There is in the first instance, no such thing as the individual mind. One is always 'in' some state or other 'with' others. Mind is responsive sensitivity, and the fundamental unit is the relationship, not the organism. The individual is an epiphenomenon if you like, of the group mind, or perhaps, mind is the product of culture, rather than culture the product of mind. — unenlightened
One can see at once from this perspective that personal identity of the form of I am this nationality or this religion, or this race or football club, is a fragmentation of the mind, and also that a lack of truth and trust, is not just harmful to our sanity, it is the very fabric of madness. To be mad is nothing more or less than to be incommunicado, to have reached the point where no communication can be trusted - to have lost contact with the world. — unenlightened
Mind is responsive sensitivity, and the fundamental unit is the relationship, not the organism. — unenlightened
Isn't this a lie though? We experience ourselves as individuals, with our own individual thoughts, with freedom to think what we want in secret, fundamentally, and much more so than we experience ourselves as a part of a "group mind". — Metaphysician Undercover
I've learned to accept the gap, and make efforts to understand others. But this doesn't let the others into my mind, it just allows me to maintain relationships. — Metaphysician Undercover
Well some people hear voices, and some people think they are alone. "We experience ourselves as individuals" Is this not performative contradiction? Who is this 'we' that is being given voice to? — unenlightened
I am asking you in good faith to at least imagine the implications of it not being a lie, one of which is that the experience of individuality is an hallucination - that what we assume to be normal is itself a madness. Then one has an explanation as to why a social creature spends so much time organising conflict. — unenlightened
By the way, I really don't see the relationship between seeing oneself as an individual, and the desire to organize conflict. I see organized conflict as the product of things like nationalism, in which individuals see their group, "us" as being opposed to the thoughts and expressions of another group, "them". Organized conflict is not the result of personal differences. — Metaphysician Undercover
Are all of your thoughts and feelings unique and original to you (if they were they would be inexpressible)? Has no one else ever had those thoughts or feelings? — Wosret
Private suggests that they are no where else to be seen, but if they have been seen in a different place before, could they not be recognized again? — Wosret
How is it that I have this very strong unity within myself, which society does not have? This unity which makes up society is deficient compared to the unity which makes up myself, because it will allow different parts with competing ideas to attack each other, but my mind will always use reason to work out such problems without resorting to the destruction of myself. If I were to fall to this level, then clearly I would be ill, but that supposed unity of society is always at this level. Why would I accept this unity of society as a higher unity than the unity of myself? — Metaphysician Undercover
Snow flakes aren't unique and original either, that's also a myth, just like people their formation is correlated to their physical circumstances. — Wosret
Given the boundary of self, self-centred behaviour is rational behaviour. But I have removed the given, and suggested it is an hallucination, as the voices some folk hear are said to be hallucinations. So far, your reason has come up with the equivalent of 'why should I doubt the voices?' and 'the voices are very strong'. — unenlightened
If we can't be of one mind, and think the same thing, then how can we possibly communicate? — Wosret
So far, your reason has come up with the equivalent of 'why should I doubt the voices?' and 'the voices are very strong'. — unenlightened
So you're telling me that I should listen to the reason of others rather than my own reasoning. — Metaphysician Undercover
why shouldn't I tune out those other voices altogether, and trust only my internal voice, the one true voice which I know never has the motivation to deceive me? — Metaphysician Undercover
Well... obviously snow flakes, nor people are literally identical, like superman and Clark Kent are. For them to be precisely identical, none of their attributes can vary, and nothing that can be said of one, cannot be said of the other, including temporal and spacial location. That doesn't mean that a clone isn't pretty much the same, without being literally identical, as they share many many attributes, with less difference than sameness. — Wosret
Whole picture, and discrete details are two ways of looking at things, blurring the individual parts into a whole, or zeroing in on the discrete details, which themselves can be further broken up into discrete parts, that can be called a unity, at different levels of analysis. Calling one more true or real just demonstrates a lopsided, or one sided view of things, in my view. — Wosret
Responding to me that there could be no communication either if we were literally identical, and literally the exact same person is not to actually respond to anything I've said. — Wosret
Saying that your thoughts are unique, and only individual to you, and no one else, and me asking you then how it is that communication is possible is to respond to what you've said. — Wosret
I am an external voice, talking to your internal voice, and saying that seeing external and internal as separate is a deep mistake. I cannot give you a reason to listen, unless you listen. — unenlightened
I am asking you in good faith to at least imagine the implications of it not being a lie, one of which is that the experience of individuality is an hallucination - that what we assume to be normal is itself a madness. — unenlightened
I'll listen, but as I said, unless I can determine your motivation in telling me this, I cannot trust you. I perceive a huge difference between internal and external. So you telling me that this is a deep mistake is apprehended by me with great suspicion, I have no idea what you are up to. And so I will ignore your plea, as an unreasonable external voice, asking me to join it in who knows what kind of adventure. That is, until you demonstrate your motivation, what kind of adventure are you taking me on? I suggest you proceed in making your point, then perhaps I can judge your motivation. — Metaphysician Undercover
I did mean "same", same doesn't mean completely absolutely identical, nothing is even self-same under the notion of completely in every imaginable way identical, no one ever means that.
When someone tells you that they have the same shirt, it doesn't mean "hey, that's my shirt!" — Wosret
What then is this huge difference? — unenlightened
I am saying what I think is true, and my motivation is that the truth is liberating. — unenlightened
But here already is some evidence; we assume, we agree, that my voice is internal to me and external to you, and your voice, vice versa. What then is this huge difference? Externality is internality, seen from elsewhere. It seems a huge difference because it is a matter of perspective, but it is no difference at all; certainly not one to bear the weight of total trust on one side and total paranoia on the other that you seem to place upon it with no justification I can see. — unenlightened
I really struggle to make any sense of this. My voice, as expressive of my thoughts and posted on this forum is not external to you? — unenlightened
Consider the possibility , or don't. — unenlightened
Your voice is external to me, but it is external to you as well. Your thoughts are internal to you, but they are also internal to me as well — Metaphysician Undercover
There's something clearly right about this.There is in the first instance, no such thing as the individual mind. One is always 'in' some state or other 'with' others. Mind is responsive sensitivity, and the fundamental unit is the relationship, not the organism. The individual is an epiphenomenon if you like, of the group mind, or perhaps, mind is the product of culture, rather than culture the product of mind. — unenlightened
More generally, the activity of minds in the medium of culture involves attunement with the whole world as it appears to us in experience.... — Cabbage Farmer
Well if my thoughts are internal to you, then, ... — unenlightened
Just suppose, that we take a really radical, far-out psycho-ceramic view of psycho-ceramics ... entertain it for a moment ...
There is in the first instance, no such thing as the individual mind. One is always 'in' some state or other 'with' others. Mind is responsive sensitivity, and the fundamental unit is the relationship, not the organism. The individual is an epiphenomenon if you like, of the group mind, or perhaps, mind is the product of culture, rather than culture the product of mind. — unenlightened
This is such a radical, unfamiliar way of looking at oneself and at human nature and the whole of philosophy, that I want really to just stop there and see if it will sink in at all, if it begins to make sense of, for example, what seems to be a global Zeitgeist that sweeps us willy-nilly from Socialism to Fascism, from war to war, from atheism to fundamentalism, and so on.
One can see at once from this perspective that personal identity of the form of I am this nationality or this religion, or this race or football club, is a fragmentation of the mind, and also that a lack of truth and trust, is not just harmful to our sanity, it is the very fabric of madness. To be mad is nothing more or less than to be incommunicado, to have reached the point where no communication can be trusted - to have lost contact with the world.
Identity is fragmentation, and dishonesty is insanity. That alone is enough to rock my world.
If that worldview is shared by an overwhelming majority, then we have common goals powerfully packed by the multitude. That's key, on my view. Common goals. Common beliefs. Common ethics/morality. A community of people working together for what's in the best interest of the community. In the case you're examining it's the community writ large. I am my brothers keeper. Genuine vested interested in the group. Teamwork. What's good for you is good for me. The measure of the categorical imperative. Etc.
Interesting how that notion of teamwork, and all for one, is used by and in large in American society, shamefully in many(perhaps most) instances. — creativesoul
That said, the portion of my earlier reply was meant to elaborate upon the zeitgeist portion of yours. The bit about how a society gets to fascism from socialism. It's been called 'hive mentality' by some. Not everyone is capable of thinking for themselves... — creativesoul
I want to attempt to ascertain, determine, and/or set out what exactly an individual adopts from the collective, particularly with regard to self-worth, self-value, self-awareness, etc. It seems to me that that would be a good method for working towards your aim, as well as perhaps helping to explain some of the reasons why that particular style of therapy is and/or would be so effective/affective.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.