GENIUS FORUMS

I would like to humbly request a clear exposition of 'henids' and their manifestation. I would ask that specific examples be used, for instance from my own writing since I am accused (diagnosed?) as suffering from henidism.

I understood 'henid' to be sort of like an indefined longing, a vague idea of something that would not or could not crystallize itself in consciousness. A vague, incomplete idea that could not be articulated. And also like, um, like, well you know, um, sort of, uh, like...Well you know what I mean.

How do you recognize a henid? Also, when and if you note a henid in your own self, what exactly do you do to make it conscious, to give the vague idea form, etc?

And is this a 'real term' that can actually be used in serious discourse? Or, is it just a nasty little insult with no substance? Is it used in any other context? By other people?

Is it something you would admit, say, at a party? ('I have henids...') And also what is the best way to refer to them? (All his thinking takes place in henids? He suffers from henids. He can't get beyond his henids. He has more henids than my dogs has fleas.)

Henid is a coinage from Weininger. He himself was loathe to describe exactly what henids are, or to give examples; he considered this to be a misunderstanding of the term. Basically, they're something, the earliest form of undifferentiated perception, to describe what comes long before the perception becomes a clear and distinct idea. He supposed it might be the perception a plant might have of the world.

If you have a henid, it should gradually take form, almost of its own accord, until it becomes an idea. When someone says you have one, it is a recommendation to spend some more time with the thought before trying to convince anyone of it. Analyze it when it becomes clear what you are trying to say.

A common example is when a person repeats an idea or viewpoint they have heard from somewhere else. They repeat it without actually having processed it, assessed its level of truthfulness, explored its implications, etc - in other words, without clarifying in their mind exactly what the idea is and what significance it has. It remains in their mind a vague, undeveloped piece of nothingness.

This kind of behaviour is common in children and adolescents, in women, in religious devotees, in emotionally insecure people, and so on.

-

David Quinn wrote:A common example is when a person repeats an idea or viewpoint they have heard from somewhere else.

Don't I feel foolish, considering I just paraphrased Weininger. Well, at least I can appreciate irony.

Henids arise in any situation where you are learning new things. Like when you're reading something and come across a new word or phrase that the author hasn't defined. You might have a vague inkling of what it might mean, but you can't pinpoint the exact meaning.

"An unclarified, sub-conscious "feeling". A vague, unformed, foggy or confused idea. A disorganized, undifferentiated thought. A proto-thought.

---K Solway

Each of you has more or less reinvented the term with each telling. It could be this, it could be that. Even Kevin's definition is just too vague. Why use such a strange Greeky word when you could just say 'unclarified thought', 'uncrystallized thought'. A foggy thought is really something else altogether, as is a 'disorganized thought'. A proto-thought is more what Weininger seemed to have in mind, but more accurately I think the idea would be better expressed in Freudian terms, or in Jungian terms. And according to that view, all of our consciousness is 'floating' on a vast sea of 'unconsciousness'. 'Henid' is almost interchangable with the Unconscious. Percolating up from that you could have an idea that would crystallize as, say, a shoe horn, or a fit of violent rage. It could be a hankering for a cup of chicken soup that yet shift to become an ice-cream cone...

"One morning, as Gregor Samsa awoke up from a night of fitful dreams, he discovered he had been transformed into a monstrous bug."

Were those dreams, after their fashion, 'henidical'?

"We have all come under the spell of Otto Weininger, even those of us who have never heard of him, for he was one of those geniuses whose ideas echo far beyond any sound that is made by their names. . ."

---from an 'old book' (?)

According to this, if we have come under the spell of Weininger, that has come about through the influence of 'henids', and this 'spell' (influence) would by definition be 'henedical'. If you are under the spell of something and can't identify what it is influencing you... (etc)

Anyway, I think it unwise to separate the idea from its use as a weapon, and to recognize that it is tied to a specific animus. Perhaps if one is not really grasping that it is really an almost 'female', vague term that is used to smear one's opponent, is to be using the term and yet be under the influence of it as 'henid'. Thoughs? Comments? Upsurge of anger?

And the most marvellous use of the term, of course, is for standing over an inferior being, say, a woman, and really feeling your superiority, but having a weird word through which you can focus your contempt, like a magnifying glass to singe a cockroach. Women are of course amorphous blobs of henidism, more or less by definition. Henids pulse and surge in them 'unconsciously', dictating and directing behavior, shopping appetites, etc. When once you just said 'dumb cunt', now you can tart it up (though it is unweildy) and say 'you henid directed female'.

Is there a relationship between henids and subliminals?

Clever you. I see what you did there. You made everyone think you were asking a question in the first post, and wanted an answer. And then, wham bam, you turn around and say what was really on your mind, effectively re-starting the thread and making every reply to your first post obsolete!

I did and still do want an answer. I want the most complete answer I can get. I'm very greedy like that. And I am after all Alex Jacob, and I am here to [long phrase deleted]. I am true to my mission!

You gave the clearest and most accurate definition, as it was actually given by Weininger. You stuck to the text. You did not embellish. You did not invest. Honestly, I think you are very good at that.

With that said, allow me to ask you if you notice that the term has numerous inflections and uses not at all connected with the definition you provided? And if so, would you kindly comment?

AJ,

With that said, allow me to ask you if you notice that the term has numerous inflections and uses not at all connected with the definition you provided? And if so, would you kindly comment?

I would not consider the use of the word "henid" to be acceptable if it were used as an insult. Complaining that someone uses henids would be like yelling at a flower for not having eyes. At most, I would think it a recommendation to put more thought into an undeveloped idea. But when used like that, it would be an exaggeration for effect, since a true henid is completely inexpressible.

"At most, I would think it a recommendation to put more thought into an undeveloped idea. But when used like that, it would be an exaggeration for effect, since a true henid is completely inexpressible."

Well, the term as used here, so far, is used less to refer to an inexpressible idea, nor even to a partially expressed idea, or an idea that needs more work, but to ideas that are not considered relevant or important.

The whole wide world---except the Germans and some other Europeans (mainly)---would hardly be able to participate in upscale sophisticated European thought, so I have a strong feeling that this term 'henid' would likely refer to the great mass of humans who did not or could not participate in this very specific sort of reasoning project.

In my rural, backwoods, quite indigenous location in Latin America, I see people all the time who simply have not even approached the platform that we would call 'reasoning', and hardly even rudimentary thinking, or the minimal expression of ideas. Sometimes---and I'm not kidding you---they gawk at me like Hernan Cortez just jumped down off his horse!

I could use this term, or some other similar term, to describe how their world is perceived. I wonder what it would be like if for a moment I could 'merge' with them to see what they think, how they see (or don't see) the world, what it feels like to be them. My mental position (though vastly inferior to the high spiritual and rational beings of GF who graciously put up with me) is so radically different, such that we exist on different planes. Weird.

The idea of 'henid' I'll just bet would likely have been part and parcel of a racist definition---all the turn of the century typical Euro-centric racist and culturalist definitions. And yet there are very different 'mind-sets' that exist. Some quite sophisticated ones have little in common with other also sophisticated ones, they are unintelligible to one another.

But just as I am viewing those odd Indians walking so humbly and 'ignorantly' in their universe, so it must be that the giant minds of GF look down upon me, and I have no way even to appreciate, nay even to minimally perceive just how radically superior they are. They see 'henids', both as 'completely inexpressible' and also 'barely formed', semi-gestated ideas that float in my consciousness like driftwood after a storm. Gawd, I say to myself sometimes! What must I look like to them!

[Put a dictionary and three tablespoons of tempera in primary colors in a blender with no lid and hit the button...]

When Jesus came to the temple to discuss the Scriptures with the Elders, some dogs lying about looked up, sighed, and went right back to sleep. Nothing at all registered!

And I really do think of Robinson Crusoe and Man Friday, and I think of how humbly Man Friday bowed down to touch the feet of his 'natural master', the master he didn't even know was his master till he came. And through bowing, he received. And I just feel so un-humble and miserable, so thankless, and it makes me think of all I am missing, and all I am pushing away because of my own unreasoning ignorance, but then in the next moment there I am again, up on my horse of arrogance, picking fights with high word-count posts!

Do you unnerstand where I'm coming from, Trevor?

(*sigh*)

PS: And to make matters worse, my google spell-checker want to turn the word 'henid' to 'hen-id', like the id of a hen, and this just completely depresses me, man. Everything is just like conspiring against me...

AJ,

Sometimes---and I'm not kidding you---they gawk at me like Hernan Cortez just jumped down off his horse!

Just sometimes? Most people think so rarely that they need some form of priesthood to interpret the world for them; when you can out-think the clergy without scripture, you will be lucky to meet even one person who can understand you.

But just as I am viewing those odd Indians walking so humbly and 'ignorantly' in their universe, so it must be that the giant minds of GF look down upon me, and I have no way even to appreciate, nay even to minimally perceive just how radically superior they are.

Remember that a lot of the people here have spent countless hours reading, thinking, arguing, writing, experimenting with different traditions, meditating, and so on. Some don't work at all in lieu of having more time for deep thought. They all value truth and wisdom, and live their lives in accordance with such values. If someone were to value music, and became a talented musician thereby, it would be no different. I would not call him superior on that account.

And I just feel so un-humble and miserable, so thankless, and it makes me think of all I am missing, and all I am pushing away because of my own unreasoning ignorance, but then in the next moment there I am again, up on my horse of arrogance, picking fights with high word-count posts!

You have been told to make your posts more concise and to work with more solid ideas. Let that be a bug up your ass: it's good advice for everyone. I don't think anyone cares about you picking fights and being arrogant, since that's pretty standard around here.

Do you unnerstand where I'm coming from, Trevor?

In my first year at the forum, someone told me that it looked like I couldn't tell true from false. I think I'd have rather been called a babbler.

David,

A common example is when a person repeats an idea or viewpoint they have heard from somewhere else. They repeat it without actually having processed it, assessed its level of truthfulness, explored its implications, etc - in other words, without clarifying in their mind exactly what the idea is and what significance it has. It remains in their mind a vague, undeveloped piece of nothingness.

How does one identify whether or not one falls into that category? ~Some people genuinely believe that they understand, when in fact, they really don't. On the other hand, there are others that may read an idea and get an epiphany, because at that instance, they've tied together some loose ends, which didn't fit (initially). So, in a way, parts of the idea that they've just read, were already thought about in the past, but there was no connection or the connection was weak. In a way, the "henids" (weird word, btw) turn into something that's more solid, due to someone else's idea, hence they'll use it. It's like, why use something else, when a simple 1+1=2 will do.

Trevor,

Remember that a lot of the people here have spent countless hours reading, thinking, arguing, writing, experimenting with different traditions, meditating, and so on. Some don't work at all in lieu of having more time for deep thought. They all value truth and wisdom, and live their lives in accordance with such values. If someone were to value music, and became a talented musician thereby, it would be no different. I would not call him superior on that account.

That's what a lot of people call superior, but I get it, there's really no such thing - it's just an illusion for practical purposes...Is that right?

PeterL wrote:That's what a lot of people call superior, but I get it, there's really no such thing - it's just an illusion for practical purposes...Is that right?

The difference between recognizing superior and inferior piano players and recognizing superior and inferior human beings is substantial. I had the sudden urge to tread lightly.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:The difference between recognizing superior and inferior piano players and recognizing superior and inferior human beings is substantial. I had the sudden urge to tread lightly.

Playing the piano is a skill. Being a human is not. Rarely does piano-playing skill come naturally, but everyone's born being human. Then they subsequently become machines--unless they're Jesus.

Alex said:
Well, the term as used here, so far, is used less to refer to an inexpressible idea, nor even to a partially expressed idea, or an idea that needs more work, but to ideas that are not considered relevant or important.

I tend to use it in relation to ideas that need more mental work. It is a bit like the comparison between a campfire and the tinder used to start the fire. It is an philosophical idea that has some sort of promise, but one realises it needs confirmation by a priori analysis. Its an idea about reality without strong context. It is a somewhat distinct jigsaw piece early in the puzzle - although you don’t yet know where to place it, you know that a bit of sorting and searching around will give you a better idea of its location.

I use the word rarely and I don’t tend to use it in relation to non-reflective learning, though if one questions someone who one suspects of rote learning or emotional learning, such as the religious, then one can see how much of what they say is henid-like. Like a blind person given the job of filing a million colour coded record files, in non-thinkers, a henid thought will not be analysed and placed where it should logically go, but will be set down wherever the person emotionally feels like it fits. It will often be contextually aligned with or linked to some false viewpoint about reality, as those are the mental highways their brains are most comfortable with, and in doing so it will remain underdeveloped, even if it had potential as a pointer to reality.

The term henid seems to have the feel of the word 'hide', 'behind' and the German "hinein" - in/inside/into. The term 'proto-thought' is preferred by me. Actually I'd say most of what is called 'thought' in general is really in the stage of proto-thought and similar to Spinoza's first type of knowledge: opinion - imagination. It has not yet reached reason.

The reason it could still be called a form of thought is that even while there's no real conscious structure connected to them in the sense of establishing truth or falsehood, it certainly can take the form of a judgement call, it can be mistaken and experienced as such.

There could be even a sliding scale between feeling, proto-thought and thought. Personally I don't think there's an essential distinction here anyway. It's a matter of crystallization or hardening. Or: curling up and biting itself in the hiney.

henid: a henid arises when 'the person within the person' is unable to decode a bool (*boolean computer language). More specifically, a bool is when the 'archetypal fool' program is unable to command a true/false statement; disabling the mind from further data encryption. To combat, hit the shift key, and move to the left (loosen) or right ('tighten).

Clever you. I see what you did there. You made everyone think you were asking a question in the first post, and wanted an answer. And then, wham bam, you turn around and say what was really on your mind, effectively re-starting the thread and making every reply to your first post obsolete!

Clever indeed, but you should have seen that coming.

uh... eughhh..... well... er .... nevermind.