  |
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
 Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 1:54 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| thelast007 wrote: |
not an assumption. you can link all ideas to those four differnt areas.
explain why you can't? linking something is linking something. |
I don't claim that you can't categorize thought that way.
I claim that those categorizations are artificial, and do not reflect the way that thought actually occurs. Or, put another way, i claim that those categorizations do not reflect reality; that thought isn't actually divided into such categories.
| Quote: |
if that is the case positive and negative thinking is stupid.
conscience and nonconscience thinking is stupid
id and non id thinking is stupid.
freud's five part personality thinking is stupid.
intelligent thinking and non intelligent thinkig is stupid. |
I think that it is stupid to claim that any of those things are actually real, yes. They're all simplistic and well-known conventions, but they do not represent reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thelast007
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| exton wrote: | | thelast007 wrote: |
not an assumption. you can link all ideas to those four differnt areas.
explain why you can't? linking something is linking something. |
I don't claim that you can't categorize thought that way.
I claim that those categorizations are artificial, and do not reflect the way that thought actually occurs. Or, put another way, i claim that those categorizations do not reflect reality; that thought isn't actually divided into such categories. |
a category is a generalization. we both know that.
thought can be argued to occur in many ways. you're going into somethig else.
the root motivation that drives the direction no matter how the thought occurs can be categorized like almost anything can.
| exton wrote: | | thelast007 wrote: |
if that is the case positive and negative thinking is stupid.
conscience and nonconscience thinking is stupid
id and non id thinking is stupid.
freud's five part personality thinking is stupid.
intelligent thinking and non intelligent thinkig is stupid. |
I think that it is stupid to claim that any of those things are actually real, yes. They're all simplistic and well-known conventions, but they do not represent reality. |
oh please! they are simply ideas that organize thinking.
all things are realtive. but those of us who live on earth know there are preset categories and understandings for good thoughts, and bad thoughts, happy gleeful thoughts, and sad depressed thoughts, smart thoughts and stupid thoughts. Case in point you thought my thought was stupid. that is a reality on earth. someone's opinion about what thoughts fit where is relative too but the distinctions are made. as we are making distinctions not on what category to put my thought. you say stupid thought. i say not stupid thought. are you going to tell me that does not exsist.
please go back to making sense exton.
you were more fun to debate with then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Perhaps you forgot what you actually said, that i replied to:
"Also people are usually not able to balance or understand which to apply of the four areas of thought: spiritual, rational, logical, and emotional
they are too easily confused."
That is a statement that assumes the literal existence of those forms of thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thelast007
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| exton wrote: | Perhaps you forgot what you actually said, that i replied to:
"Also people are usually not able to balance or understand which to apply of the four areas of thought: spiritual, rational, logical, and emotional
they are too easily confused."
That is a statement that assumes the literal existence of those forms of thought. |
nope.
I did not forget.
It assumes nothing. Is simply says that a person may at times have a problem deciding if they should go with their emotional mind, logical mind, rational mind or spiritual mind.
Again for example: a mother whose daughter is addicted to heroin and steals out of the house constantly.
The mother may have a hard time deciding if she should go with her emotional mind that says let the daughter stay because she does not want to see her living on the streets.
Or the mother's logical mind which says tough love is the best for her daughter and will teach her a lesson in the long run.
etc. etc.
abortion:
a person may not want to get one because they feel spiritually/religiously it is wrong
They may even logically see it as murder.
But rationally know they can live with the decision to abroad because of what ever their reason is to not want the pregnancy.
But still be horribly emotionally sad about the decision to go ahead and have one.
Which will they give heed to? It depends on which ever one they choose.
Another example: i want to call you a dumb prick
spiritually I think it is negative and it's not good to put out negativity.
rationally it would be ignorant
logically is would not accomplish anything so why do it
Emotionally it would give me pleasure.
I choose ration.
I can over look the negativity this one time, I don't mind being ignorant every now and then for the emotional benefit but the fact that it does not accomplish anything is my reason for not doing it. So the decision not to is rooted in my rational thinking. (FYI that's a joke exton. most of the time i think you're fairly smart prick  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| thelast007 wrote: |
It assumes nothing. Is simply says that a person may at times have a problem deciding if they should go with their emotional mind, logical mind, rational mind or spiritual mind. |
In order to be able to go with any of those minds, they must exist.
| Quote: |
Again for example: a mother whose daughter is addicted to heroin and steals out of the house constantly.
The mother may have a hard time deciding if she should go with her emotional mind that says let the daughter stay because she does not want to see her living on the streets.
Or the mother's logical mind which says tough love is the best for her daughter and will teach her a lesson in the long run. |
The division there is, i think, purely an illusion. That is to say, there is no true separation there between emotion and logic.
The easy route (going easy on the drug addict) is more immediately satisfying to both parties, but the harder route (getting the drug addict better) ultimately results in the most emotional benefits for everyone concerned.
The dilemma is actually between short-term satisfaction and long-term satisfaction, not logic and emotion.
| Quote: |
a person may not want to get one because they feel spiritually/religiously it is wrong
They may even logically see it as murder.
But rationally know they can live with the decision to abroad because of what ever their reason is to not want the pregnancy.
But still be horribly emotionally sad about the decision to go ahead and have one.
Which will they give heed to? It depends on which ever one they choose. |
Again, there's no true division there. There's a lot of cognitive dissonance, but no division.
The choice to abort will lead to emotional dissatisfaction.
But the choice to NOT abort will also lead to emotional dissatisfaction.
The dilemma is which course of action results in the least dissatisfaction.
Even the religious beliefs play into it that way. That is, why does a religious belief in the immorality of abortion lead a person to desire not to get an abortion? Because doing so makes them feel bad. Someone without that belief won't feel anything on account of it, and won't be inclined to act on the belief.
The cognitive dissonance angle comes from a person thinking that they believe one thing, and finding that they act in a way that is contrary to their alleged beliefs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thelast007
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 525
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| exton wrote: | | thelast007 wrote: |
It assumes nothing. Is simply says that a person may at times have a problem deciding if they should go with their emotional mind, logical mind, rational mind or spiritual mind. |
In order to be able to go with any of those minds, they must exist. |
the divisions are the names given to the separate thoughts of one mind. a way to organize the break down the different paths of thoughts going on in one mind. Duh!
if that is the case no one sould never say to anyone, you're not thinking rationally, or you're thinking emotionally.
| exton wrote: | | thelast007 wrote: |
Again for example: a mother whose daughter is addicted to heroin and steals out of the house constantly.
The mother may have a hard time deciding if she should go with her emotional mind that says let the daughter stay because she does not want to see her living on the streets.
Or the mother's logical mind which says tough love is the best for her daughter and will teach her a lesson in the long run. |
The division there is, i think, purely an illusion. That is to say, there is no true separation there between emotion and logic.
The easy route (going easy on the drug addict) is more immediately satisfying to both parties, but the harder route (getting the drug addict better) ultimately results in the most emotional benefits for everyone concerned.
The dilemma is actually between short-term satisfaction and long-term satisfaction, not logic and emotion. |
It's about what path what ever decision the idea comes from. The decision to kick her out and let her stay can both come from all four.
The mother can emotionally let her stay because emotionally she cannot handle seeing her on the street.
The mother could kick her out because emotionally she cannot handle seeing her everyday on heroin.
It is just a way to separate the root of the thinking. The source. by definition of emotion, logic, reason, and spirit you can look and say, oh that was more of a thought in line with emotional thinking or etc.
I repeat the categories are generalizations to organize the sections of thought that have been developed.
If you ask 1,000 prisoners the same question and you get 40% one same answer from violent prisoners and 40% one same answer from non violent prisoners you could say the two answers fit in 2 categories. A which is a response synonymous with violence or B which is synonymous with non violent.
Doing that you just began organizing sections of thought. You created category A which is a generalization for violence and category B which is a generalization for non violent
| exton wrote: | | thelast007 wrote: |
a person may not want to get one because they feel spiritually/religiously it is wrong
They may even logically see it as murder.
But rationally know they can live with the decision to abroad because of what ever their reason is to not want the pregnancy.
But still be horribly emotionally sad about the decision to go ahead and have one.
Which will they give heed to? It depends on which ever one they choose. |
Again, there's no true division there. There's a lot of cognitive dissonance, but no division.
The choice to abort will lead to emotional dissatisfaction.
But the choice to NOT abort will also lead to emotional dissatisfaction.
The dilemma is which course of action results in the least dissatisfaction.
Even the religious beliefs play into it that way. That is, why does a religious belief in the immorality of abortion lead a person to desire not to get an abortion? Because doing so makes them feel bad. Someone without that belief won't feel anything on account of it, and won't be inclined to act on the belief.
The cognitive dissonance angle comes from a person thinking that they believe one thing, and finding that they act in a way that is contrary to their alleged beliefs. |
again...if you want break down from what root a person usually bases their choices you need to organize the thought pattern.
If no divisions can be made than any description of thinking does not exists.
There is no need for psychology.
furthermore you have negated away from the point as always,
You said it was stupid. All you keep saying is that divisions in thought don't actually exists.
Which is like saying happy and sad does not exists. of course is One person is thinkin it we know it is one mind. even if they are schizophrenic. all thought is in one brain but they are diffent paths of thinking different paths.
I repeat if no divisions can be made than any description of thinking does not exists...there is no need for psychology.
You stated the obvious that the mind is one thing.
Well, the divisions are categories of the one thing. Organizations applied to the one thing.
We all know everyone has one mind and they can be happy or sad.
So explain why looking at the divisions is stupid as you typed.
or if you are saying that organizing or determining the difference between happy and sad thinking, fear and fearless thinking is stupid, logical and emotional thinking is stupid just let me know so i will know you are not thinking ___________. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
|
|
