Originally posted by PalynkaToilet paper packaging is about as interesting to me as TV 😀 Don't let me interfere with your delusions.
I have my criteria. So do you.
What I find fascinating is that you approach different perspectives with accusations of being evidence of a 'closed mind'.
Whatever it is that you feel you are being accused of... 😲 Maybe you are right. You must be.
Originally posted by MerkOh! 🙄 So what is RIGHT? 😲 To whom? When? Why? 🙄 And does that never change???
She makes the assertion that someone over-indentifying with an ideological cause is a bad thing? That's garbage. Its a matter of what the cause is. Apartheid for instance. Was Mandelas' or his followers, commitment to there ideological cause a bad thing? Certainly not. He was argueable even more committed to his cause than Eichmann.Mandela was committed enough ...[text shortened]... n people don't identify STRONGLY enough with what is RIGHT. If anything, THAT'S the problem.
Originally posted by widgetBringing Jews to the slaughter by the trainload is wrong. Joan of Arc leading the French people against English invasion is right. Zealouts can be good too. As for to whom all I will say about that is, to whom is
Oh! 🙄 So what is RIGHT? 😲 To whom? When? Why? 🙄 And does that never change???
more a philosophical question. Let's not pretend we are talking about anything philosophical. In the real world, matters of right and wrong are often very clear. No. I'm not saying always.
P.S. Remind me to thank her when I get to heaven. What she did is very under appreciated by most of my countrymen. Without England having to worry about France, the American revolution might have been very different. That's right. An American man just thanked a French woman.
Originally posted by MerkI believe an understanding of the assumptions underlying the process of consciousness allowing "thought" is a philosophical matter 😉 Right and wrong come along much later and change with the times & powers that be.
Bringing Jews to the slaughter by the trainload is wrong. Joan of Arc leading the French people against English invasion is right. Zealouts can be good too. As for to whom all I will say about that is, to whom is
more a philosophical question. Let's not pretend we are talking about anything philosophical. In the real world, matters of right and wrong are oft ...[text shortened]... on might have been very different. That's right. An American man just thanked a French woman.
Originally posted by widgetThat's wrong. Win or lose, Hitler would still have been wrong and the German public would have still be ashamed of their past.
I believe an understanding of the assumptions underlying the process of consciousness allowing "thought" is a philosophical matter 😉 Right and wrong come along much later and change with the times & powers that be.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaAh! So you did read it, then? 😀
Interesting, considering that Jaynes' book is as educating as TV and as useful as toilet paper.
"The bold hypothesis of the bicameral mind is an intellectual shock to the reader, but whether or not he ultimately accepts it he is forced to entertain it as a possibility. Even if he marshals arguments against it he has to think about matters he has never thought of before, or, if he has thought of them, he must think about them in contexts and relationships that are strikingly new."
- Ernest R. Hilgard, Professor of Psychology, Stanford University
At the heart of this book is the revolutionary idea that human consciousness did not begin far back in animal evolution but is a learned process brought into being out of an earlier hallucinatory mentality by cataclysm and catastrophe only 3000 years ago and still developing. The implications of this new scientific paradigm extend into virtually every aspect of our psychology, our history and culture, our religion - and indeed, our future. In the words of one reviewer, it is "a humbling text, the kind that reminds most of us who make our livings through thinking, how much thinking there is left to do."
Originally posted by widgetthat's one thing I can never get: there are vast amounts of worthwhile stuff coming out of the tube, and yet time after time there are people who claim it was somehow inferior to any other media. sure there are daily soaps, commercials, game shows, but there are also documentaries and other informative programs as well as a staggering amount of material on any cultural phenomenom. the situation is exactly the same as with the written media. putting tv down is like going into a library, looking at one passionate story of sexual love ending in a cuddle and a proposal, and deciding everything ever written was crap. if you can't find interesting things to watch, there is only one person you can blame it on.
Toilet paper packaging is about as interesting to me as TV
Originally posted by wormwoodToilet paper is reasonably useful stuff, it seems to me, but in its best use it is full of it. 😛
that's one thing I can never get: there are vast amounts of worthwhile stuff coming out of the tube, and yet time after time there are people who claim it was somehow inferior to any other media. sure there are daily soaps, commercials, game shows, but there are also documentaries and other informative programs as well as a staggering amount of material on ...[text shortened]... . if you can't find interesting things to watch, there is only one person you can blame it on.
There's no shortage of applications for t.p. either 😲 Marshall McLuhan was the first person to popularize the concept of a global village and to consider its social effects. His insights were revolutionary at the time, and fundamentally changed how everyone has thought about media, technology, and communications ever since. McLuhan chose the insightful phrase "global village" to highlight his observation that an electronic nervous system (the media) was rapidly integrating the planet -- events in one part of the world could be experienced from other parts in real-time, which is what human experience was like when we lived in small villages.
McLuhan's second best known insight is summarized in the expression "the medium is the message", which means that the qualities of a medium have as much effect as the information it transmits. For example, reading a description of a scene in a newspaper has a very different effect on someone than hearing about it, or seeing a picture of it, or watching a black and white video, or watching a colour video. McLuhan was particularly fascinated by the medium of television, calling it a "cool" medium, noting its soporific effect on viewers. He took great satisfaction years later when medical studies showed that TV does in fact cause people to settle into passive brain wave patterns.
1 edit
Originally posted by widgetmeditating causes even more passive brain wave patterns, I wonder why that isn't viewed similarly?
[b]He took great satisfaction years later when medical studies showed that TV does in fact cause people to settle into passive brain wave patterns.[/b]
stupid monks, all this time they've been heading just the opposite direction from spiritual enlightement. 😕
when I watch a chess dvd, I get far more out of it compared to reading about the same material. it doesn't demand much effort from me, I remember pretty much everything I see (unlike with reading), and I often get instantaneously ideas that take a long time to absorb from written text. I believe it is because we're hardwired to digest visual as well as other sensory data, where as reading is a trained process. sort of like using the CPU for graphics, which is slooow, instead of dedicated graphics hardware which will do the job with no additional cost.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundThanks. Its rare that an artist is recognized in his own time.
Chicken, i've done stuff that'd make your hair curl (save you money on perms i guess 😵 ), i don't mind the odd funny stuff, but some of the stuff posted here lately would be immature for high school kids.
The rape skit by HoH was particularly crass, and the other stuff is just boring......or is it hard and edgy, i seem to be out of touch these days 😛
Originally posted by wormwoodTotally agree with you. One of Jaynes' points is that our primary operating systems are pre-intellectual 😏
.... I believe it is because we're hardwired to digest visual as well as other sensory data, where as reading is a trained process. sort of like using the CPU for graphics, which is slooow, instead of dedicated graphics hardware which will do the job with no additional cost.
Originally posted by widgetPre-intellectual? Would by any chance be the Mr. Fancy pants word for sensory? Does boy wonder have a hyphenated name for instinct too?
Totally agree with you. One of Jaynes' points is that our primary operating systems are pre-intellectual 😏
Look, I'm not saying I haven't read books that are worthless to me, or that I won't again in the future. I just don't want to read any more than I come up with myself.
True story, I once read a fictional horror story by a Christian author only to discover near the end that it was a refutation of Darwinism. Now, I'm not closed minded on the topic, but that was definitely childs play and I wasted an entire night on it. A night that I can never get back! Lol!