Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Elaboration on Bottom-Up and Top-Down thought?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Slaughtz



Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 1265
Join date : 2012-04-28
Age : 26
Location : Brink

PostSubject: Elaboration on Bottom-Up and Top-Down thought? Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:26 pm

I wanted some clarification as to the nature of these organizations of thought. I'll start by explaining my understanding of these concepts.

Bottom-Up
In this type of thinking, one starts with small 'facts' of life and extrapolates from there to build a larger (even if incomplete) picture of their environment. This kind of thinking becomes a problem for someone who cannot handle the clarity (about themselves) and absence that comes with it.

Top-Down
This type of thinking, one assumes a 'larger' fact and then tries to find whether or not it is valid by extrapolating from it and attempting to find inconsistencies. For instance, one would assume that God exists and then later find inconsistencies in smaller aspects taught about God.

From what I can tell, I am usually a Top-Down thinker. I rationalize (consciously justify, upon an unconscious feeling of inconsistency/shame) the difficulty I have thinking Bottom-Up by telling myself that by assuming a criteria for a 'fact' I have therefor assumed an [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] which goes against the intuitive idea that there is no such thing. I suppose this is simply the nature of human thought itself though (one, zero) and so cannot be helped. Right...

It appears that Bottom-Up thinking is clearly the superior form to grasp the nature of what someone is experiencing. Top-Down thinking appears to have its origins in the very reason I use it, to rationalize away negative (to the person) unconscious thoughts.

Any other thoughts or elaborations to deepen my understanding of these would be appreciated.
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: Elaboration on Bottom-Up and Top-Down thought? Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:34 pm

Bottom-Up - begins with sensual stimuli, the apparent, the perceived, finds patterns in it and with this extrapolates larger rules and predicts future occurrences.


Top-Down - begins with a conclusion, the invisible, the unperceived, and then tries to incorporate the perceived within its premises....or tries to justify the projected with the perceived .
If and when it fails it does not discard the presumed, it simply dismisses the perceived as illusions or as too complex or too inconclusive to be taken into consideration, postponing judgment indefinitely.

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



Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 1265
Join date : 2012-04-28
Age : 26
Location : Brink

PostSubject: Re: Elaboration on Bottom-Up and Top-Down thought? Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:53 am

Does bottom-up involve a stripping away? A refinement? A discrimination.

Where laterality involves reconciliation. Lateral thinking. Fitting precut pieces together from bottom-up. Fitting together patterns. The attempt to bridge one idea with another and rejecting the connection if it fails, but not the pieces themselves of they are correct.

Top-down rejects the piece which fails to connect to its want and resents the lack of connection - it becomes a sore subject.
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: Elaboration on Bottom-Up and Top-Down thought? Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:27 am

Slaughtz wrote:
Does bottom-up involve a stripping away? A refinement? A discrimination.
Yes...this is what it means to begin from the base, the earthly and then advance upwards towards the more airy, towards the mind, consciousness.
A refinement of consciousness.
Increasing discrimination - perception of divergence, of differences.  
This is what is meant by "bringing it down to earth" = connecting the mind, through symbols/words to the empirically, experienced phenomenon.
Using language to connect the noumenon with the phenomenon - with behaviour, in organic life, or with interactivity.  

The earth is not abandoned, for it grounds us.
Feet on the earth, connected with symbols/words, and then advancing upwards, towards the future, the yet to be, the idea(l).
Self becomes a conduit, a link in this connection of earth and heaven, metaphorically speaking.
The idea(l) is based on the earthly.
Nihilistic detachment is the floating up into the heavens, the idealistic universe of mind, where everything and anything goes, because there is no reality, no grounding to limit options.
The idea(l) no longer refers, relates to the real.

Slaughtz wrote:
Where laterality involves reconciliation. Lateral thinking. Fitting precut pieces together from bottom-up. Fitting together patterns. The attempt to bridge one idea with another and rejecting the connection if it fails, but not the pieces themselves of they are correct.
Like building a house, with stones, or trees.
One has to fit them perfectly, otherwise the structure will fall.
The breadth of the structure is determined by the breadth of your mind - your intelligence, motives, desires.
But the necessity to build in harmony with the world, like the house must be placed on the earth, as it is.
The geography determining the structure.  
Metaphysics is a digging a foundation to solidify the building that will rise from the earth, upwards.
Patterns must fit together, like bricks/stones have to be fit together. But the stones will not be chiselled, but found in the world, in the environment.
Reforming data to fit into a desired shape, is what moderns do.
Pagans find the materials already made by the environment, and fit them together. It's a more difficult, painstaking process.
Much easier to find a stone and then break it into whatever piece suits your needs.
Pagan process is more organic.
Bottom<>Up thinking, paganism, tries not to shape the stones, or trees, but only harvest them as they were made by nature.
If some human intervention is necessary one does not forget that it has occurred, to later believe that the perfect stone, or the perfect tree was found to fit perfectly.
One keeps a mental ledger of his actions, so that he never forgets what and how he intervened.
we live in an age where we've forgotten (lethe) what words referred to, or how they were used metaphorically. Most believe the metaphor is literal.
Like how moderns forget what was there when they build cities, paved the ground over, created these manmade structures. they forget nature before man's intervention.  

Slaughtz wrote:
Top-down rejects the piece which fails to connect to its want and resents the lack of connection - it becomes a sore subject.
Top<>Down begins with the conclusion and works backwards trying to find in the real validations of its already-made objective.
If it fails it fabricates an alternate reality, insisting that it is more 'real' than the experienced, or it projects into reality the fabrications that are missing, lacking.
It starts with the idea(l), up in the air, the mind....it only exists in the mind.
Then it tries to place it on the earth - to ground it.
So, it selectively chooses data, breaks apart reality until something in agreement with the already made conclusion is shaped.
It selectively, and partially samples reality.

In more extreme cases of Nihilism, the idea(l) is contradicted by the real, or it contradicts the real...and yet it is not abandoned.
The ideal remains ideal, with no grounding, no references in the world.  
Such idealism needs followers, to substantiate a ideal that has no reality.
The more that share this mental fabrication the more it is 'real' in their minds.  
External references, in world, are replaced by references to other minds.
They always refer and defer to other mental constructs, like philosophy or religious books, or famous minds.
Lacking a earthly grounding they are forced to seek validation in other minds.
They usually choose an established popular text, like the bible, the Quran, the Torah....Abrahamism is most guilty of applying this method.
Then they find an icon.
Abrahamics have their Jesus and Mohamed...the mother Judaism, denounces images and idols remaining entirely abstract.

But other icons can be used, such as Marx, Lenin, Nietzsche is a big one among modern males.
It could also be Hitler, or a rock star, or a movie star.
Someone who is preferably dead, and so cannot contradict the worshipper's  idealization of them.
Someone who is thought to embody the idea(l). A dead man is an idea I the mind of those who recall him.
The more unreal the idea(l) the more supernatural, surreal, the embodiment.  
The icon becomes more than extraordinary. He or she becomes divine.
Divine = noumenon.
The mere mentioning of his name is validation of what is being presented.  

With no grounding in the real, no references to world to validate an opinion, the Top<>Down idealist compensates with mysticism.
In such nihilistic "philosophy" it's all psychological in orientation because it has no meaning outside the mind - psyche.
It is 'esoteric', as they call it.
You usually have specialized jargon, to lend it that credence of the magical....sometimes it is accompanied with specific wardrobes, or rituals.
It's all psychological manipulation, seduction, exploitation.
Nihilism can only be noetic - ideology, religion, and its philosophy can only be psychology, politics.

The more nihilistic an ideology is, the more Top<>Down, the more it seduces, promises, threatens, manipulates psychology; refers to mind, to psyche, because it only exists as a mental construct, an idea(l), that affect the physical, the body, via the brain.

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




PostSubject: Re: Elaboration on Bottom-Up and Top-Down thought?

Back to top Go down
 
Elaboration on Bottom-Up and Top-Down thought?
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Just thought i'd throw this out there..
» A word in your ear:Thought
» Wierd thought
» Thought for the day.
» Seeking Mrs. Wendy Bell

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