|
Post by jonbain on Jun 24, 2021 9:45:23 GMT
i think it was eugene that asked for something on the basics of phenomenology
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 28, 2021 18:26:47 GMT
i think it was eugene that asked for something on the basics of phenomenology
Goosestepping to NirvanaIt's too passive; no wonder it is related to the escapist, anti-materialist, and mystical world of the swamis and the gurus. No wonder that Heidegger supported Naziism. We should approach phenomena with the attitude of using them or changing them.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 4, 2021 10:13:04 GMT
i think it was eugene that asked for something on the basics of phenomenology
Goosestepping to NirvanaIt's too passive; no wonder it is related to the escapist, anti-materialist, and mystical world of the swamis and the gurus. No wonder that Heidegger supported Naziism. We should approach phenomena with the attitude of using them or changing them. Anti-materialism is a subtle idea. The hard real facts of science have become owned by superficial post-science quackery via academia. Those claiming to be the materialists are idol-worshiping an immaterial shadow whilst the substantial fact of the spirit gathers its wide-spread wings. Dancing between Valhalla and Pandemonium
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 5, 2021 15:15:02 GMT
Its important to see that phenomenology is a method, not a complete system itself, and that without a solid comprehension of the scientific method phenomenology is worse than useless.
Phenomenology is used to get into places where science has no traction: the mind.
But on the other hand if you cannot understand your own mind thus, then you will also not be able to tell the difference between real science and the (mostly) crap they teach at university.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jul 6, 2021 19:50:14 GMT
Its important to see that phenomenology is a method, not a complete system itself, and that without a solid comprehension of the scientific method phenomenology is worse than useless. Phenomenology is used to get into places where science has no traction: the mind. But on the other hand if you cannot understand your own mind thus, then you will also not be able to tell the difference between real science and the (mostly) crap they teach at university. The "Balance of Nature" Is Not in Man's Favor. We Would Have Become Extinct If Intelligence Had Not Fought Against the Hostile Balance.
Science is our weapon against Nature; Nature is not supernatural; it is a crime against humanity. Environmentalists, who believe that natural air is "Clean Air" and must be the goal of government force, are the very essence of anti-science and enemies of human progress.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 6, 2021 20:16:42 GMT
Its important to see that phenomenology is a method, not a complete system itself, and that without a solid comprehension of the scientific method phenomenology is worse than useless. Phenomenology is used to get into places where science has no traction: the mind. But on the other hand if you cannot understand your own mind thus, then you will also not be able to tell the difference between real science and the (mostly) crap they teach at university. The "Balance of Nature" Is Not in Man's Favor. We Would Have Become Extinct If Intelligence Had Not Fought Against the Hostile Balance.
Science is our weapon against Nature; Nature is not supernatural; it is a crime against humanity. Environmentalists, who believe that natural air is "Clean Air" and must be the goal of government force, are the very essence of anti-science and enemies of human progress. If it is in our nature to overcome nature then we are divided against ourselves and a contradiction occurs.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 6, 2021 21:07:32 GMT
Its important to see that phenomenology is a method, not a complete system itself, and that without a solid comprehension of the scientific method phenomenology is worse than useless. Phenomenology is used to get into places where science has no traction: the mind. But on the other hand if you cannot understand your own mind thus, then you will also not be able to tell the difference between real science and the (mostly) crap they teach at university. The "Balance of Nature" Is Not in Man's Favor. We Would Have Become Extinct If Intelligence Had Not Fought Against the Hostile Balance.
Science is our weapon against Nature; Nature is not supernatural; it is a crime against humanity. Environmentalists, who believe that natural air is "Clean Air" and must be the goal of government force, are the very essence of anti-science and enemies of human progress. The biomass of all the ants in the world is strangely about equal to humanity. Does that make them equally smart as us? Natural air is clean air. You wear that ridiculous mask willingly? The very symbol of repression. Human progress is to asphyxiate yourself? I think you are suffering from oxygen deprivation.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jul 7, 2021 16:09:55 GMT
The "Balance of Nature" Is Not in Man's Favor. We Would Have Become Extinct If Intelligence Had Not Fought Against the Hostile Balance.
Science is our weapon against Nature; Nature is not supernatural; it is a crime against humanity. Environmentalists, who believe that natural air is "Clean Air" and must be the goal of government force, are the very essence of anti-science and enemies of human progress. Natural air is clean air. You wear that ridiculous mask willingly? The very symbol of repression. I think you are suffering from oxygen deprivation. Trust-Fundie TreehuggersNatural air, which the born-rich degenerate enemies of human progress call "Clean Air," is the most toxic of all. The globalist ruling class's Lockdown is what allowed the crony virus to kill millions of people. Guillotine-fodder mind control makes it impossible for you to even think that "pollution" can be antiseptic. Whoever controls language (including their ignorant and dysfunction grammar) controls thought. Clear your mind of all ideas entering from that source.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 9, 2021 16:16:34 GMT
jonbain Oh, I really appreciate it! Thanks a lot! Earlier I wrongly took phenomenology as something to be strictly empirical and closed to psychology, while it appeared to be not quite empirical, but introspective and philosophical. I like this video cause it points me my faults. I don't know for why, usually instead of looking for some terms or concepts in proper dictionaries I try to think about it by myself. For some reason it works, and along with it it may lead to wrong conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 9, 2021 21:20:23 GMT
jonbain Oh, I really appreciate it! Thanks a lot! Earlier I wrongly took phenomenology as something to be strictly empirical and closed to psychology, while it appeared to be not quite empirical, but introspective and philosophical. I like this video cause it points me my faults. I don't know for why, usually instead of looking for some terms or concepts in proper dictionaries I try to think about it by myself. For some reason it works, and along with it it may lead to wrong conclusions. Well it is empirical in the sense that it deals with direct experiences of the individual. But its process struggles with the ideal of objectivity, even though it does try to reach objective conclusions. Example is a simple emotion like joy. We all objectively use that word. But science cannot pin-point what it is. Jung describes it as Jupiter, or Jove, the Greek God. An archetype. That is the phenomenological essence of the idea, better than any other definition. Imperfect though it might appear to be. Its good that you try and think about it yourself, that way you may reach unique understanding that others who just read will miss. There are many terrible dictionary definitions too. Often the formal "ivory tower" that makes these dictionaries is quite disconnected from the way words work. Colloquial ideas can become popular and undermine defined phrases that have existed formally for millennia, so introspection can often recover lost ideas or ideas that have become illogical and twisted away from their proper and more accurate origins.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 10, 2021 10:21:11 GMT
jonbain Oh, I really appreciate it! Thanks a lot! Earlier I wrongly took phenomenology as something to be strictly empirical and closed to psychology, while it appeared to be not quite empirical, but introspective and philosophical. I like this video cause it points me my faults. I don't know for why, usually instead of looking for some terms or concepts in proper dictionaries I try to think about it by myself. For some reason it works, and along with it it may lead to wrong conclusions. Well it is empirical in the sense that it deals with direct experiences of the individual. But its process struggles with the ideal of objectivity, even though it does try to reach objective conclusions. Example is a simple emotion like joy. We all objectively use that word. But science cannot pin-point what it is. Jung describes it as Jupiter, or Jove, the Greek God. An archetype. That is the phenomenological essence of the idea, better than any other definition. Imperfect though it might appear to be. Its good that you try and think about it yourself, that way you may reach unique understanding that others who just read will miss. There are many terrible dictionary definitions too. Often the formal "ivory tower" that makes these dictionaries is quite disconnected from the way words work. Colloquial ideas can become popular and undermine defined phrases that have existed formally for millennia, so introspection can often recover lost ideas or ideas that have become illogical and twisted away from their proper and more accurate origins. Definitely – "The Ivory Towers". That's why Husserl and also Brentano, and their followers from elsewhere held the motto: "Back to the things!". I tried to read Husserl, his first volume of logical investigation, but must say instead of claiming something strictly he proposed to answer a few questions about psychology and logic, on the questions he'd been hearing before. That's why reading it I had no idea at what he was pointing. Before it I read briefly the final chapter of Schpiegelberg's "The Phenomenological Movement", where he was trying to explain how phenomenology worked using an example with force. I might confuse something now missing some important things from the book, but there were three or four chapters where in each one we had to get rid of one of settings, like "common thinking setting", or "scientific setting", etc. Finally we should have passed all the obstacles of the real world and our daily knowledge to occur in some ultimately relevant point for a philosopher. And I remember that in the book, I'd mentioned above, the example of understanding what force was we could perform by looking at how we formulated those settings each new cycle of reduction. As I said I don't remember any details while we passed there a step where a feeling of force was formulated as few examples: playing soccer, hitting an object by a leg, and... no, that's all what I can recall. Then those examples were transformed into another ones with "common thinking reduction" or "getting rid of the daily setting". As far as I know we leaped into something that: what do we know about a leg hitting an object? And we got to: all mechanical laws and our more deeply knowledge of this fact including what we previously knew about it. Further, we're getting rid of this scientific setting, because it might be wrong. And that feeling of the fact of the object pushing contain some irrelevant to the pure feeling (plus comprehending it) we're going to find. That's why even Newtonian laws have to be put away for a while for the reduction's sake. I don't remember the final example, bit I do remember my feeling of it, and I can't say it's been surprisingly. There were explained something like "the force was something that spilled along the leg coming from the location of hitting and going up and up...". So I'd say the process was described maximally correct to the feeling the one had to have it". And I thought then that perhaps such a trick was helpful for doctors who asking their patients about pain could have more precise picture of it. Anyway I might be wrong. Thank you again for the video!
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 11, 2021 21:00:40 GMT
Eugene 2.0 How force moves from entity to entity is still mysterious, even though it can be accurately measured and predicted. The quagmire of quarks has yet to yield anything of substance beyond Newton. But examples are best. In Phil201 I was reading an example given of how anorexia/ bulimia is often a manifestation of hang-up in young ladies. The idea of a man 'invading' her space would often be rejected in a subconscious way such that she would similarly reject food. The mouth had become symbolic as her vagina, the food as the phallus. Rejecting one, led to rejecting the other. What struck me here with a deep resonance, was that I had been making love to a girl that had been anorexic/bulimic up until our romance. My gentle persuasion and humour had encouraged her to forget her eating disorder... The textbook had described precisely my own experience just a few months earlier. People follow patterns like that. So it properly describes other psychological issues with empirical results. People who are addicted to cigarettes, alcohol or even food have an 'oral fixation'. So the mind patterns behaviors like this. Such fixations originate in breast-feeding patterns. The big mistake here would be to apply the rigor of science to this. Not every anorexic has a issue. Not every drinker has breast issues. The mind can associate what it pleases how it pleases. But typically these patterns can yield positive results so often, it would be detrimental to reject the process. Being aware of how you patterned your own behavior can significantly help you change unwanted desires. The simplest way to stop smoking is to chew gum.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 11, 2021 21:05:29 GMT
editor keeps deleting the word s-e-x-u-a-l ?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 12, 2021 4:23:47 GMT
Eugene 2.0 How force moves from entity to entity is still mysterious, even though it can be accurately measured and predicted. The quagmire of quarks has yet to yield anything of substance beyond Newton. But examples are best. In Phil201 I was reading an example given of how anorexia/ bulimia is often a manifestation of hang-up in young ladies. The idea of a man 'invading' her space would often be rejected in a subconscious way such that she would similarly reject food. The mouth had become symbolic as her vagina, the food as the phallus. Rejecting one, led to rejecting the other. What struck me here with a deep resonance, was that I had been making love to a girl that had been anorexic/bulimic up until our romance. My gentle persuasion and humour had encouraged her to forget her eating disorder... The textbook had described precisely my own experience just a few months earlier. People follow patterns like that. So it properly describes other psychological issues with empirical results. People who are addicted to cigarettes, alcohol or even food have an 'oral fixation'. So the mind patterns behaviors like this. Such fixations originate in breast-feeding patterns. The big mistake here would be to apply the rigor of science to this. Not every anorexic has a issue. Not every drinker has breast issues. The mind can associate what it pleases how it pleases. But typically these patterns can yield positive results so often, it would be detrimental to reject the process. Being aware of how you patterned your own behavior can significantly help you change unwanted desires. The simplest way to stop smoking is to chew gum. Huh, that's really interesting. I was wondering why cows always chew something? Did they have that "oral fixation" too? Sometimes I think freudian theories go too far. Maybe such an explanation can be explained by the wide usage of ... (By the way, who erases these words? I mean I haven't noticed it. So, I decided to write them to check it out.) ... content? I think sometimes it works somehow: a person tell his friend about something and to explain his story he uses some dirty facts or makes the story be more hot and so on. It makes the real effect not only for his friend, and for many others. Here, in Ukraine and Russia, teenagers not rarely tell each other in discussions something like "Everyone thinks according to his own wickedness" (there is no precise translation. There are some discussions about it. www.multitran.com/c/m.exe?a=4&MessNum=14796&l1=1&l2=2). In other words, the more nasty, gruesome, or dirty the explanation, the more chances to catch a crowd by this. The pulp fiction might be an example. All I wanted to say by this is that I keep calm smoking cigarettes. Now I'm trying to not smoke, but I have no addiction: I smoke just when spending time outdoor with one of a book (principally a philosophical or a logical one).
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 12, 2021 13:52:50 GMT
Eugene 2.0 How force moves from entity to entity is still mysterious, even though it can be accurately measured and predicted. The quagmire of quarks has yet to yield anything of substance beyond Newton. But examples are best. In Phil201 I was reading an example given of how anorexia/ bulimia is often a manifestation of hang-up in young ladies. The idea of a man 'invading' her space would often be rejected in a subconscious way such that she would similarly reject food. The mouth had become symbolic as her vagina, the food as the phallus. Rejecting one, led to rejecting the other. What struck me here with a deep resonance, was that I had been making love to a girl that had been anorexic/bulimic up until our romance. My gentle persuasion and humour had encouraged her to forget her eating disorder... The textbook had described precisely my own experience just a few months earlier. People follow patterns like that. So it properly describes other psychological issues with empirical results. People who are addicted to cigarettes, alcohol or even food have an 'oral fixation'. So the mind patterns behaviors like this. Such fixations originate in breast-feeding patterns. The big mistake here would be to apply the rigor of science to this. Not every anorexic has a issue. Not every drinker has breast issues. The mind can associate what it pleases how it pleases. But typically these patterns can yield positive results so often, it would be detrimental to reject the process. Being aware of how you patterned your own behavior can significantly help you change unwanted desires. The simplest way to stop smoking is to chew gum. Huh, that's really interesting. I was wondering why cows always chew something? Did they have that "oral fixation" too? Sometimes I think freudian theories go too far. Maybe such an explanation can be explained by the wide usage of ... (By the way, who erases these words? I mean I haven't noticed it. So, I decided to write them to check it out.) ... content? I think sometimes it works somehow: a person tell his friend about something and to explain his story he uses some dirty facts or makes the story be more hot and so on. It makes the real effect not only for his friend, and for many others. Here, in Ukraine and Russia, teenagers not rarely tell each other in discussions something like "Everyone thinks according to his own wickedness" (there is no precise translation. There are some discussions about it. www.multitran.com/c/m.exe?a=4&MessNum=14796&l1=1&l2=2). In other words, the more nasty, gruesome, or dirty the explanation, the more chances to catch a crowd by this. The pulp fiction might be an example. All I wanted to say by this is that I keep calm smoking cigarettes. Now I'm trying to not smoke, but I have no addiction: I smoke just when spending time outdoor with one of a book (principally a philosophical or a logical one). its auto-changed, the word: s-ex-ual, like if you type G then M it tells you darn annoying when trying to quote the gravity formula you right though, people do take freudian theories too far, and as a consequence people now reject them entirely Are there any rastas near where you are? I think you might find their company very motivational. I smoke too, but also not all the time, not an addiction.
Honestly ganja is a way better thing to smoke than tobacco - but you'll be amazed how many plants can be smoked, like sweet basil, lavender, white sage
ganja will open the mind up in a way impossible to describe you seem to have a well-balanced mind i would not suggest it if i thought it would harm you but people that are neurotic can have a panic attack when high - but then such people will have a panic attack doing anything new
|
|