Quote:
|
I was not sure if I should reply to this thread or not, because it has proven to be such a hard issue to communicate clearly enough. It's far too easy to misinterpret what is being said, and I see a lot of "groping among mere concepts" already... Decided to give it a go anyway, especially as this is critically related to what Doctordick is talking about. I think if you can wrap your head around what Korzybski was really saying, you can understand what DD is doing.
|
I am glad you did reply. Overall it was a clear and concise post.
Quote:
Quote:
|
An issue that arkain101 touched when he said "The point I am trying to bring to light here is that there are some meanings that do no exist when all else is excluded."
|
Think even harder and you will see that there is no "meaning" that could be understood independently from other meanings.
|
This is quite a broad claim. I would not be able to say if I agree or do not agree to any kind of certainty since there are an extensive amount of meanings that are out there to be covered. However, so far in my own investigations evidence does tend to lean towards this principle. In the context I am working in, the principle being, no "meaning" that could be independently from any or all other meanings. I suppose to understand what all of our definitions of meaning is, would be a very important first step to making a constructive conversation on the subject.
I have not studied much into philosophy formally. This is the first time I have encountered the Map-Territory concept. I believe it does justice to getting the topic on its feet. However, it can't lead us all the way. As it is a methodology of finding a common ground and understanding. But I notice that understandings can happen somewhere in the middle of a concept and a relation to the concept, and the experience can be more focused on the connection occurring than the two events being connected. For example, If I hold a circular ring, in one hand and hold platform in the other (like a board), we see a circle and a platform, but if I combine them together and spin the circle on the platform, for a moment at least, we see neither the circle or the platform but a form of a globe.
Anyway, thanks for the post, but I am not ready to fully respond.
Quote:
now if humans are all born with this scence
like a baby being born able to interprit facial expressions
and we dissaccociate from it, since it is not commonly understood
you know all the tree-huggin-hippie-crap about aura could just be another scence
either that or it is a genetic language that is being tapped into
anyway that is my phylosophy, it gets deeper, but i think this is a good intro
and i love all these post they were all awsome
|
Another worthy comment. I agree that the fact we have senses (that most of us share, yet not all) is a miraculous thing in itself, and because of this, senses that seem miraculous, could very well be a possibility. (like two people thinking the same thing). However, I think the miraculous is all to often a so called phenomena (event) that is poorly understood, and alternatively comprehended, more so than it is the effect of some unknown property that pervades the universe.
For example: AnssiH said here:
Quote:
|
you should understand that "map" is not referring to an ontological entity, nor is "mind". Mind is also something you need to form a very specific definition of inside your personal worldview, and you understand what it means in terms of very many other concepts, that you also understand in your own way. Different people understand the word "mind" very differently, and when you don't spend the time to really try and understand HOW people mean their words, you will be hopelessly "groping among mere concepts"
|
The very version of an individual's map can create an entirely different choice of words to say precisely the same thing. words like energy, mood, aura, state, emotions, intention, all to refer to another persons impact by their presence.
