What do you REALLY think?

[Nauseous]

Is everyone capable of real thoughts?

I see people at the store and at work and well, fucking everywhere and I think to myself, "I wonder what the most impressive thought or idea (to me) they have had or will have was/will be.

I was just thinking about the fact that I haven't been very many places and how I should get in my car today and drive somewhere. But then I was like, "what for?" I mean, so I can say I've been to some other state? If I bought a plane ticket, I can say that I've been to some other country. So what? Is travelling something that we do just so we can show people pictures and gloat that we've been somewhere they haven't?

Regardless of where I go, we're all fucking human. I'm going to run into varying degrees of humanity, but we all need to eat, drink, shit, and piss to survive...

So going somewhere else and seeing something I haven't seen... is that going to bring some great epiphany? I doubt it. It's all in your head. The way that you experience everything that happens is all in your head.

I guess it all boils down to the way that we look at things. I have a tendency take everything at face value. I see no magic because I take the luster out of everything with my overt realism.

We aren't great beings. We don't have special powers. I wish I was a child again for so many reasons, but mainly because we had the unique ability to pretend. Oh shit! I miss pretending the most. If I could pretend again, all would be right with the world because I could just "pretend" it was.

This is why I decided that I'm going to take a bunch of opiates today and go places in my head. Who needs planes, trains, or automobiles. At least here, I won't get the runs from drinking the water... actually, I might not shit for days...

[canine_STD]

The way that you experience everything that happens is all in your head.

Yes, but the way experience is constructed in your head is through language. Try having a thought without having to internally explain it to yourself.

No languages = no thoughts
Different languages = different thoughts
Different thoughts = different cultures

It's worth travelling to experience how different cultures do things and how they percieve the world instead of staying at home amongst people who talk the same language as you, think the same thoughts as you and do the same things as you - because the language wont let them do any differently.

[Nursey]

Well, there is the language of symbols which is primal and universal. It is the language of the subconscious as demonstrated by dreams.

[canine_STD]

Symbols are a language, but are not universal, and like any language is arbitrary and has to have its meaning negotiated within a culture.
Icons, on the other hand, are universal through their likeness to their signified objects but are not a language, as icons can be read, but don't need to be written; for example, the childish game where you lie on your back and look for objects in the clouds. They don't mean anything, unless you're some religious nut who thinks god is communicating through shapes in the clouds.

http://img159.exs.cx/img159/408/female5kd.png
A symbol of a woman. Looks nothing like one, and we have to learn its meaning.

http://img159.exs.cx/img159/2503/abwoman1an.jpg
The little "C" shapes in this image symbolise women in aboriginal cultures. It looks nothing like a woman, and its meaning has to be learned.

http://img159.exs.cx/img159/3843/woman5yf.jpg
An icon of a woman, looks like one, we can recognise it and don't need to learn it. But it isn't part of any language.

[Dubya 2.0]

Ooooh, check out Canine, professor of social anthropolgy...I'm impressed!

*doffs flat cap*

[Nursey]

Well i'm no expert, but as i understand it, some symbols are universal due to the fact that as humans, we all have certain psychological reference points in common, eg. up/down, inner/outer, masculine/feminine, and objects such as sun, stars, moon, and snakes/serpents feature significantly in the human psyche too. This would explain why certain symbolism crops up again and again in diverse cultures which are unlikely to have made any contact.

Some people believe that some symbols have a universal range of meaning; that is, like C. G. Jung, they believe that some symbols occur with the same meaning across individual and cultural boundaries. These universal symbols are often called archetypes, especially by followers of Jung. While there is much evidence to support the existence of universal symbols, or archetypes, one must remember that any use of a symbol is specific, and that makes its meaning specific. Just as the word "tree" used in a sentence has a specific meaning, rather than the general meaning given in the dictionary, so an archetype used in a work of art has specific meanings, rather than a general meaning one might find in a dictionary of archetypes. (Such dictionaries exist).
Archetypes include more than symbols—they also include character types, basic plots (cf. the Monomyth), scenes, and so on. Essentially, archetypes are universally meaningful, nonliteral elements in the arts and culture. Source (http://web.umr.edu/~gdoty/classes/concepts-practices/symbolism.html)
Dreams and Symbolism (http://userpages.umbc.edu/~dtwine1/symbolism.html)
Understanding dreams also means understanding the symbolism that they put forth. Because of the vast array of symbols that dreaming can produce, it's easy to see how one can get confused.
Erich Fromm studied the symbolic nature of dreams for years. He concluded that dreams produce their own kind of language; a symbolic language. Fromm saw dream symbolism as having it own grammar and syntax. He also put forth the theory of symbolic language as universal. He stated that the dreams that we dream today are written in the same language as in the past, say Ancient Egypt or Greece. This language is not ruled by time or space as it is in our waking lives, rather it is bases on inner experiences, feelings, and thoughts. Feelings and thoughts may be personal from one person to another, but the end result - the emotion - is universal.
Fromm goes on to categorize the different kinds of symbolic language. He breaks it down into three categories: the conventional, the accidental, and the universal symbol.
The most widely recognized of the three symbols is the conventional symbol. It is used in everyday language. The best examples to use are our own words. We associate words, whether written or spoken, to objects. If you say the word "pencil" or write the word "P-E-N-C-I-L," you are associating it with the object using the language of symbolism. There is no real relation between the pencil and the word or the sound that is made. We are taught as children a spoken language to help us to associate and communicate in our environment, using these symbols. Pictures can also have this kind of effect. If you see a United States flag, you are given a direct symbol of the country. There is no direct relation between the colors and the actual country; rather they were given that association as one of the concepts of the country.
The accidental symbol is the opposite of the conventional symbol, except that both of them have do direct physical relationship between the symbol and that which it symbolizes. The main difference, on the other hand, with an accidental symbol is that it is very personal to the person that makes the association. If something very bad happen on a street corner, a person may associate that street corner with bad feelings. The street corner is neither good nor bad in reality; rather it symbolizes the mood of the person who experienced something there. This is true with other places, objects, and sounds. Many couples that are romantically involved say that have a song that they call "our song." It carries a special meaning to them because it may have been playing the first time they met or kissed. In contrast, that same song may bring painful thoughts to some one whom has lost a love. The song was not written for them, and has no direct correlation; yet it symbolizes the emotions felt when it originally was heard.
The universal symbol contrasts from the other two because it carries an intrinsic relationship between the symbol and what is being symbolized. Take into consideration the previous examples. The word "pencil" would be meaningless to us if we never saw a pencil, as would the emotion surrounding a street corner if we never had stood at one. Universal symbols are rooted in basic human experiences. Fire is a good example. It has properties that are universal. It has an abundance of energy, it has excitement, and it is hot. It draws many universal moods, such as brightness, passion, movement, or grace. Water is another universal symbol. While is also can carry similar moods of movement and aliveness, it symbolizes more heaviness, slowness, or a more comforting feeling than excitement.
Taking these three kinds of symbols into consideration, we can begin to deconstruct dreams using symbolic language. It is still, however, a challenge to understand our dreams. We may never be able to come up with a concrete answer for everything that goes through our minds while we sleep, but understanding how we understand symbolism is a giant step to understanding what we dream.

Fundamentals of Symbolism (http://www.agdei.com/Universal%20Symbols.html)
According to J.A. Laponce of the University of British Columbia, the dot or the point is the grapheme of the first order for all men. It establishes identity. The line as the point's extension in space follows this fundamental mark. According to Laponce, developing these notations leads to the idea of lines that separate, direct, or establish a boundary. 5 The finger painting, to the left, by a five year old boy serves as an example of this proto symbol. In it we see the primordial dot, painted in jewel like red, surrounded by circles emanating outward. The dot signifies the "self", or organizing principle of this individual child while the rings establish the distinct layers of protection and containment. 6 Whereas it may be presumed that the child had no conscious intention of manifesting his psychic individuality in producing this image, the same configuration is seen, consciously depicted in the 1957 painting by Afred Jensens, on the right. This picture is titled, "My Oneness Universal Color" and subtitled "Self Identity" - Self Integration."
Historically, this configuration, the dot surrounded by one or more circles, would indeed appear to be the most ancient and perennial of all human symbols. It appears as a recurring motif in the monuments of all civilizations. The image to the left is of one of many Neolithic (3000 BC) cult symbols unearthed in Northern Spain. Shown below are similar configurations to be found elsewhere around the world. While there are no written records as to the exact meaning of the ancient European, American or Australian symbolic representations, in the East, this symbol is amply explained. It is the classic Mandala, a circle or circles surrounding a point or dot known as the Bindu which represents the point of union between the individual self and the divine self.7
The phenomenon represented by the Mandala, ie., the union of the individual consciousness with the divine reality at the core of its being, is fundamental to Oriental philosophy, especially the Vedanta that evolved from the ancient Upanishads. The Vedanta teaches: "1 ) that man's real nature is divine. If, in this universe, there is any underlying Reality, a Godhead, then the Godhead must be omnipresent, If the Godhead is omnipresent, it must be within each one of us and within every creature and object. Therefore man in his true nature is God. 2 ) That it is the aim of man's life on earth to unfold and manifest his Godhead, which is eternally existent within him. But hidden." 8

Labyrinths are linked to Mandalas (http://www.crystalinks.com/labyrinths.html) - sanskrit for 'circle that contain the Essence'. Like mandalas, labyrinths are archetypal collective symbols that transcend all cultures because they are grounded in consciousness itself.
http://www.crystalinks.com/labyhopired.gif
Hopi Round Labyrinth
http://www.crystalinks.com/labygkcoin.gif
Cretan labrynth
Magical symbols
(http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefsmagicalsymbols.htm)The Circle is the most common and universal signs, found in all cultures. It is the symbol of the sun. It has no beginning or end, and no divisions, making it the perfect symbol of completeness, eternity, and the soul:
The equal armed cross, or Tau cross, another nearly universal symbols, is in actuality two separate signs:
the vertical axis, representing man, the path from earth to heaven, and the spirit:
and the horizontal axis, representing the path from birth to death, and material existence:
When the two are combined in a cross shape, they represent the cube of space, the four elements, and the conflict between matter and spirit. (The maxim 'squaring the circle' is a hidden reference to the difficulty of reconciling spiritual and material concerns.) A cross within a circle forms a solar cross or a horoscope wheel, both symbols of spirit and matter. A horizontal bar within a circle is the alchemical symbol for salt, material existence in its most exalted state. The equal armed cross is often disguised as a four petalled flower, a cube, or a scepter)
The Tau cross is a similar device, with a horizontal bar balanced atop a vertical bar. It represents birth, the tree of life, the connection between earth and the spiritual realm. The tau cross is associated with sacrifice of the lower, base nature. Some examples of the Tau cross are the cross of Attis <http://altreligion.about.com/library/graphics/bl_attis.htm>, the egyptian Ankh (surmounted by a loop or circle), and the Norse Irminsul.
The arc found in more complex symbols, especially planetary symbols, represents ascension or striving. The sigils of the planet saturn and Jupiter combine identical symbols, with very different results, using the arc in conjunction with the cross. In the sigil of Jupiter, the arc of aspiration rises above the struggle of matter and spirit, and symbolizes bounty, triumph, expansion, and success. Saturn's sigil places the cross above the arc- ascension subverted by the material struggle, and a symbol of Saturn's power to limit and confine:
The crescent represents the powers of the moon- reflective and receptive. A reversed crescent represents emptiness and illusion.
The downward pointing triangle is sometimes referred to as the chalice. It is the symbol of water (as it flows downward), the grace of heaven, and the womb.
The upward moving triangle is sometimes called the blade (the chalice and blade figure ceremonially in many ritual magic operations). It is a symbol of aspiration or rising up, male force, and fire.
When combined, the triangles of fire and water form a potent symbol of balance and divine union. In western tradition, it is called the Seal of solomon, and the symbols for air and fire are derived from the combination of water and fire. It is an important symbol in hinduism and buddhism as well, where it also represents the divine union, or perfect balance of male and female energies. Kabbalistically, it is the sign of resurrection and completeness. Occasionally, this conjunction forms a diamond shape.
Next: The Egg, the eye, and the serpent
The philosophical or cosmic egg is another nearly universal symbol. Alchemically, the egg is a symbol of the cosmos, as it is in a multitude of folk legends. In Hindu cosmology, it is the source of the universe. The egg as a container of the universe is found in many ancient religions. The egg symbolizes birth and potential. It contains within a miniature sun, and it features prominently in solar mythology. The gods Vishnus, Phanes, Mithras, are all "egg born."
The serpent plays an important role in every culture. It plays a dual role, both as a symbol of wisdom and of evil. A snake is a lowly creature who cannot leave the ground, making it a symbol of base desires and material entrapment. However, even the lowliest serpent sheds its skin and renews itself, becoming a token of resurrection. As a sexual symbol, the snake can represent the energies of the universe, or base human desires and lust. As a symbol of spiritual power, it represents the awakened self.
The serpent is most often related to sexual energies, which can be harnessed for spiritual purposes, or can overwhelm the spirit. Serpents depicted symbolically on a vertical axis nearly always represent sexual energy- the twin serpents of the cadeceus, the kundalini serpents, the alchemical crucified serpent, and the serpent of Genesis are all symbols of the sexual nature of man. In the Judeo-Christian allegorical story of Adam and Eve, the serpent represents the dual nature of sexual energy, which can either entrap or release the spirit blah blah blah.
vishnu serpent/naga/uraeus/cadeceus/ouroboros
Another form of serpent symbol is the Ouroboros. The ouroboros is found in alchemy, in ancient Egyptian, Greek and Gnostic texts, in Norse mythology, and even Aztec icons. The ouroboros is a serpent swallowing its own tail, and usually describes a circle, although a lemniscate shape is also common. It is a symbol of eternity, rebirth, and resurrection.

[canine_STD]

But these diverse cultures that have never had any contact have all experienced gravity (up & down), have noted the difference between in & out and male & female. They have all seen the sun, stars and the moon. If you can think of a geographical location that has no snakes and research that area's native population, they'll have no paintings of snakes, no songs about them and no folk tales about them - because they haven't seen them and don't know they exist.

Eric Fromm's theory of a universal, symbolic dream language can be explained the same way. Any object in your dreams that contains any meaning, has its meaning put there by you, through your own experiences (as a member of a culture). Their meaning can be one which is common to your culture, which would make it a symbol, or it could be a meaning which is distinct to you which wouldn't make it anything, as a language only you understand isn't really a language at all as it communicates nothing.
Put basically, any shared meanings in dreams are constructed outside of dreams, within your culture, and then feature in your dreams. Like the shared symbolic meanings of snakes, like in the Adam & Eve story - It doesn't take much imagination to think of a poisonous, territorial hunter which can kill people as evil; it's fairly obvious and completely comprehendible that most primitive cultures that encounter them will depict them in similar ways. Again, it doesn't take much imagination to read an egg as meaning birth and potential - but anyone who has never seen an egg would not read it as meaning this; they have to learn its meaning which they would from either experience or through their culture.

The "Magic Symbols" that are universal aren't symbols, they're icons that appear naturaly (circles squares eggs and sqiggly lines). True symbols aren't universal - like our alphabet.

That's the only difference between icons and symbols - denotation and connotation. All connotations have to be learned, through either experiance or through culture.

[Dubya 2.0]

I thought this thread was about how Nauseous has no joy in her heart?

Kudos to The Nursey and The Canine tho, top drawer intellect there people, a good thread...

[canine_STD]

Yeah, but I was replying to her statement that we're all the same and that seeing and experiencing new things would be pointless. I"m saying that we're not all the same, we all differ through different cultures, different languages, different religious beliefs etc. etc... and that I believe nothing is universal (that one may upset nursey :D).

[Nauseous]

Again..."Regardless of where I go, we're all fucking human. I'm going to run into varying degrees of humanity, but we all need to eat, drink, shit, and piss to survive..."

Point being that underneath it all we are the same. We all bleed. Our brains are made out of the same substance, etc.

I know culture/language/religion shape us. That's a given. My point is no matter where you go, you're going to run into people (humans). We don't look, act, think, or believe the same, but biologically we are very similar and we all have varying degrees of the emotions (love, hate, fear, excitement... you get the point).

We're given so much biologically and the rest is up to us.

All I was really doing with this thread was thinking out loud. I seem to have this urge to do something--experience something when in reality, if I try hard enough, I can go somewhere else without ever moving. The mind is a terrible thing to waste. We rely too much on visual stimuli.

I didn't mean to make travelling sound so pointless. I was just talking myself out of taking a daytrip and justifying a day of drug-induced stupor.

I'm glad I started a debate though... :P

And I feel like Dubya is one of "those" people. It seems all he can do from thread to thread is throw in a random comment.

[canine_STD]

I was just talking myself out of taking a daytrip and justifying a day of drug-induced stupor.
I wouldn't have thought that would need much justification.

[Nursey]

...that one may upset nursey.
Why? I'm not sentimentally attached to the concept.
I agree with what you're saying (about language and the value of broadening horizons), apart from 'nothing being universal'.

"But these diverse cultures that have never had any contact have all experienced gravity (up & down), have noted the difference between in & out and male & female. They have all seen the sun, stars and the moon."

I don't see how that is in disagreement with/negates this comment:
[i]"some symbols are universal due to the fact that as humans, we all have certain psychological reference points in common

When i say 'universal' i am meaning to us as a species, not universal in terms of inclusion of any hypothetical extra-terrestrials. And as a species we are all subject to certain fundamental laws of existence. I did cloud the issue a bit by adding the 'magical symbols' quote. But the Fundamentals of Symbolism (http://www.agdei.com/Universal%20Symbols.html) and Labrynths are linked to Mandelas (http://www.crystalinks.com/labyrinths.html) links demonstrate the principle of symbols which are inherent/relevant to us all.

[smiles]

Is everyone capable of real thoughts?

I see people at the store and at work and well, fucking everywhere and I think to myself, "I wonder what the most impressive thought or idea (to me) they have had or will have was/will be.

I was just thinking about the fact that I haven't been very many places and how I should get in my car today and drive somewhere. But then I was like, "what for?" I mean, so I can say I've been to some other state? If I bought a plane ticket, I can say that I've been to some other country. So what? Is travelling something that we do just so we can show people pictures and gloat that we've been somewhere they haven't?

Regardless of where I go, we're all fucking human. I'm going to run into varying degrees of humanity, but we all need to eat, drink, shit, and piss to survive...

So going somewhere else and seeing something I haven't seen... is that going to bring some great epiphany? I doubt it. It's all in your head. The way that you experience everything that happens is all in your head.

I guess it all boils down to the way that we look at things. I have a tendency take everything at face value. I see no magic because I take the luster out of everything with my overt realism.

We aren't great beings. We don't have special powers. I wish I was a child again for so many reasons, but mainly because we had the unique ability to pretend. Oh shit! I miss pretending the most. If I could pretend again, all would be right with the world because I could just "pretend" it was.

This is why I decided that I'm going to take a bunch of opiates today and go places in my head. Who needs planes, trains, or automobiles. At least here, I won't get the runs from drinking the water... actually, I might not shit for days...


nauseous, if you take that sort of cynical approach and apply it to basically any other aspect of life you'll come to the same conclusion, not because that is necessarily the case but because your logic is rather faulty
to say that traveling to another part of the world (not 200k to go eat at a different macdonalds) won't bring about any great change in you is a fair statement because in all likelihood you'll come back the same old nauseous with some new and fun memories, but to assume that everyone everywhere thinks alike and is only capable of thoughts as advanced as your own is a little more then just egocentric, and likewise to suggest that there is no place on earth which can show you a different way of thinking or perceiving reality in general is all but the definition of ethnocentric, now i'm not trying to belittle you in any way, you're in a slump and that shit happens but when you have such a short time on this earth to shoot the shit can you really afford to be too lazy and afraid to expose yourself to something new, maybe even go somewhere where you would be ridiculed for your lifestyle, where doing things you've accepted as normal and routine would be considered extreme or perhaps even eccentric

[Dubya 2.0]

...And I feel like Dubya is one of "those" people. It seems all he can do from thread to thread is throw in a random comment.

What's random anout you having no soul?

[canine_STD]

I don't see how that is in disagreement with/negates this comment:
"some symbols are universal due to the fact that as humans, we all have certain psychological reference points in common
I was just trying to base my comment in the fact that common understandings between different cultures are based in the material world. That wasn't an argument in itself.

When i say 'universal' i am meaning to us as a species, not universal in terms of inclusion of any hypothetical extra-terrestrials.
But the people you are quoting are using the word universal to mean exclusive and total - they're refering to include every human on this planet. So when they say "universal symbolic language" they mean a symbolic language which is understood by everybody. I can't agree with that, no language is universal.
Icons can be universal because they look like the things they represent. So a circle doesn't symbolise the sun, it is merely an icon of the sun and could be argued to be universal because almost anybody can note the similarities between a circle drawn on paper and a huge burning circle in the sky. Chimps and Parrots would be able to note the similarities.
Where a circle would become symbolic instead of merely iconic is, for example, the inca civilization - where they built huge circular discs from gold and hung them in their temples. These golden discs symbolised their beliefs that their rulers were descendants from the sun god. But this symolism isn't universal, christians, muslims, jews etc. don't worship the sun but would still recognise the sun as a yellow circle in a child's painting.
The people you are quoting, although mainly scholars, are misusing the word symol when they should be using icon or metaphor.

[canine_STD]

The people you are quoting, although mainly scholars, are misusing the word symol when they should be using icon or metaphor.
You know I meant symbol, and not symol.

[canine_STD]

And I also forgot to include this quote from the Fundamentals of Symbolism link you posted.
There are also conventional symbols, invented by man, such as the dove of peace, the anchor of hope or the flags of nations that may become universal through verbal explanation.

Well that's a very big maybe.

[Nursey]

But the people you are quoting are using the word universal to mean exclusive and total - they're refering to include every human on this planet. So when they say "universal symbolic language" they mean a symbolic language which is understood by everybody. I can't agree with that, no language is universal.
I mean that too (every human on the planet). But i think the difference is that what i am referring to is on a far more primal level of perception whereas you seem to be talking about our intellectual interpretation of symbols, and not the raw experience of them on a level that accesses and influences our consciousness directly by totally bypassing the intellect alltogether (which is what symbols do). Not all symbols are meaningless random squiggles that represent different things to different cultures. They are energy forms of sorts in themselves, each shape conveying different vibrations/frequencies to our psyche like a musical chord does, though via a different sensory channel. A wavey/curved shape creates a calm sense, a zig zag is much more dynamic, 'fast' visual energy form. So i repeat: "...as a species we are all subject to certain fundamental laws of existence. "
Anyone getting my point?

[Nursey]

...though music (sound waves) affects us on a more physical/instinctual (loer frequency) level than the intense high fequency of (light wave) visual stimulus, (touch being lower/denser/more physical than sound).

[canine_STD]

A wavey/curved shape creates a calm sense, a zig zag is much more dynamic, 'fast' visual energy form. So i repeat: "...as a species we are all subject to certain fundamental laws of existence. "
Anyone getting my point?
But what I'm saying is that you're taking for granted these "fundamental laws of existence", and seem to be assuming universal experiences outside of the physical world. Would a person who was repeatedly molested as a child in a room that was decorated with wavey/curvey lines feel calm if they were put into a room decorated with them as an adult? I doubt it. Personal experience dictates any meaning, the fact that we live in a 3D environmnment with gravity (and that each of us have experienced it) means we note, through our own experiences with gravity, that an upward pointing arrow reminds us of up. A person born and living in zero gravity would not recognise it. It is our perception of an upward pointing arrow that contains meaning, not the arrow itself. It certainly doesn't contain any energy.

[canine_STD]

you seem to be talking about our intellectual interpretation of symbols, and not the raw experience of them on a level that accesses and influences our consciousness directly by totally bypassing the intellect alltogether (which is what symbols do).
Symbols don't do that. That's what icons do, but again, their meaning is is constructed in the physical world and not in in the pshyche.

[Nauseous]

to assume that everyone everywhere thinks alike and is only capable of thoughts as advanced as your own is a little more then just egocentric, and likewise to suggest that there is no place on earth which can show you a different way of thinking or perceiving reality in general is all but the definition of ethnocentric, now i'm not trying to belittle you in any way, you're in a slump and that shit happens but when you have such a short time on this earth to shoot the shit can you really afford to be too lazy and afraid to expose yourself to something new, maybe even go somewhere where you would be ridiculed for your lifestyle, where doing things you've accepted as normal and routine would be considered extreme or perhaps even eccentric

AGAIN, my point was that we are all the same species. It was a very simplistic statement.

Almost daily, I am told how eccentric I am (and that's putting it nicely).

Perception is the key to who we are. It doesn't matter where you came from or where you are going.

Yes, life is very short. That's why it's safer to pretend.

[Nauseous]

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2000/mindseye.html

[Nauseous]

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:qHC6QDTN5lcJ:www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/Psychology/imitation/posters/s-preston.pdf

[Nursey]

This is quite a complex subject. Apologies for large sections of pasted text, but it will explain things better than i am capable of at this moment in time.

When i said "They are energy forms of sorts in themselves, each shape conveying different vibrations/frequencies to our psyche..."

http://www.gatewaystocreativity.com/articles_jung.html

In Jungian terms, our psyches are born encoded with the “archetypes” of the collective unconscious with which we remain uniquely connected throughout our spiritual lives. Jung’s teachings can help us to be fully engaged in life while growing spiritually at the same time. When we encounter an archetypal image, our inner lives can be animated by the energies running through that image.

...(underlined part) would be a better explanation.
http://www.mythsdreamssymbols.com/symbols.html
In discussing psychic energy he (Jung) specifically states: "The psychological mechanism that transforms energy is the symbol." (Symbols of Transformation, 1956)



http://www.mythsdreamssymbols.com/symbols.html

Because of their integrative function, symbols lend themselves to many definitions and interpretations. it is therefore doubtful whether it is possible or useful to seek any precise definition. Cirlot adopts the approach of pointing to useful insights into their nature, rather than reducing them to some formula. Thus for Lin Yu-tang symbolism has the virtue of containing within a few conventional lines the thought of the ages and the dreams of a race. It kindles our imaginational and leads us to realms of wordless thought. Commenting on this J C Cooper states that: "This thought is not that of the individual ego; the symbol cannot be created artificially or invented for some purely personal interpretation or whim: it goes beyond the individual to the universal and is innate in the life of the spirit. It is the external, or lower, expression of the higher truth which is symbolized, and is a means of communicating realities which might otherwise be either obscured by the limitations of language or too complex for adequate expression." (An Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Traditional Symbols, 1978, p.7) This certainly suggest that symbols have something to offer to the challenge of communicating paradoxical or mutually antagonistic insights as reviewed in Section KD. This is confirmed by Cooper's subsequent observation that: "Much of symbolism directly concerns the dramatic interplay and interaction of the opposing forces in the dualistic world of manifestation, their conflicting but also complementary and compensating characteristics, and their final union, symbolized by the androgyne or sacred marriage. These are expressions of the unity of life which is the central point of all traditional symbolism." (p.8).
A person born and living in zero gravity would not recognise it. It is our perception of an upward pointing arrow that contains meaning, not the arrow itself.
Which is why my statement reads "some symbols are universal due to the fact that as humans, we all have certain psychological reference points in common / are all subject to certain fundamental laws of existence. "

Jung (1953/1977) treats dream symbolism on two separate levels: the objective level and the subjective level. The first level is analytic. On this level, the dream content can be broken up into memory-complexes that refer to external situations. The second level is synthetic. In these situations, the dream contents are detached from external causes and must be treated in terms of archetypal symbols.
http://www.schuelers.com/chaos/chaos7.htm
Jung (1968) states that "In our dreams we are just as many-sided as in our daily life, and just as you cannot form a theory about those many aspects of the conscious personality, you cannot make a general theory of dreams" (p. 124). He then points out that while personal dream symbolism varies with the dreamer, universal dream symbolism is possible of interpretation. "On the collective level of dreams, there is practically no difference in human beings, while there is all the difference on the personal level" (Jung, 1968, p. 124). When analyzing a dream, Jung (1954/1985) suggests that we "renounce all preconceived opinions, however knowing they make us feel, and try to discover what things mean for the patient" (p. 157). We must take into consideration the patient's personal philosophy, religion, and moral convictions whenever we discuss dream symbolism.

i am referring to is on a far more primal level of perception whereas you seem to be talking about our intellectual interpretation of symbols, and not the raw experience of them on a level that accesses and influences our consciousness directly by totally bypassing the intellect alltogether (which is what symbols do).

Nichols (1984) says that "The pictures on the Tarot Trumps tell a symbolic story. Like our dreams, they come to us from a level beyond the reach of consciousness and far removed from our intellectual understanding" (p. 7). According to this view, the Tarot Trump cards can be interpreted in the same manner as Jungian dream analysis.

http://enchantedmind.com/html/creativity/techniques/art_of_doodling.html
It is well established that much of our creative expression is birthed in the unconscious mind. To use creative expression and solutions in your everyday life, it is necessary to dip into the unconscious at will. Doodling is one way of doing this.
Doodling allows the unconscious to render in symbolic expression. Symbols have universal as well as personal meaning. When you are stuck for an answer to a problem or looking for creative innovation, the technique of doodling will unleash the hidden symbolic powers of the unconscious mind.
Symbols are a universal means of expression. Regardless of culture or geographic location, certain symbols have similar if not exactly the same meaning across the human spectrum. Carl Jung pioneered the investigation of symbols as archetypal attributes of the collective unconscious. He realized that the universe projects itself to our unconscious minds symbolically, utilizing imagery to transmit ideas that language cannot. Symbols are the universal language.
Doodling essentially allows our intuitive feelings to express themselves in pictorial symbolic form. Interpreting these symbols can help to unveil meanings that are not apparent to our linear mind. A symbol conveys an entire thought in one image. Language depends upon a linear procession of symbols to convey a thought. While doodling, words may form themselves, and these should be accepted. But, for the most part, doodling allows the unconscious to come to the surface without judgment or critical analysis from the conscious mind.

Makes sense to me.

[Checkmate]

Does anyone else need about 7 doobies of the goodstuff to make sense of the ideas that Nursey and STD are trying to convey?

**Lights it up** Puff Puff Pass

Next!

[canine_STD]

I'm sorry nursey, but you're quoting from theorists who died hundreds of years ago. The world has moved on, people just don't swallow crap about mystical forces and sixth senses - we have science now (and have even started to move beyond that), and proper educational institutions who have debated this thing for centuries, and all of them gave up on your arguments a long time ago.

Some more apropriate and up to date reading would be something like this, it's a little simplistic without any backup, but I'll get to that:
http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-fou1.htm
We often talk about people as if they have particular attributes as 'things' inside themselves -- they have an identity, for example, and we believe that at the heart of a person there is a fixed and true identity or character (even if we're not sure that we know quite what that is, for a particular person). We assume that people have an inner essence -- qualities beneath the surface which determine who that person really 'is'. We also say that some people have (different levels of) power which means that they are more (or less) able to achieve what they want in their relationships with others, and society as a whole.

Foucault rejected this view. For Foucault, people do not have a 'real' identity within themselves; that's just a way of talking about the self -- a discourse. An 'identity' is communicated to others in your interactions with them, but this is not a fixed thing within a person. It is a shifting, temporary construction.[quote]

It's hard to find texts on the internet to link to, as all foucault's work is still copyrighted (and mainly in french!), but I have read a lot of his work and remeber salient points. Here's a short one:
[quote]people's subjectivity is constructed from within the flow of discourses.
A nice simple one - meaning (and power according to foucault) is constructed in our everyday lives through interactions with other people in different discourses (family, work, friends etc.) and the positions we occupy in those discourses are pre-determined and we shape our identites to fit them (mother, father, brother, sister, boss, secretary etc.). If you put somebody in a position within society they will adapt and change their identities to suit it. Put a nice person in a police uniform and he'll be thinking he's god and pushing black people down stairs within a week. We have no essence, no soul, we are not programed from birth, in nature vs. nurture - nurture kicks nature's butt.

I have to refuse to accept your ideas nursey, they're very old fashioned and have caused a lot of trouble in the past. Those kinds of arguments are used by the KKK, they were used as an exuse to take africans to sell into labour in cotton fields - they have no "essence" and are not human, they're beasts to be exploited! The world has moved on, I hope you do too.

[canine_STD]

OK, it's not foucault, but his work is too hard to find on the net (with copyright laws), but a lot of his work was based on the work of saussure (which isn't perfect, it's based solely on litterary texts) but you can get a general idea of what influenced him.

http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/semiotic.html

And if you can find anything from Steven Hall, read it, his work is fantastic.

[canine_STD]

A person born and living in zero gravity would not recognise it. It is our perception of an upward pointing arrow that contains meaning, not the arrow itself.
Which is why my statement reads "some symbols are universal due to the fact that as humans, we all have certain psychological reference points in common / are all subject to certain fundamental laws of existence. "

But symbols are never universal, you can say that some icons can be universal, but not symbols. And accepting that some icons can be universal due to factors in the physical, material world, you're then going off on a tangent about spirituality and energy forms. You seem to be arguing two different sides.

[Nursey]

I'm sorry nursey, but you're quoting from theorists who died hundreds of years ago.
I might not agree with all of C.G Jung's teachings, but i find his views on symbols are congruous with my own observations of personal experience, which is why i quote him so much on the subject. And he died in 1961


The world has moved on, people just don't swallow crap about mystical forces and sixth senses - we have science now (and have even started to move beyond that),

...started to move beyond that.......into what? (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tao+of+physics+quantum&hl=en&safe=off) An Einstein quote (from memory) "Anyone studying physics long enough is inevitabley led into the subject of metaphysics"

More Einstein quotes:
"The skeptic will say: "It may well be true that this system of equations is
reasonable from a logical standpoint. But this does not prove that it
corresponds to nature." You are right, dear skeptic. Experience alone can
decide on truth."
"Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world:
all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it."

The problem for science / physics is that our mind represents our senses,
that the world we see and taste and touch is different (naive real) to the
real world which causes our senses. Thus Science is inclined to be misled
because one of its truths is founded on the 'illusion' of our senses.

Metaphysics aims to overcome this problem by using reason to try and
understand what the real world is, which causes our senses (and ourselves).
And for two and a half thousand years
the great philosophers / metaphysicists have known that for matter to be
interconnected throughout the universe, then there must be one thing that
connects the many things (matter) together. That a complete description of
reality must be founded on one thing / substance.
Leibniz writes this most simply; (though I have many fine quotes on this.)

"Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the
interconnection of all things with one another." (Leibniz, 1670)

Thus metaphysics is beyond our senses because it realises that though we
don't see an obvious connection between matter, reason tells us their is
(e.g. earth orbiting sun, that we can see stars across the universe).

Further, since the time of Kant, it has become increasingly clear that we
cannot describe reality correctly (i.e. from one metaphysical foundation),
while we have theories founded on separate / discrete things. Thus Space and Time cannot both exist, nor can particles and forces (the current paradigm).
This explains why we now live in a post-modern relative culture of no
absolute truths, because our theories are founded on many things, thus at
the end of the day these are merely human constructions, ideas approximating reality, but not absolutely true.

Source (http://forum.wolframscience.com/archive/topic/214-1.html)

...and proper educational institutions who have debated this thing for centuries, and all of them gave up on your arguments a long time ago.
A little on C.G. Jung...
[i]"This chapter is concerned with the status of Freud's theorizing during his collaboration with Carl Jung, and with the mutual influence of each thinker on the other in the years following their estrangement. Jung's seven year discipleship with Freud was a turning point in his emergence as a distinctive thinker of world importance (Jung, 1961). At the beginning of his fascination with Freud in 1906, Jung was a thirty-one year old psychiatrist of unusual promise, with a gift for psychological research and a prestigious junior appointment at one of Europe's major centers for treatment of psychotic disorders (Kerr, 1993). By the time of his break with Freud in 1913, Jung was internationally known for his original contributions to clinical psychology and for his forceful leadership of the psychoanalytic movement. He was also the author of the seminal work, Transformations and Symbols of the Libido (Jung 1912), that would define his independence from that movement."
Source (http://www.haverford.edu/psych/ddavis/jungfreu.html)
With all respect and only constructive criticism intended, I find myself wondering just how much you know about the vast arena of mental health to begin with? Are you aware, for instance, that there exist vastly different schools of mental health, and that only one of these is given serious attention - and funding? The psychiatry taught in Medical School and practised here stems from an obsolete 19th century materialism, which presumes that every mental illness is chemical in origin and can therefore be simply fixed, or band-aided by the administration of more chemicals. (I point this out in a friendly fashion simply because as Minister, you are surely advised to be well-informed about the huge field of mental health in general if you are to make reliable judgments and decisions in this area?)

Are you aware that the entire school of analytical psychology, or depth psychology, founded by Freud's successor, Carl Jung is entirely ignored here as an alternative approach to mental illness? In other words, by providing more beds, hence more drugs to keep the folk in them sedated, you are seeking to renovate and keep afloat an obsolete mental health model and structure whose foundations were shaky to begin with, and whose walls are now irreversibly crumbling.

I urge you, if you are genuinely concerned about helping the desperate folk suffering from mental illness (and I don't doubt you are), take it from me - and I know because I've dealt with these people closely and felt with them their pain - these folk do not want to be drugged, incarcerated, bedridden, or left to shuffle down antiseptic corridors to the droning sound of TV sets or muzak. They deserve better - and could be offered it if you would set the pace by pioneering truly new initiatives.

If you have been informed - by members of the psychiatric or medical establishment - that there are no viable options to drugs, beds, shock therapy and incarceration, then you have been sadly misinformed. Needless to say, it is not in the interests of drug companies, or mainstream psychiatry and medicine to let you, or the public know there are alternatives which would take money out of their pockets, rob them of their prestige and monopoly over the field, and put more dignity, choice and freedom back into the hands of the suffering individual. I would be all too happy to discuss all this with you further in person.

I of course appreciate that you must also consider cost-effectiveness. Ironically enough, the alternatives I speak of would turn out to be more cost-effective, since they would not involve the provision of drugs, or beds, or long-term treatment, but would involve far more natural and drug-free alternatives, such as Jungian analysis, art therapy, dream analysis and guided visualization - all equally valid approaches to mental health.

Source (http://www.jungcircle.com/Schiz1.html)

I have to refuse to accept your ideas nursey, they're very old fashioned and have caused a lot of trouble in the past. Those kinds of arguments are used by the KKK, they were used as an exuse to take africans to sell into labour in cotton fields - they have no "essence" and are not human, they're beasts to be exploited! The world has moved on, I hope you do too.
[Smug Alabama drawl]When the truth confronts, absurdity is sure to follow.[/Smug Alabama drawl] 8)

Seriously though, that's a pretty outrageous statement! Can you explain exactly how you came to that conclusion? And what are Barry and Dr. Bungle's opinions on all this?

[pimpchichi]

Does anyone else need about 7 doobies of the goodstuff to make sense of the ideas that Nursey and STD are trying to convey?

**Lights it up** Puff Puff Pass

Next!

no..

[canine_STD]

OK, I got his date of death wrong, although he would have been perfectly situated in the middle ages.

Seriously though, that's a pretty outrageous statement! Can you explain exactly how you came to that conclusion?

There's nothing absurd or outrageous about what I said. People's belief in a soul or an "essence" has caused all sorts of terrible things in the past.

A belief that we have a destiny, has kept kings in power and oppressed the commoners for thousands of years. They all believed that god had chosen their destiny and they couldn't break free from it.

The idea that disabled people are paying for terrible things they did in a previous life.

Hitler used it as an argument to kill 6 million jews. He convinced the german people that all non-germanic races were sub-human.

And the example I used, portraying africans as having no soul turned them into animals in the mind's of the europeans, and justified the terrible things they did to them.

I don't believe my destiny is planned for me. I don't believe that I'm stuck in the same class I was born into - I can get an education, I can work hard and I can transcend classes if I wish. I don't believe that different races are somehow different from me on a humane level - that just causes stereotypes and racism.

Your idea of an inner identity, that resonates with mystical symbols is simply crap - and that's just an obversation I've noted every time I've met an arab who identifies with western cultures and doesn't hear the call of his ancestors to slay the infadels. One I've noted when I've seen disabled people who are perfectly capable of forming meaningful relationships and experiencing normal human emotions.

There is no "inner-self". You have created your identity. You are responsible for all the terrible things you've done, messages from god wont cut it as a defense these days. You are likewise responsible for all the good things you've done, god hasn't decided your personality for you.

[canine_STD]

...started to move beyond that....... into what?

It's based on the question of "what is truth?"

We moved from a phase where truth was dictated by religeous dogma, where people whole-heartedly believed what church and state told them, into a phase where people whole-heartedly believed science would reveal the "truth", and now we're beyond that. We realise truth is a personal construct (not universal) made through our own experiences, and how can science explain something as profound and complex as that? It can't.

[pimpchichi]

that's just an obversation I've noted every time I've met an arab who identifies with western cultures and doesn't hear the call of his ancestors to slay the infadels..

you know canine.. i've been reading through this thread.. taking in both sides of the argument.. thinking you both have some good points.. and have made them pretty well....

then you go make a pigshit ignorant racist remark like that..

looks like you still haven't managed to rise above your inherent north-west little englander mindset....

[canine_STD]

Well my excuse would be that it was used as an example, as something many people think and say (kilroy being a good example here) and using their own words to connect them to nursey's comments (of an inner self) and contrast them with the arabs I've met who don't fit those stereotypes. It's also a very common issue in popular culture, what with the war and everything, and Fox News' great stereotypes of Iraqis and "Insurgents".

What's your excuse for doing the same, and I won't accept that you're allowed to steretype your own kind, that's a pathetic excuse.

Although you have proven a point, that meaning is subjective, and you truthfully believed it a racist comment enough to make an absolute prick of yourself.

Stick to reading it pimp.

[pimpchichi]

"Let them turn their weapons dripping with the blood of their brothers against the enemy of the Christian Faith. Let them--oppressors of orphans and widows, murderers and violaters of churches, robbers of the property of others, vultures drawn by the scent of battle--let them hasten, if they love their souls, under their captain Christ to the rescue of Sion."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm

[pimpchichi]

What's your excuse for doing the same, and I won't accept that you're allowed to steretype your own kind, that's a pathetic excuse.

i live in BNP central... i hear comments like that all the time... and stupid bullshit justifications for them.... it's no stereotype...

[canine_STD]

You just don't get it do you pimp? It was supposed to be a "pigshit ignorant racist remark" -- that was the whole fucking point!

And if your comments about north-western englishmen aren't steroetypes, then you would be applauding the comments, not arguing with them.

I don't recall nursey calling for her pathetic lap-dog either pimp, she asked for barry and schmed I think, why not go back to your basket until you're needed?

[pimpchichi]

lap-dog?.. yeah yeah whatever

i'll leave you to your grown-up discusserising then :roll:

i so wanted to bring the DNA angle into it too

[Nursey]

I'm just sitting here thinking 'what the fuck!?' Yet again, a calm, good natured, rational debate has suddenly turned into a bizarre onslaught with hints of personal jibes and accusations that i'm like some fascist dictator...Bush the first time...Hitler this time round. How the hell is half of what you've attributed to me got anything to do with what we've discussed til now? And Barry and Dr. Bungle are as likely to disagree with me as they are to agree, i just wanted to get some extra perspectives in the debate, and Pimp has just got back after a week away and had already got intrested in the thread before you set things off on the tangent they're on now.

[canine_STD]

a calm, good natured, rational debate has suddenly turned into a bizarre onslaught with hints of personal jibes and accusations that i'm like some fascist dictator...Bush the first time...Hitler this time round. How the hell is half of what you've attributed to me got anything to do with what we've discussed til now?

No, I've been enjoying it this far, the accusations of being racist for using what are genuine opinions (of racists) in irony to try and prove a point annoyed me. I'm not likening you to hittler, I'm saying he held similar beliefs of human essence, of a soul, and he abused and misrepresented these beliefs and managed to murder 6 million people on the back of them. All I'm saying is that they're old fashioned beliefs.
I've spent the last half hour looking for a review of a film I once saw, but it wasn't a good one, and australian film scholars tend to forget of it's existence (due to their embarassment of it).
It's about an aboriginal girl, taken from her family and placed with a white family who was fine until puberty, and she started getting visions and hearing tribal music, and she tore her clothes off and danced around trees looking for her tribe. The message of the film was that she was aboriginal is essence, and it couldn't be removed. Like I said, they're embarassed of it now. They don't like you mentioning it to them (aussie film scholars) and get all defensive.

[canine_STD]

i so wanted to bring the DNA angle into it too
bring it in then, just don't snap at comments I make, or I'll do the same back. I am honestly trying to have a rational debate, I admit I use bad examples, but they are valid.

[canine_STD]

aboriginal is essence

IN essence.
I want the edit feature back.

[pimpchichi]

well science is reaching a point where consciousness moves from the realm of philosophy into the labs... which could have far reaching implications

"a person's mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make them up and influence them."

francis crick - (co)discoverer of dna....

unfortunately though.. discoveries in science often throw up more questions than they answer... and i have no doubts that studying the mind/soul will be no different

[pimpchichi]

and i have no doubts that studying the mind/soul will be no different

terrible grammar.. but you catch my drift i hope

[Nursey]

Your idea of an inner identity, that resonates with mystical symbols is simply crap - and that's just an obversation I've noted every time I've met an arab who identifies with western cultures and doesn't hear the call of his ancestors to slay the infadels. One I've noted when I've seen disabled people who are perfectly capable of forming meaningful relationships and experiencing normal human emotions.

Well my excuse would be that it was used as an example, as something many people think and say (kilroy being a good example here) and using their own words to connect them to nursey's comments (of an inner self) and contrast them with the arabs I've met who don't fit those stereotypes.
Well perhaps in my state of astonishment i'm missing something here, but it looks like a case of backpeddling from where i'm standing. You went from discussing in perfectly reasonable terms to getting snippy and slapping on a label of 'crap' as well as throwing in all sorts of OTT examples of what i supposedly think - which is apparently in the direction of the beliefs of Hitler and the KKK.
If anyone wants to discuss symbols or whether anything is universal or not in a calm and rational manner with me, please feel free. If anyone wants an opportunity to discuss anything else or angle personal animosity towards me, please start a seperate thread.

[canine_STD]

Well you may hate me for this, but I have absolutely no argument with that. Emotions are chemical reactions in the brain, scientists are pretty sure about that, so there's no evidence of emotions being the same for everybody. I guess the a real question here, is are the stimulants for these emotions encoded in the DNA or, as I believe, are the stimulants socially formed. Are women (and I'm working on a stereotype here, not a belief) socialy conformed to be more emotional, and cry at soppy films, or is it embedded in their DNA?

[pimpchichi]

"a scientific theory is just a mathematical model we make to describe our observations: it exists only in our minds."
stephen hawking

[canine_STD]

Well perhaps in my state of astonishment i'm missing something here, but it looks like a case of backpeddling from where i'm standing. You went from discussing in perfectly reasonable terms to getting snippy and slapping on a label of 'crap' as well as throwing in all sorts of OTT examples of what i supposedly think - which is apparently in the direction of the beliefs of Hitler and the KKK.

I'm not back-peddling at all, I've spent the entire thread arguing against the idea of a pre-defined identity. I'm not arguing for it now, so the example was obviously irony.

And I never said you think any of those things, I said the people in those examples (which are real-world examples and thus not OTT, unless you want to argue that the holocaust never really happened, I don't want to) derived their ideas from similar beliefs.

[pimpchichi]

Well you may hate me for this, but I have absolutely no argument with that. Emotions are chemical reactions in the brain, scientists are pretty sure about that, so there's no evidence of emotions being the same for everybody. I guess the a real question here, is are the stimulants for these emotions encoded in the DNA or, as I believe, are the stimulants socially formed. Are women (and I'm working on a stereotype here, not a belief) socialy conformed to be more emotional, and cry at soppy films, or is it embedded in their DNA?

why would i hate you for it?... the problem is that you say that science holds all the answers.. what i am saying is that yes, it answers questions.. but at the same time throws up shitloads more questions to answer..

and for you to align completely with science.. while totally discounting what nursey has said about mysticism, spirituality, symbols etc.. is pretty arrogant to say the least...

one day in the future.. science may have all the answers... has it not occurred to you that it might prove both of you right?

after all.. you're arguing against pre-defined identity with sprinklings of stereotypes

[canine_STD]

the problem is that you say that science holds all the answers.. what i am saying is that yes, it answers questions.. but at the same time throws up shitloads more questions to answer.

You may have missed my earlier post, I don't align myself totally with science.
We moved from a phase where truth was dictated by religeous dogma, where people whole-heartedly believed what church and state told them, into a phase where people whole-heartedly believed science would reveal the "truth", and now we're beyond that. We realise truth is a personal construct (not universal) made through our own experiences, and how can science explain something as profound and complex as that? It can't.

for you to align completely with science.. while totally discounting what nursey has said about mysticism, spirituality, symbols etc.. is pretty arrogant to say the least...

one day in the future.. science may have all the answers... has it not occurred to you that it might prove both of you right?

Then we can stop debating this, we can deny we have any opinions, all get on the fence, and talk about the current plot lines in Eastenders.

after all.. you're arguing against pre-defined identity with sprinklings of stereotypes
You're going to have to clariffy that, are you saying I'm arguing against sterotypes, or employing them while arguing against pre-defined identity. And if the latter, which have I used, except for the examples which (incase you still haven't figured it out) are used in irony.

[Nursey]

I'm not back-peddling at all, I've spent the entire thread arguing against the idea of a pre-defined identity. I'm not arguing for it now, so the example was obviously irony.

And I never said you think any of those things, I said the people in those examples (which are real-world examples and thus not OTT, unless you want to argue that the holocaust never really happened, I don't want to) derived their ideas from similar beliefs.
'Symbols which are universal to us all' = 'pre-defined identity', pre-destined existence, the concept that 'different races are somehow different from me on a humane level', racial stereotyping hearing God speaking to you....

I'm not likening you to hittler, I'm saying he held similar beliefs of human essence, of a soul, and he abused and misrepresented these beliefs and managed to murder 6 million people on the back of them.

I always thought it was his scientific (Darwinian) beliefs (http://www.stnews.org/archives/2004_december/feat_holocaust_1204.html) in a 'master race' that was at the root of the holocaust? And anyway, how is some nutters misrepresentation of something constitute a viable arguement against it?

[Nursey]

'{So}...Symbols which are universal to us all' = 'pre-defined identity', pre-destined existence, the concept that 'different races are somehow different from me on a humane level', racial stereotyping hearing God speaking to you.... {? :? }

[canine_STD]

You can fuck right off with that one nursey, seeing as you're incapable of quoting me correctly I'll do it myself.
I don't believe that different races are somehow different from me on a humane level - that just causes stereotypes and racism.
There's no edit feature, I haven't changed it, go back and check it.

As for the rest of it, I'm not going to constantly explain my position on every minor detail. If you can't figure out that it is generaly considered a sign of insanity to be hearing voices, then you're not worth debating this with.
I know what you're problem is though. You're thinking every little comment I make is a personal attack on you. You must have very low self-esteem if you're scanning every word I say for insults -- they're just examples, GET OVER IT! If I wanted to insult you, I would do it openly.

And as for the darwinism, that was taylored by hitler to fit opinions he had already formed on the basis that Jews had no soul and were not human, that he believed them to be animals. Darwin's theories were used as a tool to convince an educated and civil society to allow him to kill other people.

I'm out of this, I thought for once you were going to be able to just talk rationaly and not get into your usual, hysterical rut. I should have known better. I won't have my words twisted by you.

[ucicare]

I'm out of this, I thought for once you were going to be able to just talk rationaly and not get into your usual, hysterical rut. I should have known better.

Why am I laughing? Good effort there C_STD.

Barry

[canine_STD]

Well at least she didn't start off on her usual conspiracy theories of a joint Israel - US plan for world domination. You're qualified Barry, what help does she need?

[Nursey]

I'm out of this, I thought for once you were going to be able to just talk rationaly and not get into your usual, hysterical rut. I should have known better.
Ironic. I was bailing out on my first post at the top of this thread (page 4) but only carried on due to your apparent return to calm, rational debate. And i myself had been slightly wary of discussing things with you after the bizarre, hysterical diatribe that you spouted in this thread (http://fugly.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6126&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15), but had been quite pleased to see that nothing so bizarre as that outburst had happened in this debate...only to then realise 'here we go again'.

You can fuck right off with that one nursey, seeing as you're incapable of quoting me correctly I'll do it myself.
I won't have my words twisted by you.
Quite an angry little man! I was posting what i believed you were suggesting my beliefs amounted to. There is enough confusion amongst all this without intentionally adding to it, and i have better things to do with my time than twist an already pretty twisted debate. :rolleyes:

If I wanted to insult you, I would do it openly.
Well i hope so, because it would be pretty pathetic if you took satisfaction from doing so by means of any petty, vindictive little games... ;)

[pimpchichi]

There's nothing absurd or outrageous about what I said. People's belief in a soul or an "essence" has caused all sorts of terrible things in the past.

A belief that we have a destiny, has kept kings in power and oppressed the commoners for thousands of years. They all believed that god had chosen their destiny and they couldn't break free from it.

Why am I laughing? Good effort there C_STD.

Barry

[ucicare]

There's nothing absurd or outrageous about what I said. People's belief in a soul or an "essence" has caused all sorts of terrible things in the past.

A belief that we have a destiny, has kept kings in power and oppressed the commoners for thousands of years. They all believed that god had chosen their destiny and they couldn't break free from it.

Why am I laughing? Good effort there C_STD.

Barry


"good effort" does not equal "I concur"

Barry

[ucicare]

You're qualified Barry, what help does she need?

Sorry, I'm on vaction for the week.

On a non professional level, I think all Nursey really needs is a new keyboard. The one she has now is registered as a WMD. :)

Nursey ain't all bad. That is about as close to a compliment as I will get for Nursey, because she gets all freaked out if you are "touchy feely" with her. Oh, and PD gets jealous too.

Barry

[canine_STD]

Quite an angry little man! I was posting what i believed you were suggesting my beliefs amounted to.

You're damn right I was fucking angry about it. I won't have you putting words in my mouth. I explained god knows how many times exactly what I meant, and you are still unable to grasp any of it. You're still unable to differentiate to between the two very simple and highly defined concepts of symbols and icons -- you sprout out a load of shite using big words you read on some bullshit dogmatic christian website, and you haven't a clue what they mean.
It's quite ironic that pimp refered to this as a "grown-up conversation", cos it certainly seems like talking to a group of 5 year olds.

There's nothing absurd or outrageous about what I said. People's belief in a soul or an "essence" has caused all sorts of terrible things in the past.

A belief that we have a destiny, has kept kings in power and oppressed the commoners for thousands of years. They all believed that god had chosen their destiny and they couldn't break free from it.

Why am I laughing? Good effort there C_STD.

Barry

Not happy with twisting my comments alone? Barry never quoted me saying that and what refering to that perticular comment. But seeing as you're very good at quoting crack-pot theorists, let me direct you some academic work which backs exactly what I was saying.
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/DIVRIGHT.HTM
the Divine Right of Kings, a theory which argued that certain kings ruled because they were chosen by God to do so and that these kings were accountable to no person except God.

Oh, and PD gets jealous too.
Yeah, but PD is a lanky streak of piss and only half a man.

[Dubya 2.0]

*sets up deck chair and sorts out popcorn

[smiles]

looks like nauseus has managed to spread her joy the world over yet again

[Nursey]

Well, as long as someone's having a laugh! At least i hope he is, otherwise he is a pretty pathetic, fucked up little man.

[Checkmate]

*sets up deck chair and sorts out popcorn

Care for a joint?

*Lights up a spliff*

Puff Puff Pass.......to the left (etiquette is so important these days)

[canine_STD]

Well, as long as someone's having a laugh! At least i hope he is, otherwise he is a pretty pathetic, fucked up little man.

Even if that were the case, I'd actually be a man.

I'm simply letting Barry know that he can hit on you all he wants, of course Pimp is going to get jealous (we all know he has good reason to), but he'll stand back, let Barry rag the arse off you and still be sniffing around ready to "forgive" you, because he doesn't have the tiny amount of self-respect needed to kick a whore into the curb.

[Nursey]

Barry already has an honoroury, integral role in mine and Pimp's lovemaking (albeit in the psychic realm). He waits patiently between my butt-cheeks ready to leap out at the exact moment of climax like a mighty, metaphysical human love bead. I think he's quite happy with that.

[Checkmate]

I remember this one time at bandcamp....................

[ratatouille]

Well you may hate me for this, but I have absolutely no argument with that. Emotions are chemical reactions in the brain, scientists are pretty sure about that, so there's no evidence of emotions being the same for everybody. I guess the a real question here, is are the stimulants for these emotions encoded in the DNA or, as I believe, are the stimulants socially formed. Are women (and I'm working on a stereotype here, not a belief) socialy conformed to be more emotional, and cry at soppy films, or is it embedded in their DNA?
yes, we are genetically programmed to be more sensitive and emotional. probably due to the fact that we are ones who carry infants in our bellies for 9 months and are designed to breast feed them and are usually the primary caregiver (from nature's standpoint). men are designed to spread their seed, provide shelter and hunt. women are designed to take care of the mess that ensues- generally speaking. my sense of smell, sound and vision are more acute when i ovulate. i pick up more subtle cues than a man, and its all probably so that i can produce a healthy infant to keep the human race alive. we are all driven by basic needs. food, shelter, love, sex, safety etc... for survival.

i think most symbols are learned, through experience and assigning meanings, but there is also a primitive, innate sense of what is dangerous or detrimental to sustaining life. i may not consciously realize what all these are, but i know somehow to avoid skinny, pale, weak males- they aren't good genetic material. i didnt have a retarded sick baby because i bred with a sick man in the past. i didnt learn that, i know that. cats are born with the innate fear of snakes. no mother cat or negative experience taught them to avoid and/or try to kill them. they just do. i believe nature and nurture work together and the character of both are not all equal. humans have the ability to think, change, adapt, reason and learn and there is evidence to support a 6th sense- we all possess some amount of intuition.

One can be born with a distinct personality. I’m a fucking bitch when I wake up. I have always been that way and probably will stay that way. I can choose how I behave though. Let’s say I am born generous and kind. I may not be so much in my 30’s because of my experiences and coping abilities. My perception of the same event may change, or it may be the same every time. People may respond differently to different symbols based on personality, or culture. I may prefer sharp lines, or round ones. Same with colors. Blue is supposed to have a calming effect, while red excites.

So my point is, if you take a symbol out of context it will lose its meaning. We (humans) are all biased because our point of reference is (in its most primitive state) one of the modes of survival. Because of our different personalities, these symbols may be arranged in different hierarchies of meaning and importance. I am not nurturing by nature, but I sure do like food. I may not jump up and kill a snake to save my family, but I may jump up and kill it for food. Either way, I am killing it to ensure my survival.
Does this make sense? My brain is going in circles…

[pimpchichi]

Oh, and PD gets jealous too.

moi? au contraire

*sets up deck chair and sorts out popcorn

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/scumhouse/deviant/icon_number1.gif

[ucicare]

Barry already has an honoroury, integral role in mine and Pimp's lovemaking (albeit in the psychic realm). He waits patiently between my butt-cheeks ready to leap out at the exact moment of climax like a mighty, metaphysical human love bead. I think he's quite happy with that.

I have been promoted from toe jam to an anal bead. Truly I am blessed.

Barry

[ucicare]

[quote="canine_STD"]Well you may hate me for this, but I have absolutely no argument with ......................
.............Does this make sense? My brain is going in circles…

Makes sense to me. FYI - My brain goes in circles too. Ritalin makes if go in circles in the same direction, instead of playing bumper cars.

Barry

[canine_STD]

[quote="ratatouille"]i know somehow to avoid skinny, pale, weak males- they aren't good genetic material. i didnt have a retarded sick baby because i bred with a sick man in the past. i didnt learn that, i know that./quote]

Yeah, that's an excelent point, but I would argue that you did learn it. Maybe through skinny, pale, weak kids at school who were constantly sick and taking medication. I'd also argue that if things were to change in the material world, your perceptions would change. If, for example, some weird virus came about that feeds on human muscle and kills men with a high percentage of body muscle, you would start finding skinny, pale, weak males attractive. I don't believe that what we find attractive in other people is hard-coded into us from birth. Let's face it, some people fuck horses, some are homosexual, some cut their dicks off. These perversions don't attribute to the survival of the human race.

And then there's the thousands of times I've heard people say that they change when they become a parent. You may not be nuturing ("by nature" as you put it) but you would likely become so, if the right changes in the material world were to happen -- eg. if you had a baby.

[Dubya 2.0]

*sets up deck chair and sorts out popcorn

Care for a joint?

*Lights up a spliff*

Puff Puff Pass.......to the left (etiquette is so important these days)

Ooh lovely, cheers!

[Dubya 2.0]

My foam finger needs a wash... :cry:

[Checkmate]

My foam finger needs a wash... :cry:

I only use the highest quality foam finger for threads like this:

http://content.collegehumor.com/bs.com/artwork/hands/yellow.front.jpg

I think that should do the trick.

[Nursey]

My foam finger needs a wash... :cry:

I only use the highest quality foam finger for threads like this:

http://content.collegehumor.com/bs.com/artwork/hands/yellow.front.jpg

I think that should do the trick.

Well the lower quality ones immediately disintegrate when showered with rabid froth.

[Checkmate]

My foam finger needs a wash... :cry:

I only use the highest quality foam finger for threads like this:

http://content.collegehumor.com/bs.com/artwork/hands/yellow.front.jpg

I think that should do the trick.

Well the lower quality ones immediately disintegrate when showered with rabid froth.

True, hence why I am keeping my distance to eliminate any froth being haphazardly strewn on my "SHOCKER" foam finger from Barreh, although any viscous froth from any of your body cavities, rabid or otherwise could only immediately add value to such a highly regarded piece of urban Haute Couture.

[Nursey]

Big baldy butt-bead Barrehhh (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v20/nursey/barrehhh.jpg)? I just had him innoculated against rhabidovirae, so kindly point your accusatory foam finger elsewhere.

[DrBungle]

Here's one for ya Checkmate!

http://www.cinderblock.com/Designs/IPC-FMF1-x.jpg

[Checkmate]

Nursey and Fugly-ites

Here's something of interest you might very relevant to your daily reading, if you haven't already come across it. I have to say after reading the entire article, just the possiblity of what is being hinted at is, and hopefully will be a great leap forward for all man kind.

Enjoy,

http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=126649#121[/url]

[Nursey]

Doctor's orders!

[DrBungle]

All is One

[ratatouille]

[quote="ratatouille"]i know somehow to avoid skinny, pale, weak males- they aren't good genetic material. i didnt have a retarded sick baby because i bred with a sick man in the past. i didnt learn that, i know that./quote]

Yeah, that's an excelent point, but I would argue that you did learn it. Maybe through skinny, pale, weak kids at school who were constantly sick and taking medication. I'd also argue that if things were to change in the material world, your perceptions would change. If, for example, some weird virus came about that feeds on human muscle and kills men with a high percentage of body muscle, you would start finding skinny, pale, weak males attractive. I don't believe that what we find attractive in other people is hard-coded into us from birth. Let's face it, some people fuck horses, some are homosexual, some cut their dicks off. These perversions don't attribute to the survival of the human race.

And then there's the thousands of times I've heard people say that they change when they become a parent. You may not be nuturing ("by nature" as you put it) but you would likely become so, if the right changes in the material world were to happen -- eg. if you had a baby.
I think some of it is learned- you only know what you are surrounded by. if i was raised in Africa I suppose I would find those giant lip disks attractive. But then there's that whole waist-hip ratio and large bright eye preference most males have. And that is supposedly because women with child bearing hips are better breeders etc... And sure, if I had an ankle biter I wouldnt let it starve to death or anything. I am sure I would adapt to some degree. Not all mothers are nurturing mothers though. There are a lot of different variables to consider.

[DrBungle]

If you lived in Africa you would have AIDS!

[ratatouille]

If you lived in Africa you would have AIDS!
yeah, but it would be attractive.

[baconbob]

very attractive 8)

[MEDICVET]

...started to move beyond that....... into what?

It's based on the question of "what is truth?"

We moved from a phase where truth was dictated by religeous dogma, where people whole-heartedly believed what church and state told them, into a phase where people whole-heartedly believed science would reveal the "truth", and now we're beyond that. We realise truth is a personal construct (not universal) made through our own experiences, and how can science explain something as profound and complex as that? It can't.

there IS a difference between the belief in the soul and the belief in someone being predistined for something. Belief in destiny and belief in the soul are two different things.

But I do agree with you in that we shouldn't allow dogma to dictate 'truth'.

[MEDICVET]

Well you may hate me for this, but I have absolutely no argument with that. Emotions are chemical reactions in the brain, scientists are pretty sure about that, so there's no evidence of emotions being the same for everybody. I guess the a real question here, is are the stimulants for these emotions encoded in the DNA or, as I believe, are the stimulants socially formed. Are women (and I'm working on a stereotype here, not a belief) socialy conformed to be more emotional, and cry at soppy films, or is it embedded in their DNA?

why would i hate you for it?... the problem is that you say that science holds all the answers.. what i am saying is that yes, it answers questions.. but at the same time throws up shitloads more questions to answer..

and for you to align completely with science.. while totally discounting what nursey has said about mysticism, spirituality, symbols etc.. is pretty arrogant to say the least...

one day in the future.. science may have all the answers... has it not occurred to you that it might prove both of you right?

after all.. you're arguing against pre-defined identity with sprinklings of stereotypes

you know, usually I don't make comments in the middle of reading a thread for the most part, but made an exception in this case because the thread is both interesting and long and I want to make responses while they are still fresh in my head.

This was a very good post that I just quoted. We need both the yin and the yang, the science and the mysticism, to learn from, and need to appreciate what both tenets of thinking have to offer.

and the original poster of this thread suffers from an overabundance of ennui.

[Cheezedawg]

Dearst Pukey,

Believe it or not, people are in fact different all over the country. Take it from someone who has been everywhere.

[MEDICVET]

and they are different around the world too. Cultural differences should be learned and learned FROM.

then again, maybe it's best he not travel. this guy sounds like the original 'ugly American'.