|
|
Post by topology on Jul 3, 2013 16:55:53 GMT -5
This is a fundamental question to answer: Is that which is seen also that which is seeing? When you look at a car, is it the car that is looking at the car? When you look at your hand, is it the hand which is seeing the hand? When you look at your reflection in the mirror, is it the reflection that is seeing the reflection? When you look at your thoughts, is it your thoughts which are seeing and aware of your thoughts? When you look at and examine the psyche (conscious, subconscious, or unconscious) is it the psyche which is seeing the psyche? Do you understand the problemo in what you're proposing? If the psyche is seen, how is the psyche also that which is seeing the psyche? The seen is not what is seeing... The psyche is seen. We're not looking for guesses here. You have nothing but guesses in the questions you're seeming to ask. Nobody really 'knows'. Right? What is the psyche, then? It's invisible. Cannot be seen, defined, caged. What part of our invisible self is that which CAN be caged? Is it any different than the mind/psyche? I tend to think they are one and the same. The mind is hooked up to our senses. And yet, at times it seems the mind is felt / sensed to be the same thing or akin to spirit/soul. I think if they're not one and the same, that they are very close friends. So, the last question about looking at etc. the psyche, the answer is not the same as for the rest. Silver, the psyche is not invisible. We wouldn't have a term for it and a concept of it if it were invisible. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 3, 2013 16:57:57 GMT -5
You have nothing but guesses in the questions you're seeming to ask. Nobody really 'knows'. Right? What is the psyche, then? It's invisible. Cannot be seen, defined, caged. What part of our invisible self is that which CAN be caged? Is it any different than the mind/psyche? I tend to think they are one and the same. The mind is hooked up to our senses. And yet, at times it seems the mind is felt / sensed to be the same thing or akin to spirit/soul. I think if they're not one and the same, that they are very close friends. So, the last question about looking at etc. the psyche, the answer is not the same as for the rest. Silver, the psyche is not invisible. We wouldn't have a term for it and a concept of it if it were invisible. Can I see a picture of yours? |
|
|
|
Post by Ishtahota on Jul 3, 2013 17:07:09 GMT -5
Some people just cannot do simple
|
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 3, 2013 17:19:54 GMT -5
Humans act. Physical actions, emotions, thoughts. We analyze those acts and attempt to formulate a script consistent with these actions such that if we execute said script in certain conditions then the human in question would perform the actions that we observed. The psyche is the script which humans act out.
|
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 3, 2013 17:39:44 GMT -5
In psychology, the psyche /?sa?ki?/ is the totality of the human mind, conscious, and unconscious. Psychology is the scientific or objective study of the psyche. The word has a long history of use in psychology and philosophy, dating back to ancient times, and has been one of the fundamental concepts for understanding human nature from a scientific point of view. The English word soul is sometimes used synonymously, especially in older texts.[1] From Wikipedia, which certainly lies along the lines that I've always known it to be...I can't see how it's a visible thing.  |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 3, 2013 17:49:32 GMT -5
I can't see how it's a visible thing. You're correct. It's not a visible thing. It's a theoretical construct and if it does indeed exist then it makes itself known only by its effects, i.e. human acts. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 3, 2013 17:57:57 GMT -5
You have nothing but guesses in the questions you're seeming to ask. Nobody really 'knows'. Right? What is the psyche, then? It's invisible. Cannot be seen, defined, caged. What part of our invisible self is that which CAN be caged? Is it any different than the mind/psyche? I tend to think they are one and the same. The mind is hooked up to our senses. And yet, at times it seems the mind is felt / sensed to be the same thing or akin to spirit/soul. I think if they're not one and the same, that they are very close friends. So, the last question about looking at etc. the psyche, the answer is not the same as for the rest. Silver, the psyche is not invisible. We wouldn't have a term for it and a concept of it if it were invisible. Well? In a way, I'd like to know where you were going with that notion. I probly shouldn't encourage. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 3, 2013 18:17:01 GMT -5
Silver, the psyche is not invisible. We wouldn't have a term for it and a concept of it if it were invisible. Well? In a way, I'd like to know where you were going with that notion. I probly shouldn't encourage. ...........but I will.  |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 3, 2013 19:05:31 GMT -5
I can't see how it's a visible thing. You're correct. It's not a visible thing. It's a theoretical construct and if it does indeed exist then it makes itself known only by its effects, i.e. human acts. That you have thoughts and there are patterns in those thoughts is a theoretical construct? How many pieces of sea dragon are visible? How many sea dragons are there?  The psyche may be a gestalt, but the pieces that construct the gestalt poke out of the water with enough regularity to warrant the gestalt. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 3, 2013 19:07:18 GMT -5
Silver, the psyche is not invisible. We wouldn't have a term for it and a concept of it if it were invisible. Can I see a picture of yours? You get a picture of my psyche through interacting with me, reading my words, seeing how I respond, etc. Those are all pieces that contribute to the gestalt. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 3, 2013 19:08:58 GMT -5
Some people just cannot do simple Simple to one is complex to another. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 3, 2013 19:10:22 GMT -5
Can I see a picture of yours? You get a picture of my psyche through interacting with me, reading my words, seeing how I respond, etc. Those are all pieces that contribute to the gestalt. Hmm, I may have thoughts about your and my (and everyone else's) interactions here, but I can't honestly say I see pictures in my mind about it/them. It seems on the one hand, you and a couple three others here are wont to shut down (almost entirely) the mind's workings (bad, bad mind) and imagination and yet you come up with this - seems very incongruous to me. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 3, 2013 19:40:54 GMT -5
You get a picture of my psyche through interacting with me, reading my words, seeing how I respond, etc. Those are all pieces that contribute to the gestalt. Hmm, I may have thoughts about your and my (and everyone else's) interactions here, but I can't honestly say I see pictures in my mind about it/them. It seems on the one hand, you and a couple three others here are wont to shut down (almost entirely) the mind's workings (bad, bad mind) and imagination and yet you come up with this - seems very incongruous to me. There are pictures in your thoughts, or else they would not sound coherent. You might not be paying attention to the picture that is created and notice it. The picture doesn't have to be vivid like a movie playing in front of your eyes. The picture need only be detailed enough to present the thought as distinct from other thoughts, expressing the relationships encoded in the thoughts. Even gibberish casts an image in the mind. Sometimes the emergent picture is coherent and clear, sometimes its incoherent. After reading that poem, how do you know you read it? What did it feel like to read it? That is the image the poem creates. You do not yet understand the admonition about the use of imagination. It's not that using imagination is bad, it has to happen to facilitate communication and to reason about and navigate through experiences. The admonition is about letting imagination run wild and believing everything it says without applying skeptical inquiry grounding it in experience. If you really begin to investigate whether or not what you think is true to identify and challenge assumptions, you'll find that you can let go of a great many things, including the assumption that there is a world separate from our immediate experience. That world, that we believe is separate from our experience, is an unnecessary imagining. (Please note the adjective). |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 3, 2013 19:48:50 GMT -5
Hmm, I may have thoughts about your and my (and everyone else's) interactions here, but I can't honestly say I see pictures in my mind about it/them. It seems on the one hand, you and a couple three others here are wont to shut down (almost entirely) the mind's workings (bad, bad mind) and imagination and yet you come up with this - seems very incongruous to me. There are pictures in your thoughts, or else they would not sound coherent. You might not be paying attention to the picture that is created and notice it. The picture doesn't have to be vivid like a movie playing in front of your eyes. The picture need only be detailed enough to present the thought as distinct from other thoughts, expressing the relationships encoded in the thoughts. Even gibberish casts an image in the mind. Sometimes the emergent picture is coherent and clear, sometimes its incoherent. After reading that poem, how do you know you read it? What did it feel like to read it? That is the image the poem creates. You do not yet understand the admonition about the use of imagination. It's not that using imagination is bad, it has to happen to facilitate communication and to reason about and navigate through experiences. The admonition is about letting imagination run wild and believing everything it says without applying skeptical inquiry grounding it in experience. If you really begin to investigate whether or not what you think is true to identify and challenge assumptions, you'll find that you can let go of a great many things, including the assumption that there is a world separate from our immediate experience. That world, that we believe is separate from our experience, is an unnecessary imagining. (Please note the adjective). I actually do - have come to understand the admontion about the use of imagination - actually it's not so much the 'use' but how it seems as though it is allowed or somehow (seems automatic) just happens. Umm, yep, after hanging here for a year, I'm seeming to allow / opened up to the experience (?) that the 'rest' of the world isnt separate - is like something I knew / aware of all along, but just didn't give it much thought. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 3, 2013 22:29:29 GMT -5
Silver, the psyche is not invisible. We wouldn't have a term for it and a concept of it if it were invisible. Can I see a picture of yours? That's pretty personal. Maybe you should take it to the unmoderated section. |
|
