I don’t know if you had the chance to see the two things that I removed obsrvr524.
I put them up for a while hoping that it might cut your leg work down a little.
Then there is this. I do on occasion write assuming the reader has a certain level of knowledge and that comes with the danger that the reader may not understand some of what I am saying. Ultimately this comes down to time constraints - me not having a lot of time and me wanting to save some of the readers time. I want to add: as was explained to me in high school mathematics class that making jumps can make it hard for the reader to make the required connections to follow the logic - they put it simpler than this but I think you get the point. The missing steps(between the jumps) were in my head - I knew what I was doing.
Ok let me take this a little at a time - beginning with the part that you first referenced (there is a whole lot to “observe” here) -
already sounds like someone we were just talking about.
And then James associating it with demons -
He seems to be stating that what was once called “demon possession” is what we now call schizophrenia or one of the other personality shifting classifications. He is not saying that the use of “demon” was wrong, merely a different word that people have come to mistake as an extra-embodied entity - a floaty ghosty thing.
James had made a similar explanation concerning the words “spirit” and “ghost” years before he came here (along with many other more religious and spiritual words). He was regularly saying “Get your words straight”.
So James is explaining that 1000 years ago (and more) they were NOT wrong. They merely used a different set of words and over time the concepts have been nuanced and drifted into a more story-book kind of misunderstanding. He used to call it “a Santa Claus version of God and Christianity” promoted by the uneducated and the priests allowing them hold onto whatever they could understand at the time (“close enough”).
So I can see why you made that association with “something James said in RM:AO”.
Then continuing and related -
Here he is explaining that it is over-taxing the system that brings about emotions. I assume the anxiety or stress in people would be similar and bring similar inwardly-political competition for administrative rights. This is sounding like Parliament and the US Congress already - easy to see why he made that analogy -
He sure got that right.
Then there is this bit (which I love) -
That has become SO obviously true during this COVID thing.
So we can accept that our schizophrenics are not toostupid.
James expresses many times that the problems people have are the result of Godwannabe warring and that ALL of these problems already have solutions “out there”.
That indicates that he practiced what he preaches - and with apparent success.
sounds Jamesian.
I think that is about enough on schizophrenia.
I would sum it up as -
schizophrenia is due to neurological interference causing an array of mental issues
it is caused by environmental/societal issues - rarely genetic
it relates to subconscious struggling with priorities (not much different than Parliament)
best cured physiologically but at times psychological methods can work (physically remove the politicians - but arguing with them at times works)
the word “demon” is not wrong, merely antiquated and misunderstood
And now I guess the rest is about those internal struggles - what causes them, how they function and dysfunction (by analogy - why politicians do what they do) - all using affectance ontology models.
Remember his talk about the medical not being just drugs but the biochemical…
Interesting analysis.
Let us keep this in mind; Please note his caution: “Ethically, one must be careful of what is said concerning real psychology in such an environment as this, but I would like to propose a concrete analogy between particle physics and the far more vague field of psychology. Understand that this is not about what professional psychologists understand, but rather a completely new ontology of psychology from which the entire subject of psychology can be founded (or rebuilt).”
We are dealing with analogies that are very useful to us - James is not the only one with useful analogies - the idea is understanding the analogy enough to know whether it has flaws and then from there you can proceed. The process of processing information - within this category is this: flawed logics still works in general, especially to basic thinking(but also aids in complex thinking), since a number of related processes have already produced the most accurate and most useful judgments. Once you understand this little nugget then it opens the doors to a whole array of things - including James’ own work and why it works. James was able to detect logical flaws long before he rationalized them. I also want to add this: internal struggles are processes not too dissimilar to regular processes - James vector analysis points at an analogy(actually more than just an analogy) that explains this.
I can appreciate the restraint You plece on judgements, any and all including Yours and mine.
Somehow I fell the full weight of the defined logicality that processes in an unfounded level in the phenomenalogically reduced level in schizophrenia , for instance that being a regressed state as defined.
However , the manyfold reset, of the founded and reified basis, may be relative to a perceived grnerational-generational conceptually evolving stage, and here I should also stip, but that would or could be interpreted as an eidectic contension for fear of regression ad absurdum.Who would dare to devolve into the state of a quasi magical interpretation underneath below the mirror stage?
Then suppositions about multiple personality as simulated constructs could be assigned to mechanical defensive, reactive conditions.
As an afterthought it just occured to me that my judgement might play a double entendre on Yours, if so, then it passes over an undesirable level which is also an overcolored viee, or being in the 'over-thought department, or under, by a similar token.
As well as the thought just occurring to me of forgetting talking about this, and need to at least recapture some feelings about James’s use of vector analysis, yet kind of eager to regain some sense where all this can be fitted into.
We are always dealing with limits and for that reason, I have to acknowledge every person’s time and cognition as well as the availability of accurate information in each moment.
James did not always appreciate me doing that and I understand why but it did not stop him from helping me bring closure to the following:
Suggested Version - Possibly Version 3 - Thanks to: gib and James S Saint
Logical deduction, when answering a question, is limited by:
cognitive limitations
time available to answer the question
openness to influence from the social norm
availability of accurate information
This excludes influence from our own existing thoughts for the sake of convenience…because we can wrap it up in cognitive limitations.
I don’t understand at all what either of you are trying to say or even whether it relates to my effort to review James’ posts on schizophrenia and offer a much reduced few lines of basic concepts that he seemed to have wanted to relay.
I don’t understand why you reposted the warning. I don’t know why you are now talking about vectors, about other analogies also being useful, about related processes producing accurate and useful judgements, about restraints on judgements, about internal struggles not being too dissimilar to “regular” processes (whatever that means).
Have you just moved on? And does any of this relate to James’ posts?
Meno was communicating to me and I was responding to Meno. I don’t take ownership of any threads I start so from my point of view anyone can comment and I will have no issue with it. What Meno and I just partially discussed is separate from what I am discussing with you and because James was interesting to a lot of people you have to expect that more than two of us would have something to say in regards to James. Meno and I are not specifically discussing your efforts and are partially continuing on from discussions outside this thread which you will also notice that we kept our posts to each other short - hopefully, I will finish my responses to Meno eventually.
Your reduced few lines are interesting.
I reposted James’ caution because of what you mentioned in the other thread as follows:
To which I already responded to you in the other thread.
Did you read what I wrote in the OP? Let me repost the following: James’ thoughts on psychology are broader than what I have posted here - I can make further posts as needed to help make things even more clear - I will leave that to you to let me know if that is required or not. I hope this is useful to you obsrvr524 - I am happy to elaborate on things or simplify things if needed. I can also link to and/or post related thoughts. How what Meno and I are talking about relates to James’ posts may not be of any interest to you.
Vectors are a topic of another discussion that is not completely removed from this one.
It probably goes without saying that other analogies are useful so I do apologize for that one.
I will let you deal with why sometimes it is important to withhold certain judgments. Trying to bridge the gap between different disciplines that deal with fundamentally the same thing - in this case, mind(or in the brain’s case - producing of mind) - is understandably difficult so we can just let this quote go entirely. I do have to add however that one of philosophy’s jobs in the modern day is to get different disciplines talking to each other, essentially bridging gaps - this is a more academic thing. The good thing is that what James says can be read by people from many different walks of life, working in different disciplines and each of them can get something useful out of it.
Actually one can never move on, since the light, the spectrum disallows it as a totality. But of course the return eternally is fixed so a constant reminder can be seen and appreciated for where and what it represents on a variable canvas, from the ultrareal of the classics up through the pointillistic middle of a balancing act between expression and impression.
Course let not appear to be the final partial description of a say like coming from some seer, of age, but then he did say of the totem that it becomes a patterned out extension that is invaluable and really, recurring and can not ever be shrunk back to it’s original form.
The saints and the Superconscious One, including Saint James , ade unable to put it back in it’s original box.
All codexes fail and succeed n simultainty, and maybe that’s a saving grace.
Actually one can never move on, since the light, the spectrum disallows it as a totality. But of course the return eternally is fixed so a constant reminder can be seen and appreciated for where and what it represents on a variable canvas, from the ultrareal of the classics up through the pointillistic middle of a balancing act between expression and impression.
Course let not appear to be the final partial description of a say like coming from some seer, of age, but then he did say of the totem that it becomes a patterned out extension that is invaluable and really, recurring and can not ever be shrunk back to it’s original form.
The saints and the Superconscious One, including Saint James , ade unable to put it back in it’s original box.
All codexes fail and succeed n simultainty, and maybe that’s a saving grace.
Meno, James left me with a troubling question that you just reminded me of and that is: So “best rules” are variable?
I always remembered it as rules change.
I am not sure whether it was his intention to leave me wondering about this since I am so invested in RM:AO and this was meant as an easter egg or what.
I queried him twice in the public threads and once in a PM that I sent him containing other queries and information but for some reason, he avoided a direct answer. In the PM he addressed everything except that one query.
I can see the variation necessary in a number of things. I just have to live with this mystery because the required validation had to come from James. Using the emulator I can make a “guess” - by playing Russian dolls.
In another thread I think I just ran across the answer to the question you posed -
The chosen ontology sets any rules - so choosing an ontology would alter rules - meaning the rules are variable (although perhaps not if you choose an ontology that doesn’t offer options).
Yes, that is correct. The question that I had for James, I am able to work out for myself, what the answer is - it was dealing with change within the system that the ontology explains - the answer is obvious, it is just that it is nice to have certain answers from authors and by the time I came to that question I had nearly exhausted what I believe to be every detail that was needed to be exhausted. James did actually answer a bunch of related things that I can infer answers to unresolved questions. I am pretty sure he avoided a public answer for a specific reason to do with people jumping in bed too quickly with false conclusions. The problem lay in messing things up with a bad interpretation as is so often done. You only have to look at the bad interpretations of Nietzsche but it does not stop there. I hope this all makes sense - I was in a hurry when I typed up this post.
I should offer you a thank you, however, obsrvr524 - thanks for engaging me with this part of RM:AO smiles all around as far as I am concerned.
Some people don’t like variation(another topic that is already being discussed by you and other members of the board).
Unfortunately, there is only so much time in a day - I used to have a lot more time to spend on ILP - these days I just post more random things here.
True, true. Jargon can lead to a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement(Thanks google, hahaha). Most of my discussion here on ILP flows - you have to be privy(sharing in the knowledge of) to certain information to see the flow. If we are using terminology in a conversation that only one party is privy to then there is an obvious problem. Sometimes we have to make assumptions and when these assumptions fail then one party has to ask a question that clears the failure.
Agreeing to a set of definitions beforehand will help greatly. I am not distracted - it is more the case that the ambiguity that I introduce(unintentional) causes a distraction in the opposite party.
obsrvr524, we just have to be specific with what we talk about - I don’t have a lot of free time, so long conversations on ILP don’t work for me. I guess for you and me it is just easier to stick to James talk and make it obvious that we are posting or responding to each other. You seem to like political stuff and I like mind(and brain), knowledge and existence stuff.
smiles all around as far as I am concerned.