Postmodern unconsciousness
Nikolaus Maack
to unite the conscious mind and the unconscious mind. Dreams and reality
are the same, and should dance together while having sex, until they fuse
into a single entity. (I hang out in alt.surrealism, and think about
these sorts of things too much.)
I am curious -- what is the postmodern perspective on the unconscious?
My understanding of postmodern thought is that the individual, subjective
point of view is king. Each of us carries an entire reality inside our
skulls. But with the existence of the unconscious (if you believe in such
things) more than half of our personal reality is in shadow.
How does this effect the postmodern point of view? Is so-called objective
reality even more tenuous than postmodernists would have us believe?
Not only are we almost entirely SUBJECTIVE, but our subjectivity is not
under our own conscious control.
Discuss. Feel free to digress into poetry at any given moment.
Nik
--
Licking clouds while my toes
touch the centre of the earth.
James Whitehead
<ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
>Surrealists believe that individuals (and society at large) should strive
>to unite the conscious mind and the unconscious mind. Dreams and reality
>are the same, and should dance together while having sex, until they fuse
>into a single entity. (I hang out in alt.surrealism, and think about
>these sorts of things too much.)
>
>I am curious -- what is the postmodern perspective on the unconscious?
my initial reaction is that surrealists see themselves as part of the
modern concept of progress - some post-modern thinkers might question
this.
>
>My understanding of postmodern thought is that the individual, subjective
>point of view is king. Each of us carries an entire reality inside our
>skulls. But with the existence of the unconscious (if you believe in such
>things) more than half of our personal reality is in shadow.
this is a kind of modernist interpretation of post-modernism. just a
thought - but how can *i* be aware of *my* unconsciousness? Further ...
how can i be aware of your consciousness?
Even Freud said a cigar can be just a cigar...
>
>How does this effect the postmodern point of view? Is so-called objective
>reality even more tenuous than postmodernists would have us believe?
>
a diversity of views as to post-modernism in which magic crystals and
the subconscious realities can exist as a constructed reality.
>Not only are we almost entirely SUBJECTIVE, but our subjectivity is not
>under our own conscious control.
gosh - please don't criticise me - its not me its my unconsciousness. In
which case how can we ever know anything!
--
James Whitehead
Nikolaus Maack
> my initial reaction is that surrealists see themselves as part of the
> modern concept of progress - some post-modern thinkers might question
> this.
Some do, sort of. They don't see themselves as part of "modern progress"
so much as the only real substitute to it. Which makes me feel all gross
inside.
Surrealism used to be linked to communism in a big way, back in the Andre
Breton Paris coffee house days. Nowadays a number of the surrealists (in
alt.surrealism, anyway) talk about anti-capitalist theory and see
surrealism as some bold march into the future, where we'll all be
enlightened kings and queens of destiny.
They would never state it so blatantly, mind you, but the sentiment is
there. Surrealism saves souls. Fundie surrealism.
My stance (which is very unpopular) is that surrealism is one perspective
of many possible perspectives. It's one tool in the tool box. And the
only person whose evolution I am responsible for is me. The evolution of
society is outside of my hands. I try to leave society alone. It tries
to sell me credit cards. We get along, most of the time.
> this is a kind of modernist interpretation of post-modernism. just a
> thought - but how can *i* be aware of *my* unconsciousness? Further ...
> how can i be aware of your consciousness?
You can be aware of your unconscious through things like dreams, lucid
dreams, freudian slips, automatic writing, automatic painting, etc. Mind
you, you can never be aware of the totality of your unconscious -- you
just get hints and glimmers.
And if we look at Freud and Jung, it's amusing to see what they made of
their unconsciouses. Freud saw the unconscious as some sort of primitive
orgy of repressed lust and hunger. Jung saw the unconscious as an
enormous, near-divine source of symbols and understanding and mysticism.
In a recent read of a book of Jungian theory (not by Jung, but by one of
his disciples) the man mentioned that in his later days, Jung refered to
the "collective unconscious" as the "objective psyche". That is, he felt
that beneath the "personal unconscious" was a world of OBJECTIVE
archetypes, just as real as OBJECTIVE reality.
Which is an interesting idea... but a part of me thinks, "Yeah, but
that's what they all say."
I find myself extremely suspicious when anyone tells me that they have
discovered OBJECTIVE reality. Even scientists, who insist they have
discovered the "laws" of physics make me narrow my eyes and glower at
them.
This is why I am often called a "pomo" in the heat of conversations on
the internet. Usually someone says:
"You're a goddamned pomo. And there's no talking to a pomo."
> Even Freud said a cigar can be just a cigar...
The supposed quote is: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
Sometimes it's a great big cock.
> gosh - please don't criticise me - its not me its my unconsciousness. In
> which case how can we ever know anything!
Short answer: we can't, thank goodness.
Longer answer: By examining our unconcious as best we can, and by
admitting that we are irrational.
The standard metaphor is the iceburg. Our conscious mind is that tiny bit
that sticks out over the water. The majority of who we are lies beneath
the water. Most people assume that what they can see at the surface is
the entirety of their mind. We over-assume our own control, our own
understanding.
"I am me! I am my ego! I am the person writing this statement here and
now!"
And when we yell this, something deeper and darker and hidden and wet
hisses and unfurls in the depths of our guts and whispers, "Liar!"
And, not surprisingly, the person I claim to be, the sane, rational, ego
-- the tip of the iceburg -- spends most of his days trying to hide or
ignore or run away from that thing inside. Even when I try to embrace and
understand that thing, most of it manages to avoid contact with me. That
is its nature. Which also makes it loads of fun to hunt the bastard down
and make friends with it.
peter mcinnes
Yes, the standard metaphor and all that....I am me! yes, got that but the
entire basis is the individual. Now in what gets termed 'postmodern'
psychology the individual is decentred. Lacan (I believe) believed the
individual to be centred in the subjectivity of the other. So you may appear
to be you but that is constructed from the social material that you have
been exposed to (Mead, Cooley etc.) which could be conceptualised as
discourses within disciplines representing manifestations of power
(Foucault). You must also assess whether the individual that you feel
yourself to be is 'reality' or a reaction to Western individualism. There is
no reason to suppose that this is inevitable, both Jungian and
object-relations theory talk of presubjective 'it-ness' or wholeness, why
should the next step necessarily be the construction of the individual???
Pete
James Whitehead
<ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
however dreams have other explanations- in which the idea of an un-
consciousness is not found - background processing of information for AI
types. I'm very aware of lower level drives - food - pain etc., the
elaboration of these objects in theory is descriptive of the elaborators
(the culture of Freud and Jung) not the *actual* phenomenon. This is
perhaps a po-mo idea - you do not describe the realty of the (say)
natives but impose your world perception on them. The un-consciousness
functions like the medieval spirit world. In the case of automatic
writing in could be my unconscious or some spirit. Is there some test -
a logical one to choose which is correct - but that is the meta-
narrative of the enlightenment- that logic offers absolutes - which it
appears it doesn't. If i compare the theory of the unconsciousness - its
like the theories of the big bang - nothing like my experience of
consciousness - or of remembering a dream. Looking for such
explanations is a modernist preoccupation. - that you can definitively
find answers.
>
>And if we look at Freud and Jung, it's amusing to see what they made of
>their unconsciouses. Freud saw the unconscious as some sort of primitive
>orgy of repressed lust and hunger. Jung saw the unconscious as an
>enormous, near-divine source of symbols and understanding and mysticism.
>
yes - which tells us lots about them. Plato's philosopher kings?
>In a recent read of a book of Jungian theory (not by Jung, but by one of
>his disciples) the man mentioned that in his later days, Jung refered to
>the "collective unconscious" as the "objective psyche". That is, he felt
>that beneath the "personal unconscious" was a world of OBJECTIVE
>archetypes, just as real as OBJECTIVE reality.
>
>Which is an interesting idea... but a part of me thinks, "Yeah, but
>that's what they all say."
>
i have come across the above - and some old fashioned witchcraft - if
you reject it its because of you unconscious urge not to accept .....
>I find myself extremely suspicious when anyone tells me that they have
>discovered OBJECTIVE reality. Even scientists, who insist they have
>discovered the "laws" of physics make me narrow my eyes and glower at
>them.
narrowing of eyes and glowering at them also - actually i'm a great fan
of science or was - till it started getting silly, atoms made allot of
sense - but quarks seem silly and WIMPs worse.
>
>
>This is why I am often called a "pomo" in the heat of conversations on
>the internet. Usually someone says:
>
>"You're a goddamned pomo. And there's no talking to a pomo."
i'm never certain about titles - i think if we are living in the post-
modern age we are all po-mo, only some would rather not be and others
pretend otherwise. You cant choose not to be in the historic period your
in after all.
>
>> Even Freud said a cigar can be just a cigar...
>
>The supposed quote is: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
>
>Sometimes it's a great big cock.
i'm not familiar with his brand - so the size is in doubt.
>
>> gosh - please don't criticise me - its not me its my unconsciousness. In
>> which case how can we ever know anything!
>
>Short answer: we can't, thank goodness.
>
>Longer answer: By examining our unconcious as best we can, and by
>admitting that we are irrational.
well the cause of our irrationality is debatable, that we are is obvious
- though it took me years to figure that one out. In simple terms
irrationality forces a decision where logic would cease up, i.e. the
donkey's choice of 2 strawberry's - 6 feet either side- it would
logically stay put.
>
>The standard metaphor is the iceburg. Our conscious mind is that tiny bit
>that sticks out over the water. The majority of who we are lies beneath
>the water. Most people assume that what they can see at the surface is
>the entirety of their mind. We over-assume our own control, our own
>understanding.
Certain subliminal experiments may offer some support to the iceberg
model of mind, but philosophically it undercuts itself. The idea itself
could be a product of the unconscious - and not real. If i say i don't
like cheese - then its best to assume i don't like it, and not that some
lower level phenomenon is at work.
>
>"I am me! I am my ego! I am the person writing this statement here and
>now!"
>
>And when we yell this, something deeper and darker and hidden and wet
>hisses and unfurls in the depths of our guts and whispers, "Liar!"
not here it doesn't. Being me is of no conciliation, the me tomorrow is
another person altogether, and negotiating with that person is enough of
a problem.
>
>And, not surprisingly, the person I claim to be, the sane, rational, ego
>-- the tip of the iceburg -- spends most of his days trying to hide or
>ignore or run away from that thing inside. Even when I try to embrace and
>understand that thing, most of it manages to avoid contact with me. That
>is its nature. Which also makes it loads of fun to hunt the bastard down
>and make friends with it.
>
i guess its something to do... i think you might be seeing monsters in
the wall paper pattern - which is i suppose ok...
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
nnesp.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Yes, the standard metaphor and all that....I am me! yes, got that but the
>entire basis is the individual. Now in what gets termed 'postmodern'
>psychology the individual is decentred. Lacan (I believe) believed the
>individual to be centred in the subjectivity of the other. So you may appear
>to be you but that is constructed from the social material that you have
>been exposed to (Mead, Cooley etc.) which could be conceptualised as
>discourses within disciplines representing manifestations of power
>(Foucault). You must also assess whether the individual that you feel
>yourself to be is 'reality' or a reaction to Western individualism. There is
>no reason to suppose that this is inevitable, both Jungian and
>object-relations theory talk of presubjective 'it-ness' or wholeness, why
>should the next step necessarily be the construction of the individual???
so the *individual* is a meta-narrative an illusion created by novelists
amongst others. I thought (ah!) there was the thought that Buddhists saw
the individual as a collection of aggregates - not real - and what about
Gilbert Ryle's concept of mind, and the film bladerunner?
--
James Whitehead
Nikolaus Maack
> however dreams have other explanations- in which the idea of an un-
> consciousness is not found - background processing of information for AI
> types.
Yes, this is true. And I have to admit, I find people who find no
messages of profundity in their dreams a little disturbing. I've actively
chased dream through things like lucid dreaming -- hunting particular
symbols and archetypes. I've had dreams that have stuck with me my entire
life. Some dream narratives and symbols have a POWER that is more than
just data crunching, to me, at least.
> The un-consciousness
> functions like the medieval spirit world. In the case of automatic
> writing in could be my unconscious or some spirit. Is there some test -
> a logical one to choose which is correct
If we listen to Jung, the unconscious IS the spirit world. There ARE
spirits that live in it. Of course, if we listen to certain scientist
types, they'll inform us that dreams are little more than brain static
while we sleep.
But my personal way of choosing TRUTH is to always choose the one that
provides me with the more interesting reality. This method irritates the
people around me. Supposedly objective reality doesn't allow for such
things. Bollocks, I say. TRUTH seems to always have a taint of desire in
it. What we want to be true seems to inevitably be true. So why not go
with the flow?
"I'm sorry, but your so-called objective reality is boring. I reject it.
I'm going to go with my personal biases and dementia and believe in DREAM
and WONDER and CREATIVITY. Fuck you."
If you've ever met a fundie atheist, a fundie "rationalist", someone who
wishes to emulate a vulcan -- then you know how much such talk pisses them
off.
"But, you can't do that! You can't just CHOOSE your reality!"
Sure I can. We all do it. You, Mr. Vulcan, do it too.
(I am rambling. It's 6am and I just woke up. I apologize.)
To sum up... Philip K. Dick once defined reality as "that which, when I
stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." Many an objective goombah will
quote this. However, Dick concludes, quite clearly, in a number of his
texts, that EVERYTHING can vanish once you stop believing in it. His own
drug-damaged quest for god ended (sort of) when he realized that whatever
truth he choose BECAME the truth.
Hooray for Dick damaged by drugs!
> If i compare the theory of the unconsciousness - its
> like the theories of the big bang - nothing like my experience of
> consciousness - or of remembering a dream. Looking for such
> explanations is a modernist preoccupation. - that you can definitively
> find answers.
We can't find answers. But we can find interesting and useful mythologies
that make life more enjoyable. Humans need meaning like fish need water.
So why not choose the most pleasant meaning? Seems reasonable to me.
> i have come across the above - and some old fashioned witchcraft - if
> you reject it its because of you unconscious urge not to accept .....
And yet, have you ever seen someone defend their point of view, their
belief, and you can see the self-serving nature of it?
"It's okay for me to murder this goldfish, because everyone is doing it.
And besides, it's just a fish. And they only cost a nickel each. No one
is going to miss it."
But the real reason the guy is nailing the goldfish to the wall is because
it gives him a boner. But you'll NEVER get the guy to admit it. Ever.
Whether the unconscious exists or not, we do delude ourselves quite a lot.
We have the ability to DO something because we LOVE it, but make up
explanations and logic and objectivity for it.
That doesn't mean there's an unconscious. Or does it? How can we do
something for a particular reason while claiming another? Who is at the
controls? Who is driving this body anyway?
> narrowing of eyes and glowering at them also - actually i'm a great fan
> of science or was - till it started getting silly, atoms made allot of
> sense - but quarks seem silly and WIMPs worse.
I am still a fan of science. I just find it depressing when someone
suggests that a particular way of looking at the world is the only way of
looking. More and more stupid people say, "We must always be scientific
and rational." And I say unto them, "No. Sometimes it is fun and useful
to be irrational, illogical, insane, and intuitive. Try it. You might
like it."
I don't know why, but even suggesting this much can cause some people to
wet their pants.
>>The supposed quote is: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
>>Sometimes it's a great big cock.
>
> i'm not familiar with his brand - so the size is in doubt.
Freud fucked the minds of an entire planet. That's one big monster willy.
> Certain subliminal experiments may offer some support to the iceberg
> model of mind, but philosophically it undercuts itself. The idea itself
> could be a product of the unconscious - and not real. If i say i don't
> like cheese - then its best to assume i don't like it, and not that some
> lower level phenomenon is at work.
I'm not so sure. I think it makes sense to assume that, while you
probably are in the best position to determine WHY you don't like cheese,
you don't necessarily have the CORRECT explanation. We have to trust you,
but we don't have to believe you know for sure.
Maybe you were attacked by a rancid jar of Cheez Whiz as a child.
> i guess its something to do... i think you might be seeing monsters in
> the wall paper pattern - which is i suppose ok...
It is absolutely necessary for me to have monsters in my wallpaper,
whether they are there or not.
James Whitehead
<ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
>James Whitehead (jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk) writes:
>> however dreams have other explanations- in which the idea of an un-
>> consciousness is not found - background processing of information for AI
>> types.
>
>Yes, this is true. And I have to admit, I find people who find no
>messages of profundity in their dreams a little disturbing. I've actively
>chased dream through things like lucid dreaming -- hunting particular
>symbols and archetypes. I've had dreams that have stuck with me my entire
>life. Some dream narratives and symbols have a POWER that is more than
>just data crunching, to me, at least.
i think someone once dreamt the winner of a horse race, that would be
something..
>
>> The un-consciousness
>> functions like the medieval spirit world. In the case of automatic
>> writing in could be my unconscious or some spirit. Is there some test -
>> a logical one to choose which is correct
>
>If we listen to Jung, the unconscious IS the spirit world. There ARE
>spirits that live in it. Of course, if we listen to certain scientist
>types, they'll inform us that dreams are little more than brain static
>while we sleep.
>
>But my personal way of choosing TRUTH is to always choose the one that
>provides me with the more interesting reality. This method irritates the
>people around me. Supposedly objective reality doesn't allow for such
>things. Bollocks, I say. TRUTH seems to always have a taint of desire in
>it. What we want to be true seems to inevitably be true. So why not go
>with the flow?
>
>"I'm sorry, but your so-called objective reality is boring. I reject it.
>I'm going to go with my personal biases and dementia and believe in DREAM
>and WONDER and CREATIVITY. Fuck you."
>
>If you've ever met a fundie atheist, a fundie "rationalist", someone who
>wishes to emulate a vulcan -- then you know how much such talk pisses them
>off.
>
>"But, you can't do that! You can't just CHOOSE your reality!"
>
>Sure I can. We all do it. You, Mr. Vulcan, do it too.
>
>(I am rambling. It's 6am and I just woke up. I apologize.)
or dreaming :-)
much as i like your approach - the world is different to what i want it,
well there seems to be two things in consciousness, or is it a case of
being part of the whole but not the whole.
>
>To sum up... Philip K. Dick once defined reality as "that which, when I
>stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." Many an objective goombah will
>quote this. However, Dick concludes, quite clearly, in a number of his
>texts, that EVERYTHING can vanish once you stop believing in it. His own
>drug-damaged quest for god ended (sort of) when he realized that whatever
>truth he choose BECAME the truth.
>
no i thin there is a multiplicity - even if made by self - which form
contradictions..
>Hooray for Dick damaged by drugs!
>
>> If i compare the theory of the unconsciousness - its
>> like the theories of the big bang - nothing like my experience of
>> consciousness - or of remembering a dream. Looking for such
>> explanations is a modernist preoccupation. - that you can definitively
>> find answers.
>
>We can't find answers. But we can find interesting and useful mythologies
>that make life more enjoyable. Humans need meaning like fish need water.
>So why not choose the most pleasant meaning? Seems reasonable to me.
>
>> i have come across the above - and some old fashioned witchcraft - if
>> you reject it its because of you unconscious urge not to accept .....
>
>And yet, have you ever seen someone defend their point of view, their
>belief, and you can see the self-serving nature of it?
all the time - i'm guilty - otherwise wouldn't i change my mind.
>
>"It's okay for me to murder this goldfish, because everyone is doing it.
>And besides, it's just a fish. And they only cost a nickel each. No one
>is going to miss it."
>
>But the real reason the guy is nailing the goldfish to the wall is because
>it gives him a boner. But you'll NEVER get the guy to admit it. Ever.
>
>Whether the unconscious exists or not, we do delude ourselves quite a lot.
do you mean this - delude ourselves - or see other as deluding
themselves, in the first case how do we know, do we say - "ah yes i see
i was deluding myself but now i'm not - but if when i was deluding
myself i thought i wasn't how do i know i'm not now ........!"
> We have the ability to DO something because we LOVE it, but make up
>explanations and logic and objectivity for it.
logic is an invention...
>
>That doesn't mean there's an unconscious. Or does it? How can we do
>something for a particular reason while claiming another? Who is at the
>controls? Who is driving this body anyway?
i can tell you a lie.
>
>> narrowing of eyes and glowering at them also - actually i'm a great fan
>> of science or was - till it started getting silly, atoms made allot of
>> sense - but quarks seem silly and WIMPs worse.
>
>I am still a fan of science. I just find it depressing when someone
>suggests that a particular way of looking at the world is the only way of
>looking. More and more stupid people say, "We must always be scientific
>and rational." And I say unto them, "No. Sometimes it is fun and useful
>to be irrational, illogical, insane, and intuitive. Try it. You might
>like it."
>
>I don't know why, but even suggesting this much can cause some people to
>wet their pants.
>
>>>The supposed quote is: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
>>>Sometimes it's a great big cock.
>>
>> i'm not familiar with his brand - so the size is in doubt.
>
>Freud fucked the minds of an entire planet. That's one big monster willy.
>
>> Certain subliminal experiments may offer some support to the iceberg
>> model of mind, but philosophically it undercuts itself. The idea itself
>> could be a product of the unconscious - and not real. If i say i don't
>> like cheese - then its best to assume i don't like it, and not that some
>> lower level phenomenon is at work.
>
>I'm not so sure. I think it makes sense to assume that, while you
>probably are in the best position to determine WHY you don't like cheese,
>you don't necessarily have the CORRECT explanation. We have to trust you,
>but we don't have to believe you know for sure.
>
your reason for me not liking cheese is different to mine, we seem to
agree on no one position on this. In fact i once did not like cheese -
now i do like some - brie for instance - have i contradicted myself
here?
>Maybe you were attacked by a rancid jar of Cheez Whiz as a child.
>
yet that condition is something that is here now in my make up - not
something in the past.
>> i guess its something to do... i think you might be seeing monsters in
>> the wall paper pattern - which is i suppose ok...
>
>It is absolutely necessary for me to have monsters in my wallpaper,
>whether they are there or not.
they are there i'm sure-
--
James Whitehead
Nikolaus Maack
> much as i like your approach - the world is different to what i want it,
> well there seems to be two things in consciousness, or is it a case of
> being part of the whole but not the whole.
Perhaps the universe is as close to what all the fractured parts of
yourself want.
> no i think there is a multiplicity - even if made by self - which form
> contradictions..
Zactly. Some of you loves cheese, some of you hates cheese.
> do you mean this - delude ourselves - or see other as deluding
> themselves, in the first case how do we know, do we say - "ah yes i see
> i was deluding myself but now i'm not - but if when i was deluding
> myself i thought i wasn't how do i know i'm not now ........!"
You have never caught yourself lying to yourself?
Many moons ago I had a brief but torrid affair with a crazy woman. She
spent a weekend at my home, which, while exciting, ended poorly. Suffice
it to say, I felt great animosity for her, after she left. When she was
gone, I noticed she'd accidentally left a blanket behind. She wrote me
email and said:
"I know this will sound silly, but that blanket is very important to me.
My sister, who died, gave it to me. I really need it back. Could you
mail it to me?"
I said yes. Then put off doing so. Then continued putting it off. Yes,
yes, I meant to do it, but life is extremely busy and I didn't have time,
and etc.
She sent me emails that got progessively more pained. She said she was
crying, that I was hurting her by not sending the blanket, what did she
have to do? And so on.
I told myself she was being silly. I was lazy, not malicious -- slacker,
yes; cruel asshole, no. Why did she have to whine like this? What a
silly person.
Eventually I realized that I was getting my revenge. I really was getting
off on making her suffer. On some sick level, it was joy. I was holding
back her blanket in order to hurt her. I was putting it off because I was
angry, and to cause her pain.
So in order to stop being a sick fuck, I mailed her the damn thing.
The end.
> logic is an invention...
So are underpants.
> i can tell you a lie.
Please do. Lies reveal more about the truth than telling the truth ever
will.
> your reason for me not liking cheese is different to mine, we seem to
> agree on no one position on this. In fact i once did not like cheese -
> now i do like some - brie for instance - have i contradicted myself
> here?
Perhaps. Or are you refining yourself? Here is where all debates get
stupid.
"I hate dogs."
"You hate dogs. I see."
"Except beagles."
"LIAR! ASSHOLE! You said you hate dogs! Now you say you like beagles!
Clearly you are evil, wrong, and must be destroyed!"
Welcome to Usenet. Please keep your hands defensively covering your
genitals at all times.
Nik
James Whitehead
<ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
>James Whitehead (jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk) writes:
>> much as i like your approach - the world is different to what i want it,
>> well there seems to be two things in consciousness, or is it a case of
>> being part of the whole but not the whole.
>
>Perhaps the universe is as close to what all the fractured parts of
>yourself want.
Yes i suppose its the best of all possible worlds, well i don't ...
isn't it one of all possible worlds.
>
>> no i think there is a multiplicity - even if made by self - which form
>> contradictions..
>
>Zactly. Some of you loves cheese, some of you hates cheese.
>
>> do you mean this - delude ourselves - or see other as deluding
>> themselves, in the first case how do we know, do we say - "ah yes i see
>> i was deluding myself but now i'm not - but if when i was deluding
>> myself i thought i wasn't how do i know i'm not now ........!"
>
>You have never caught yourself lying to yourself?
if i did i would catch a prior me - who now i've re-created.
>
>Many moons ago I had a brief but torrid affair with a crazy woman. She
>spent a weekend at my home, which, while exciting, ended poorly. Suffice
>it to say, I felt great animosity for her, after she left. When she was
>gone, I noticed she'd accidentally left a blanket behind. She wrote me
>email and said:
>
>"I know this will sound silly, but that blanket is very important to me.
>My sister, who died, gave it to me. I really need it back. Could you
>mail it to me?"
>
>I said yes. Then put off doing so. Then continued putting it off. Yes,
>yes, I meant to do it, but life is extremely busy and I didn't have time,
>and etc.
>
>She sent me emails that got progessively more pained. She said she was
>crying, that I was hurting her by not sending the blanket, what did she
>have to do? And so on.
>
>I told myself she was being silly. I was lazy, not malicious -- slacker,
>yes; cruel asshole, no. Why did she have to whine like this? What a
>silly person.
>
>Eventually I realized that I was getting my revenge. I really was getting
>off on making her suffer. On some sick level, it was joy. I was holding
>back her blanket in order to hurt her. I was putting it off because I was
>angry, and to cause her pain.
>
>So in order to stop being a sick fuck, I mailed her the damn thing.
>
>The end.
the above story is interesting as it shows how life imitates the novel.
an actor following some script in which your actions are so determined,
its making so much sense ...
>
>> logic is an invention...
>
>So are underpants.
which were made to hide ones humanity from God.
>
>> i can tell you a lie.
>
>Please do. Lies reveal more about the truth than telling the truth ever
>will.
you should talk to mr goodsalt about the truth - he has tons of the
stuff.
>
>
>> your reason for me not liking cheese is different to mine, we seem to
>> agree on no one position on this. In fact i once did not like cheese -
>> now i do like some - brie for instance - have i contradicted myself
>> here?
>
>Perhaps. Or are you refining yourself? Here is where all debates get
>stupid.
>
>"I hate dogs."
>
>"You hate dogs. I see."
>
>"Except beagles."
>
>"LIAR! ASSHOLE! You said you hate dogs! Now you say you like beagles!
>Clearly you are evil, wrong, and must be destroyed!"
>
>Welcome to Usenet. Please keep your hands defensively covering your
>genitals at all times.
>
well i thought debates are about arriving at some conclusion, like logic
and underpants they are binary objects, i can quite happily accept
liking beagles and hating dogs.
--
James Whitehead
Nikolaus Maack
>>You have never caught yourself lying to yourself?
>
> if i did i would catch a prior me - who now i've re-created.
You believe in fractured selves and a fractured world. To me, it seems
clear that I can stick my ego (my conscious me) in one piece of the
current moment, while letting some fractured piece of myself take another
piece. And thus, I can drink booze and say I'm doing it because I want to
drink, not because I'm an alcoholic, or because all my friends are
drinking and I want to fit in, or because my girlfriend left me, etc.
We are magicians. We distract ourselves with a rationalized explanation
-- LOOK OVER THERE! -- while we act for less noble reasons.
This can happen in the now. We can even sense ourselves doing it in the
now, if we pay attention.
"Of course, I love you. Of course I want to have sex with you to express
that love."
(No, I'm fucking you because I want to get my rocks off. But let's not
think about that right now.)
> the above story is interesting as it shows how life imitates the novel.
> an actor following some script in which your actions are so determined,
> its making so much sense ...
All stories will seem predetermined. After all, it is history, and the
only way I can tell you about it is in a story.
I left out many, many details in my story -- such as the woman was
mentally ill, that my apartment was extremely messy, that she went to a
party and got drunk and nearly slept with two other men, that I had a
string of relationships with crazy women, that I seem to prefer the
company of crazy women, that I probably suffer from some kind of
unresolved oedipal complex -- and so on.
A narritive has to follow a chain of cause and effect. Otherwise the
narritive becomes muddy and the story is lost.
> you should talk to mr goodsalt about the truth - he has tons of the
> stuff.
I feel sorry for him.
> well i thought debates are about arriving at some conclusion, like logic
> and underpants they are binary objects, i can quite happily accept
> liking beagles and hating dogs.
This would be the case if human beings weren't irrational, stuffed full of
emotion, etc. A debate, after all, is about one side pitted against the
other. If I meet you in a newsgroup, and we get into a conversation, is
it reasonable for me to assume you hold an opposite standpoint from
myself?
As far as I can tell, you and I aren't debating. We are idly chatting
about I'm-not-entirely-sure-what. It is light and fluffy and vaguely
enjoyable.
It is my experience that far too many penis-carrying-humans believe that
DEBATE is the only form of communication. Not to imply you are saying
such a thing. Just clarifying my bias against debate.
"Let us argue!"
"No."
"Let us discuss matters of fact!"
"No."
"Let us debate issues of importance."
"For the last time, no."
"Then what would you have us do? What else is there?"
It's as though there must always be a point to a conversation, a purpose,
a plan. Why? Let out words crash into each other like two iceburgs
colliding at sea.
Or something.
Nik
James Whitehead
<ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
>James Whitehead (jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk) writes:
>>>You have never caught yourself lying to yourself?
>>
>> if i did i would catch a prior me - who now i've re-created.
>
>You believe in fractured selves and a fractured world.
no i don't think so - as this implies a me seeing the fractures - sort
of floating above the jig saw.
> To me, it seems
>clear that I can stick my ego (my conscious me) in one piece of the
>current moment, while letting some fractured piece of myself take another
>piece. And thus, I can drink booze and say I'm doing it because I want to
>drink, not because I'm an alcoholic, or because all my friends are
>drinking and I want to fit in, or because my girlfriend left me, etc.
I find drinking pleasurable,
>
>We are magicians. We distract ourselves with a rationalized explanation
>-- LOOK OVER THERE! -- while we act for less noble reasons.
>
>This can happen in the now. We can even sense ourselves doing it in the
>now, if we pay attention.
>
>"Of course, I love you. Of course I want to have sex with you to express
>that love."
>
>(No, I'm fucking you because I want to get my rocks off. But let's not
>think about that right now.)
dealings with other people is always a problem, mainly due to not
knowing their motives.
>
>> the above story is interesting as it shows how life imitates the novel.
>> an actor following some script in which your actions are so determined,
>> its making so much sense ...
>
>All stories will seem predetermined. After all, it is history, and the
>only way I can tell you about it is in a story.
However that can lead to thinking one is in a story. This is fine i
suppose - who is the author?
>
>
>I left out many, many details in my story -- such as the woman was
>mentally ill, that my apartment was extremely messy, that she went to a
>party and got drunk and nearly slept with two other men, that I had a
>string of relationships with crazy women, that I seem to prefer the
>company of crazy women, that I probably suffer from some kind of
>unresolved oedipal complex -- and so on.
and the details prove that the simple explanation or theory whatever you
created from it is one of many.
>
>A narritive has to follow a chain of cause and effect. Otherwise the
>narritive becomes muddy and the story is lost.
of course - but causality is a psychological phenomenon...
>
>> you should talk to mr goodsalt about the truth - he has tons of the
>> stuff.
>
>I feel sorry for him.
i think he's ok - though he will put people off Christianity. I don't
know if he is aware of this - it might be deliberate - wanting to keep
heaven for himself and his friends. The figure of Jesus is an enigma,
and i think Christianity is better appreciated as a set of questions -
with often contradictory answers.
>
>> well i thought debates are about arriving at some conclusion, like logic
>> and underpants they are binary objects, i can quite happily accept
>> liking beagles and hating dogs.
>
>This would be the case if human beings weren't irrational, stuffed full of
>emotion, etc. A debate, after all, is about one side pitted against the
>other. If I meet you in a newsgroup, and we get into a conversation, is
>it reasonable for me to assume you hold an opposite standpoint from
>myself?
i don't think its reasonable, ive a feeling our opinions share common
territory. But as ive found engagement in posting often changes my
standpoint, or even helps define one. If it was just opposition i could
imagine a simple computer program could be created which negates
anything thrown at it.
>
>As far as I can tell, you and I aren't debating. We are idly chatting
>about I'm-not-entirely-sure-what. It is light and fluffy and vaguely
>enjoyable.
i'm inclined to agree -
>
>It is my experience that far too many penis-carrying-humans believe that
>DEBATE is the only form of communication. Not to imply you are saying
>such a thing. Just clarifying my bias against debate.
its a poor way of finding things out -
>
>"Let us argue!"
>
>"No."
>
>"Let us discuss matters of fact!"
>
>"No."
>
>"Let us debate issues of importance."
>
>"For the last time, no."
>
>"Then what would you have us do? What else is there?"
>
>It's as though there must always be a point to a conversation, a purpose,
>a plan. Why? Let out words crash into each other like two iceburgs
>colliding at sea.
>
>Or something.
is this the place for argument then...
no...
but its a newsgroup
no its not
yes it is
look your arguing with me
no i'm not
are
arnt
.............
thinking about this - propositions are either true or false, now how can
we expect to describe anything with such a logic. Even the humble
electron disproves the idea,
no they don't
some do
oh really
especially on Tuesdays
--
James Whitehead