Rationalizing need for action

[Sackanaka]

In an earlier thread (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=4788), I mentioned that I believe that ultimately, we cannot deny the physical nature of living, that regardless of whether life is all an illusion or not, we're going to experience the pains of excessive and sudden forces, the joys of a genuine smile, and everything else experiencable.
It seems to me that we're all looking at the same physical world, but just from different perspectives. We measure different dimensions with different tools, with a different agenda or method for reaching conclusions, and thus the world through each individual's eyes are comparatively different. Basically, why people living in the same (relative) area and time can perceive the exact same issue or object from polarized perspectives.
But we're all looking at the same physical medium, regardless of whether or not we're experiencing the exact same thing. The fact that we're interacting already suggests that we live within the same domain (and range?) of existence.

So this is where I start getting to the point.

If the rest of the world besides the physical realm to which we all relate to is varying from individual to individual, the only thing that connects us is the physical realm. Thus, if I truly want to prove my potential, I have no choice but to go through the physical realm. Just thinking about it won't change anyone or anything, since I would be only working with my inner cognitive realm, which is only true to myself.

It's pretty much using physical reality as a conducible medium through which to channel my ideas. The only way to make my ideas conducible through the medium is through action, and the action only correlates to my ideas if they reflect them. Thus, if I want change, I must act.

In other words, Nike was right.

Or were they wrong?

[crofbe]

there you got my extrovert complex kicking in again

[Shai Gar]

Oh, i like these thoughts...

You lay down the paths for my philosophies, thank you.

[Sackanaka]

As for why I'd need to prove my potential in the first place, I think it is good science; testing out a hypothesis. Even if I tested it in the past and I really was as competent as I thought I was, the variables are constantly changing. Variables include changes in the way I see things, my physical strength and mental challenges, what I've learned and what I've forgotten, etc.
Now normally, these don't have to be tested every day because the change is negligible, but over time the variables may change to a magnitude beyond that of the standard deviation and are thus troubling anomalies.
While I've been constantly shrugging off these anomalies as merely minor setbacks which I've allowed to happen, it seems that I've, in reality, chosen to excuse myself from the burden of testing the hypothesis. Why? Because to find a conclusion contradictory to my hypothesis is threatening to my dignity- that I really am incompetent.
However, that's irrational thinking to anyone who believes in the validity of the scientific method; that contradictory hypotheses are beneficial if interpreted correctly and refined into usable knowledge.
Also, if I don't accept the need to draw a test while still holding the scientific method and desire to draw conclusions in high esteem, I would already be hypocritical and incompetent, as a rational thinker and as a dignifiable person.

Anyone else feel the same? Or is this a bunch of hoo-haa?

[waxwing]

Thinking along these lines, but with a twist, I come up with the following situation. Let's say that I take an extreme stance, stating not only that everything must be rationalized through action, but also that every action/experience of humanity must be validated by physical law. In other words, I am working with the presupposition that there is a higher order by which to rationalize simple action, but, presumably, this higher order is still observable in the physical realm of nature -- live action. The problem I see with this entire set-up I've stated is that at the moment I decide my personal experience must be validated by interworkings of the world around me (here basically finding evidence of physical laws at work), then I've become the observer again, and not the live actor. An interesting paradox, it seems. On one hand, I've made a statement that everything must be validated by the interconnectedness of the cosmos. But on the other hand, in order to understand the interconnections I must become the observer, striving to understand action, somehow immersed in the physical realm without being an active participant. On second thought, perhaps I've gone about this incorrectly. Hm. Okay, it seems that by virtue of the fact that I first act, and then attempt to rationalize my action, I naturally then reflect on nature, even on my own nature, also governed by physical laws. Well, no, perhaps the process of reflecting on action through physics is far too intertwined to separate it as I have attempted to do. How can we understand why we must act, then, and how we can understand our actions? If actions may reflect our ideas, then how do we understand our actions? Or, what reflects our actions? I guess that is the question I've been getting at. If the answer is "what we can observe in nature..." then how can we continue to act? What is the goal here? Action? Or reflection of action?

[Ka.avik]

In response to your first post, "I'm a genius...do I have to prove it?"

and to you second post, haven't you ever heard old people say "I just wanted to prove to myself I still could!" ?

Of course we share only the physical realm. I might argue we also share the spiritual realm, but having less ability to percieve it, we are much less aware of how we influence it/eachother through that realm.

Of course we can't quite agree on what the physical realm is. The creator saw fit to make us all different. As to whether we feel any obligation to manipulate the physical, to show to others what is between our ears ... that varies by person also. Crofbe's extravert complex. How much do we really care? Some days I don't -- so I sleep. I fix meals, and I work hard enough to facilitate the previous two.

Ahh....but when some one asks me an intriguing question. That is what I'm all about...helping people persue knowledge. Then I can feel at my most fulfilled, after satiating a need for "useful information". Mind, my definition of "useful" is more lax than, say, many INTJs' definitions :P

[indie]

If the rest of the world besides the physical realm to which we all relate to is varying from individual to individual, the only thing that connects us is the physical realm. Thus, if I truly want to prove my potential, I have no choice but to go through the physical realm. Just thinking about it won't change anyone or anything, since I would be only working with my inner cognitive realm, which is only true to myself.

It's pretty much using physical reality as a conducible medium through which to channel my ideas. The only way to make my ideas conducible through the medium is through action, and the action only correlates to my ideas if they reflect them. Thus, if I want change, I must act.

In other words, Nike was right.

Or were they wrong?

Nike ripped off the person who invented the "swoosh" and the phrase "just do it" has been uttered countless times before Nike patented it and plastered it all over everything, so I don't like the "Nike" analogy . . .

But I do agree that action is necessary for change. . . I, personally, think humans produce too much waste and therefore I recycle everything I can. . . I support charitable causes when I can, etc.

But as far as a mind/ "perspective" goes, those things belong to an individual, and therefore only an individual can "know" them or believe in them. People running around killing each other over ideas is what is sad. . . killing people cannot change ideas, it can only make ideas more passionately felt.

[joft]

It's pretty much using physical reality as a conducible medium through which to channel my ideas. Ideas and thoughts are just as physical as anything else

[Hypnos]

Dude, read some Nietzsche or Rand.

[cuspuser]

Sackanaka, i'll say to you what someone said to me once ... I liked everything that you just said until you named Nike as one of the great philosophers :)

[Sackanaka]

Thinking along these lines, but with a twist, I come up with the following situation. Let's say that I take an extreme stance, stating not only that everything must be rationalized through action, but also that every action/experience of humanity must be validated by physical law. In other words, I am working with the presupposition that there is a higher order by which to rationalize simple action, but, presumably, this higher order is still observable in the physical realm of nature -- live action. The problem I see with this entire set-up I've stated is that at the moment I decide my personal experience must be validated by interworkings of the world around me (here basically finding evidence of physical laws at work), then I've become the observer again, and not the live actor. An interesting paradox, it seems. On one hand, I've made a statement that everything must be validated by the interconnectedness of the cosmos. But on the other hand, in order to understand the interconnections I must become the observer, striving to understand action, somehow immersed in the physical realm without being an active participant. On second thought, perhaps I've gone about this incorrectly. Hm. Okay, it seems that by virtue of the fact that I first act, and then attempt to rationalize my action, I naturally then reflect on nature, even on my own nature, also governed by physical laws. Well, no, perhaps the process of reflecting on action through physics is far too intertwined to separate it as I have attempted to do. How can we understand why we must act, then, and how we can understand our actions? If actions may reflect our ideas, then how do we understand our actions? Or, what reflects our actions? I guess that is the question I've been getting at. If the answer is "what we can observe in nature..." then how can we continue to act? What is the goal here? Action? Or reflection of action?

I hope I got what you're trying to say.

"What reflects our actions": by "what we can observe in nature", I wonder if you mean that it's by the results that show from our actions? Observing the reaction from the surrounding environment and the people affected, and judging if the reaction is something we can live with or ought to be further changed. If so, then I suppose we go back to plan-and-act mode until we get the reaction we want. The best benefit is probably not the directly observable action but the development of methods which we use for future actions without repeating the same revelations involved from prior experience.

Basically, I guess it's similar to creating tentative formulas or theories that we can apply in the future for both attaining desirable results as well as testing the validity of the formula/theory itself.

You noted something about relating physical laws to real life but I'm not sure I got the message. Although I do understand that the knowledge we've gained of physics, chemistry and biology can come up with (multitudes) of possible explanations for human behavior from the micro and macro levels of the human body, that wasn't strictly the purpose of relating the process to physical laws. I suppose it was to apply the scientific method, which has through repeated application with desirable and agreeable results, to the reasoning process for the original posts.

The goal? If reflection of action = reaction, then the question becomes "What is more important, action or results?" Labor or fruits of?
Of course, the pleasure we get out of doing labor without directly observable benefits are too a fruit... but that's going off topic. I think that's where the personality is defined: Our "fruit" preferences and the methods we choose thereof.

Personally, whether I reason out everything as best as possible or just go with the flow, I do the same thing; do as I feel best. In most cases, "the bare minimum" is what I feel best, but I'm constantly in need of reminding myself that the bare minimum level is constantly shifting and based on many variables, and thus ought not to be treated as an insignificantly summed value. In other words, my bare minimum is probably higher of a standard than what most others consider to be the bare minimum.

I hope that answered the question... if not, please explain further!

[Sackanaka]

Ideas and thoughts are just as physical as anything else
Yeah, but ideas alone aren't able to be relayed through the physical world, and just talking about them without example or application aren't effective methods of making the ideas conducive to other bodies.

What I was trying to say was that although each individual creates for themselves a unique perception of the world, an "idea realm", they are all based upon the physical realm which is independent of the idea realm and only changes within itself; only physical things change the physical realm. We're all stuck within our own idea realm but can affect others by acting upon our thoughts.

And yes, talking and listening and others are an action, and thinking in itself is an action... but that was addressed in the first paragraph. To make sense of it, read paragraph 2 first, then 1.

[Sackanaka]

To everyone else: thanks for replying, and offer refuting argument or point out why it's not even a significant thing to argue.
I haven't read much Nietzche except what I've learned from a class (we talked about how morals are created and inapplicable to everyone) and I haven't learned anything about Rand. I probably won't until some time in the future.
And thanks to cuspuser as well for pointing out the lack of credentials that Nike has in philosophy, but somehow I think they'll keep making trendy references to philosophy, religion and pop philosophy.

[waxwing]

I hope I got what you're trying to say. Me too.



"What reflects our actions": by "what we can observe in nature", I wonder if you mean that it's by the results that show from our actions? Observing the reaction from the surrounding environment and the people affected, and judging if the reaction is something we can live with or ought to be further changed. If so, then I suppose we go back to plan-and-act mode until we get the reaction we want. The best benefit is probably not the directly observable action but the development of methods which we use for future actions without repeating the same revelations involved from prior experience. Hmm. No, it wasn't exactly what I was trying to say, but it is related and I think it may shed more light on the question, as it deals with change. By "What reflects our actions?" I think I was getting at, "We are looking for a way to reflect our ideas, and perhaps rationalize a need for action, okay....but the very action itself, where is the reflection of that?" Perhaps you might help me suggest another word for reflection? The meaning here might be slightly off, or rather, misleading.



Basically, I guess it's similar to creating tentative formulas or theories that we can apply in the future for both attaining desirable results as well as testing the validity of the formula/theory itself. Okay, I can see that.



You noted something about relating physical laws to real life but I'm not sure I got the message. Although I do understand that the knowledge we've gained of physics, chemistry and biology can come up with (multitudes) of possible explanations for human behavior from the micro and macro levels of the human body, that wasn't strictly the purpose of relating the process to physical laws. I suppose it was to apply the scientific method, which has through repeated application with desirable and agreeable results, to the reasoning process for the original posts. Yes, true. In addition, I am thinking in terms of abstracting, and in doing so, seeing a reflection of human action -- a reflection that sheds light both on the action and the physical law that is at the root of the action. This observation of how the law applies itself, I am suggesting, may serve as validation for action.



The goal? If reflection of action = reaction, then the question becomes "What is more important, action or results?" Labor or fruits of? Okay, and I see now how that makes perfect sense, but I am not thinking along the lines of a direct link (as in I do something and see a reaction in nature), although that is certainly relevant. Is it possible to understand this not in terms of action/reaction, but more in terms of setting up a parallel framework? I'll try to explain what I mean. On one hand, I see a need to act in order to give flesh to that which I may believe/think/desire. On the other hand, I see that by acting, I necessitate another rationalization problem, that being: "I have acted, but now must understand why, and I must see evidence of my active human experience in the realm of nature in action." Is that the same as results/reaction? Perhaps it is a direct correlation, but do you see the distinction I am attempting to make? It seems to be more of a "stretch" now than it did earlier.



Of course, the pleasure we get out of doing labor without directly observable benefits are too a fruit... but that's going off topic. I think that's where the personality is defined: Our "fruit" preferences and the methods we choose thereof. Hm, yeah. Can you expand on that a bit? That is where I struggle to understand the application. I mean, in theory I see how that pleasure would be a fruit, but I cannot reason why we would suddenly not have to rationalize our labor? How can the labor be suddenly isolated and fruit-producing without calling for a brutal inspection/reflection process?



Personally, whether I reason out everything as best as possible or just go with the flow, I do the same thing; do as I feel best. In most cases, "the bare minimum" is what I feel best, but I'm constantly in need of reminding myself that the bare minimum level is constantly shifting and based on many variables, and thus ought not to be treated as an insignificantly summed value. In other words, my bare minimum is probably higher of a standard than what most others consider to be the bare minimum. Essentially, I think I agree. Perhaps we intuit a necessary action, and then intuit its significance. By "bare minimum," are you implying a sort of utilitarianism to action? I think the bolded section sounds in line with my thinking here. "...Based on many variables," yes, and aren't these variables something we can "work out" by observing nature, even when the observation does not seem directly linked to the particular action?



I hope that answered the question... if not, please explain further! You have helped to reorient my thinking. Very interesting ideas you've suggested. Some of what I was saying doesn't really make sense to me now. It's like I can't connect with that catalytic idea that started my reply in the first place.

[Sackanaka]

:rofl: :thumbup:

(my reaction upon realizing that I just can't think on this subject much at the moment)

Doing physics homework and needing to sleep before tomorrow's 7:30 am class does that to me... but I'll try to reply once my brain starts gettin back in da zone! :D

[waxwing]

:rofl: :thumbup:

(my reaction upon realizing that I just can't think on this subject much at the moment)

Doing physics homework and needing to sleep before tomorrow's 7:30 am class does that to me... but I'll try to reply once my brain starts gettin back in da zone! :D
Haha. Take all the time you need. Sleep is underrated.

My reaction is: I don't make much sense when I am lacking sleep.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

[Sackanaka]

Several months have passed and this topic makes even less sense than ever. Sorry, I wish I could have discussed this further. Maybe there is nothing more to discuss. Maybe it's a reiteration of the obvious, something I feel is the inevitable conclusion to all my quandaries.

It really feels weird to read what I wrote. I wonder if it's how Charlie felt in Flowers For Algernon? A sort of intellectual out-of-body experience, with the barrier being one of time instead of physical properties.

I think, waxwing, we'd eventually agree on the general idea. Specifics are going to be messy, especially since I find that there are two recurring problems with them, spread generously throughout the major debates in this forum:
1) Semantics. bleh.
2) Logic. bleh.

Thanks.

[illusivemind]

Yeah, but ideas alone aren't able to be relayed through the physical world, and just talking about them without example or application aren't effective methods of making the ideas conducive to other bodies.


Sackanaka,
I understand where you're coming from, however you probably need to be more clear and economical with the idea you are suggesting. According to your own theory no-one else can fully grasp it because all you are doing is writing about it to us.

It's like the logical positivists who say the only sentences that are meaningful are those that are physically verifiable, which rules out the thesis of logical positivism!

But not to worry, I've never been one to be stopped by a few self-contradictions. Action is important to create any kind of real change, but every conceivable action will produce the same kind of thinking if the same thought proccesses are behind them. Have your thoughts and words reflect the change you want to see in the world and your actions will follow.

[s0978]

I see that by acting, I necessitate another rationalization problem, that being: "I have acted, but now must understand why, and I must see evidence of my active human experience in the realm of nature in action." Is that the same as results/reaction? Perhaps it is a direct correlation, but do you see the distinction I am attempting to make? It seems to be more of a "stretch" now than it did earlier.
Nope not at all. The best rationalization I see for the importance of action is to gather data for reflection. Not in any super focused way, not just to test specific hypotheses… but just to have stuff to think about. Sometimes in my life I get so introverted as to cut off blood flow to the Ne. It's this thought which inspires me back to extroverted behavior.

Although I do understand that the knowledge we've gained of physics, chemistry and biology can come up with (multitudes) of possible explanations for human behavior from the micro and macro levels of the human body, that wasn't strictly the purpose of relating the process to physical laws. I suppose it was to apply the scientific method, which has through repeated application with desirable and agreeable results, to the reasoning process for the original posts.
It is so seductive to misapply and bastardize scientific terms/ principles onto incongruous scales such as human behavior, isn’t it? Lately in my mind I have been drawing an analogous relationship between thought = Potential Energy and action = KE..

Yeah, but ideas alone aren't able to be relayed through the physical world, and just talking about them without example or application aren't effective methods of making the ideas conducive to other bodies.
I may be projecting, but it sounds like you are looking for ideas which will inspire you to action. You want to “rationalize the need for action”: because you want to explore the gap between thought and action, thinking that a fuller understanding will prompt more action-orientedness? In short, are we looking for motivation, pure and simple -- but INTP style?

I feel like in this world we are too often taught that there is a point at which further understanding is futile, and the times come to put up or shut up, to act. This pisses me off. I feel like it’s possible it’s there to be made sense of, a conceptual understanding of the relationship between thought and action which could actually rock my world , inspire and motivate me in ways I haven’t been able to intuit yet, given that it’s a J, J world.

So, I hope this thread doesn’t die. I have some 'rationalizations for action,' if you all keep posting, I'll add some too.

Maybe it's a reiteration of the obvious, something I feel is the inevitable conclusion to all my quandaries.
Ha ha, do you do that too? I feel like I spend months taking apart and analyzing concepts, could write theses, it all feels so revelatory, electric shocks of Ni all over the place… but then I realize the conclusion (and premise too) is often the most self-evident idea in the whole world. It used to kind of make me feel like a moron, but recently I decided it’s just about being P and examining the most mundane notions with thoroughness, sort of verifying the assumptions everyone else takes for granted.

[illusivemind]

I may be projecting, but it sounds like you are looking for ideas which will inspire you to action. You want to “rationalize the need for action”: because you want to explore the gap between thought and action, thinking that a fuller understanding will prompt more action-orientedness? In short, are we looking for motivation, pure and simple -- but INTP style?

I agree, very true. Of course an INTP would come up with a theory and a philosophy that deals with moving from just theorizing and philosophizing to action...

[Sackanaka]

Sackanaka,
I understand where you're coming from, however you probably need to be more clear and economical with the idea you are suggesting. According to your own theory no-one else can fully grasp it because all you are doing is writing about it to us.

It's like the logical positivists who say the only sentences that are meaningful are those that are physically verifiable, which rules out the thesis of logical positivism!

But not to worry, I've never been one to be stopped by a few self-contradictions. Action is important to create any kind of real change, but every conceivable action will produce the same kind of thinking if the same thought proccesses are behind them. Have your thoughts and words reflect the change you want to see in the world and your actions will follow.

:)
I should've clarified better. According to me ( 8O ),
Action entails all physical expression, including writing, talking, etc. "Actions speak louder than words" still holds true though, because there seems to be a level of effectiveness of every action in context to the situation, which may or may not be determinable by scientific means.

For example, writing a letter to a fellow WWE wrestler to deal with the upcoming title bout probably won't be as effective as beating the living crap out of him. By the same token, beating the living crap out of the Pope probably isn't the best way to bring attention to your own agenda as it would be to state a formal address to the Church.

[Sackanaka]

It is so seductive to misapply and bastardize scientific terms/ principles onto incongruous scales such as human behavior, isn’t it? Lately in my mind I have been drawing an analogous relationship between thought = Potential Energy and action = KE..
I had a thread awhile back calling Energy = God. happppy



I may be projecting, but it sounds like you are looking for ideas which will inspire you to action. You want to “rationalize the need for action”: because you want to explore the gap between thought and action, thinking that a fuller understanding will prompt more action-orientedness? In short, are we looking for motivation, pure and simple -- but INTP style?

Yup, most likely correct. IllusiveMind also agreed, I think we have a good consensus going. All three of us. :/



I feel like in this world we are too often taught that there is a point at which further understanding is futile, and the times come to put up or shut up, to act. This pisses me off. I feel like it’s possible it’s there to be made sense of, a conceptual understanding of the relationship between thought and action which could actually rock my world , inspire and motivate me in ways I haven’t been able to intuit yet, given that it’s a J, J world.

I think a good majority of people on this forum feel or have felt like this, hmm.

Prior to this thread's conception, I understood action as necessary because that's what gets me from day 1 to day 2, allowing me to think more, kind of like calling all action "chores." However, I think this second mentality I proposed allows for the proceeding of action in appeal to reasoning, since it allows for the concepts to take form and affect others who are willing to let it. It's a selfish concept... conceptually... I think.



So, I hope this thread doesn’t die. I have some 'rationalizations for action,' if you all keep posting, I'll add some too.

Ha ha, do you do that too? I feel like I spend months taking apart and analyzing concepts, could write theses, it all feels so revelatory, electric shocks of Ni all over the place… but then I realize the conclusion (and premise too) is often the most self-evident idea in the whole world. It used to kind of make me feel like a moron, but recently I decided it’s just about being P and examining the most mundane notions with thoroughness, sort of verifying the assumptions everyone else takes for granted.

I'm trying to not let it die out too far. This thread will probably die though, only to be replaced by a mutation sometime later. This thread too is probably a mutation in its own right, since I'm sure I'm not the only one to think of this.
Because, it's obvious right? :P

[Maniac]

Yeah, but ideas alone aren't able to be relayed through the physical world, and just talking about them without example or application aren't effective methods of making the ideas conducive to other bodies.

What I was trying to say was that although each individual creates for themselves a unique perception of the world, an "idea realm", they are all based upon the physical realm which is independent of the idea realm and only changes within itself; only physical things change the physical realm. We're all stuck within our own idea realm but can affect others by acting upon our thoughts.

And yes, talking and listening and others are an action, and thinking in itself is an action... but that was addressed in the first paragraph. To make sense of it, read paragraph 2 first, then 1.

All U is P (all unique perceptions are based on the physical realm)
No P is U (no part of the physical realm is based on any unique perception)
----------
All P is P (all physical things are based on the physical realm)

This argument is invalid. Perhaps I misunderstood your argument, frankly, I can't seem to find a point in them. That's not an insult, just an observation of confusion.

All physical things being based on the physical realm is an intrinsic property of physicality, and of any argument. If you take P, all P is P is intrinsic. The argument is not needed for the conclusion.

EDIT: Trying to prove "only" is even harder. That means that not only would you have to enumerate every other possible influence that could affect the physical realm, you would then have to disprove that any of them affect it. Some studies have shown that thoughts and voices can affect the atoms of objects around them, I'm not sure if this is enough "controversy" to sway your opinion. In any case, I think the argument needs refinement.

[Sackanaka]

All U is P (all unique perceptions are based on the physical realm)
No P is U (no part of the physical realm is based on any unique perception)
----------
All P is P (all physical things are based on the physical realm)

This argument is invalid. Perhaps I misunderstood your argument, frankly, I can't seem to find a point in them. That's not an insult, just an observation of confusion.

Maybe I should brush up on logic, but isn't your logical representation misleading? Based on does not mean equal to, and likewise, all unique perceptions are not the same thing as physical reality. This distiction is one of the key conditions for the addressed issue. Because it is true that they are not the same thing, and because, especially for INTPs, it is easy to dismiss the significance of actions as inferior over mental conceptualization, I felt the need to express my opinion on the rather mild dilemma.



All physical things being based on the physical realm is an intrinsic property of physicality, and of any argument. If you take P, all P is P is intrinsic. The argument is not needed for the conclusion.

I see your point, but this made me think a few things:
1) I have admitted that this is a rather "obvious" concept
2) The significance is not so much in the logical reasoning for it but, like s0523 was pointing at, the potential motivation for acting instead of just theorizing. I don't know about you, but I feel the need to know what I'm doing is rational before I do it. Things that are "just for the hell of it" without needing rationalization are either indirectly beneficial or a spontaneous, perhaps experimental or temprorarily alleviating action which does not demand concern for outcomes and consequences.



EDIT: Trying to prove "only" is even harder. That means that not only would you have to enumerate every other possible influence that could affect the physical realm, you would then have to disprove that any of them affect it. Some studies have shown that thoughts and voices can affect the atoms of objects around them, I'm not sure if this is enough "controversy" to sway your opinion. In any case, I think the argument needs refinement.
Not really sure what you're trying to say there. "only" refers to which part of my post(s)?
Also, how do thoughts and voices affect surrounding atoms? Vibration? Ionic or thermal discharges? If it is an appeal to physical change, it still does not perform the reason for action I have stated in the first post: to reflect one's own thoughts onto the world, potentially affecting it and in turn increasing one's chances of survival... as well as making life more enjoyable! That's a very important thing too.

[illusivemind]

Prior to this thread's conception, I understood action as necessary because that's what gets me from day 1 to day 2, allowing me to think more, kind of like calling all action "chores." However, I think this second mentality I proposed allows for the proceeding of action in appeal to reasoning, since it allows for the concepts to take form and affect others who are willing to let it. It's a selfish concept... conceptually... I think.

This idea can be extended politically. I think there is a Western cultural ethos that reveres the 'individual'. A person who works for the benefit of themself and their family and perhaps gives a little to charity is perfectly moral person. As though as long as everyone 'worked hard enough' they would all live in the land of plenty.

I don't know if having a strong sense of what constitutes justice, is an INTP quality or not but I have it. I also have a sense of compassion and empathy which allows me to see clearly that the luck of my having been born into my social position does not authorize the imbalance of fairness between my position and alot of other people's.

So what have I done about it? Nothing. I'm an INTP, I have conceptualised, theorized and intellectualised it and came to the conclusion of actions needed. That people need to be awakened to the fact that history shows social positioning is fluid, economic systems that currently perpetuate this injustice change all the time, and the resignation to 'the way things are' is one that has been instilled into us by the people in power who benefit most from maintaining the status quo.

So long as my peers are content with the world the way it is, I can rationalize away the need for action.

[s0978]

I picked up this quirky little book which I haven't actually sunk my teeth into yet (Psycho-Cybernetics, by Maxwell Maltz, MD), but thought part of the preface was pretty cool. It made me think of this thread and also the therapy thread that is going on. First few sentences are context:

The "self-image" is the key to human personality and human behavior. Change the self-image and you change the personality and the behavior.

But more than this. The "self-image" sets the boundaries of individual accomplishment. It defines what you can and cannot do. Expand the self-image and you expand the "area of the possible." The development of an adequate, realistic self-Image will seem to imbue the individual with new capabilities, new talents and literaIly turn failure into success.

[...]

The self-image is changed, for better or worse. not by intellect alone, nor by intellectual knowledge alone, but by "experiencing." Wittingly or unwittingly you developed your self-image by your creative experiencing in the past. You can change it by the same method.

It is not the child who is taught about love but the child who has experienced love that grows into a healthy, happy, well-adjusted adult. Our present state of self-confidence and poise is the result of' what we have "experienced" rather than what we have learned intellectually.

Self-image psychology also bridges the gap and resolves apparent conflicts between the various therapeutic methods used today. It furnishes a common denominator for direct and indirect counselling, clinical psychology, psychoanalysis, and even auto-suggestion. All in one way or another use creative experiencing to build a better seIf image. Regardless of theories, this is what really happens, for example in the "tberapeutic situation" employed by tho psychoanalytical school: The analyst never criticizes, disapproves, or moralizes, is never shocked, as the patient pours out his fears, his shames, his guilt-feelings and his "bad thoughts." For perhaps the first 'time in his life the patient experiences acceptance as a a human being; he "feels" that his self has some worth and dignity, and he comes to accept himself and to conceive his "self" in new terms.In this thread, I'm afraid our line of inquiry is one of these situations where we might churn our wheels for months, and lo! after thinking thinking thinking, arrive at a profoundly simplistic, nearly self-evident observation : we learn by feeling and doing as well as by thinking. Action is necessary because experience is part of growing.

Yup.

[illusivemind]

I picked up this quirky little book which I haven't actually sunk my teeth into yet (Psycho-Cybernetics, by Maxwell Maltz, MD), but thought part of the preface was pretty cool. It made me think of this thread and also the therapy thread that is going on. First few sentences are context:
In this thread, I'm afraid our line of inquiry is one of these situations where we might churn our wheels for months, and lo! after thinking thinking thinking, arrive at a profoundly simplistic, nearly self-evident observation : we learn by feeling and doing as well as by thinking. Action is necessary because experience is part of growing.

Yup.

Fantastic quote s0523, I love it.
The idea of a consistent unchanging sense of self is a dangerous and misleading one. We carve out simple deductions about ourselves like 'introverted' or 'extroverted' knowing that certain circumstances might elicit dramatically different personality traits. We have learnt to associate certain qualities and reactions through our experiences of childhood.

But these associations need not be thought of as biochemical programming which forever forms our immutable self, but simply a semi-conscious decision made by ourselves. Through reinventing our sense of self intellectually and then experiencing this new self (and only be experience) can we change these associations. The action is needed for one reason that everyone you know already relates to you in a certain way and will expect you to continue acting that way. It is also needed for you to experience the destruction of your old idea of self, the one you invented when you were seven as a way of dealing with making friends at school or whatever.

The task is a scary one, because it is something new. We have adjusted, attached and comfortable with the self we have had for pretty much our entire lives. Assured in all our mechanisms for dealing with rejection. But if there are things in your life you want to change, chances are they are inevitable consequences of your present state of being. We don't aspire to achieve those things that comfort us, but those that daunt us and demand all our resolve.

[Hypnos]

If "growth" is the broadening of psychological capabilities, how are experience and action distinguished from intuition and imagination? Why must the new self be experienced if it can be imputed? If one can distinguish the new and old selves, who's doing the distinguishing? Why is the currently unsatisfactory self inherently dignified? Seems thin, and sounds a lot like Dianetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianetics) or a Flash ROM upload -- a labored dissociation.

The rational faculty is not along for the ride, a tool to be invoked when "cruise control" or the prior static self-image isn't working. Rather, it is in fact the embodiment of the self, i.e. the very process of constantly negotiating various impulses, experiences and notions, as well as calculating new notions. Any real therapy would involve shifting the calculus of negotiation, not just the mere elements. Recognized affective disorders are defects in this negotiation, not a poorly calibrated self-image. I guess this is why Scientology abhors mainstream psychology -- solutions people can easily wrap their frail minds around are more profitable than actually elevating the consciousness.

[s0978]

exactly, illusivemind, we're on the same page. I mainly posted the quote because it was speaking about Experience (vs thought in isolation) as the kind of rationalization we'd been seeking in this thread. But it is important to consider that learned preconceptions underlie all our responses, much of which we take for granted as the only possible actions/reactions -- because they are the only ones conceivable to us without benefit of critical reflection. The purpose of engaging in such lines of inquiry is not to attempt objectivity, but actually to more fully comprehend our inherent subjectivities.

Hypnos, I dunno what you are talking about. I don't think there is a radical new model of learning and consciousness asserted within the context of that little excerpt. The overall argument of the book may turn out to be as kooky as I imagine Dianetics is, I don't know, but you are like 10 steps ahead of some discussion which hasn't started yet?

[Hypnos]

Hypnos, I dunno what you are talking about. I don't think there is a radical new model of learning and consciousness asserted within the context of that little excerpt. The overall argument of the book may turn out to be as kooky as I imagine Dianetics is, I don't know, but you are like 10 steps ahead of some discussion which hasn't started yet?
Maybe. You should read about Dianetics too, then tell me how wrong I am :)

[s0978]

Maybe. You should read about Dianetics too, then tell me how wrong I am :)
I wouldn't dare. You are way smarter than me (see 'Modern Girl" thread).

[kuranes]

I wouldn't dare. You are way smarter than me (see 'Modern Girl" thread).

LOL

*Kuranes flickers briefly into and out of existence in this thread*

[Hypnos]

I wouldn't dare. You are way smarter than me (see 'Modern Girl" thread).
Stop objectifying me -- I can be dumb!

[s0978]

The task is a scary one, because it is something new. We have adjusted, attached and comfortable with the self we have had for pretty much our entire lives. Assured in all our mechanisms for dealing with rejection. But if there are things in your life you want to change, chances are they are inevitable consequences of your present state of being. We don't aspire to achieve those things that comfort us, but those that daunt us and demand all our resolve.Since we've already kinda digressed, there was this other neato stuff I saw recently along the similar tangent, they were PET scans of a human brain first learning to play Tetris and the same brain playing as practiced skill. (Work by Bernard Baars PhD if anyone's asking.) In the first image the brain was all lit up, meaning there was lots of metabolic activity, high levels of glucose consumption by brain matter. In second, once the game had been learned, the brain was relatively at rest, registering very little metabolic activity in comparison.

The fascinating sort of potential corollary is that once knowledge structures are fabricated they are then relegated to the unconscious, and when we acquire expertise at something, the brain does less work, it becomes more physically efficient. The conscious "works" to learn skills which will be handled by the unconscious. Um, no, Hypnos, admittedly it's not so much scientific *proof* that our 10 yr old experiences run our adult lives, but it certainly suggests evidence that this is how are psyches are formed. For those of us who do not require double blind studies for everything we choose to consider and stuff, I mean.

[kuranes]

Interesting the "glucose consumption' process involved with learning s0523 mentions. I swear it keeps coming back to sugar with me lately. I got a supply of a "new" sugar called Mannose the other day. Let's see if it helps me at all. See my thread on Neurochemistry.

[Hypnos]

[...] The conscious "works" to learn skills which will be handled by the unconscious [...] but it certainly suggests evidence that this is how are psyches are formed. [...]
I'd have two questions:

* Are the neural patterns in decision-making centers trained the same way as in motor centers? It seems complicated. Our motor learning capacity and basic coordination diminishes with age, but higher conceptualization remains pliable.

* In the complicated landscape that is the brain, where does the "psyche" lie? Seems to be a tangle of executive function in the forebrain, memories from various locations, and urges rising up from the more primitive areas.

It is interesting how the primitive fear-response behavior of the limbic system is connected with memories allegedly processed and stored away by the forebrain. Many violent criminals lack the capacity for the training, and it is a theory behind psychopathy. Is neurosis/anxiety the opposite?

[Maniac]

to reflect one's own thoughts onto the world, potentially affecting it and in turn increasing one's chances of survival... as well as making life more enjoyable! That's a very important thing too.

I thought that was the whole point of speech.

[Maniac]

This reminds somewhat of that story, of the guy sitting on the beach getting a tan. So his friend comes up to him and says, "You lazy bum! Why don't you go out into the world and get a job?"
Bum: What do I need a job for?
Friend: Because then you'll make money!
Bum: Why do I need that?
Friend: So you can buy a nice car!
Bum: Why do I need that?
Friend: So you can get married!
Bum: Why do I need that?
Friend: So you can have kids!
Bum: Why do I need that?
Friend: So then you can finally retire and just suntan all day.
Bum: I'm doing that now!

So what makes up go through all of that? A sense of personal accomplishment? Something greater? Something less?

[illusivemind]

Since we've already kinda digressed, there was this other neato stuff I saw recently along the similar tangent, they were PET scans of a human brain first learning to play Tetris and the same brain playing as practiced skill. (Work by Bernard Baars PhD if anyone's asking.) In the first image the brain was all lit up, meaning there was lots of metabolic activity, high levels of glucose consumption by brain matter. In second, once the game had been learned, the brain was relatively at rest, registering very little metabolic activity in comparison.

The fascinating sort of potential corollary is that once knowledge structures are fabricated they are then relegated to the unconscious, and when we acquire expertise at something, the brain does less work, it becomes more physically efficient. The conscious "works" to learn skills which will be handled by the unconscious. Um, no, Hypnos, admittedly it's not so much scientific *proof* that our 10 yr old experiences run our adult lives, but it certainly suggests evidence that this is how are psyches are formed. For those of us who do not require double blind studies for everything we choose to consider and stuff, I mean.

This is at the heart of our ability to learn complex routines, like driving a car. When you were first learning, there was so much data to take in. You probably could hold a conversation or listen to music, but gradually the machinery of the (we'll call it) subconscious brain takes over. Machinery that is far far more powerful than the conscious brain in terms of dealing with large amounts of information quickly.

Even now as I'm typing this I'm reminded that this is a learned technique, when I first started typing I had to figure out where every next key was. Now they are memorized, but not in a way that you recall like childhood memories but in the way you learn how to play the guitar.

I wonder if you could actually unlearn these things? Like riding a bike?

[illusivemind]

Interesting the "glucose consumption' process involved with learning s0523 mentions. I swear it keeps coming back to sugar with me lately. I got a supply of a "new" sugar called Mannose the other day. Let's see if it helps me at all. See my thread on Neurochemistry.

Kuranes, you talking about Mannatech? It's great stuff, let me know how it goes.

[illusivemind]

If "growth" is the broadening of psychological capabilities, how are experience and action distinguished from intuition and imagination?

I think growth in this sense is of psychological capabilities in action. It is one thing to be able to broaden perceptual limitations and think and imagine in new ways, that is growth certainly but to what effect is it, if there is no change in the actions you take in your life and the experience of your life? To what effect are such intellectual pursuits if you are saddled with the same fears?



Why must the new self be experienced if it can be imputed? If one can distinguish the new and old selves, who's doing the distinguishing? Why is the currently unsatisfactory self inherently dignified?

Why can it be imputed? Why is it inherently dignified, what does that even mean? How do you prefer to define the self? Merely as whatever is thinking? With such a definition, could there ever be change?



Seems thin, and sounds a lot like Dianetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianetics) or a Flash ROM upload -- a labored dissociation.

Cultlike movements tend to use kernels of truth to galvanise their followers, that’s what make them so dangerous. But maybe they are just insane and we can dismiss it out of hand. Anything that challenges the body of conceptions that makes up one’s worldview is likely to seem thin, but of course this itself is not sufficient prove of the validity of ‘novel’ views.



The rational faculty is not along for the ride, a tool to be invoked when "cruise control" or the prior static self-image isn't working. Rather, it is in fact the embodiment of the self, i.e. the very process of constantly negotiating various impulses, experiences and notions, as well as calculating new notions. Any real therapy would involve shifting the calculus of negotiation, not just the mere elements. Recognized affective disorders are defects in this negotiation, not a poorly calibrated self-image. I guess this is why Scientology abhors mainstream psychology -- solutions people can easily wrap their frail minds around are more profitable than actually elevating the consciousness.
A noble view, quite Kantian actually, such prestige and hope placed in the… rational… faculty…

What displaces the rational faculty? What makes one person experience an irrational fear of father figures and another not? Random chemical processes gone awry? Or the formation of that relevant self-image and experiential association? I’m not a psychologist, so I cannot of course answer that question with any authority, I would think you could either, we are both basing our opinions on formed ideas, experienced and non-experienced. Truthfully my acceptance of this rather radical conception only occurred when I could see the undeniable experiential associations in my own life. Moments in which I had formed conclusions about my so-called self. What I was capable of, what was possible and what was not, who I was and who I was never going to be. But I could just as easily choose to see these moments as environmental impacts, yes? Impediments to the otherwise pure rational self, defects to the calculus of negotiation.

I think the only people that can persuade us to a new point of view are ourselves. When we decide to abandon the safety of the present view to try on another. Begrudgingly or enthusiastically...

[Hypnos]

[...] A noble view, quite Kantian actually, such prestige and hope placed in the… rational… faculty…

What displaces the rational faculty? What makes one person experience an irrational fear of father figures and another not? Random chemical processes gone awry? Or the formation of that relevant self-image and experiential association? [...]
To be precise, I'm not promoting Kantian rationalism, merely rational self-evaluation. The difference is that reason does not provide value, only analyzes values and outcomes.

People do form associations, and I think we agree that self-images are just sets of desires to live up to. The old Freudian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud) theory is that the only true compulsions are animalistic, and that associations form in the tension between instincts and the society's regulation of these instincts. What's healthy is finding harmony between organic desires and society's prescriptions.

IMO, this is a bad way to live. As times change, as your perceptual world grows, trading one self-image for another is to doom one's self to a neverending cycle of anxiety and guilt -- Lacan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Lacan)'s critique of Freud. Of course, being typically French, Lacan doesn't provide a solution :P

My solution is to discard the self-image altogether. Don't fetishize what you think you want, but just do things that you think you'll enjoy. The self is the very exploration of enjoyment, not an identification of specific desires. Self-esteem, i.e. valuing one's self, is a side-effect of being honest in this process.

This stops short of Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_truths), which takes a scorched earth approach to eliminating anxiety. Also, it smacks of authenticity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticity_%28philosophy%29) promoted by late existentialist writers, but I reject many of their arguments and particular conclusions.

[illusivemind]

IMO, this is a bad way to live. As times change, as your perceptual world grows, trading one self-image for another is to doom one's self to a neverending cycle of anxiety and guilt -- Lacan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Lacan)'s critique of Freud. Of course, being typically French, Lacan doesn't provide a solution :P

I don't think I was promoting swapping self-images but doing away with the notion of the self, that your image of yourself is open to your own creation because the self is your creation.

I would tend to agree that interchanging selves, most likely at the moment of failure where some characteristic failed to meet your expectation is a bad idea. Sounds like the ultimate intellectual justification.



My solution is to discard the self-image altogether. Don't fetishize what you think you want, but just do things that you think you'll enjoy. The self is the very exploration of enjoyment, not an identification of specific desires. Self-esteem, i.e. valuing one's self, is a side-effect of being honest in this process.


Interesting.



This stops short of Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_truths), which takes a scorched earth approach to eliminating anxiety. Also, it smacks of authenticity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticity_%28philosophy%29) promoted by late existentialist writers, but I reject many of their arguments and particular conclusions.

I don't have a problem with authenticity because it tends to counterbalance the tendency to retreat to an intellectual justification of selflessness in moments of failure. That is for example you lie to yourself because you think you are whatever you create but you are actually in denial about the pain you are in.

I agree that schools of Buddhism take the obliteration of the self and ego to strange lengths that seem to evaporate happiness as well as suffering. However in my own interpretation of Buddha this is not the case. :whistle:

Better to create your own system than to rely on the dogma of others, I say.

[s0978]

This stops short of Buddhism, which takes a scorched earth approach to eliminating anxiety.
I agree that schools of Buddhism take the obliteration of the self and ego to strange lengths that seem to evaporate happiness as well as suffering. However in my own interpretation of Buddha this is not the case. :whistle: Actually Buddhist scholars have pointedly attempted to articulate that when they say there is no such thing as Self, they're not proposing a view of the universe that is void of joy in some absolute sense, just maybe the petty daily triumphs. When the Buddha reached Enlightenment, he smiled, he'd arrived at a state of Bliss. I think the idea is that ego is a mental construct, the sense of self as an individual entity apart and distinct from the world around it, that is fictitious, not that all emotionality/ attachment is null ultimately, just as they are experienced by most mortals.

There are these terms that seem bandied about by some of these Buddhism-Light™ gurus lately, I feel like I hear them everywhere: "Higher Self," "Expanded Self." I think I like these terms. To me, they allow for the unconscious portion of our selves -- we are more than our conscious selves -- and also incorporate the buddhist critique of ego.

[Hypnos]

So then, emotions (transient happiness, anxiety, anger, etc.) are a product of having an ego, a gap between the self and infinity? If so, this is very much mirrored by Hindu scripture -- nirvana might be achieved in striving for Brahma, the sum of all things. Indeed, every philosophy that has traction has this kind of idea: discarding the worldly in order to commune with the infinite. Christian/Muslim prayer, adherence to Jewish law, yoga and meditation, and perhaps even scientific inquiry. Adding the "unconscious" (of whose existence I'm skeptical) to this mix is interesting.

The problem I have with this program is that you are, ultimately, never not yourself. Even meditation, the attempt to obliterate the self to expand your consciousness, is directed by the self. So, your growth actually occurs by feedback and self-critique (rational inquiry), not by losing the self directly (spiritual abnegation). This should not be confused with the ego, which is a model of the self as caught between principle and base motives. My resolution is to recognize that principle is really an idealization of base motives through imperfect reason and insecurity. Happiness isn't in reconciling the two, but taking them to be the same in the first place, and adhering only to intellectual honesty.

[sbw]

This reminds somewhat of that story, of the guy sitting on the beach getting a tan. So his friend comes up to him and says, "You lazy bum! Why don't you go out into the world and get a job?"
Bum: What do I need a job for?
Friend: Because then you'll make money!
Bum: Why do I need that?
Friend: So you can buy a nice car!
Bum: Why do I need that?
Friend: So you can get married!
Bum: Why do I need that?
Friend: So you can have kids!
Bum: Why do I need that?
Friend: So then you can finally retire and just suntan all day.
Bum: I'm doing that now!

So what makes up go through all of that? A sense of personal accomplishment? Something greater? Something less?

libido.

Scott