• Deleteduserrc
    2.8k
    Truly scattered, but I'm trying to tie together some ideas that have been floating around, and maybe others here can relate, or have some insight?


    -- I had one of those days recently where I couldn't muster the energy or focus to do much of anything & so just skipped around recommended youtube videos (What the Wait But Why guy calls the dark playground. ) I found one lecture about gaming addiction, which I watched despite not having been a 'gamer' in a long time. The lecturer was specifically focused on intelligent gamers and - similar to the thesis of The Drama of the Gifted Child - argued something like: having the idea of Being Intelligent baked deeply into one's identity can cause some people to avoid anything that undercuts their sense of mastery. Basically, avoid anything that you're not immediately good at, especially if the failures necessary for growth happen in the presence of others. Mistakes are not just mistakes, but are registered (consciously or otherwise) as attacks on one's very identity. If Identity is tied to being worthy of love and acceptance - as Miller, for one, suggests -then these mistakes are mistakenly triggering shame and exile-danger centers of the brain, or soul, and preventing growth.

    (Miller would say this also applies to feeling certain emotions, or having certain memories, or anything that doesn't fit neatly into the Supremely Reasonable persona, the development of which was meant to gratify what one perceived (accurately or inaccurately) as what one's parents wanted. Failure & mistakes (or irrational emotions and dark memories) mean being divested of the identity one trades for love & inclusion.

    -- At 31, most normal aspects of life are still a struggle for me. Becoming able to get a minimally sustaining work-from-home job (after an excruciating in-office decade) to get my own apartment, and to take care of my expenses; that is basically the sum of what I've achieved in terms of day-to-day life. It was hard-won, and I am grateful that I have gotten to this point, but, as a achievement, it places me far behind the curve. It is still difficult to go to the store and do normal social things; I do it, but It's like sternly piloting a ship while the entire crew is panicking. I find that I have to rely on pre-thought-out heuristics to navigate basic social things, and those fail a lot of the time, because they're substituting algorithms for just-doing-what-people-learn-naturally-to-do (or: substituting 'episteme' for 'metis'.)

    ---Related: over-intellectualization of everything: my stream of consciousness often feels like an interpretive machine, processing everything in a certain way, and spontaneously generating theories about what doesn't fit (When I was doing therapy, my therapists inevitably got frustrated with the feeling that they were talking less to a living, feeling person than to the theorist of a person; 'So many constructs!' my final therapist finally burst out one day, frustrated, after stoically listening for months). This post, of course, is another example of that.


    -- What is the voice of one's inner monologue? Is it oneself, thinking? Is it a mesh of voices heard as a child, that have become internalized? It's familiar, and there is a comfort in that. Is it someone one is speaking to? How does it develop? Is having a childhood friend the vanishing mediator between living in the overheard words of others as a child, and developing one's own reflective and autonomous self? But then what is that voice, exactly? And are there multiple voices (I think there are)? Does the internalized interlocutor, and one's relationship with it, determine in part how one acts? If one acts in a different way, does that change one's internal monologue?

    -- "Mindreading" is a psychological term used to describe a common psychological defense, especially in those with personality disorders. Essentially: if you're mindreading, you're not really open and engaged with others, learning how they're thinking by interacting, but reflexively, and without strong reason, imputing to them certain thoughts and feelings. There have been some studies that many people with personality disorders perceive neutral expressions and tones as hostile (sort of the subjective inverse of 'resting bitch face'). I don't know how much this characterizes me but I do know that whenever I meet people it seems to be modulate between 'hostile' and, if they like me, 'hostility deferred for now.'

    I think where all these things are heading, or how they're linked:

    -- What is the relationship between one's inner monologue and actual dialogue with others? Is there an economy of conversation that can be skewed toward a monopoly of an imagined, inner, interlocutor which one misperceives as oneself?
    --How is the capacity to learn related to one's openess to people outside you? Does learning always imply a teacher? A judge?
    --If your inner monologue is deceptive, how can you move beyond it, since it's so deeply wrapped up with yourself?
  • Deleteduserrc
    2.8k
    Related, crude theological ideas:

    --Alan Watts often comes back to a central idea: The ego cannot change itself. It often pretends to disintegrate itself while 'moving to the next floor up' (as Watts puts it) because it recognizes having disintegrated ones ego as something it can then claim, for itself, as proof of its essential goodness and spirituality. Lyotard makes a similar point in an essay called Rewriting Modernity. Change is something undergone and so cannot be engineered in advance. I think that this opens up the space for a secularized (or nonsecularized, whichever is preferred) version of Grace, which is something that has appealed and made sense to me for a while.

    --Grace can't be courted or solicited, so even if the idea make sense, that doesn't necessarily get you anywhere. But it also seems off to sort of remain in the rut you're in without changing anything, because it's not up to you whether or not you're visited by grace. I think this is where a secularized (or nonsecularized, whichever is preferred) idea of 'faith' might be helpful. Even if internally everything's the same, acting as though you did have the inner strength to move from an old way of living, to another, clears the ground for grace. It is a way of actively readying oneself to passively receive. I think this can take a lot of forms, but can sometimes even be really simple: just establishing a routine, new habits. The thing is that these things are not gratifying, and require fidelity through a period lacking any concrete reward so:


    --Patience, also, and humility. More old theological virtues. Original sin (again secularized or not) allows oneself to be truly aware of one's flaws. Rejection of original sin, while prima facie liberating, leads, naturally, to a covering-over of one's flaws [that's a lot baked into one brief sentence, but I think it can be fleshed out convincingly.] The rejection of the idea of human weakness tends to lead people away from growth and to an absolute good/bad social mechanism that operates through shame, and encourages hiding rather than confrontation.Eventually, at the limit, one learns to hide oneself from oneself.
  • Banno
    25k
    'So many constructs!'csalisbury
    :grin:

    Have you looked at I am a strange loop? It's dreadful, but also excellent. Your constructs within constructs... strange loops indeed. There might be some similarity between what you describe and Hoftader's thesis. I found it helpful in similar circumstances, especially in identifying the more persistent strange loops so that they can be explicitly dealt with.
  • Judaka
    1.7k

    I watched a lecture like that, probably the same, done by Dr. Kanojia.

    I think when it comes to matters of identity and self-creation, there is nothing to be discovered, it's about creating a working system based on what you want to achieve. That system is rooted in capabilities as much as it is in interpretation. For something like social ineptitude, the process to overcoming that is difficult and requires you to step out of your comfort zone. However, the "problem" is self-defined, even self-created.

    How does one characterise the failure up until now to overcome the "problem", what opportunities have been squandered due to the "problem", what does the "problem" say about you and your abilities? Should we evaluate the answers to these questions by whether or not these views are "true" or should we evaluate them by whether or not these views are costing the individual comfort, confidence, progress and so on?

    Even in overcoming the "problem", the negative interpretations become an obstacle and the example with Dr. Kanojia is like that. Living with it and overcoming it can both be hard because of how the problem is viewed.

    I think of myself as complicated, I am influenced by so many internal and external variables and I have no control over it. I am contradictory, inconsistent, impossible to understand and that's just what it means to be human. Instead of concerning myself about whether my inner voice is truthful, I ask whether it is productive. Self-analysis is focused on whether how I think is helping or hurting me and that isn't always an easy question to answer. I believe the focus on truth in these contexts can be detrimental, there's no problem with self-deception, provided the self-deception is responsible for things that make your life better and not worse. That requires awareness of the possibility for self-deception, which I think I have.

    I think the truth is dependant upon how you feel, think, your perspective and interpretations and the kind of person you are. When you believe in the truth, you reinforce the "you" that sees that truth and you reinforce the problem. That's even more evident when the views of others are ignored when they disagree with your belief. So belief in the truth that depends upon you being the way you are is the same as committing to the way you are irrespective of the consequences.

    Also, intellectually understanding something is insufficient, is there anything one can say to themselves to overcome the fear of public speaking? Or nervousness, etc? Almost always the answer is no. You need to train yourself, you need to show yourself that there's nothing to be afraid of. So it is insufficient to "know" that you're doing something, you can only overcome these types of things with exposure and repetition.

    I don't really know what your OP is about, I just picked parts of it and commented on them. I am extraordinarily introverted and I used to see this negatively when I was younger, I hated feeling that way. Instead of changing, I changed my perspective, nowadays, I am something like an elitist on the matter of introversion, it's an identity and source of pride, something which brings me happiness even though beneath the surface I won't let how I feel take me down the wrong path because as I said, I am interested in the pragmatic benefits of my views as opposed to faith in their superiority or validity.

    Many philosophers propose that ways of thinking and being will lead to desirable outcomes or even worse, we just need to strive towards the ideals of the philosophers and they will provide their reasoning for why. Finding a way to live well is about examining the way we cause ourselves happiness and misery. What are we focused on and how do we interpret what we're focused on and what does it say about us or the world. How can one be sad if they see themselves in a dazzlingly positive light? How can one be happy if they only talk about themselves in disparaging and depressing terms? My priorities are always focused in this area.
  • Deleteduserrc
    2.8k
    Have you looked at I am a strange loop? It's dreadful, but also excellent. Your constructs within constructs... strange loops indeed. There might be some similarity between what you describe and Hoftader's thesis. I found it helpful in similar circumstances, especially in identifying the more persistent strange loops so that they can be explicitly dealt with.Banno

    I haven't, but I did read Godel, Escher, Bach back in the day (before I was ready for it, tbh). It really impacted me, despite not grokking everything going on. The basic thing I took away was an attentiveness to the process by which meta-level framings become objects themselves (and how the paradoxes of a system representing itself as an element within itself are strangely productive). There's a Swiss Animator, Georges Schwizgebel who, If I'm not misreading him, gets at the same idea in another medium.

    I'm beginning to think this is less about consciousness tout court, as Hofstadter seems to think, and more about how a certain kind of thinking works (sort of like when Kant talks about illusions inevitably generated by reason when it tries to apply the form of 'understanding' beyond its native province.) I don't think the labyrinth is constitutive of consciousness, I mean, but is one tangle consciousness can get into, when one part of it begins to think it's all of it.
  • Brett
    3k


    But then what is that voice, exactly? And are there multiple voices (I think there are)? Does the internalized interlocutor, and one's relationship with it, determine in part how one acts? If one acts in a different way, does that change one's internal monologue?csalisbury

    However many voices there may be it all amounts to the same thing, which is that internalised conversation. Whether it’s true or not I don’t know, but evidence seems to suggest a high rate of suicide in poets. (What the rate is among builders, or plumbers I don’t know, so how can we be sure the poet figures are high?). My feeling is that poets spend too much time in that internalised space. Philosophers are the same. Mathematicians might be considered in that light but their language is maths.

    My personal feelings are that action is the only thing to put the internal voices in place. Action is about moving forward, literally one step in front of the other. In the end you are removed from where you were. The voices never do that. To spend too much time in that conversation is profitless. Do they determine how one acts? very rarely in my opinion.

    If the way one acts in a different way is action then it doesn’t change one’s internal monologue, it shuts it up long enough to put you in a different space ( then one may have a different conversation). In extreme active situations that monologue is completely shut down, it’s no longer relevant, it has no benefits.
  • Deleteduserrc
    2.8k
    @Judaka & @Brett - thank you for the thoughtful responses. Just realized the time and have to go to sleep before responding, but I will tomorrow.
  • tim wood
    9.3k
    but I did read Godel, Escher, Bachcsalisbury
    I hope you remember jootsing. And implicitly, jootsing in and at the right time, the right place, for right reasons, for right purposes and ends.

    (jump out of the system.)
  • Banno
    25k
    It seem'd for a while back then that we were about to find out something really profound, to do with reflexive iterations, self-similarity, Chinese rooms and so on. Then Google Translate came along and beat all that over the head with blind, brute calculating power and statistical analysis, while neural networks seemed to lead in a different direction.

    Bump. I'd like to see more thought on the eternal gold braid.
  • Pfhorrest
    4.6k
    -- At 31, most normal aspects of life are still a struggle for me. Becoming able to get a minimally sustaining work-from-home job (after an excruciating in-office decade) to get my own apartment, and to take care of my expenses; that is basically the sum of what I've achieved in terms of day-to-day life. It was hard-won, and I am grateful that I have gotten to this point, but, as a achievement, it places me far behind the curve.csalisbury

    Having felt a lot like that at that age myself, I wonder if you have looked at the actual curve numbers. I was surprised to learn that as poor as I seemed and as hard as it was to get any bare semblance of a “normal” adult life, the statistics showed that I had never actually been below the median.

    If that’s true of you too, the takeaway isn’t that you’re not really poor, but rather that we are all poor, and it’s not a personal failings of your own that you haven’t lived up to your internalized expectations. It’s a systemic problem, and you may be rising to the challenge better than most others are even while you feel like you’re failing.
  • deb1161
    4
    This is too much like me... all of it. My entire life I've been searching for another soul who can understand even a fraction of my hyper-intellectualized and debilitating perception of the world and the people around me and then you come along, describing it in shocking detail. This is like finding my own, real-life Treatise on the Steppenwolf, if you've read any Hesse.
  • Deleteduserrc
    2.8k
    However many voices there may be it all amounts to the same thing, which is that internalised conversation. Whether it’s true or not I don’t know, but evidence seems to suggest a high rate of suicide in poets. (What the rate is among builders, or plumbers I don’t know, so how can we be sure the poet figures are high?). My feeling is that poets spend too much time in that internalised space. Philosophers are the same. Mathematicians might be considered in that light but their language is maths.

    My personal feelings are that action is the only thing to put the internal voices in place. Action is about moving forward, literally one step in front of the other. In the end you are removed from where you were. The voices never do that. To spend too much time in that conversation is profitless. Do they determine how one acts? very rarely in my opinion.

    If the way one acts in a different way is action then it doesn’t change one’s internal monologue, it shuts it up long enough to put you in a different space ( then one may have a different conversation). In extreme active situations that monologue is completely shut down, it’s no longer relevant, it has no benefits.
    Brett

    I agree. The image I have is of trying to climb out of a swamp, all wrapped up in reeds that keep pulling you back into it. I especially like the idea of quieting voices long enough to be in a different space, where a different conversation can happen. That sounds just right to me.
  • Deleteduserrc
    2.8k
    I’m glad it resonated so strongly! (I have read Steppenwolf but so long ago now it’s sadly faded.) I have a hunch a lot of people, especially here on a philosophy forum, feel ( or have felt) similarly.
  • Deleteduserrc
    2.8k
    t seem'd for a while back then that we were about to find out something really profound, to do with reflexive iterations, self-similarity, Chinese rooms and so on. Then Google Translate came along and beat all that over the head with blind, brute calculating power and statistical analysis, while neural networks seemed to lead in a different direction.

    Bump. I'd like to see more thought on the eternal gold braid.
    Banno

    With the caveat again that most of the detail has faded for me, it feels to me like the causality is backward In Hofstadter. I’m far from familiar from last-gen AI debates, but the sense I got is that Hofstadter was trying to leverage paradoxes of reflexivity in formal symbolic systems In order to lay the theoretical groundwork for creating real AI - in other words, it seems like he thought that these paradoxes might be generative of human-like intelligence.

    I think it may be more likely that a living animal who is inducted into symbolic thought* -and uses it while still existing as a living,time-bound being -requires that kind of reflexivity in order to bridge the gap between its flux-y existence and the stately, time-independent fixededness of symbolic systems. The “I” (along with its attendant paradoxes) is a useful symbolic fiction to facilitate this -but it’s a facilitator, not an origin. I guess you could also say this kind of thing might be necessary for human-like intelligence, but not sufficient.

    Not my natural element so let me know if any of that makes sense.

    (Incidentally, my long flirtation with continental (especially hegel-inspired thought) in my twenties stems largely from hearing echoes of what glimmered most to me in Hofstadter. I read him first, in high school, after hearing about him on a forum for fans of a webcomic.)

    ———
    * in the way one is ‘inducted’ into a language, even if a chomskyan (sp?) capacity for learning language in general is hardwired
  • Banno
    25k


    Side tracking again, if I were not so age-addled, I'd be paying much more attention to Shannon entropy and information theory, especially as it relates to fractals. The Mandelbrot set - the ubiquitous example - has both infinite complexity and yet extraordinary simplicity. All the information in the set is explained in a simple recursion that can be presented in a few lines of code. So does it contain infinite information, or very little? I would like to get my head around that.

    I'd also like to see neural networks being taught to produce fractals. (edit: What do deep neural networks understand of fractals ?)

    That's the why of Hofstadter's notion, that the simplicity of recursion leads to infinite complexity seemed to fit with the finite brain producing indefinite sentience. But I'm not sure Hofstadter would disagree with you that “I” is a useful symbolic fiction to facilitate this -but it’s a facilitator, not an origin. Indeed, that seems to be close to his thesis in "I am a strange loop"; that "I" am a chaotic, but recurrent, pattern in a neural network.

    But all of this is too speculative and needs something much firmer to hang from.
  • Deleteduserrc
    2.8k
    But all of this is too speculative and needs something much firmer to hang from.Banno


    To segue off of this into a maybe meta-forum line-of-thinking: what is the place for this kind of unqualified speculation?

    On the one hand, it's foolhardy to build on these fragments to try to say something sweeping. Recently, I've taken up chess - terrible at it, very bad - and there's nothing for it but to keep playing games, paying attention, and reflect afterward with reference to the existing body of theory. Sometimes, I think I have a stroke of insight, but then I'm also well-sure I'm either the one millionth person to have this realization or I'm amateurishly mistaking a deep confusion with the experiential trappings of insight for actual understanding.

    But I also keep finding myself at firepits where the conversation turns philosophical. I know myself well enough now to know I probably won't ever learn Shannon inside and out. I'm probably going to ever be an amateur -- and there's always going to be much smarter, and much more erudite people than me, suggesting totally incompossible ideas.

    At that point, having give up the idea of being at professional-level - not necessarily due to inability , but with all the constraints that make it hard for layman to master a field’s ideas - I have to decide whether I have the right to play with the ideas (while reminding myself of my limitations, and that this is just conversation to work out my own thought), or remain totally silent.

    There's a line of thought that total silence is the right action; but if you apply the same perspective that brings you there broadly, you have to be willing to go all the way: almost everything in life we have opinions or comments on we don't know the guts of. Apply this rule consistently and I believe there is nothing you can say about anything (minus what you know deeply) except that you don't know.

    Knowing that the forums are just forums, I'm more than ok with amateurish conversations, which are just massaging out thought-knots. I think the problem is less with talking about what we aren't qualified to talk about - and more when we mistake forum-conversation for seismic hypotheses the professionals would do well to take swift notice of.

    But also: I have to keep playing chess to learn even layman's chess. I can learn to make implicit to myself that any amateur chess game, any anything I've learned, is still at the foothills. And I know I'll never be Kasparov, but I still like playing.
  • Banno
    25k
    I play chess, too. I find my capacity fluctuates somewhat arbitrarily. Sometimes I look a the board and I can see patterns, shapes that show the way moving the pieces will unfold; other times, I see a check pattern and some pieces. These perspectives last for days at a time, when I either can't win, or can't lose. So I play at somewhere below mediocrity.

    I've studied a few set openings. I'm slowly learning more, but without much urgency.
  • Stan
    19
    “If the way one acts in a different way is action then it doesn’t change one’s internal monologue, it shuts it up long enough to put you in a different space ( then one may have a different conversation). In extreme active situations that monologue is completely shut down, it’s no longer relevant, it has no benefits.“ — Myself, I do a lot of internal monologue. Sometimes I find it helpful, but other times I find it counterproductive, so I shut it down and engage in something else, like meditation, walking, calisthenics, whatever.
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    What is the difference between enlightenment and depression?
    Between carefree and careless?

    Curious how thought aspires to the mechanical, to computation, as in chess moves. Curious how a thread on thoughts about living becomes a thread on thinking as living.

    The ego cannot change itselfcsalisbury

    The wall. Ego is the thought of thought as actor. The thinker cannot change the nature of thought.
    The thinker is the thought of thought as actor.

    There is nothing there, but thought endlessly trying to fill the void. (Something here about holes, and stopping digging)

    Heaven and earth are ruthless, and treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs;
    the sage is ruthless, and treats the people as straw dogs.
    — Lao Tzu

    Exercise: play chess with three players. Usual rules, take turns, but find yourself playing black and white alternately. Practice the presence; it's the move, not the goal. Everyone wins- everyone loses.
  • Deleteduserrc
    2.8k
    One interesting thing about chess is that everything is structured around taking the king, but the king is never taken. The game ends, both players exit, when the taking of a king becomes inevitable. A kind of gentlemen's agreement: we both know it would have happened, but we agree that it will not.

    A game of chess takes place by carving out a small frame and arranging a set of symbolic tokens. When the symbolic system freezes, as in checkmate, it's resolved by 'zooming out of the frame.' The freeze is re-inscribed in the broader world (" X beat Y at chess") The pieces (now physical objects, rather than symbolic game-tokens) are picked up, and put away.

    What if you're in checkmate, but there is no way to move out a frame, and reinscribe the impasse as a resolved outcome on a new level? Thought, or at least a certain kind of thought, can always provide the necessary supplemental level. From there, it can work on itself endlessly But still: the board hasn't being picked up and put away, and, somewhere, far below, you're still in checkmate.

    Meanwhile thought is going to work on itself. Awareness of the foundational-checkmate is being well-buffered; Not only can you not become aware of the original checkmate, but now you can't think anything that implies that checkmate. Then: anything that implies something that implies checkmate. (Ashbery: "Does the first nettle make any difference as what grows becomes a skit?)

    Thought is forming itself like a pearl around an initial irritation. Or thought is like cocoon. Or it's stack of embedded chess games with itself, where the inevitable gentlemen's agreement keeps pushing things farther and farther from the source. The way of describing it is sometimes hopeful, sometimes sad & defeating.
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    What if you're in checkmate, but there is no way to move out a frame, and reinscribe the impasse as a resolved outcome on a new level?csalisbury

    Then the king dies. The player dies. Thought ends. When there is no movement possible, there is stillness.
  • Deleteduserrc
    2.8k
    Four quotes, with the fourth interrupting the third, resisting it. (Kierkegaard, Homer, Hesse, Ashbery, then Hesse again)

    “I feel as a chessman must when the opponent says of it: that piece cannot be moved”

    "Apollo took Aeneas out of the crowd and set him in sacred Pergamus, where his temple stood. There, within the mighty sanctuary, Latona and Diana healed him and made him glorious to behold, while Apollo of the silver bow fashioned a wraith in the likeness of Aeneas, and armed as he was.”

    "Only slowly and gradually did I begin to suspect and then perceive what it was intended to represent. It represented a figure which was myself, and this likeness of myself was unpleasantly weak and half-real; it had blurred features, and in its whole expression there was something unstable, weak, dying or wishing to die..."

    ["These were meant to be read as any
    Salutation before getting down to business,
    But they stuck to their guns, and so much
    Was their obstinaacy in keeping with the rest
    (Like long flashes of white birds that refuse to die
    When day does) that none knew the warp
    Which presented this major movement as a firm
    Digression, a plain that slowly becomes a mountain.

    So each found himself caught in a net
    As a fashion, and all efforts to wriggle free
    Involved him further, inexorably, since all
    Existed there to be told."]

    "...I saw something moving, slowly, extremely slowly, in the same way that a snake moves which has fallen asleep. Something was taking place there, something like a very slow, smooth but continuous flowing or melting…I was overcome by an infinite weariness and desire to sleep, and I turned away to find a place where I could lie down and sleep.
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    It is only what I deserve. I kill the king, and Hydra-like 4 more kings arise. *Climbs into sky grave, and pulls up ladder behind.*
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.