Beliefs are born of emotions rather than knowledge

[AQ]

Hi,

I came across this audio clip from hypnosisdownloads.com:

http://hypnosisdownloads.com/insight...Insight-22.mp3

The basic idea states beliefs are born of emotions than knowledge. Thought some references recall Socionics.

A slightly long piece.

[Warlord]

The basic idea states beliefs are born of emotions than knowledge.

Now quickly thinked; Yeah, or using emotions to fill the gaps in knowledge.

[FDG]

"Belief" and "Knowledge" are far from being synonimous. In fact, belief is often a substitute of knowledge (when the latter either is unuseable, or disliked by the subject) rather than a byproduct of it; the most common example is belief in God by religious people.

[crazedrat]

I think I disagree.
Belief doesn't occur without knowledge; but false belief is when knowledge is incorrectly applied.
For example, asserting an archetype of the unconscious as an entity which exists in reality.
The belief springs from the knowledge of a structure in the unconscious, but is incorrectly applied to reality.
Therefor the belief gives the illusion of not being based on knowledge; but what is really happening, is it's based on data of a different realm.
Otherwise, I can't imagine a way of explaining how people accept the belief in the first place, with nothing to compare it to; and i can't see any mechanism which would keep the belief enduring and render it resistant to argument

[crazedrat]

My thoughts on the archetypes, is they are fundamental forms of logic; and the ways in which we interpret them grant them a certain mysticism which Jung got far too caught up in. But this mysticism is secondary to the formal logic of the archetype. And contained within everyone, is the potential for comprehending formal logic.
Of what I am attempting to suggest, God is a good example. My argument would be it's an awareness of the potential for the most ideal form. This ideal form exists as an abstraction within our minds. The mistake is when we try and apply this knowledge wrongly, saying 'he' exists in 'reality'.

[crazedrat]

The fundamental difference between our positions is you're separating objects from formal logic. I am thinking formal logic is shown fourth through an object, and defines an object

[crazedrat]

It is the difference between saying words represent reality, and words reflect reality. Ethics has no relevance to this topic. Objects contain logic. Whether you explore their logic systematically is irrelevant. In socionics, feeling functions also operate in a logical manner. The difference is they don't systematically explore logic; but they react to it.
I am not familiar with the Anima, but generally, how we define an object doesn't change the existence of objects; but only how we think of them. So the question is somewhat irrelevant.
To explain what makes it an archetype, we would have to explore in what ways it is fundamental to our experience of reality

[crazedrat]

Saying that there are 'ethical awarenesses' and 'logical awarenesses' is irrelevant unless you're implying these are reduced from two seperate objects.
These awarenesses are exploring the same objects in different fashions; and objects are defined by their relationships with other objects; and that is how I am using the word 'logic'. That objects are defined by their relationships; their 'logic'. More particularly, the abstract form inwhich they may potentially relate with other objects. Therefor, the objects formal logic. If you don't like the words then we can think of new ones.
To 'use logic' is different than for an object to have logic inherent within it and defining it. The objects logic exists before we explore it; and it underlies and defines the bounds inwhich we can use any of the functions.
The manner inwhich we explore objects can vary as can the function we use.'
Most of what's going on here, is you're critiquing words.
Trying to reconcile this conversation with the way Jung used his words is also a waste of time.
If you really can't handle this use of the word logic, we can start calling it 'the objects form', or 'the objects definitions'.

Changing a definition doesn't change an object, it just establishes a new one.

For the archetypes, reworded, they are fundamental forms, or fundamental definitions

[crazedrat]

sorry, the whole thing doesn't appeal to my emotions

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

What all this assumes is we have some perfect building block, some ultimate goal/plan in life. That our choices are limited, that we're 'meant' to do a lot of stuff. I think that is a lot of bullshit really. There is so much value in a man reclaiming his own redemption.

I think we have the choices to 'fuck up' the functions, to twist em and bend and play with em, out of their 'natural order.' Not to change our core type but to give us some sort of emotional release when there might not be any. To make us feel things that are ultimately ideal. To place us at this point between the dead and living - so we feel eternal and bliss.

It's like a pretty puzzle in a way. It lacks mystery, romanticism, and intrigue. Once you begin to know, you die a little. You have to do enough to feel alive, but less enough where you still put something up on a pedastal naturally and retain your curiosity. This, my friends, is why God will never show himself completely. And this magical place; This is where love, where creation, where beauty, where creativity, where all the glorious, wonderful inspiring magical things we all want pulsates on.

But the trick is, you cannot get stuck in this 'magical' place, you must utilize the energy, that place for yourself. You can get lost in the magic. Which feels good for a time, then you zone out... fade. And the colors become gray again and you can't separate what you truly desire from what everybody else desires, and you lose your way, your own path. Then you wonder why you still feel so dead.

[Grek0]

how is "the Anima" a "fundamental form of logic"?



perhaps if one is using introverted thinking.



where do ethical function blocings come from?

the archetypes have nothing to do with logic, nor does the collective unconscious as a whole.

Logic needs consciousness and linear time for it for it to emerge (because causality as we grasp it can only exist in a realm where time is linear, where we perceive distinc "before" and "after"). Jung showed that the unconscious or at least its deeper elements such as the archetypes, seem to "function" outside time and space as perceived by the conscious mind

[strrrng]

the archetypes have nothing to do with logic, nor does the collective unconscious as a whole.

Logic needs consciousness and linear time for it for it to emerge (because causality as we grasp it can only exist in a realm where time is linear, where we perceive distinc "before" and "after"). Jung showed that the unconscious or at least its deeper elements such as the archetypes, seem to "function" outside time and space as perceived by the conscious mind

I think rat was pointing out the the CU is simply the aggregate of "perfect logical forms"—namely, not something deduced, etc., but the essential building blocks that precede any conscious delineation, that being time, causality, logic [as we know it].

[Grek0]

I think rat was pointing out the the CU is simply the aggregate of "perfect logical forms"—namely, not something deduced, etc., but the essential building blocks that precede any conscious delineation, that being time, causality, logic [as we know it].

ah in that sense yes, non deduced.

At least that's how Jung presents them. They are , essentially, Plato's "Ideas"

[strrrng]

Would not the entire psyche, or its parts, be the building blocs? The set you've given seems necessary, but perhaps not sufficient -- what about the observer himself?

The observer comes into play after these 'forms.' Sure, there are other constituent parts, but at least what I was referencing of rat's, is more about more general, fundamental things which don't rely on the observer.

[krieger]

In philosophy, "object" is generally a catch-all term for a noun.

Close... but not 100% right. For one thing an object relates to units of language only in that it is denoted (refered to) by these, not constituted by these in full. For another, the term you are looking for is not "noun" but "noun phrase" (also known as "determiner phrase"). A noun on it's own denotes a grouping/set/catagory of objects, not an object in isolation.

Examples:
Noun: cat (refers to an enormous group/set/catagory of objects, namely all cats; but not just all cats currently in existence, or all cats considered in a single model, but all cats that can potentially exist; "cathood")
Noun phrase: a cat, the cat, some cats, all cats (specifies more narrowly which "cats" are being spoken about. Here the singular determiners (a, the, his, my) make for a noun phrase that isolates a single object)

As to why a unit of language does not constitute an object, but indirectly denotes one:
Suppose we have a cat that is called "mary" which belongs to me (the speaker). I can now denote this cat with "my cat" or with "mary". Neither "my cat" nor "mary" consititutes the cat in full. Both simply point at the cat. The cat is something existing behind the screens, apart from the language being used.

In socionics I theorize that:
Introvert (Dynamic) Perceiving functions: functions associated with noun phrases
Extrovert (Static) Perceiving functions: functions associated with objects that are denoted by these noun phrases

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

This may be stating the obvious, or 'goes without saying' but:

Plato was just a guy, and his own perceptions/motivations were just as faulty, crude, biased and horrible/damaging as anybody else's. His allegory of the cave was pretty nice, but still- you have to take everything with a grain of salt, and I certainly don't advocate viewing the whole world through those lens' alone.

He was too idealistic, which causes its own problems, and he caused a lot of unnecessary guilt and self-loathing in himself and his followers when he was unable to live up to those ideals. Any belief structure/religion/philosophical doctrine is like this though. You really can think too much and drive yourself batty.

We have a lot of deranged/half-damaged guys in the prison system that constantly quote plato's shit, when their life would be much better if they stopped putting a social worker glaze on everything and just get a damn real job like everybody else. Then, they could better appreciate the sort of farty pants philosophical stuff they like.

[krieger]

What you've said of NP and reference sounds right. But if you were going to substitute the _term (word) "object" into a sentence, wouldn't it replace only the noun itself? You can substitute the term "object" for any noun in any sentence, is a possible definition (by word usage only) that I have seen. ETA: Have you corresponding theory for rational functions?

That is true. If that is what you meant then I have misunderstood you. I feel I have succeeded to add clarification to the topic, though.

I certainly do have corresponding theory for the rational functions. Predictably, the rational functions concern the kind of phrase that a noun phrase combines with to form a sentence: the verb phrase ("walks", "kicks the bucket", "moves out of sight", etc.). By first taking a noun phrase that is bereft of any sort of specifications as to what groups it belongs to (say, a name which we have never heard before) and then specifying the groups the thing does belong to with sentences, we form an understanding of the thing in question. After this process, we can denote this "thing" with a composite noun phrase as in "the cat that walks, kicks the bucket and moves out of sight..." etc. (I fully realize this example is awkward).

I'm only in the process of refining these theories, though. Time will tell wether they ever really get off the ground, and how long it will take before they do.