Thanks for that edifying post.
Here’s where I got into trouble arguing philosopy. I assumed that analogic preceeds logic, due to the notion that our dream narratives and our creative endeavors are metaphoric. Monkey see; monkey do.–at least on the ontological level of knowing. The waking narrative is not different in kind from the dream narrative; it appears to me to be an extension of “I” possibilities in further states of consciousness. So I do get accused of reification when talking about logic as existing prior to the narratives. Call this precursory logic or preverbal logic. In any event I don’t like Pinker’s distinctions as given in his “Mind” book.
I’m looking for process, progression, dynamics of growth and development, etc.
On metaphoric narrative see Julian Jaynes’ work. This may need to be the type of argument you need to substantiate any evolutionary changes in logic/analogic.
The distortions of meaningful, in the sense of human well-being, is what we’re discussing mainly in this thread.
I do video presentations on reasoning. I have even discovered and am posting developments in a new analogic which demonstrates the identity between 2 logics and 2 analogics.
The principles of reasoning, I am developing on my own because it is clear that there is no other I know of capable.
Please cite where these videos can be found.
Push the button --------------->
Maybe. That’s a ton of material, much of which, even in abbreviated description, does not fit in here. Methinks you should start your own thread about this material. I’m old school, believing that if a work cannot be presented in a single descriptive paragraph, it could be a waste of your and our time to see or read it all.
In this current thread, please let us know how this work involves the problem of MI.
Well, so much for your curiosity. I bet you ask your spouse, should you have one, to get you a cup of coffee.
This year I’ll be 70. Our general family longevity is 82. You should have caught me at 25 when my curiosity was unbounded. Now it’s simply conserved. Don’t have a wife or significant other.
So, how does your work resolve any of the problems we’ve discussed here about MI & therapy?
Do a thread in philosophy. I’ll read it.
When the mind becomes different from the mind, I will let you know.
Apparently, being polite doesn’t work. Please avoid this thread. I’ll respond to you elsewhere.
Who in the hell do you think you are to tell me to avoid a public thread, and when I answer your questions you bitch? You have a very warped idea of polite.
It is HIS thread based on HIS thesis.
He hasn’t the right to demand or force you to leave, but he does have the justifiable and semi-authoritative right to ask you to (or me or anyone else). You seem to keep espousing things that despite our efforts, seem to be irrelevant or disconnected to the topic at hand.
Well excuse me, this is a philosophy forum, it is for the investigation even of opposing views, now you can add your stupidity to his, but it does not change the facts.
I have just as much right to my say as anyone, so you can piss off as well.
Neither you nor I make the rules here, one of which is to stay on topic as much as possible.
This is NOT a federal public forum. It is privately owned and managed.
I am on topic, I don’t care if you agree or not.
And when the public is invited to a forum, it is public, or can’t you even reason that much?
In case you have not noticed, there are private areas of this forum. Duh.
I think the rule is about trolling. I could be wrong. I did ask, not demand.
The term “ad hom” refers to addressing the person making statements rather than the topic of the discussion. Look back at how often you initiate an ad hom exchange. Then discuss it with a moderator, not me.
Yes!!!
Then why are you opening your mouth? As you say, it is the mods choice.
And read back very carefully, who initiated the personal attack, and who was not addressing the ideas?
Oh, my word! Is there nothing immune…