Feeling is always related to the living and just like your arm, it is only really your arm when it's attached to the rest of your body. Once it's detached (which thinking would do) it would just be a lifeless object and not really your arm. You can not really put life back into it (with few exceptions) just like thinking can not do such a thing. Thinking will always eventually destroy and feeling will grow new. Feeling are like the weeds that just grow out of the ground, without even trying. It's the new natural life that comes into existance. Thinking takes what is grown, cuts into pieces and kills it. Feeling is in harmony with life, and thinking is in dissonance with it Thinking also has a very western world approach. It tries to shape the world into what it wants rather than to live in harmony with it, whereas feeling is more like the pocahontas that lives in harmony with life. Also you could say thinking is like a scissor. With just paper and scissors, you can only cut the paper into smaller pieces of paper than it already is. If you keep cutting, nothing substantial is left. Feeling is like glue, that can expand the paper again and make it bigger. Feeling is like the mom that feeds the child and nurtures it so it grows (expansion) and thinking is what stops the child from misbehaving (stop it) or stop other people from harming (boundaries, control). The mom more so adapts to the child (the organic) and the dad (masculine) makes the child (the organic) adapt to him or them (boundaries, stop undesired "random" growth). Not sure how that relates to the video haha, but they are just some thoughts that Ne-ed up.
@mitsaoriginal8630
2 ай бұрын
Just open a quora account and write about this stuff. And what you described is basically Idealism. Though the rest of the inner mechanics are abit more flimsier than accurately formal or better yet formerly accurate. Now days these I deas have been further extended into more formal metaphysics in Physics such as with the concept of consciouos agents by donald hoffman, and more metaphysically encapsulating like the CTMU forexample. I would also commend you for the addition of the fractal conceptualization. It seems to really bring out the connection between yung and Benardo Kastroup.
@Binyamin.Tsadik
2 ай бұрын
Saw your interview with Pierce. Came over to check your content.
@johnschultzbarnes3196
2 ай бұрын
@@Binyamin.Tsadik thanks dawg it’s a mess.
@lukabibic6871
Ай бұрын
> if You "dial down" RUMBLE there will be no proper mimd-flow. {imho} What if "music" just IS and composers and those persons who "create" piece of music ( C. F. Abel ) just re-present those cycles/vibrations, through instument of choice, thoward us - the audience. (great musicians learn how to "project" sound to far reaches of concert hall or room where all this takes place; music (vibration cicles) - (composer) musician - music instrument - audience {who now can have feelings}. Does that make logical coherence with Your idea / this presentation?
@Retrogamer71
7 ай бұрын
The title was nerdy enough to get me to watch.
@Jaylloh
7 ай бұрын
It does feel like one step away from insanity trying to conceptualise and model a framework for the basis through which we model and conceptualise.
@MichaelPiercePhilosophy
7 ай бұрын
Comments/Summary: -- The modern world (and arguably other periods in history too) divide the subjective world from the objective world, and say that truth only lies in the objective world, and whatever is thought up in the subjective world is only true by virtue of its coincidence with the objective world. Your thought bubble analogy is very useful here: we trap the subjective in a thought bubble, and claim the thought bubble is derived from the subject and thus has a certain arbitrary character, like a daydream. We take it for granted these days that the subjective is several steps removed from "reality", because it was (allegedly) cooked up in the mind of a subject, like the gnostic demiurge trying to imitate the true Creator and necessarily failing. But your contention is effectively that we have conflated a (already wrong-headed) distinction between creature and Creation with a distinction that lies within Creation itself, namely Heaven vs. Earth. In short, typology is only incidentally a description of psychology, insofar as psychology is one of the many aspects, or fractal levels, of Creation; really, typology is a metaphysical description of the fractal pattern that hosts psychology and everything else and makes them all, in a symbolic sense, identical. (Am I getting that right?) TLDR: subject and object (and all the other dichotomies) are two sides of the same coin, and equally "objective" (in the modern sense where "objective" means "really real"). -- "Patterns are not necessarily produced by the subject. They just are." My own prejudice via Se/Ni is to see the "facts" as "out there" and the interpretation, the pattern, the unity and name, as something "in here". (I'm sure you can find this prejudice in Motes and Beams). You're just the opposite: Ne/Si, so that the patterns are "out there" and the "facts" are "in here". And your point is that, this distinction between "out there" and "in here" (effectively a question of perceived origins) does not reflect more or less reality. In fact, Jung does insist that the subjective is just as "real" as the objective, though he was trying to say so within a modern materialist metaphysics that literally denies just that, so it comes out kinda wonky. -- In Motes and Beams I linked thinking with water, and noted that water runs downwards and seeks the lowest point, where it can pool and rest. A kind of death. I have often thought about Thinking as being related in a value-neutral way with "death", because it fixes, freezes, pins down. Though on the other hand, an argument could be made for fire, insofar as it separates and purifies (at least as Aristotle describes it). But either way there's this link with death and the (seeming) finality and certitude of death. -- At least in the way you drew it, Thinking is linear (it has a beginning and an end, hence death and finality, certainty), whereas Feeling is circular (no beginning or end, it is a cycle, a song on repeat). -- "u r a ded snek" :D -- Dat snek do be vibin -- I don't know how far I want to go with this, but the way that Niels Bohr seems to have conceptualized quantum mechanics is much like how you describe thinking vs. feeling. The experiment interrupts or pierces the indeterminate, free state of the quantum particles, and forces them to fit into a mold determined by the apparatus of the experiment. But this process, which reveals some information, necessarily destroys other information--and in some sense, it is not even really revealing information so much as creating information (at least as Bohr seems to think). For my part, I like to play with the idea that quantum particles are much more analogous to little protozoa than to little bouncy balls or probability waves. They are alive, and it is precisely from this that their probabilistic nature stems, in the same way that if you have a horde of rabbits in a pen, you can't predict with certainty where any particular rabbit is going to go, but you can map probabilities based on the behavior of the group. Or, you could kill the rabbit, and then you know exactly where the rabbit is. -- E and I, expansion and contraction. I like the pupil analogy.
@johnschultzbarnes3196
7 ай бұрын
In Language of Creation, Pageau links Time (the Feeling function at a cosmic scale) to death. “Turn back you sons of men” His very negative view of feeling/time in that book made it hard for me to conceptualize feeling.
@Retrogamer71
7 ай бұрын
Objective Personality System calls FE feeling music more as "jubilee".
@johnschultzbarnes3196
7 ай бұрын
That’s fascinating. Jubilee in the bible is directly related to the idea of the cycle.
@AeonBaudrillard
7 ай бұрын
>least pagan catholic
@lukelackey3915
7 ай бұрын
First
@SensemakingMartin
7 ай бұрын
Dude you've gotta work out some way of making this stuff less rambling. I really try to follow it but you're so scattered
@johnschultzbarnes3196
7 ай бұрын
yeah I know. I'm working on something with a more linear progression, but every time I work on it I feel intimidated by the scale of it. These videos are more like preparatory notes. Thanks for trying to follow at least; I know you've been following for a long time. I hope to get a sort of magnum opus or at least a medium opus out in the next year.
@johnschultzbarnes3196
7 ай бұрын
I'll even say that this is the final ramble video.
Пікірлер: 17