting minds, or infecting psychologies through the medium of symbols/words, I did write my metaphysical positions down about two decades ago, titled Interactions & Interpretations , and I've had no reason to change them.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
My best guess is you will be forced to see all music as vanity and nihilism. It isn’t representing something obviously clear and objective about a non-human reality, therefore it cannot be considered proper meaningful and true art, right?
Not so.
Music is vibration/oscillation, via the medium of air.
I once read an interesting comment by Schopenhauer where he described existence as a symphony, and us as notes within it.  
I think it was in Will and Representation.
Nevertheless, my entire metaphysical thesis is about patterns = oscillating space - vibrations...and how this is interpreted, by a conscious mind into the experience of matter/energy.
Music is the most profound of all the arts because it imitates this vibration of space.
Space = possibility.
Man cannot help but be moved by it.
What we call 'beautiful' is symmetry/proportionality, insinuating possibilities/probabilities.

My description of nihilism is concerning their literal interpretation, and wilful misunderstanding of symbols/words to construct an alternate reality in their head. An alternate reality that corresponds to nothing outside of it.
I have not degraded all subjective experiences, or interpretations to meaninglessness.
I have attempted to differentiate fantasy from imagination, the ideal from the real, the highest from the lowest, the interpretation from the interpreted...the subjective from the objective.
Nihilism uses symbols/words to detach from reality and to escape into an alternate, secret, occult, mystical one. But they cannot.  

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
But why would any inner human reality and self-experience be necessarily less real and/or less meaningful than the supposed objective reality and meaning of a tree, even assuming variances between the degrees to which different inner human realities and experiences are correctly representing the objective reality?
The ideal is not the real....it is a reaction to it, a representation of it. The idea(l) is more or less objective....as the strong is not omnipotent but it is a measure of weakness, and knowing/understanding is not omniscience but a degree of ignorance.
I've already offered my position on meaning.
What emotional reactions you get from a tree can be explained....but they should not be confused with the tree's essence, its intent.
If you do, you then make the irrational jump into believing that the tree is communicating to you these emotions.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
If an organism stops representing objective reality to sufficient degree then it will stop existing—we exist, therefore we must be representing the objective reality in our own inner ‘subjective’ realities at least sufficiently to keep existing: beyond that there is an entire realm of human experience and self-experience that is significant and meaningful to us humans only, and there is no reason to necessarily discount all of that as nihilistic and meaningless.
Where have I ever used the term 'all' in the manner you ascribe to me?
Did I say it was 'all meaningless'?
Did I say all subjectivity was wrong....all of it equally so?

Gradations, degrees...no absolutes.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
Now we come to the crucial question of what do you mean when you say reality? What is your definition for what it means to say that something is real, and to say that one thing is more real than something else?
That which exist independently from all interpretations of it.
The objective can be approached, not reached, and the reason for this is not only due to the limitations of the subjective organism, but because the world, as objective, is in Flux - randomness being a part of it....and because it is forever active, dynamic, changing.
This is why consciousness is ongoing, and not final, complete, whole.
Reality = the objective world which the subjective reacts and interprets to varying degrees of accuracy.
I never said one thing is 'more real'. I said one interpretation is closest to the real, I relation to another interpretation.
One understanding of meaning is more in harmony with meaning outside the skull, where meaning has been defined above.
Not all is equally real. A schizophrenic lives in his subjective reality, and for him it is meaningful and real.
I have described how to differentiate the degree to which your subjectivity does not correspond to an objective, eternally changing, objective world.

I am not claiming absoluteness.....I deny the existence of the concept, used by imbeciles.
I am claiming superiority of judgment - a superior theory.

The world is, and forever will be mysterious....because much of it is counter-intuitive.
Why add to this by convoluting language to make it appear we see something nobody else can?
Why add to the chaos, when it happens naturally?
Art, and language, should clarify....order....not contribute to the chaos, to ignorance, to mystification.
This is more so for the artist named philosopher, for his motive is not to sooth the heart, or to comfort, or to distract....but to clarify, using the medium of symbols/words/numbers.
If his motive is not that, or he fails in this regard, then he isn't a philosopher...or he is a very poor one.
Someone using symbols/words to mystify, to confuse, to exploit, to self-promote and self-aggrandize, and manipulate desperate lost minds, is not a philosopher...he is a charlatan.....a priest.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:56 am

I've written so much but I am grateful for your prodding to let myself say more.

As I was saying....art, including language, the medium of philosophy, is the representation of a neurological agitation.
This agitation is a reaction to stimuli.
The reaction can be turned inward or outward.
When it is turned inward, only in organisms with a brain, it becomes the abstraction - interpretation of the agitation.
In less sophisticated organisms, such as a plant that lacks a brain, or in species with small brains, the agitation has a more immediate outward reactivity.
Cell, or nerve cell, is agitated and it reacts as activity....or it converts the agitation to neural pulse and transmits it to the central hub, called brain, where it is interpreted,a gain, into sensation, or emotion in more complex organism, or abstraction...which in turn can be re-translated to neural pulse and transmitted to muscles to be translated into activity, movement.
In more sophisticated organisms, like the human being, this process is more complex.
Data from internal sources, such as cells, coverage along with data from external sources, via the cells in the sense organ, or the skin, which is the outer extent of the organism's will - a porous boundary which makes self possible.

With regards to music, the stimulation of the ear, is not the only source of data.
The body feels the vibrations as well.
So, with music the organism is engulfed in vibration.

Where does Nihilism lead the mind astray?
When it intentionally, or mistakenly, confuses the source, or by confusing its reactions to data, as being part of the data.
Back to the metaphor of the tree.
A realist would perceive a tree, either visually or using his body (tactile), and hear it rustling, and not confuse the interpretation of tree for the tree itself, but as a interpretation he would wish to sharpen, to make more accurate, to bring to light.

The Nihilist would mix his interpretation of tree, with whatever internal processes are occurring, or what narcotics he's injected to make the experience more 'profound', or by simply confusing his reactions to tree, as being the trees essence.
confusing his reaction for the trees interactions, and projecting into treeness his human needs, desires, hope, or whatever imagery the narcotics are producing in him.
The tree is mystified intentionally, and then the intent is unloaded, projected, upon the tree.
The confusion is between empathy and sympathy.
Moderns either because they lack the brains, or because of intent, confuse their projections of self, into other, as the other, because they cannot or will not, take self out of their projections.
Everything they see is them in different phenomena.
This is anthropomorphism, and it is part of Abrahamic spirituality.

When they are confronted with ideas concerning race, they assume hatred, violence, because this is what they would do, if they were convinced that races indicated a divergence of potentials.....and the Christian, when confronted with a world void of his one-god, projects himself into the other, and assumes sorrow, fear an intent to rape and pillage, because he would do that if there were no one-god to make him afraid of retribution....and when confronted with the reality of sexual differences, or homosexual dysfunctions, they assume violence, rape, because that is what they would do if they became convinced that women were not the same as men, and homosexuals are a product of a hormonal and/or genetic malfunction contradicting the function of sex as a means of reproduction.
they cannot truly empathize, but are trapped in the either/or of their binary logic, leading them to sympathy or antipathy.
They lack the sophisticated imagination to exclude themselves from the projection.
They never know others, they know themselves in the other's place, in the others circumstances...so they conclude all are the same...they are them in different circumstances.
They conclude that all is a social construct, because this is the only way they can comprehend the alien other...as themselves in different socioeconomic situations.
The animal world is indifferent to them because there they cannot fully project, or feel exposed when they try...insulted.

World = humanity.
Everywhere they turn they find themselves reflected back.
This is narcissism.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:08 am

Charisma is the interplay of the feminine with the masculine, in males, and the masculine with feminine in females.
Autism is a distinctly male issue.
It is characterized by the absence of charm.
When it affects females it exhibits an absence of femininity.
Males lacking a strong feminine side are bland, rigid, pragmatic, literal thinkers.
They have no talent for the aesthetic subtlety of art.
They may be able to appreciate it, but they cannot produce it.
On the other side of the scale, an overwhelming feminine side can produce hypersensitivity, the immersion of mind in the abstract and the confusion of the representation for the literal.
Mind immersed in symbolism, in the magical power of words.
The idea(l) mistaken for the real – romanticism.

Both are forms of imbalance.
In a male the dominance of the feminine may produce an emasculated spirit, and the dominance of the masculine where the feminine is rejected, or reduced to insignificance. It produces a lack of charm, social flexibility, humour, and a no talent with language – its extreme being autism.
In a female the dominance of the feminine and the diminishment of the masculine, results in over-sensitivity, fragility, prissiness, an inability to reason.
When the masculine overpowers the feminine it leads to an inartistic use of language, taking the symbolic literally.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:26 am

In regards to philosophy, the two forms of imbalance, produce a non-philosophical attitude, that may be convinced it is interested in the world, as the object of philosophy, when it is only interested in its own reaction to world, or the fabrication of an alternate world to replace an overwhelming, or underwhelming one.
world i.e humanity being too much, or too little for it to find comfort/gratification.
At this point we ought o mention the different kinds of need/suffering corresponding to the 'too much' and 'not enough' dichotomy:
1- Need produced by attrition, by the flux of (inter)activity, felt, interpreted, as need/suffering - deterioration of the unity's aggregate energies, requiring replenishing, substitution, healing.
2- Needs as a by-product of the first, as the successful accumulation of replenishing resulting in excess - the sexual impulse - erotic - requiring expunging, expelling, numbing, quieting.

Dominance of the feminine in males overemphasizes the impact of symbols/words.
Their psychological effect is mistaken for an objective, worldly one.
In females it produces a desire to hide, to find a proxy to become a part of - attracted to masculinity when it promises such an alternate reality, or a protection from the world.

Dominance of the masculine, where the feminine is lost and buried, leads to the autistic type - humourless, dull, anti-social, pragmatic, lacking charm; understanding of symbols/words literally, or unable to think in degrees - trapped in absolutes 1/0 binary logic, dualities, unable to grasp metaphors.
In females this has the effect of a missing feminine charm; overemphasis of symbols/words so as to compensate for the missing component of artistry. Easily hurt by language - hypersensitive to symbolism, gestures, words.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:53 am

How the artist approaches the medium of his art, is the same as how a philosopher approaches his medium...language.

Some to depict accurately and come closer to the evasive objective......others to slightly modify, so as to make the real 'better'. more appealing,. under the guise that the hidden is being exposed, the secret is being revealed, when it is the artist's own hidden secret being projected and finding admiration, acknowledgement, agreement in the psychologies of the audience: to cover or be covered by the art, rather than to expose self, to the world, or the world to the self, through it.
Audience acts as supporting buffer - the outer perimeter within which the artist fabricates, weaves his meanings in an alternative reality.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2101
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:06 am

Who cares if somebody is denying reality, some might think.
The issue arises from man being a social animal and nihilistic individuals inevitably moving towards having to convince and eventually suppress all those who are not on board with their reality denial.
Hence totalitarianism.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:26 am

Anfang wrote:
Who cares if somebody is denying reality, some might think.
The issue arises from man being a social animal and nihilistic individuals inevitably moving towards having to convince and eventually suppress all those who are not on board with their reality denial.
Hence totalitarianism.
That's my only interest in this psychosis.
If I were not forced to coexist with these psychotics who vote and affect me directly and indirectly, their delusions would not only not matter to me, but I would promote them.
'Live and let live' does not work, because it leads to where we are now: a world that is selectively denying biological categories/types, and questioning sensual awareness, aesthetics, appearances.

I can deal with some nit-wit, on ILP, for example, presenting himself as a Messiah, and gathering feeble, lost, needy, imbeciles to his self-aggrandizing calling, using mysticism and linguistically empty concepts....what I must not ignore is what this exposes about the people I am surrounded by....about my environment.
When the 'magician' becomes popular by mesmerizing the audience with his sleight of hand, his tricks, I can enjoy the performance...but when this riles up the audience, or has become ubiquitous, then it begins to be troubling.
An audience being convinced that the magician is actually in touch with occult forces, and that his performance is not trickery, redirection, the manipulation of perception, but is convinced that he has access to secret powers, then it becomes problematic, because this same audience is in my environment, they are the majority affecting my environment.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
AutSider



Gender : Male Posts : 1001
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:33 pm

Can't say I agree with the idea that everybody needs a balance of masculinity and femininity. It's also not in line with my understanding of the sexes which I outlined here:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The extent to which men are masculine instead of feminine is the extent to which they are fit. So f.e. a 90% masculine 10% feminine man is fitter than a 60% masculine/40% feminine man.

The same applies to women - fit women have a dominant feminine side.

And especially for some tasks, like philosophy, one needs to have a dominant masculine side, because philosophy is about exploring reality, which is what masculinity evolved to do.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:46 pm

Yes...this is biologically based...so we place nature, the gods, above ourselves and find balance in this determination.
When I say 'balance' i do not mean 505-50%, because that would be the placement of hermaphrodites as the idea(l).
I mean, when born a m,ale, the masculine traits dominate.
The extent to which they dominate determines your masculinity.  
Same goes for females and the concept of femininity.
These traits are not random, or socially determined, but like physical traits, determined by the function of the masculine/feminine role.
One is more or less feminine/masculine, in regards to this role.
How the masculine/feminine is symbolized may be genetically determined, but I will not get into how gene relates to meme here.

So, what do I mean by charm and how the feminine must be balanced with the masculine for a male to be charming to a female?
I mean that a male must be in-tune with his feminine side to a degree where he is not afraid of it, or does not reject it, hide it, mask it...but connects to it, confident that his masculinity will not suffer any consequences.
By connecting to it he can understand the female - he can relate to her...and by doing so he can adapt and adjust to her nature.

The feminine is more social. More concerned with social status, with making all feel wanted, loved, part of a whole.
The feminine needs this, as a reassurance of her own nature.
The female is more sensitive to the other's emotion, state - she is naturally empathic, and not necessarily sympathetic as some emasculated males think....this is way to them a female seems cruel, harsh, judgmental.
So a male in-touch with his feminine side and not rejecting or suppressing it, will be sensitive to emotional energies. social etiquette, her desire to feel singular, special among her comfortable uniformity of peers.
She wants to be the 'one', the unique, the exception to the rule, in a world of sameness.
She wants to be distinct in uniformity.  

A man who knows this and adjust to it, is in touch with his own feminine side.
He dominates it, in himself, and so he can dominate it outside himself.
Of course the degree it can be found in other, is not the same as it is found in himself.
This is why I cannot give you a recipe of action. Your feminine side is not as pronounced as mine...and your masculinity is not as dominating as mine.
These slight adjustments are essential for success.  
I need to have an example, I am exposed to personally, for me to judge as accurately as I can.
I can only offer general rules, because the particulars are a matter of degrees.
I know what my feminine and masculine side are, and how they relate, but this is not how yours are.
If I did, i could offer a more precise judgment.
Telling me, will not do....because of the entire word/symbol thing....I need to see it for my self - experience it on my own.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
AutSider



Gender : Male Posts : 1001
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:03 pm

I never said one should deny one's feminine side, but any femininity in an organism comes at expense of masculinity, so a man should always aim to reduce it. Balance is not only unnecessary but undesirable.


Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:10 pm

Let me put it another way....
When I say balance I do to mean within yourself, but in relation to other.
Within yourself you do not have much choice...you are born with a certain degree of femininity and masculinity....and you either accept ti all or you selectively repress and deny.

In relation to other, it takes an adjustment based on your emphatic evaluation.
Depending no how you evaluate the masculine/feminine in the other, and how accurate you are, determines how much of self to be adapted to it, for you to appear charming to them.
A more masculine female would require the repression of your masculine side, and this is no guarantee because what is left, the masculine in you, may not be equal to her masculinity.
Let's take Weininger's formula as a standard.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
AutSider



Gender : Male Posts : 1001
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:24 pm

Wouldn't a more masculine female require the repression of my masculine side?

If I understand your idea of balance, it would be that the man's and woman's masculinity/femininity fit together to form 100%, like 70% masculine 30% feminine woman with a 30% masculine and 70% feminine man would fit together perfectly. If that is so, then I would agree with it.

So if a man is 80% masculine 20% feminine and a woman is 60% masculine 40% feminine then the man would be too masculine for the woman (120% masculinity) and the woman wouldn't be feminine enough for the man (80% femininity). Aka, the man would have to repress his masculine side and try to increase his feminine side.

Masculine (or wanna be masculine) women, such as dykes, typically aren't attracted to, or at least can't attract highly masculine, fit men, instead they go for feminine entities - effeminate males and women.

A highly fit, 90% masculine man, won't be attracted to some dyke. He'll be attracted to highly fit, feminine women (90% feminine).

And a highly fit, feminine woman, wouldn't be attracted to some effeminate faggot, she will be attracted to highly fit, masculine men.

Masculine women = unfit and feminine men = unfit
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AutSider



Gender : Male Posts : 1001
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:29 pm

Another thing to note is that not all couples which form a 100% are equally fit.

Since men are better at being masculine and women are better at being feminine:

couple 1) which has a male that is 90% masculine and 10% feminine and a female which is 10% masculine and 90% feminine

will be superior to

couple 2) which has a male that is 60% masculine and 40% feminine and a female that is 40% masculine and 60% feminine.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:35 pm

AutSider wrote:
Wouldn't a more masculine female require the repression of my masculine side?
Exactly!!!

AutSider wrote:
If I understand your idea of balance, it would be that the man's and woman's masculinity/femininity fit together to form 100%, like 70% masculine 30% feminine woman with a 30% masculine and 70% feminine man would fit together perfectly. If that is so, then I would agree with it.
Yes...but also you must consider the more socially oriented feminine spirit that needs communal support to fulfill her reproductive role...so charm, in a feminized world, is associated with herd psychology...adapting to the needs of the many.

AutSider wrote:
So if a man is 80% masculine 20% feminine and a woman is 60% masculine 40% feminine then the man would be too masculine for the woman (120% masculinity) and the woman wouldn't be feminine enough for the man (80% femininity). Aka, the man would have to repress his masculine side and try to increase his feminine side.
On a one-on-one basis yes.
But consider the needs of the mediocre, the average...would not charm be determined by how well the individual reflected the masculine/feminine balanced of the average?

AutSider wrote:
Masculine (or wanna be masculine) women, such as dykes, typically aren't attracted to, or at least can't attract highly masculine, fit men, instead they go for feminine entities - effeminate males and women.

A highly fit, 90% masculine man, won't be attracted to some dyke. He'll be attracted to highly fit, feminine women (90% feminine).

And a highly fit, feminine woman, wouldn't be attracted to some effeminate faggot, she will be attracted to highly fit, masculine men.

Masculine women = unfit and feminine men = unfit
Yes....and on a grand scale, as the popular judgment of the idea(l), then the masculine/feminine balance would shift according to the masculine/feminine balance of the average.
So, in the seventies a hairy chested Burt Reynolds could not compete in the nineties more emasculate ideals...and what is a tolerable bulldyke today would be atrocious in the past.
This on a memetic, cultural level, because in nature the idea(l)s do not shift so drastically.
In nature being more feminine means you have less of a potential to meet the criteria for masculinity - protective and provider.
Being less feminine means you decrease your chances of propagating healthy offspring with the dominant male, so you are forces to settle for second-rate genes, with real life consequences.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:10 pm

Among Homoioi the strong man does not need to claim the title of strongest; the smart man does not need to pronounce his status...and the weak, simpler one is not exposed as being so.
It is understood within the group...stronger and weaker shifting in hierarchy, over time.

What matters is their shared commitment to a common idea(l), to a shared goal.

Only among the degenerates, the misers, do these titles hold significance, and reiterating them is essential to their absolutist, internal balances.
Only among the ανομοιοι do these verbal titles become embedded in stone...like divine laws, and holy script.
Heterogeneity needs symbols/words to maintain internal cohesion and discipline to an abstracted idea(l).
Among the children of the light these hierarchies are given externally and understood intuitively by all.  
There is no need for words.
All is action. All is deed done.

As on the battlefield, when one man falls, another takes his place; when one man falters on the front, another rushes forward to replace him; when one man grows old, another younger one takes the place of eldest wise-man.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
AlphaRomeoOneFive



Gender : Male Posts : 3
Join date : 2017-11-09
Location : Planet X

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Sat Nov 11, 2017 5:19 am

Satyr wrote:
AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
So you mean that any human reality simply collapses into reality as it is independent of humans?
Any subjective interpretation of world collapses into objective world.

Then you are saying that subjective, human realities do not exist. Either that or you are saying they exist but do not 'matter', do not mean anything. Both of those statements would be false.

Later down you mention you do not speak in absolutes. How can you speak in terms of an objective world and not be speaking in terms of absolutes? What is an "objective world" if not perhaps the most absolutist concept available to us?  

Quote :
AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
Trees exist regardless of humans, and a human experience and meaning when it comes to trees only makes sense and is proper if the experience and meaning equals that about the tree which is already true independent of anything “human”?
Do not trees exist independently from humans?
Did they not exist before there was anything human on earth?

Of course, and you did not answer my question.

Quote :
AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
Your philosophy seems to prescribe humanity as a means for representing reality without regard to humans, is that correct?
Objectivity has no regards for anything but the objective, which in the case of philosophy is the world, including humans as just another species.
How this can then be used to benefit humanity, or the particular human within humanity, is a secondary issue.  

When studying the environment, let's say a jungle, first you study it objectively: categorizing, differentiating, taking note of the different species, the geography, the climate cycles, and how they are interrelate (meaning), and then you determine the path through it.
Success/failure determines if you were more or less accurate - cost/benefit.

How is the world, including humans as just another species, more objective than 'humanity'? Every species exists, including humanity. Every species has individual members who exist. The human world exists, the natural world exist, but for every species there is a different "world" (perspectives). Worlds are made up of individual elements. To escape perspectives one must aspire to an absolutist scientific-materialist approach whereby everything is reduced from what it is [regarding that about it which is pertinent, necessary to, its perspective-having] down to a common... perspective. Even absolutist materialistic science cannot escape having a perspective.

What therefore is the point of trying to escape a perspective? The point of doing that is to increase one's perspective, not do away with it. But ultimately not I nor anyone else is able to fully comprehend the perspective of a tree, or of an ant, or of any other being in this universe which has a perspective. We might reduce such beings down to an understanding of their molecules [some of those molecules anyway] yet that is only going to give you a molecular-level understanding.

No matter how great an understanding of molecular science you have, you are not going to look at the brain at the molecular level and locate where an idea is. Ideas can only be understood at the level of ideas.

You said that objectivity has no regards for anything but the objective, and then you called the world the objective in the case of philosophy. I would counter this with the fact that "objectivity", if you can even find a meaningful way to use such a concept, which I do not see how you can considering you have already stated you will not use absolutes, has no regards for anything at all in the same way that impersonal forces such as gravity or impersonal mechanisms such as natural selection have no regards for anything. If there is such a thing as objectivity in the strict sense, then by definition it could not have regard for anything because it could not have a perspective.

Of course I agree with the part of your statement that we should try to analyze the world more objectively rather than merely looking at our own interests and benefit, but this is not mutually exclusive. Knowledge does not collapse into utility. But neither can utility be ignored or downgraded for the sake of some metaphysical quasi-religious ideal of 'seeking the absolute objectivity'.

Quote :
AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
What of a Beethoven symphony, or a Mozart symphony?
This is what I once wrote...
Satyr wrote:
MUSIC
First Proposition
Patterns
The brain is a forager of patterns.
It is an ordering biological tool.
The mind is its projection in time/space.
As such it is attracted to patterns and order.
The brain can only comprehend what it can store and analyze.
Storage requires ordering (Cataloguing, Categorizing); ordering the confusing or chaotic or complicated demands simplification/generalization.
We create approximations to efficiently act. We understand by finding a pattern and extrapolating the entirety.

Second Proposition
Resistance
The path of least resistance implies that repetition lessens resistances creating habituation and experience.
We are drawn to the familiar because a neural pathway, once established, is more easily reused, rather than replaced.
Continuous use makes something familiar and easy.
This attraction to the familiar creates behavioral patterns resulting in thinking, species, or culture.


Third Proposition
Energy
Energy is a resonating activity.
It is action/movement manifesting or universal flux.
Matter is resonating energy at a specific tone, making it more or less substantial in relation to our sensual acuity.

Fourth Proposition
Melody
Music is a sound exhibiting patterns and repetition.
Otherwise it is called noise.
It is energy made audible.

Conclusion
The familiarity of the pattern makes it attractive.
It awakens remembrance by stimulating neural pathways which might have become forgotten or by harmonizing with our own energies it can imitate our becoming.
This is why music can be emotional and exhibit psychosomatic effects.
We are energy and so the vibrations are intimate to our becoming.

How does Beethoven's or Mozart's music "awaken remembrance by stimulating neural pathways"? How and why do the auditory patterns in music achieve this? Which patterns are stimulated?

Your description of awakening remembrance by stimulating neural pathways could be applied to literally any stimuli, not only to music. It is too general to mean anything unless we fill in more details.

Quote :
AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
How do you categorize these sort of works of art, what are they trying to represent of reality itself, or are they nothing but nihilistic attempts to represent something of the inner human reality and self-experience?
All is a matter of degree.

Except, of course, the "objective". In your view anyway, right?

Quote :
Art is divided by the artist's motive - intent...and by his talent, his eye for details, his ability to convert four-dimensional time/space to a two-dimensional canvas, or to a three dimensional sculpture.
A desire to represent world as it is, to relate to it honestly, and the need to project upon it what you need but is missing, or what you cannot find it, so you create it and impose it as more real than the real.

Art, like language, because language is an art, and the philosopher is what we call a linguistic artist, is a neurological representation connecting mind and body - nexus where the phenomenal world meets the noetic world; where real combines with the ideal.
Two streams of data - stimulation converge in mind - from exoteric and from esoteric sources.
In the processing hub of brain, these combine.
It synthesizes within an organism, in this case the human, therefore the particular individual and its constitution, its intent, its courage, is decisive in shaping this synthesis.
Art is always a representation of the artist's relationships, using a medium.
Philosophy's medium are symbols, the abstract, representing the thinker's relationship with the world outside his skull.
The degree to which the exoteric data dominate or the esoteric data dominate, determines the quality of the thinker, and expose his/her intent.

Why would more emphasis on either exoteric or esoteric make such a difference with regard to quality and intent? It is easy enough to imagine two philosophers or artists, both of supreme quality and honest intent, one of whom places more emphasis in his work on the exoteric and the other on the esoteric. These are two realms to be explored, and both are required because both are always the case. Both are also necessary to our continued existence and thriving.

Placing either exoteric or esoteric absolutely above the other [which is what you seem to be doing] would achieve nothing except to introduce a distortion, something unreal; an error, an illusion. At the highest levels of thought exoteric and esoteric converge and become "the same", but not even this highest level understanding nor the 'objective fact' of it removes the hard reality of the fact that beings such as ourselves, or any other being, necessarily possess these two aspects to ourselves, inner and outer, and are constantly mediating these together which constructs what we call subjectivity or having a perspective.

Quote :
World is indifferent to the artist's intent, as it is to the philosopher's.

If by "world" you mean nature or non-living things like buildings and cars and money and whatever else, then yes of course. If by "world" you mean other people, human relationships, and society in a broad sense, then no. Other people and society are certainly far from indifferent when it comes to the intent of an artist or philosopher. The difficulty is in ascertaining that intent, as well as in reconciling the many conflicting intentions that exist. Not every artist nor every philosopher has the same intents, nor do they only have one intent but rather have many and variable intents, some of which conflict with others.

Quote :
This fact makes most anxious, uncomfortable; easily impressed and seduced by art that offers an alternative, a solution, salvation, inspiration, hope...something charlatans take advantage of to construct pleasing, positive, art, full of symmetrical imagery, beautiful ideals, and completely detached from reality....which is for most the seductive component. Because in the alternate, better, depiction they can escape the determined and the continuum called 'self'.    

So the fact that a work of art imparts beauty and pleasure is irrelevant? Only representing the so-called objective reality is what is relevant? If so, then you are saying that beauty and pleasure have no value to humans outside of "representing objective reality"... and yet, beauty and pleasure are objective facts about the reality of humans.

Quote :
AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
More so, how should philosophy understand the differences between a Beethoven and a Mozart symphony?
As a harmony that agrees or disagrees with the harmony of their becoming - their metabolic rates.
Music, like all art, like the rhythms of a sentence resonate a pattern which is more or less in harmony with the patterns we call our mind/body making us feel an affinity.

How is making us feel an affinity any different from imparting beauty and pleasure? The work of art causes us to have an experience that we call beautiful and pleasurable, and even abstract non-representative art can do this. Positivistic, symmetrical expressionistic art can lead to this experience in the viewer of that art, in which case we can infer that the experience of beauty and pleasure indicates that such art, even if you personally have no such experience in reaction to it, is harmonizing the patterns of the viewer for whom the art does produce those experiences.

On the one hand you say that art harmonizes the patterns in the mind/body, and then on the other hand you say that only certain kinds of art can do this and not others. How do you tell the difference? If one person experiences a Beethoven symphony as beautiful and pleasurable, and another person experiences a Schoenberg symphony as beautiful and pleasurable [or one person experiences a DaVinci painting as beautiful and pleasurable and another person experiences a Pollock painting as beautiful and pleasurable] then we can determine that for each person the artwork harmonized their minds/bodies, regardless of how the other person, or you, or anyone else, might not achieve that same harmonization.

It is not possible to prescribe universal aesthetic reactions to art. There is no "morality" here, there is simply which art causes which sort of reaction and experience in which viewers, and how and why. There are tiers and degrees, because some art is more universal than others in producing certain kinds of responses/experiences, but no art is totally universal in this way. Individuals are simply too different from one another for there to exist a universal artwork that produces the same reaction and aesthetic experience in everyone.

Quote :
All is pattern....including your mind/body. Vibrations/Oscillation of multiple different patterns having found balance, due to an abundance of harmony, which i equate to attraction.
I would have to get into my metaphysics to explain it better.
Attraction/Repulsion is a measure of harmony between patterns, or unities of patterns.

What kind of "patterns"? A wave is a pattern. When two waves converge they do not attract or repulse each other, they temporarily combine to produce a meta-wave that is the sum of each of them. Two waves that happen to be more similar to each other do not converge differently than do two waves that happen to be more dissimilar to each other. The "harmony" between the waves is irrelevant with regard to their not "attracting or repulsing".

Saying "all is pattern" is the sort of absolutist overly generalized statement that borders on being truistic. Yes certainly, for anything that exists we can necessarily say about it that it embodies or possess or is some sort of "pattern", simply based on the definition of what a pattern is. But, so what? That is basically saying nothing at all except that we know how to define what pattern means.

Quote :
Harmony indicates a relative agreement of vibration/oscillation...where oscillation indicates the range of spatial effect = attraction/repulsion field of effect over dimensions.
Space = possibility.
Matter/Energy (ordered vibrations - patterns) = probability.

Again, what kind of vibrations, what kind of patterns? Can you give specific examples? I just gave a specific example of waves, this applies in waves in water or waves in the air or waves in solid mediums. The waves clearly are patterns that do not attract or repulse based on any "harmony" between them.

As far as I can tell so far, you are merely taking a few obvious truisms and maximally generalized statements and combining these with obfuscating mystifications and then combining all of that with absolute moralistic statements. I see no connection between any of these endeavors of yours, nor any real value in them. But I am open to being convinced otherwise.

Quote :
So, when we hear a particular song, a musical composition, we relate to the vibrations the instruments are producing in the air, interpreted by our nervous system.
If it resonates in tune with our own metabolic rates, we feel inspired, moved, fulfilled with reverberation. If it does not, we call it noise, and are disturbed, repelled, aggravated, agitated.
The particular notes placed in specific sequences can be related to our physical processes.

As someone once said, you could entirely reduce a Beethoven symphony to a series of variations of changes in air pressure, but that would get no no closer to understanding what the symphony actually is.

Quote :
AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
We would need to go into the realm of inner human experience and self-experience: human ideas, meaning, significance, desires, impressions, how does the music work on the ‘mental universe’ in our heads?
I've offered my own theories.
The world is interpreted by consciousness....meaning it is converted from the alien external to a form that can be processed, or the intimate internal.

Again, these are blatantly truistic, obvious and maximally generalized statements. Of course consciousness interprets the world around it. Of course it is the case that an external world exists, just as it is the case that consciousnesses exist to experience and interpret things about that world which, for those consciousnesses, is 'external' [external to those consciousnesses]. Again, so what? This is Philosophy 101 stuff.

I asked, "We would need to go into the realm of inner human experience and self-experience: human ideas, meaning, significance, desires, impressions, how does the music work on the ‘mental universe’ in our heads?"

Your Philosophy 101-ish comments in no way addressed any of what I asked.

Quote :
I've commented on all those matters extensively....and have been repeating myself for years.
Most of it is in the Adyton, but some pieces are also available in the public forums you have access to.

Meaning of Meaning
(Meaning)
¤
Living in an age of Nihilism means we live in an age of institutionalized autism, of feminization, of idiot savants, and of literate illiterates, or educated ignoramuses.
Moderns know a lot, but understand little. They have a fluency based on two-hundred, or so, words, and of those with a bigger vocabulary few actually understand the words they are using. They know the dictionary definition, but they cannot connect the term to a real world phenomenon. Instead the symbols/words hover in a state of limbo awaiting some charlatan to connect them to their own abstractions.
As such the very meaning of the concept ‘nihilism’ has been converted to its antithesis: defining a world void of manmade concepts, such as ‘god’, ‘whole’, ‘one’, ‘morality’ taken as universal absolutes, in other words understood as a world lacking what the mind has constructed, abstracted and considers literally, rather than as representation. This world, lacking their fabrications they call ‘negative’.
Moderns not only live in the delusion inside their own had, but they refuse to exit them. They prefer the words to remain meaningless, because then concepts like ‘sex’ and ‘morality’ and ‘race’ can be dismissed as social constructs.
If this is how ‘nihilism’ has been used and abused, then what of the meaning of the word ‘meaning’ itself.
Moderns use the word but they do not really understand what it means.
All they know is the dictionary definition, and this is what they consider its meaning.
But what does meaning really mean, if we wish to connect the linguistic convention, facilitating communication, found in dictionaries, and connect it to a real world, real life, utility?
To begin let us sample the meaning of the term, in the Greek, bringing us back to a shared tradition which Anglo-Saxon English fails to fully connect with.
The equivalent of meaning, in Greek, would be {Νόημα}, comprised of two words: νοώ, or νους, and νήμα = thread.
Rooted in the word νέομαι = to turn, re-turn, as when you weave thread together.
Therefore, meaning means to turn, weave, in the mind, or to return, the thought to the world.
To place in mind and then return to world. To weave, in mind, the world.  
Meaning refers to the relationship of observed patterns (phenomena), as interested by a mind (noumenon). What we mean, by meaning, is our own understanding of how the different phenomena we experience relate to one another, as we’ve interested their relationships in our mind.
To say something is ‘meaningless’ is to accuse it of lacking all cohesive relationship.
These relationships may refer to external phenomena or may be entirely in our head, because in our head the relationships are more easily connected, whereas in reality they may refuse to abide by the observing mind’s will.
Now we add a new word: nonsense.
Nonsense refers to meaning that lacks all sensual references. It lack sensuality, it is non-sense.
When a meaning ‘makes sense’, it has an internal relationship corresponding to an external one. The esoteric abstractions is in harmony with an observable external relationship between phenomena, or patterns interacting.
It is possible for a nonsensical relationship to be constructed din the mind, and in fact most Moderns live within these constructs – they live in a nonsensical world of their own making that has no reference outside their own minds.
They may have given their constructs meaning, by abiding by a dictionary definition, but instead of referencing a world outside their brains, they have established noetic relationships inside their head, where the real world cannot contradict them.  
They live in a world full of meaning, but of no sense – a nonsensical world, or a world of meaningful nonsense.

This is, literally, doing exactly what I just said in my last comment. Reducing language to its most basic, generalized level.
It is sort of incredible that you or anyone else actually think what you are doing is philosophy, or is even thinking.

Quote :

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
More so we will need to start to explain what that mental universe is and how it got there, what is its purpose, and how does all that relate to what Beethoven and Mozart [or any great artist, writer, musician, philosopher] were doing?
Though I am currently more interested in how Nihilism is corrupting minds, or infecting psychologies through the medium of symbols/words, I did write my metaphysical positions down about two decades ago, titled Interactions & Interpretations , and I've had no reason to change them.

I guess that just means you don’t want to include a link to that here? It’s fine, since I have determined you are insane anyway and I have no interest in reading it.

Quote :
AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
My best guess is you will be forced to see all music as vanity and nihilism. It isn’t representing something obviously clear and objective about a non-human reality, therefore it cannot be considered proper meaningful and true art, right?
Not so.
Music is vibration/oscillation, via the medium of air.
I once read an interesting comment by Schopenhauer where he described existence as a symphony, and us as notes within it.  
I think it was in Will and Representation.
Nevertheless, my entire metaphysical thesis is about patterns = oscillating space - vibrations...and how this is interpreted, by a conscious mind into the experience of matter/energy.

"Music is vibration/oscillation, via the medium of air.“

How you could think this in any way addresses the question I asked is just… incredible. I mean really.  

Looks like I’m done here. My gratitude to you for allowing me to probe your depths, although I regret they were found to be so… shallow. Best luck keeping up the charades you have going on this forum, I can see it has gathered you a tiny following of imbeciles and sycophants.

Know Thyself [Cult] Church of the 'Objective' [of the Non-Absolute Absolute]

Heh.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1898
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Sat Nov 11, 2017 5:55 am

Just as realism in Painting is the preface and solid foundation of a great artist, so too does realism in Music lead to the great musician. Music is based on sounds. Sounds are aspects of environments. Birds chirping, rain falling, the rippling and cascading of a stream or creek....long ago musicians listened to their local environments for inspiration. Different musical instruments represent different types (Genres) of sounds. Wind instruments, flutes, represent the wind, of course. A harp's strings, guitar, piano, plucking, striking the chords, represent vibrations and oscillations throughout nature. Some music elicits varying emotional reactions: anger, sadness, happiness, fear, etc.

The more advanced a musical genius, the more he can compose music to elicit intended emotions, producing a planned and desired reaction. Great music and musicians can elicit such emotional reaction in even baser organisms, simpler mammals, even insects respond to music and sounds.

Evocation in music is similar to poetry, and leading to, Philosophy. Whereas poetry works primarily with words, philosophy works with the "ideas themselves", the underlying presumptions, logic, rationale, and metaphysics which people operate from. People base their beliefs, values, and presumptions upon varying sets of ideals. As with other forms of art, the closer to reality the premise is, the foundation, the most superior the artist and art-from can become. Just like a painter does not create his best work on the first try, or composer compose the best on the first attempt, nor does the poet and story teller, nor does the philosopher construct the best ideas, on the first try.

The overall point is to *begin* with reality, and work upward. Not beginning with the end, the ideal, the absolute-perfect, and work downward. Philosophy does not begin with conclusions, as religion tends to do. Religion begins with "God" as beginning, as irrefutable and perfect. Many substandard, untalented artists do the same with their artforms.

It is most difficult to examine and reexamine the premises, the core principles, what people most deeply believe, and prove where they are wrong or right.


With Philosophy, this is important, because many humans base their entire lives around lies, flawed ideas, poor logic, sentimentalism, etc. For example, many people convince themselves they are "free" or live in a "free society" when they actually do not, and worse, cannot even make decent arguments to show how, or to prove what a "free society" would be like.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Slaughtz



Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 1264
Join date : 2012-04-28
Age : 26
Location : Brink

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Sat Nov 11, 2017 6:27 am

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
Satyr wrote:
AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
So you mean that any human reality simply collapses into reality as it is independent of humans?
Any subjective interpretation of world collapses into objective world.
Then you are saying that subjective, human realities do not exist. Either that or you are saying they exist but do not 'matter', do not mean anything. Both of those statements would be false.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Subjective interpretations exist. This does not mean your subjective interpretations, experienced subjectively, are guaranteed to be correctly representative of the world. Some consider there to be subjective experience without representational content - and obviously, if that is really possible or the case (it's a debate whether there can exist passions without representational content, such as instincts), those exist.

They exist and they always matter - it could mean you're wrong. That's pretty important to know, innit?

And, no, there is no perfect (absolute) representation or interpretation of the world. Interpretations are patterns themselves of the very world they are interpreting.

What you call 'absolutism in (or even as) objectivism' is just the choice of another to treat what is their subjective interpretation as salient and accurate enough to countenance - which you, probably, personally believe isn't salient. At least you will take off now, demonstrating how unaffected you are by us 'objectivists' believing such ridiculous things as our interpretations being part of a world irreproachable by our interpretations alone, except within the limited material domain of our subjectivity - the outside of which KT uses the word 'objective' as common parlance (except when talking second or third person about another's subjectivity).
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:36 am

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:

Then you are saying that subjective, human realities do not exist. Either that or you are saying they exist but do not 'matter', do not mean anything. Both of those statements would be false.
No, a picture of a tree exists as a representation....a photo of a dog is not the dog....both exist...one representing the other.
And no, they do matter as interpretations of world, being more or less accurate, determining one's course of action, opne's choices, and their success and/or failure.
So, they matter a lot.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
Later down you mention you do not speak in absolutes. How can you speak in terms of an objective world and not be speaking in terms of absolutes? What is an "objective world" if not perhaps the most absolutist concept available to us?
Because the world is fluid, and our interpretations of it are abstractions, of simplification/generalizations of it into absolutes.
World is multidimensional, but our brains work on binary code...therefore abstraction means a cutting away of dimensions the brain cannot process....in this case the human brain reduces all to binary code - dualism.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:

Of course, and you did not answer my question.
I did.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:

Humanity is another species, or phenomenon within world. But it is not the world.
Every species exists, including humanity...duh. Every species has individual members who exist. The human world exists, the natural world exist, but for every species there is a different "world" (perspectives). Worlds are made up of individual elements. To escape perspectives one must aspire to an absolutist scientific-materialist approach whereby everything is reduced from what it is [regarding that about it which is pertinent, necessary to, its perspective-having] down to a common... perspective. Even absolutist materialistic science cannot escape having a perspective.

What therefore is the point of trying to escape a perspective? The point of doing that is to increase one's perspective, not do away with it. But ultimately not I nor anyone else is able to fully comprehend the perspective of a tree, or of an ant, or of any other being in this universe which has a perspective. We might reduce such beings down to an understanding of their molecules [some of those molecules anyway] yet that is only going to give you a molecular-level understanding.

No matter how great an understanding of molecular science you have, you are not going to look at the brain at the molecular level and locate where an idea is. Ideas can only be understood at the level of ideas.

You said that objectivity has no regards for anything but the objective, and then you called the world the objective in the case of philosophy. I would counter this with the fact that "objectivity", if you can even find a meaningful way to use such a concept, which I do not see how you can considering you have already stated you will not use absolutes, has no regards for anything at all in the same way that impersonal forces such as gravity or impersonal mechanisms such as natural selection have no regards for anything. If there is such a thing as objectivity in the strict sense, then by definition it could not have regard for anything because it could not have a perspective.

Of course I agree with the part of your statement that we should try to analyze the world more objectively rather than merely looking at our own interests and benefit, but this is not mutually exclusive. Knowledge does not collapse into utility. But neither can utility be ignored or downgraded for the sake of some metaphysical quasi-religious ideal of 'seeking the absolute objectivity'.
Who said we should or can escape our subjectivity?
We cannot.
But our perspective is not equal to all other perspectives, but only in relation to world.
world determines which perspective is more or less accurate, more or less profound.
Some perspectives have a deeper, perceptual-event-horizon....for example a dog's perspective is shallow, deals in short term projections, judgments....humans have a temporally longer perception. They interpret more intricate patterns, projected into longer periods of space/time.
This is both mankind's advantage and its burden. This is why humans can suffer more profoundly, mentally, whereas dogs do not.
Man can suffer from what may happen, or what is projected as most probably will happen.
We measure our perspective's quality by continuously comparing it to the world beyond our perspective.

There are three ways to do so:
1- First person - application of theory, and the facing of the consequences - cost/benefit.
2- Second person - application by another, and our evaluation of his cost/benefits - requiring empathy.
3- Philosophical method - the most difficult - the juxtaposition of theory, ideas, to the real, and the evaluation of agreement/disagreement between Idea(l) & Real.

Molecules are patterns interacting with other molecules experienced as thoughts.
Thoughts are neural webs, that trigger a cascading effect called thinking.
Neural clusters are memories, representing experiences as they occur - temporal sequences determining their interconnections in the brain.
A neural pulse (energy) flows through neural clusters (matter), triggering other clusters experienced as thinking...imagery, sensations, feelings, abstractions.

Life separates from world, to become distinct from non-living patterns.
Membrane, skin, are the ambiguous, porous, fluctuating point of separation.
Mind separates from body to become conscious - point of separation is the nervous system.
Part of consciousness separates from consciousness to become self-consciousness.
Call it an agency - a part of the brain dedicated to processing the energies produced by neural clusters.  

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
How does Beethoven's or Mozart's music "awaken remembrance by stimulating neural pathways"? How and why do the auditory patterns in music achieve this? Which patterns are stimulated?
I've already explained this.
Like visual data triggers memories in the brain.
The brain sores experiences as code - neural clusters.....triggered by neural pulses.
Each cluster is a memory, associated with an experience...an image, a feeling, a sensation, a word... One cluster triggers the next, in a cascading effect.

Same goes for smells. The neural cluster is connected to specific memories, sensations, imagery and so on.
The neural cluster is memory....and it is established by converting neural data, neural stimulation, into neural clusters of cells.
Each cell a codified piece of the whole  stimulation reduced to a form the body can process.
Translated into bio-code....neural cells that imitate the stimulation, translating it.
Colour, form, texture, tone, odour, are all translation of neural stimulation into a neural code.  

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
Your description of awakening remembrance by stimulating neural pathways could be applied to literally any stimuli, not only to music. It is too general to mean anything unless we fill in more details.
Yes...any pattern can trigger.
Music is the most abstract....but smell, another pattern, can also trigger memories, or visceral, primal, sensations.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
Except, of course, the "objective". In your view anyway, right?
Yes....and your alternative, no?
Then we can compare to an indifferent objective reality whose perspective explains shared experiences, and which one is corrupted by emotional and egoistic concerns.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:

Why would more emphasis on either exoteric or esoteric make such a difference with regard to quality and intent?
You cannot answer this for yourself?
Is it more easy to fabricate theories that refer to nothing but back to internal abstractions, or is it more difficult to gather data, construct a theory and then compare it to a world that has no intent, and no care for my theories?
If you wish to live in your own private universe the requirement are to find an external will to protect you in your state of narcissism, and then to have a creative mind to fabricate a more fascinating reality than the one confronting you, or perhaps find a more creative mind and adopt his alternate reality.

Exoteric means the data comes from sources not in your wilful control, and so not prone to your emotional, egoistic needs.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
It is easy enough to imagine two philosophers or artists, both of supreme quality and honest intent, one of whom places more emphasis in his work on the exoteric and the other on the esoteric. These are two realms to be explored, and both are required because both are always the case. Both are also necessary to our continued existence and thriving.
Supply/Demand...as long as there are fools, or needy spirits to purchase the work, the product, there will be creators feeding the market.
When dealing with the art of philosophy, things change.
The motive is not to sell, and to feed a need, because this makes of philosophy a religion, or political.
The art of philosophy is motivated by representing world, as it is, and not as the philosopher thinks it ought to be, or how he, personally, reacted to it.  
Philosophy is not psychology, though it concerns itself with this, as well.
Philosophy is not about expressing your concerns, your desires, your frustrations concerning world. Art, in many cases, just that and only that.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
Placing either exoteric or esoteric absolutely above the other [which is what you seem to be doing] would achieve nothing except to introduce a distortion, something unreal; an error, an illusion. At the highest levels of thought exoteric and esoteric converge and become "the same", but not even this highest level understanding nor the 'objective fact' of it removes the hard reality of the fact that beings such as ourselves, or any other being, necessarily possess these two aspects to ourselves, inner and outer, and are constantly mediating these together which constructs what we call subjectivity or having a perspective.
Absolute is defined as: indivisible, immutable, perfect, whole, one, eternal....not as an expression of certainty, or conviction as you do to discredit my non-absolutes position.
If you can show me one singularity...not tell me....show me, then I will abandon my positions on no-absolutes.

Motive dictates method....you place comfort, self-gratification, self-flattery, or whatever above objectivity, therefore your hierarchy of what you place above and what below is established along those lines.
You may be a caring, good friend, a fabulous artist creating art that many find relieving, inspiring....but you are still no philosopher, because you place your personal needs above objective clarity of world.
I'm making an assumption based on the direction your questioning wishes to take me.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
If by "world" you mean nature or non-living things like buildings and cars and money and whatever else, then yes of course. If by "world" you mean other people, human relationships, and society in a broad sense, then no. Other people and society are certainly far from indifferent when it comes to the intent of an artist or philosopher. The difficulty is in ascertaining that intent, as well as in reconciling the many conflicting intentions that exist. Not every artist nor every philosopher has the same intents, nor do they only have one intent but rather have many and variable intents, some of which conflict with others.
There is but one definition of world....and I take the Greek Kosmos as my guide.
World includes all....living and non-living.
Creating art to entice, to feed desire, to comfort, to express a human reaction to reality, is not the same as the philosopher's art of using symbols/words to expose reality fully and as completely as possible, no matter how damaging, insulting, frightening the revelation might be for the many.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
So the fact that a work of art imparts beauty and pleasure is irrelevant?
Are you reading what I am posting?
Art is relevant in the domain where it offers something that is needed by someone.....philosophy is the art that cares not for providing the masses with solutions, soothing escapes, beautiful alternatives, emotional expressions to relieve frustration, anxiety and so on.
You asked me what art is. I told you.
You asked me if it is relevant. I explained it.
Did I say art is irrelevant?
I said art ought not to be confused for reality, which is the domain of philosophy.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
Only representing the so-called objective reality is what is relevant? If so, then you are saying that beauty and pleasure have no value to humans outside of "representing objective reality"... and yet, beauty and pleasure are objective facts about the reality of humans.
Did I say that?
Obviously many things matter to humans that should not matter to a philosopher.
If you come to philosophy seeking what art provides for you, then you are corrupting the discipline and confusing yourself.
Humans care about many things - sex, money, image...and?
Art feeds these needs.
If you are asking if I prefer objective art to the garbage that is out there, then I say definitely, 'absolutely' yes.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
How is making us feel an affinity any different from imparting beauty and pleasure?
Like with the word 'absolute' you are confused about the word 'beauty'.
The word can be used as a metaphor for how we feel. So, someone, or something, can make you feel good, and this you call beautiful....as when you enjoy a good meal, gratifying your hunger and stimulating your taste buds, and you emphasize your pleasure by saying 'beautiful meal'.
I often use language metaphorically, based on social conventions of expression, Ebonics, or slang....but in philosophy I try to be more precise with my words, because their corruption is how Nihilism spreads and how morons fabricate their philosophies.
If pleasure is your motive, then please continue to abuse your language.
For me beauty means two things.....symmetry = order, to whatever degree we can appreciate or find it. In the realm of human beings it refers to a symmetry of organs.
Symmetry is attractive because world is tending towards chaos, and we depend upon and appreciate highly all forms of order above our own.
The other part of beauty refers to functionality, within a world in flux, and we call this proportionality. Proportionality indicates functional possibility.
So, why do we find a particular symmetry and proportionality attractive, in the context of eros?
Because it indicates a resistance to flux, and a possibility of a successful functionality, in the area of reproduction.
But we interpret and react to this intuitively, instinctively, without having to understand how or why.....just as animals are attracted to specific proportions in their own species organic configurations, indicating health and virility.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
The work of art causes us to have an experience that we call beautiful and pleasurable, and even abstract non-representative art can do this. Positivistic, symmetrical expressionistic art can lead to this experience in the viewer of that art, in which case we can infer that the experience of beauty and pleasure indicates that such art, even if you personally have no such experience in reaction to it, is harmonizing the patterns of the viewer for whom the art does produce those experiences.

On the one hand you say that art harmonizes the patterns in the mind/body, and then on the other hand you say that only certain kinds of art can do this and not others. How do you tell the difference? If one person experiences a Beethoven symphony as beautiful and pleasurable, and another person experiences a Schoenberg symphony as beautiful and pleasurable [or one person experiences a DaVinci painting as beautiful and pleasurable and another person experiences a Pollock painting as beautiful and pleasurable] then we can determine that for each person the artwork harmonized their minds/bodies, regardless of how the other person, or you, or anyone else, might not achieve that same harmonization.
I am either not explaining myself well, or you are failing to understand what I am saying...the other alternative is that you came here with an agenda.
Let me begin from the start...
There are two needs. We wrongly call them both by the same name, confusing ourselves.
I'll call one need and the other desire.

Need is the experience of flux; existence as dynamic unities, made up of patterns in relative balance we experience interactivity, or change, as attrition.  
Attrition requires fulfillment, or replenishing of energies. If left un-gratified it becomes suffering/pain. This is our experience of our own deconstruction.
Needs can satisfy and leave excess energies, after growth has been dealt with....we store this as fats, or as nervous energy on stand-by.  
The brain is the organ that drains us of most of our energies.
These excessive energies are called libidinal, and have evolved to grow and to reproduce the organism.
These energies can accumulate....and put stress on the organism. In fact these energies are stress.
The organism feels the desire to expunge them, to rid himself of them.

So, art has two functions - to satisfy needs and to expunge desires....mostly the second because art is the product of excess.
It is excess energies directed towards creativity, rather than growth and pro-creativity.
art is always produced from excess energies.....as is reproduction only possible if both male and female, but female more so, has all her psychical need met.
Females whoa re too stressed, or malnourished stop menstruating.
Philosophy is also the product of excess, as it is but another art-form....the highest.

The element of expunging repressed energies is fundamental in music, but in art in general.
This is why it is so pleasing...and why we are prone to be moved to dance, or to cry, when we hear a song.
The music resonates and harmonizes with our biological processes our metabolism, and it triggers expunging of stress; feelings, emotions, images, are triggered.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
It is not possible to prescribe universal aesthetic reactions to art. There is no "morality" here, there is simply which art causes which sort of reaction and experience in which viewers, and how and why. There are tiers and degrees, because some art is more universal than others in producing certain kinds of responses/experiences, but no art is totally universal in this way. Individuals are simply too different from one another for there to exist a universal artwork that produces the same reaction and aesthetic experience in everyone.
No morality - reality.
Art is either connecting mind to world, or engaged in disconnecting mind from world...and this disconnecting, and offering of an alternate world, is felt as relief, as pleasure...and called beautiful.

Why does one person like beef and another prefers chicken?
Partly it is upbringing and the conventional, usual source of ingesting the same nutrients.
The same nutrients are involved...this is their similarity the genetic factor....but from what source and in what combination and in what way they are prepared,a nd even presented, is determined by environmental circumstances.
Genes <> Memes.

Why does one prefer Mozart and another Beethoven....again....Genes<>Memes....both respond to the patterns, because an organism is a unity of patterns.
The preference is them determined by upbringing, conventions, and primarily, but the specific tones of the particular artist - what rhythms, melodies he is known for and resonate specifically with the metabolism of the individual.
So, we have genes determining our needs/desires (nature), and memes, or environment, determining what source and what conventions, preparation, presentation this source will take.  
If a man prefers to eat feces, this is an anomaly....that must be explained genetically in combination with environmental effects....like homosexuality is a corruption of the reproductive process.
Whether you prefer a woman who is slim, or more plump is due to conventions and personal desires, with a commonality in proportionality - 7/10 rule for women  their hip to waist ratio...symmetry. Already explained.
Sex evolved for reproduction.
How the genders dress, to accentuate their genetic markers is a matter of memetics.
What music triggers in them the sexual impulse is established by memetics in combination with the particularities of the individual's organic metabolism - genetics.  

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:

What kind of "patterns"? A wave is a pattern. When two waves converge they do not attract or repulse each other, they temporarily combine to produce a meta-wave that is the sum of each of them. Two waves that happen to be more similar to each other do not converge differently than do two waves that happen to be more dissimilar to each other. The "harmony" between the waves is irrelevant with regard to their not "attracting or repulsing".

Saying "all is pattern" is the sort of absolutist overly generalized statement that borders on being truistic. Yes certainly, for anything that exists we can necessarily say about it that it embodies or possess or is some sort of "pattern", simply based on the definition of what a pattern is. But, so what? That is basically saying nothing at all except that we know how to define what pattern means.
I've already defined the word 'absolute' as I use it.
What I am offering is a theory...not absolute truth. I fyou have a better one to explain reality and its multiple manifestations then the rules of natural selection apply.
What is my theory?
A perspective all can validate and test, or their own.
A hypothesis, using language which must use absolutes to describe non-absolute states...therefore metaphorical.

What is pattern?
Another word for order-ing.
All is not pattern, as that would mean a singular pattern, and it does not include random oscillation/vibrations, called chaotic.
Your assumption fails on two counts.
A pattern is a repeating, consistent, predictable oscillation = energy, dynamism.
Oscillation of what? Nobody asks a String theorist what is a string,.....for it is vibration, and the string is used as a metaphor because the brain cannot conceptualize fluidity without a static point.

An ocean wave is made of water particles....patterns. There are other elements in there, but we'll keep it simple, because you can only process simplicity.
These are in congruence.  
Oscillation/Vibration is a wave. If it grows its range of effect, its attractions/repulsion range, or its power, the range of spatial possibilities it covers is larger - its range expands in space (dimension).

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
Again, what kind of vibrations, what kind of patterns? Can you give specific examples? I just gave a specific example of waves, this applies in waves in water or waves in the air or waves in solid mediums. The waves clearly are patterns that do not attract or repulse based on any "harmony" between them.
What is osculating is space, where space is defined as possibility.
Space = possibility
Energy/Matter = probability - ordering.
The point of interaction establishes the point that is made past...experienced by humans as a point in space/time.  

Oscillations./Vibrations are waves.
For them to become perceptible they must grow to cover spatial possibilities the organism can interpret.
One wave can interact with another wave.
A wave in water, of water, can interact with a wave of oil.

Wave is the oscillation/vibration reaching a level the human sensual organ can be stimulated by, via a medium - light, or atmosphere: water wave interacting with air, producing air waved, stimulating sense organ cells, translating this stimulation to neural pulse and so on...

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
As far as I can tell so far, you are merely taking a few obvious truisms and maximally generalized statements and combining these with obfuscating mystifications and then combining all of that with absolute moralistic statements. I see no connection between any of these endeavours of yours, nor any real value in them. But I am open to being convinced otherwise.
Metaphysics is a side-matter, because as you said, it delves into mystification because the mind cannot grasp existence below or above the level of the apparent.
Metaphysics is given in combination with physics.
String Theory and Quantum Physics are also mystifying....this is why I've repeatedly said that philosophy ought not to add to mystification, but ought to clarify.
But people indulge in mystification to explain their desired outcomes, because they cannot support their theories in any other way.
My theories are based on the experienced world, and I offer metaphysics as an underpinning.  

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
As someone once said, you could entirely reduce a Beethoven symphony to a series of variations of changes in air pressure, but that would get no no closer to understanding what the symphony actually is.
Ha...your esoteric reactions, the emotions sensations the vibrations trigger are very subjective.
Like when injecting a drug....the experience is personal, because the brain is firing neurons, recalling imagery, sensations, memories stored in your brain.
To the drug addict these experiences are profound....because they are of his own stored memories, associated with emotions, imagery and so on.
Same thing occurs with music...it is very personal....because the specific tone, rhythm triggers specific personal emotions, feelings, imagery....

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
Again, these are blatantly truistic, obvious and maximally generalized statements. Of course consciousness interprets the world around it. Of course it is the case that an external world exists, just as it is the case that consciousnesses exist to experience and interpret things about that world which, for those consciousnesses, is 'external' [external to those consciousnesses]. Again, so what? This is Philosophy 101 stuff.
Yes, it is...and still it is denied.
My fight is against Nihilism denying basic truisms....detaching minds from reality.
I am not interested in impressing you, or making you admire me.
Who cares?

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
I asked, "We would need to go into the realm of inner human experience and self-experience: human ideas, meaning, significance, desires, impressions, how does the music work on the ‘mental universe’ in our heads?"
You ask and then state that my answers are truisms. Are you looking for a mystical experience....to have your mind blown away by an insight...go to ILP plenty of charlatans there offering just that.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:

Your Philosophy 101-ish comments in no way addressed any of what I asked.
Most of my positions are in the Adyton.
In public I offer simplified versions.
I've addressed how stimulation are converted to neural pulses and then translated into sensations, and then abstractions and so on....
If the answer does not satisfy you, then so be it.

I've written pages on genes/memes, on how the phenomenon is converted to noumenon and then back to world as interaction.... I'm not going to repeat it again.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
I guess that just means you don’t want to include a link to that here? It’s fine, since I have determined you are insane anyway and I have no interest in reading it.
Is that how you ask me to make it available to you?
Well then, I am insane and you are sane....and you need not read a thing....just feel it.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:

"Music is vibration/oscillation, via the medium of air.“

How you could think this in any way addresses the question I asked is just… incredible. I mean really.  
I explained how this stimulates the mind and corresponds to metabolism...but you are looking for magic....for mystification.

Yes....music is vibrating string, or air, producing vibrations, waves, in the atmosphere, then stimulating the ear drum, converted to neural pulses, transmitted to brain, where it triggers sensations, emotions, feelings, memories.....reacted to.  If this is not romantically idealistic enough for your feminine spirit....that's your problem.

Do you want me to tell you music is a conversation with the divine?
A magical experience with universally profound effects?
No...I am not going to lie...no matter how much you want me to.

Are patterns profoundly important?... Yes.
Is art a representational reaction to these patterns?...Yes.
Does music connect us to this cosmological fact of vibrations experiences aesthetically?....Yes.
Is all art like this?...No.
Most modern art offers us personal reactions to world, asking for an audience, to be noticed, to find agreement, a shared experience with a common reaction.  
Modern Art presents the subjective reaction to the objective world, as the preferred alternative to it....and it finds many takers.

Music cannot....because it does not deal in visuals, though it may trigger them....but is abstract. It triggers contemplation, emotion, sensation, and sexuality....in the case of primal drum beats. It does so by representing oscillation/vibration in a form the mind can experience with no cultural baggage.

AlphaRomeoOneFive wrote:
Looks like I’m done here. My gratitude to you for allowing me to probe your depths, although I regret they were found to be so… shallow. Best luck keeping up the charades you have going on this forum, I can see it has gathered you a tiny following of imbeciles and sycophants.

Know Thyself [Cult] Church of the 'Objective' [of the Non-Absolute Absolute]

Heh.
Back to the cesspool from where you came out of.
The 'depths' of shit, parasites prefer to wallow in, cannot be matched by the real world.

p.s.
Though I repeatedly explained to it that subjectivity and meaning are private, but this does not make them objectively real, this worm simply wanted to find a flaw to protect its romantic idealism.
I explained what 'meaning' means but it kept repeating the same accusatory questions, as if it wanted me to believe what it desperately projected upon me.
Did I say the average moron does not find meaning in Christianity, in fantasy, in masturbation?
No....a schizophrenic lives in a private world full of very profound, for him, meaning.
A dog lives in its own canine meaningful world. Smelling arses is meaningful to it...because ti gather data and makes connections in its head. .
Dreams can be meaningful.
Fantasies, can be profoundly moving.  

Does all meaning correspond to reality?
No!!!
They only have a private, subjective meaning, with a degree of connections to the objective world.
Some more some less in agreement to external relationships.
The map in our head is more or less in agreement to the real geography.
Never exactly....because geography shifts...all is fluid....and it depends on how up to date our map is, or how detailed it is...and so on and so forth.
So, the subjective meaning, connections between phenomena converted to neural clusters, translated to noumena, corresponds to a greater or lesser degree to external phenomena and their real relationships...or how, and to what degree, they interact.

Meaning means...how one pattern, one phenomenon relates to another.....all within a web, a matrix of interconnected relationships.
These relationships can be entirely in our head.....and meaningful to us, but meaningless to everyone else, or in the world we all share.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:48 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:25 am

Emasculated males....feminized....nihilists who find the world too little, not enough, seek in philosophy a religious experience, a spiritual insight that can make the world tolerable.
This specimen is an example of the positive Nihilist, who unlike the pure nihilist, thinks of the world as lacking the substance, the spiritual depth, to satisfy his ego.
Such types are prone to construct fantastic alternatives, to accentuate the mundane real.
They imbue every experience with profound meanings, they can only validate by alluding to some occult knowledge, some secret understanding.

They gravitate towards Abrahamism, or the alternate secular realities of Marxism, and humanism, that make of man the world itself.

If they lack the creativity, the will, to create their own meanings, profound, spiritual, deep, as they are in their own head, they are seduced by those that can.
Masters of linguistic acrobatics, a clown, find in easily impressed children, a ready audience.
This creates a symbiotic relationship of pure and positive Nihilism - one feeding into the psychosis of the other.

Mystification, ambiguity, words detached from the real, permits each to project into the mystifying abstraction their own private needs/desires.  

The specimen came seeking a mystifying, profound, explanation for my categories of art, and its qualities.
What I offered was too harsh, too obvious, too pragmatic, to compete with his desired mystification.
He came here with an agenda...to protect his mystification of art....music in particular.
He wanted to remain confounded by the emotions, the sensations, the feelings music produces in him.....he wanted to make of them more than what they are....he sought o protect his opinion of himself as deep and profound....able to find meaning is Beethoven's music that exceeds the experience of the mundane and connects him to the divine - as he defines divine.

What I offered was divine...but not in the spiritual schools of Arahamism, or humanism....because I offered a way of differentiated bad art from good art: ART from fART....jungle, sexual, music from Aryan cerebral melodies.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
AutSider



Gender : Male Posts : 1001
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:38 am

So which is it?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Satyr wrote:
A more masculine female would require the repression of your feminine side

or

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

where you agree with me that a more masculine female requires the repression of one's masculine side.

The second makes sense given what we said so far and agreed upon. The former doesn't.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
AutSider



Gender : Male Posts : 1001
Join date : 2015-04-29
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:47 am

RomeoGuy wrote:
The human world exists, the natural world exist, but for every species there is a different "world" (perspectives)

Well, from my perspective, the above means the same as:

RomeGuy wrote:
Split my head open with an axe, please

So I hope you don't mind when I proceed to act upon my perspective. Not that you'd have the time to. It'd be over very soon.

See, cowardly escapes into subjectivity can be dealt with very easily... just force it to endure the real-life consequences of its positions.

Avicenna wrote:
Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.

It's easy when it's all words.

I am faster than a cheetah.

I'm stronger than a gorilla.

I can rip a lion apart with my bare hands.

World = perspective.

Black = white.

See?

It's easy.

Applying any of that in reality, though... another matter.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:51 am

AutSider wrote:
So which is it?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Satyr wrote:
A more masculine female would require the repression of your feminine side

or

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

where you agree with me that a more masculine female requires the repression of one's masculine side.

The second makes sense given what we said so far and agreed upon. The former doesn't.

We can agree then that a more masculine female would be attracted to a less masculine male.....and if the male would want to have a relationship he would have to repress what masculinity exceeds her tolerance.

That's a typo....I made an error while typing.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:05 pm

Rat has a perspective....man has a perspective.
Rat's perspective is simpler, lacking the dimensions of the man's.

Man out-thinks rat...rat dies.

Man can know rat better than rat knows itself.

This extreme example serves to clarify how one man can differ, ever so slightly, from another, and how this slight, minute, difference, can spell the difference between dominating or being dominated, reproducing or dying without passing your genes.

We have to use the obvious to help simpletons advance to where they are in denial.
Dealing with moderns is hard work.
Like trying to reason with a child.
you begin with the simplest, the most obvious, and then gradually advance....along the way the child will balk and turn to run away.

Most of the time degenerates come here with an idea of what we are talking about....and with a ready response to expose and ridicule.
When this does not go according to plan, because they didn't quite understand the positions they dismissed, they call it 'obvious', but do they stay...no because their advantage their plan, is gone - they cannot trigger the trap.

Like this moron with art.
He thought I was saying something he could ridicule...but I wasn't so then he declared it obvious.....but did he stay to find out where it lead/
No....he ran, having lost the advantage and having failed to entrap.

Because the moron senses where I was going....from the obvious to a position about aesthetics and art post-moderns despise.
They want all art to be profound because it s[peaks of the human feelings, passions, desires, of the artist creating it....all art artists and all art is good.
This would then justify their delusion that all judgments are good - equal.
A dog's perspective is just as good as a humans....therefore a imbeciles perspective is just as profound as a genius'.
Because all can contrust a self-referential, pleasing, representation of reality.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:51 pm

What inspires man, by art, by aesthetics, by appearances is their evaluation of possibilities, or more precisely of probabilities.

The proportions of 7/10 hip to waist ratio in females is attractive, because it indicates a high probability of a successful birth.
Facial and physical symmetry is attractive because it indicates higher order, surviving the flux of existence, and therefore the probability of passing this durability to the offspring.
A view is attractive because it is an expanse of space/time promising possibilities.
A musical piece is inspiring when it harmonizes with our mental processes and expands the mind into possibilities - the mind taken by the music means the mind lets loose its repressed feelings, memories, libidinal energies.
A painting is beautiful when it is symmetrical, or when it is aesthetically appealing, proportionality lighting, shapes, opening the mind to possibilities. A painting may freeze time-space in a scene, allowing us to analyze the details we miss in our daily lives, allowing our mind to consider the possibilities in every subtle little nuance.

Symmetry, proportionality, directing the mid towards unrealized potentials, towards the contemplation of higher order, perfection, completeness, the idea(l), which is missing from the world.

Creativity is the product of excess....as is pro-creativity.
The organism sustains itself in a fluctuating cosmos, directs excess to growth, when growth has reached its limit, it directs the excess energies at its disposal, towards reproduction, and in higher life forms where excess mental energies accumulate, the organism directs this excess towards creativity - art.

Sexual impulses factor in.
Masculine dispositions challenge the status quo wanting to break apart and to rearrange, and this is why science and philosophy are the product of masculine energies.
Feminine dispositions want to preserve and nurture, to be a means to an end, a muse, a lover, a mother, and this is why traditions, and families are the product of feminine energies.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:33 am

Spirituality is presented to the average masses in the form of superstitions.
Natural references presented to them in the form of supernatural symbols, rituals, traditions.
Metaphors presented as literal to those who cannot find gratification in the subtle nor comfort in the real.
Morals and wisdom presented in the form of mythological narratives to quell a trembling beast's animal reactions.

How does an adult pass-on to a child the experiences of a lifetime, in a form it can internalize?
He tells the child a story full of innuendos and insinuations; a fairy-tale full of magic and fantastic creatures.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:59 am

Past Victors, Future Vanquished
The victor presents the vanquished as a vice forgotten, and left behind.
The vanquished present the victors as a virtue recalled and returned to.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101

Back to top Go down
 
Psychology 101
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 3 of 4Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Buddhism and modern psychology
» Psychology and palm reading
» The Palm Reader who became Professor in Psychology!
» Introduction to Psychology
» DOWN SYNDROME - The language of the hands!

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: