 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)DADONCK ...and 170 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613408 Today 0 Topics 127499 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sort of. There seems to be a real similarity between the material objects in front of me (the kitchen table, the oven, the window) and the thoughts in my mind (the thoughts about the work-projects that need to be finished, the thoughts about family members, ...). They are all external and facing 'me'. Which doesn't mean that they are foreign and alien. But they are distinctly not me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Lynch simply states that ideas are like fish swiming by. If you catch it, if you were connected to that intuitive part of yourself then you catch it. From then on you decide what you do with it. If you don’t catch it and do something with it then the fish will simply keep on swimming for someone else to catch. comes to mind. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I was asking wether you think that all the bacteria and foreign organisms inside “you” are “you”; not the kitchen table that you can see and know the presence of. God I’m thinking of Sartre now. :( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I would say that they are part of the environment in which I can flourish/exist; and that they are perhaps a necessary part for that flourishing, but that they are not identical to 'me' because 'I' refers to my activity. But the bacteria and so on govern themselves. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Lovely chatting, welt! I’m off to bed. Look forward to reading my Lord Snooty’s input tomorrow! I hope he disagrees with both of us! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ah well yes, I always wondered what I’d “be” if I had been brought up away from people and society and art, and kept in a room being fed as a child and then given meals through doors. Total isolation. Thing is, clearly (in my view) such a person would still have a soul, just rather “pure” and undernourished. Ok it’s getting late. Cave. Gosh I should go to bed! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Good night 🌘 🦇 🦡🦝🦔🦔 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So I guess my question is: is your conundrum wether the soul is something pure and inherited, or something that evolves and learns, “something” influenced? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
🐠✨✨✨✨ |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I wonder if the micro organisms that make a lot of who I am have souls. And if so, wether their souls influence my soul. Is my soul the master soul? There's a lot of evidence that gut bacteria are an integral part of human biology and have a huge influence on disease, immunity and our overall mood and state of mind. So, . |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't talk about the soul because I think it's an entity that could or should explain specific actions. No, you were asking about that. I invite you to go back and read your posts on elephants and pigs. If you want to change the subject or inquire into a different facet of the soul, mind and self that's fine but let's be honest here. I think part of the problem is that the soul is ill-defined. If meaning is defined by usage, and everyone seems to mean something different by soul, then you have to nail it down. Is it pneuma, is it psyche? Is it id or anima? Is it karma, is it vital spark? Or do we mix and match? So I think you have to nail down precisely what you mean by soul instead of asking fascinating rhetorical questions that send your interlocutors skittering down paths you later decide were the wrong paths. Another problem is that introspection tells us remarkably little about our minds and the way we handle perceptions. Introspection for example can tell us nothing about saccades or where image processing happens in the brain. It can tell us nothing about the function of gut bacteria in mood, or about the amygdala's role in anxiety, fear and violence. It certainly can't tell us how random thoughts, images and impulses emerge from the endless churn of our tangled neural networks or how any of this gives rise to first person subjective experience. All we perceive through simple introspection is the ripples on the surface. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah remember that parasite that lives in mice and rats that needs a cat’s intestinal tract to reproduce in? It basically makes the rodent fearless and even attracted to cats in order to be easily catches by the feline predator! Toxoplasma Gondii even makes humans love cats! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Welt, would you say that table directly influences you, or that you’re influenced by the table? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Welt, would you say that table directly influences you, or that you’re influenced by the table? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sorry! Tony Danza, is your pineal gland calcified? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah it's messed up, also there's that cordyceps fungus that makes ants climb to the top of the nearest tall plant before it produces a fruiting body to scatter its spores. The article I linked though is about bacteria that you want to have in your gut, that every healthy person has. I heard about one clinical study that showed measurable improvement in depression by just eating a cup of active culture yogurt a day. IIRC the really good bacteria to have in your gut is b. fragilis and it's very hard to inoculate a person with it by diet. That's why they do poop transplants. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I had my pineal gland taken out because it kept giving me visions of the Ogdru Jahad. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah I’m fully aware of the positive exchange with have with most of these micro organisms inside us. It’s why I wonder about “me”, “them”, and “us”. Apparently if you wanted to carry the bacteria in your gut in a bag it would weigh 2 kilos. Imagine carrying a crappy plastic bag with two kilos of bacteria in it! It’s fascinating how the lesser welcome parasites (who take and give nothing back) trick our immune system into letting them stay. As for the outside, most people would freak a bit if they knew what lived on their eyebrows! I knew it! I knew you were pineal glandless! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
definitive definition ~ the soul of a man is a of weasels built on a living fractal of the living fractals of the weasels of his forefathers. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I was listenting to Blind Willie Johnson's while being overfatigued and finsihing a work project about new market potenials for businesses dealing with packaging machine engineering. Then I opened up this thread. The title and content of the thread were just two lines from the song. So I didn't choose the word 'soul' consciously. But then I thought that there might be some good unconscious reason for choosing the world soul. Then it got confusing as I tried to run with it. But even in the post about elephants I tried to use the word soul in a descriptive rather than an explanatory sense. I’ll only admit, that I might have failed in using it in a merely-descriptive manner and that the boundaries between mere-description and explanation-via-positing-‚entities‘ are not super-clear. Be that as it may, however I think the lack of a clear definition is often a strength of words/concepts. Sometimes you need precise instruments like a micro-chip-controlled scalpel, sometimes you need a rough instrument like a primitive hammer. So I don’t see why the lack of a clear definition for the word ‚soul‘ is an objection to it, just like it is no objection to a hammer that you can’t use it in order to perform certain types of surgery. What I’m afraid happens when you go down that path - of demanding precise definitions per se and not only in those contexts in which it is useful - is that you sacrifice connection to the real phenomena of life for precision. You come up with very precise vocabulary. But it’s disconnected from the world you actually inhabit. The connection to the real phenomena of experienced life is also what makes the threat you have in mind - people using vaguely defined words differently - controllable. Yes, words are used differnetly. Because people stress different aspects of life's basic structure. But still the different uses are all grounded in the same |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
.. reality and thus understandable. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you sacrifice connection to the real phenomena of life Nope. Surfaces and depths are not contradictory nor incompatible. Nor are wholes and parts. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I mean, you don't sacrifice lebenswelt by looking below the surface. Deep knowing does not destroy shallow knowing. Recognizing parts does not annihilate wholes. They're complementary ways of knowing. You still talk to your friends, raise a family, dream, and eat lunch. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
