Drucken

Bitte logg dich ein oder registriere dich.
1 Stunde 1 Tag 1 Woche 1 Monat Immer
Einloggen mit Benutzername, Passwort und Sitzungslänge

[EL]

RaoulDuke

"Das ist der Quell meines Hoffens.
Jedoch: Alle Erkenntnisse als Konstruktionen oder die direkte Folge von Setzungen zu betrachten kann gefährlich sein. Ich unterstelle nicht, daß Du das tust, aber täte man es und dächte diesen Gedanken konsequent zu Ende (des Denkenden gefährlichstes Spielzeug), hörte jegliche außerhalb der eigenen Person befindliche Realität auf zu existieren, weil sie eine Konstruktion wäre... Aber wenn sie es wäre, warum war man dann selbst so dumm, sich eine Welt zu konstruieren, in der man über einen "jemand" nachdenkt, bei dem man sich Adjektive aus Kallistis Aufzählung wünscht? Warum ist dann nicht alles perfekt?..."

 
Yes, this idea in itself remarkable.
 With our set of sense organs its not probably projection to the world material, but in psychology it meets pretty often.  Construction oneself and world around beside by himself -
 1) It is a practical tool of psychotherapy.
 2) It is a way of achievement of certain concentration of thinking for the solution of some extremely complex problems (scientists, chess players, etc.)
 3) It is certain uncontrollable state of people with mental disabilities (autism, schizophrenia, etc.)
 I explain:
 Everyone designs the behavioural and visual ideal concerning the partner, at home, professional career, neighbors, people in general and ets.. and then moves towards this this purpose-construction, projects it on others, tries on, equates ...
 If these projections coincide,it is possible to speak about reciprocity, about love, sympathies ...
 and on the contrary, about negative conditions, antipathies.
  If the design projected onto itself it is an excellent material for self-improvement and emotional self-satisfaction ( the meditative techniques is under construction on it), for removal of psychological barriers and complexes, for release the emotions and feelings. If it is not forbidden to you - you are free!
We feel happy only on so much, on how many to ourselves we allow!
  Finally, a split personality - is also a plural construction of domestic, I am! In clinical cases, the person begins to obey one of them. But it perhaps for psychiatric clinics or film production (they love to chew over this topic)...
..possible this is the first and last my message at this forum..

[RaoulDuke]

RaoulDuke

"Das ist der Quell meines Hoffens.
Jedoch: Alle Erkenntnisse als Konstruktionen oder die direkte Folge von Setzungen zu betrachten kann gefährlich sein. Ich unterstelle nicht, daß Du das tust, aber täte man es und dächte diesen Gedanken konsequent zu Ende (des Denkenden gefährlichstes Spielzeug), hörte jegliche außerhalb der eigenen Person befindliche Realität auf zu existieren, weil sie eine Konstruktion wäre... Aber wenn sie es wäre, warum war man dann selbst so dumm, sich eine Welt zu konstruieren, in der man über einen "jemand" nachdenkt, bei dem man sich Adjektive aus Kallistis Aufzählung wünscht? Warum ist dann nicht alles perfekt?..."

 
Yes, this idea in itself remarkable.
 With our set of sense organs its not probably projection to the world material, but in psychology it meets pretty often.  Construction oneself and world around beside by himself -
 1) It is a practical tool of psychotherapy.
 2) It is a way of achievement of certain concentration of thinking for the solution of some extremely complex problems (scientists, chess players, etc.)
 3) It is certain uncontrollable state of people with mental disabilities (autism, schizophrenia, etc.)

I am afraid that that all of the above is definitely not the case, or at least not what I meant, as my statement referred to the implications of solipsism, which in itself has absolutely nothing to do with tools, achieving concentration or uncontrollable states of any kind.

Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

To be honest, I would prefer to continue this conversation in German so nobody is excluded, or via private mail if there is anything the article on wikipedia does not explain. In any case, certain aspects of the previous discussion seem to have been lost in translation.

edit: I am sorry if this might have sounded harsh. Anyway, good to see that you are alive and kicking, Ms. K. (which I have reasons to presume is who you are) 

[EL]

RaoulDuke

"Das ist der Quell meines Hoffens.
Jedoch: Alle Erkenntnisse als Konstruktionen oder die direkte Folge von Setzungen zu betrachten kann gefährlich sein. Ich unterstelle nicht, daß Du das tust, aber täte man es und dächte diesen Gedanken konsequent zu Ende (des Denkenden gefährlichstes Spielzeug), hörte jegliche außerhalb der eigenen Person befindliche Realität auf zu existieren, weil sie eine Konstruktion wäre... Aber wenn sie es wäre, warum war man dann selbst so dumm, sich eine Welt zu konstruieren, in der man über einen "jemand" nachdenkt, bei dem man sich Adjektive aus Kallistis Aufzählung wünscht? Warum ist dann nicht alles perfekt?..."

 
Yes, this idea in itself remarkable.
 With our set of sense organs its not probably projection to the world material, but in psychology it meets pretty often.  Construction oneself and world around beside by himself -
 1) It is a practical tool of psychotherapy.
 2) It is a way of achievement of certain concentration of thinking for the solution of some extremely complex problems (scientists, chess players, etc.)
 3) It is certain uncontrollable state of people with mental disabilities (autism, schizophrenia, etc.)

I am afraid that that all of the above is definitely not the case, or at least not what I meant, as my statement referred to the implications of solipsism, which in itself has absolutely nothing to do with tools, achieving concentration or uncontrollable states of any kind.
To be honest, I would prefer to continue this conversation in German so nobody is excluded

I think, the public gathered here can easily read the message in English.
Plurality of aspects of a question discussed here only expands it to applicability level.
The egocentrism (solepsism) doesn't bear in itself negative character if only to apply it as a method, instead of as a condition or the radical philosophical theory...
I point to the practical application of egocentrism as concentration method on ourself for the decision practical problems and overcoming of psychological barriers...
 
Whether you searched for a sword to cut the Gordian knot? Isn't that so?

[EL]

RaoulDuke

Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Yes, I prefer to read primary sources     (but in transfer...  )

[Kenaz]

The egocentrism (solepsism) doesn't bear in itself negative character [...]

- Zwischen Egozentrik und Solipsismus besteht aber ein ziemlich beträchtlicher Unterschied - beides gleichzusetzen, wie Du das hier tust, wäre etwa so, als würde man jemanden, der hin & wieder ganz gerne 'nen Salat isst, als Veganer bezeichnen.

[EL]

The egocentrism (solepsism) doesn't bear in itself negative character [...]

- Zwischen Egozentrik und Solipsismus besteht aber ein ziemlich beträchtlicher Unterschied - beides gleichzusetzen, wie Du das hier tust, wäre etwa so, als würde man jemanden, der hin & wieder ganz gerne 'nen Salat isst, als Veganer bezeichnen.

Yes, degree of gradation other...
But also that and another is based on the reference of the center of attention inside.
And with that it is possible to work, changing focus.

[RaoulDuke]

I think, the public gathered here can easily read the message in English.
Plurality of aspects of a question discussed here only expands it to applicability level.
The egocentrism (solepsism) doesn't bear in itself negative character if only to apply it as a method, instead of as a condition or the radical philosophical theory...
I point to the practical application of egocentrism as concentration method on ourself for the decision practical problems and overcoming of psychological barriers...
 
Whether you searched for a sword to cut the Gordian knot? Isn't that so?

Dear EL or Ms. K for that matter,

it is a rare occasion that I feel obliged to add something like a disclaimer before I even start writing. But this is one of these occasions, so: Criticism of arguments is not criticism of the person proposing the argument... (what a superfluous thing to say! *g*)

Well...

I have to agree with Kenaz that egocentrism and solipsism are far from being the same. If you were looking for something one might (if in a slightly destructive mood but willing to join the company of several well known thinkers) confuse with egocentrism, it's hedonism. Which is far, and I mean really far, away from the question discussed here. In my opinion it is quite a stretch if one wants to support the statement "you are free" with solipsism, as the latter is one interpretation of the nature of reality and therefore is more of a descriptive than a normative concept in nature. I.e. it is free of any moral implications like "you should or could do this or that".

Hedonism however, which is normative in nature and therefore can not only be applied but also used as a tool (as far as it is possible for normative concepts in general to be "used" at all) for solving practical problems or overcome barriers and so on.

You also mentioned construction. In the way you used the word I do not understand what you mean, regarding the relation to solipsism, egocentrism or hedonism which now entered the playfield. I may sound bourgeois, but it is of the utmost importance to use the terms and definitions in an exact way. Philosophy, which is in my opinion the art and science of how to think, relies heavily on this, since it deals with ideas that are not only intangible, but also when properly thought out, the most powerful forces known to man. But only if they can be told apart in an exact way one can avoid creating a melange meaning everything and nothing at the same time which results in something that is devoid of meaning and of course, devoid of power.

I do not want to sound like a school teacher, but for some weird reason I have the feeling that you know the definition of hedonism by heart, Ms. K. - a thought that for some even weirder reason makes me think of the nature of reality again and that it may contain things that are so far out of the accepted boundaries of experience that acknowledging their existence changes the perception of reality itself... I do not know about you, but I cannot look the skyline of Frankfurt any more without looking at that blueish tower in the middle a little longer than at the others, and I cannot leave a certain subway station in Berlin without thinking about asking somebody for where the entrance is. But these are different stories, which shall be told at different times and different places, and definitely not on this forum. But Ms. K., I have that weird feeling again that you might already know them.

Oh and by the way, we are on topic again, as this thread is called "who or what are you thinking about right now?"

Time for one of these vodka-lime thingies.

[Kallisti]

Kann mir mal jemand helfen?   

Wer oder was ist EL und warum kann ErSieEs nicht in deutscher Sprache kommunizieren und darf man jetzt hier nur noch in English oder wie oder was? Oder hab ich bloß wieder den Witz nicht mitgekriegt oder die Pointe verpasst?

    

[DunkelBunt]

Am besten gar nicht darüber nachdenken Kalisti

[RaoulDuke]

Kann mir mal jemand helfen?   

Wer oder was ist EL und warum kann ErSieEs nicht in deutscher Sprache kommunizieren und darf man jetzt hier nur noch in English oder wie oder was? Oder hab ich bloß wieder den Witz nicht mitgekriegt oder die Pointe verpasst?

 

Vermutlich ein Gast aus einer anderen Dimension. Sowas kann man ja heutzutage nie ausschließen.

[DunkelBunt]

Kann mir mal jemand helfen?   

Wer oder was ist EL und warum kann ErSieEs nicht in deutscher Sprache kommunizieren und darf man jetzt hier nur noch in English oder wie oder was? Oder hab ich bloß wieder den Witz nicht mitgekriegt oder die Pointe verpasst?

 

Vermutlich ein Gast aus einer anderen Dimension. Sowas kann man ja heutzutage nie ausschließen.

Außerirdische \o/ (Hm...aber warum sollten die Englisch reden? )

[nightnurse]

Und warum sollten sie nicht?

onT, I´m thinking of how weird people can be.
How weird can they be?
Is there a limit?
Will we ever know?
Do we even care?

[DunkelBunt]

Du kannst doch meine Frage nicht einfach mit einer Gegenfrage beantworten! 

[Kallisti]

Und warum sollten sie nicht?

onT, I´m thinking of how weird people can be.
How weird can they be?
Is there a limit?
Will we ever know?
Do we even care?

go away and leave me alone - wanna get rid of it!

For heaven´s sake - must be contagious. ^^

[nightnurse]

Du kannst doch meine Frage nicht einfach mit einer Gegenfrage beantworten! 

Wo steht das?