|
Post by Beingist on Aug 26, 2013 16:08:42 GMT -5
haha, he's staff and he doesn't know every little thing. Oh, here he is in one case... just found it in my emails this morn' That actually looks like fun!
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 26, 2013 16:41:51 GMT -5
I'm confused. Is it the unconscious or the subconscious? Why and how? Freud's system is based on the conscious, preconsicous and unconscious. There is no subconsicous. "Subconscious" is only used in pop psychology by people who don't know what they are talking about. Does anyone take Freud seriously anymore? I thought he was like, OVER.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2013 17:58:24 GMT -5
Right, as an idea it just keeps swimming around. It's more subtle than that and requires something other than your 12 gauge. Aren't you further back than anything that appears in front of you? As the one to whom all appearances appear, can you be one of those appearances? You don't have to figure it out. It's already obvious. You just have to look and see. How could you ever know how "far back" something went? The only way you'll know if you remain despite appearances is after the body/mind is dead. Oh, unless you have a Realization. When I 'look and see' I mostly note a lot of change happening. And no, this does not necessarily mean that to note change there must be changelessness. There can be just a sea of relative change, for example. But the point is, even it seems like there is changelessness, it is just supposition/belief-making to call it eternal, limitless, yada yada. I don't see how eternity can be known beyond conjecture/belief.Well what's worse is that it can't even really be stated because any reference to it bounds it. No amount or quality of rotating perspective, of applying a different set of ideas, will ever change that. Someone can talk about the absence of a limit and you can think about the absence of a limit, but none of that is the absence of the limit.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 26, 2013 18:45:46 GMT -5
I'm confused. Is it the unconscious or the subconscious? Why and how? Freud's system is based on the conscious, preconsicous and unconscious. There is no subconsicous. "Subconscious" is only used in pop psychology by people who don't know what they are talking about. According to the great Wiki, subconscious was coined by en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Janet who also coined the term dissociation. He also was an influencer of Carl Jung. Sounds like there is some legitimacy to the term in formal psychology and it makes sense to have a term for content which we are not conscious/aware of but can become conscious/aware of by examining it. The unconscious is for things which we are blind to and cannot see clearly even when looking in their direction.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 26, 2013 18:53:35 GMT -5
Freud's system is based on the conscious, preconsicous and unconscious. There is no subconsicous. "Subconscious" is only used in pop psychology by people who don't know what they are talking about. Does anyone take Freud seriously anymore? I thought he was like, OVER. He is relevant historically and contextually and started a revolution in psychology, but his work is no longer on the cutting edge of research or theory. Psychology is a continually evolving field. Progress is a building on and refining of previous work.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 26, 2013 20:19:38 GMT -5
Does anyone take Freud seriously anymore? I thought he was like, OVER. He is relevant historically and contextually and started a revolution in psychology, but his work is no longer on the cutting edge of research or theory. Psychology is a continually evolving field. Progress is a building on and refining of previous work.Seems also there's been quite a bit of undoing, no?
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 26, 2013 20:23:25 GMT -5
Freud's system is based on the conscious, preconsicous and unconscious. There is no subconsicous. "Subconscious" is only used in pop psychology by people who don't know what they are talking about. According to the great Wiki, subconscious was coined by en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Janet who also coined the term dissociation. He also was an influencer of Carl Jung. Sounds like there is some legitimacy to the term in formal psychology and it makes sense to have a term for content which we are not conscious/aware of but can become conscious/aware of by examining it. The unconscious is for things which we are blind to and cannot see clearly even when looking in their direction. Jung was pretty cool. No secret that I'm a fan. Freud? Penis envy? Really?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2013 20:35:30 GMT -5
According to the great Wiki, subconscious was coined by en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Janet who also coined the term dissociation. He also was an influencer of Carl Jung. Sounds like there is some legitimacy to the term in formal psychology and it makes sense to have a term for content which we are not conscious/aware of but can become conscious/aware of by examining it. The unconscious is for things which we are blind to and cannot see clearly even when looking in their direction. Jung was pretty cool. No secret that I'm a fan. Freud? Penis envy? Really? Keep in mind that Freud was Victorian, and those folks had some serious sexual issues that screamed for resolution. Same dude in 1960's America would have blamed it all on the military industrial complex or reefer madness.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 26, 2013 20:50:32 GMT -5
Jung was pretty cool. No secret that I'm a fan. Freud? Penis envy? Really? Keep in mind that Freud was Victorian, and those folks had some serious sexual issues that screamed for resolution. Same dude in 1960's America would have blamed it all on the military industrial complex or reefer madness. Yeah, the Victorians put little lacy socks on piano legs and lamb chops.. I say Freud's own unconscious is evident in his work. Major projection. It is interesting, yes, but one needs to take it all with grain of salt. The whole Id SuperEgo Ego stuff... always confused me as well. Overall, it just seems a way to label someone unnecessarily, cause guilt and shame, encourage endless mental-masturbation in self-story telling. "I must be this way because something happened to me while potty training, which I don't remember.. oh yeah.. now I vaguely remember.... " Blame mom. Blame Dad. Blame society. Blame everyone and everything but yourself. Spend lots of money on the psychiatrists couch, talking it all out. Endless dumpster diving in one's past is silly and narcissistic. Memories are not reliable. Just drop the story, and change the here, now.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 26, 2013 20:50:37 GMT -5
Greetings.. It can be overwhelming. There's an infinitude to question. That's where it can be useful to question the assumption that you can be one of the 'things' that appears to you. This assumption is so deeply ingrained because we begin with the conviction 'I am the body/mind', and from there it seems obvious that 'I can be an appearance'. You can't actually find yourself as an appearance appearing to yourself. You don't ever appear. It doesn't matter how many fish appear in the barrel. You can't be any of them. This is a false representation.. i don't know anyone that limits their self-awareness to "I am the body/mind", but it is a belief you present as if it were true because it serves your purpose of illusion.. you say "oneness is truth", for which 'oneness' would have had to "appear to you", and 'realization' is not a suitable deflection from the appearance.. your presentation is dependent on 'belief', on others believing your word-play.. "I" AM 'this body/mind', and I AM NOT limited or confined or defined by anyone's belief about what that means, because I AM much more and less than those beliefs.. "I AM" the undifferentiated whole AND this individuated independently functioning manifestation of that whole.. I AM the Part AND the Whole, experiencing whichever perspective, part/whole/both, i choose to place attention on.. That anything exists temporarily does not invalidate its existence, it is no less real than that which is infinite/eternal, it is of 'one' essence, like the raindrop, the snowflake, and the ocean are each of the essence, water.. 'that' which 'is' is of the essence, change/energy, and made known by our experience of it.. so, rather than attach to stagnant beliefs, keep paying attention, keep looking and seeing what 'is' revealing itself to us through us as our interconnected experience of its 'isness'.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 26, 2013 21:02:35 GMT -5
Freud's system is based on the conscious, preconsicous and unconscious. There is no subconsicous. "Subconscious" is only used in pop psychology by people who don't know what they are talking about. According to the great Wiki, subconscious was coined by en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Janet who also coined the term dissociation. He also was an influencer of Carl Jung. Sounds like there is some legitimacy to the term in formal psychology and it makes sense to have a term for content which we are not conscious/aware of but can become conscious/aware of by examining it. The unconscious is for things which we are blind to and cannot see clearly even when looking in their direction. But unconscious also means bonked on the head and knocked out, or in a coma ala Terri Schiavo. Silver, your instincts are good here -- more you explore, more you see people just define these conscious/ness terms any which way they want. Which, I eventually figured out, is a powerful pointer.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 26, 2013 21:39:46 GMT -5
According to the great Wiki, subconscious was coined by en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Janet who also coined the term dissociation. He also was an influencer of Carl Jung. Sounds like there is some legitimacy to the term in formal psychology and it makes sense to have a term for content which we are not conscious/aware of but can become conscious/aware of by examining it. The unconscious is for things which we are blind to and cannot see clearly even when looking in their direction. But unconscious also means bonked on the head and knocked out, or in a coma ala Terri Schiavo. Silver, your instincts are good here -- more you explore, more you see people just define these conscious/ness terms any which way they want. Which, I eventually figured out, is a powerful pointer. if you do a little reading you'll see that both words "unconscious" (as in knocked out on the floor) and "the unconscious" (as in mind you are not aware of) both share a lack of conscious awareness. The terms are not completely arbitrary. In one everything is outside the conscious experience, and in the other certain aspects of the mind and psyche are outside the conscious experience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2013 21:43:09 GMT -5
But unconscious also means bonked on the head and knocked out, or in a coma ala Terri Schiavo. Silver, your instincts are good here -- more you explore, more you see people just define these conscious/ness terms any which way they want. Which, I eventually figured out, is a powerful pointer. if you do a little reading you'll see that both words "unconscious" (as in knocked out on the floor) and "the unconscious" (as in mind you are not aware of) both share a lack of conscious awareness. The terms are not completely arbitrary. In one everything is outside the conscious experience, and in the other certain aspects of the mind and psyche are outside the conscious experience. Try telling that to coma patients...heh
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 26, 2013 21:48:07 GMT -5
if you do a little reading you'll see that both words "unconscious" (as in knocked out on the floor) and "the unconscious" (as in mind you are not aware of) both share a lack of conscious awareness. The terms are not completely arbitrary. In one everything is outside the conscious experience, and in the other certain aspects of the mind and psyche are outside the conscious experience. Try telling that to coma patients...heh They don't seem to have a response when I tell them... and then the nurse asks me who the hell I am and calls security. I get taken away in chains. I definitely don't recommend telling it to coma patients unless they are a relative or friend and you have a reason to be in the room.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2013 21:53:02 GMT -5
Keep in mind that Freud was Victorian, and those folks had some serious sexual issues that screamed for resolution. Same dude in 1960's America would have blamed it all on the military industrial complex or reefer madness. Yeah, the Victorians put little lacy socks on piano legs and lamb chops.. I say Freud's own unconscious is evident in his work. Major projection. It is interesting, yes, but one needs to take it all with grain of salt. The whole Id SuperEgo Ego stuff... always confused me as well. Overall, it just seems a way to label someone unnecessarily, cause guilt and shame, encourage endless mental-masturbation in self-story telling. "I must be this way because something happened to me while potty training, which I don't remember.. oh yeah.. now I vaguely remember.... " Blame mom. Blame Dad. Blame society. Blame everyone and everything but yourself. Spend lots of money on the psychiatrists couch, talking it all out. Endless dumpster diving in one's past is silly and narcissistic. Memories are not reliable. Just drop the story, and change the here, now. Agree. I don't fault Freud as the ideas laid a foundation and were culturally significant, though there's no excuse for continuing the nonsense half a century later.
|
|