GENIUS FORUMS

Talking Ass wrote:I don't know, Syz. All I want to do is assassinate him. If for some reason that doesn't work, we'll have to up the anty.

Here, here is gorgus singin' embodied! Or this, if you're into tenors. A duet perhaps?

:D

Well, to be honest, seems to me your music taste jumped out of a neoplatonic cloud. See, I'm a simpler sort, and the modern trends just haven't made it yet down to the ranch. This is right about our speed.

How is the masculine-feminine split up in the human brain?

This is where the whole ideal falls apart. I know you don't think so, neither do QRS, but that's because they haven't tried to make their esoteric musings apply to the apparent reality in-front of us. Syzygy I know you, at varying time, say the brain exists and doesn't exist, really depending on the point you are making.

There is another way of thinking about things, call it "divine", call it whatever you want. I don't grasp for fluffy, fruity, flighty language, so I'm just going to call it an abstract conceptualization. It is precisely the way that the brain computes and represents data, how consciousness exists on that level without appearing conscious to the outside observer. It requires a purely non-dual, non-delusional approach to the topic. Dichotomies like "Masculine" and "Feminine" are falling well out of favour, and to make them apply to this area a lot of stretching the absurd needs to happen.

Honestly, a lot of people crap on about non-duality and enlightenment, but they can't square their ideas with observations in neuroscience. To me, they are just living in a fantasy if that is the case. If they have to deny the blatantly obvious supremacy of the brain when it comes to consciousness, or propose some ideal backwards integration of matter. Such as, the mind creates physical illness. This is just another form of duality and delusion.

You study the gross anatomy and computation of the brain and you learn different kinds of causalities that you probably can't think up on your own, and you see how things function, the machinery. Divine insight? Heck no, just hard study.. intuition is relatively useless if you have no experience to draw on.

Jung, interesting character, spawned a bunch of new-age nonsense and distaste for "reductionism". Reductionism and materialism are alive and well in new-age philosophy, even in Jung's, but they can't see it.

Of course "masculine" "feminine" is just another kind of duality. Quite contrary to the at-one-ment claimed.

OH I get it, its just about "reducing" reality in a sloppy elitism.

"You can't reduce reality like that!".... "but I can do it like this."

"And I'll just make shit up that seems to represent how I'm feeling at this moment"

Animus wrote:How is the masculine-feminine split up in the human brain?

This is where the whole ideal falls apart.

the masculine/feminine of the yin-yang symbol falls apart? Jung's psychological concept of anima/animus falls apart? The concept of symbolically male/female intelligences fall apart, because they can't be mapped in the brain? Interesting idea.

syzygy wrote:

Animus wrote:How is the masculine-feminine split up in the human brain?

This is where the whole ideal falls apart.

the masculine/feminine of the yin-yang symbol falls apart? Jung's psychological concept of anima/animus falls apart? The concept of symbolically male/female intelligences fall apart, because they can't be mapped in the brain? Interesting idea.

Uh, yeah. Look, I know for you the brain might as well not exist, and that's why I think you are leaning towards "batshit crazy". And I would submit you really don't believe this. But you ignore what the brain is and posit a fantasy on top of it.

This is the thing, you talk about everying being "one" and that would be as far as you can take that. With that I would tend to agree, but then you split the one into two "masculine/feminine", "anima/animus", etc.. you've already embarked on the dual, on reductionism. It is the fact that you only take it that one step, and its vague and illusory, its too abstract of an abstraction. Neuroscience for example reduces the brain to the smallest observable or differentiable phenomena and works from there. It uses much more discrete arbitrations and consequently is capable of explanation with clarity and without too much confusion. It also doesn't rely on illusory terminology like "masculine/feminine" which could easily be misattributed to the human phenomena.

I think this Jung stuff or your stuff maybe, is like the lazy man's answer to big questions, or perhaps its for the individual too afraid to reduce things even further. Its certainly not for wanting to keep things whole, as you've already begun reducing the whole, just to a shallow and narrow extent.

I've heard this nonsense from you that your mind creates your illnesses, something about your 3rd shakra being malaligned and generating a hole in your ear-drum. This is bordering on total solipsism, and yet you use abstract symbolism enough that you can get some people to agree with you, without understanding exactly what it is you believe. You talk about turning on/off street lamps with your will. Another kind of solipsism and you couch this in vague and vain philosophy which uses terminology appealing to desire, symbolism with phenomenology that is pleasurable not neutral.

I just think, probably not many people here are solipsists in this same way, perhaps Talking Ass is, or perhaps he just identifies with your terminology! That's why I find it disengenuous, It took me a long time to realize that you just like certain terminology and your actual philosophy is completely absurd. If you were clearer with your expressions, people could realize what you are about and move on immediately.

Animus wrote:This is the thing, you talk about everying being "one" and that would be as far as you can take that. With that I would tend to agree, but then you split the one into two "masculine/feminine", "anima/animus", etc.. you've already embarked on the dual, on reductionism.

It is the All that has manifested into vast diversity. It is the All that has divided into the equal and opposite (yin-yang, masculine/feminine) parts fundamental to all creation. I merely accept this.

It is the fact that you only take it that one step, and its vague and illusory, its too abstract of an abstraction.

I acknowledge the abstract and it's different properties compared to that which is 3-dimensional. In response to your assertion that by discussing abstract phenomena in abstract ways that we create gross errors of perception, I pointed out that is not the case. I pointed out that when we reduce it and define it, it actually becomes distorted (that to define the abstract, we lose what it is, given the abstract is not defined.) Thusly, doing so is what creates gross error of perception. To me this is part of the Adam and Eve(read: humanity) delusion: the delusion of the ego: I can understand and quantify everything. I can be like God by entering into and identifying with the psychological space of linear thought and time. And then we create our fall from the Grace of just Being in the ongoing moment of creation, balanced in relationship with All.

Profound and abstract truth may be experienced/known by those who are willing to take the road of experience, beyond thinking, quantifying, etc which can also include thinking/quantifying. The key is in what one identifies with. The minute we identify with the thought, we begin to create our own ego, separation, distortion and conflict/suffering.

Neuroscience for example reduces the brain to the smallest observable or differentiable phenomena and works from there. It uses much more discrete arbitrations and consequently is capable of explanation with clarity and without too much confusion. It also doesn't rely on illusory terminology like "masculine/feminine" which could easily be misattributed to the human phenomena.

I'm all for science in terms of that which is observable. Neuroscience cannot break down the yin-yan concepts of equal opposites making up all of the physical dimensions. Neuroscience cannot break down symbolism to observable parts. Etc.

I think this Jung stuff or your stuff maybe, is like the lazy man's answer to big questions, or perhaps its for the individual too afraid to reduce things even further. Its certainly not for wanting to keep things whole, as you've already begun reducing the whole, just to a shallow and narrow extent.

It was years ago I talked to you about holons. About parts that are whole within themselves, and yet parts of other wholes. The ultimate truths are paradoxical, and hence, linear, logical methodology can only describe material correlates, which are not the abstractions such correlates relate to.

Animus wrote:I've heard this nonsense from you that your mind creates your illnesses, something about your 3rd shakra being malaligned and generating a hole in your ear-drum. This is bordering on total solipsism, and yet you use abstract symbolism enough that you can get some people to agree with you, without understanding exactly what it is you believe. You talk about turning on/off street lamps with your will. Another kind of solipsism and you couch this in vague and vain philosophy which uses terminology appealing to desire, symbolism with phenomenology that is pleasurable not neutral.

I just think, probably not many people here are solipsists in this same way, perhaps Talking Ass is, or perhaps he just identifies with your terminology! That's why I find it disengenuous, It took me a long time to realize that you just like certain terminology and your actual philosophy is completely absurd. If you were clearer with your expressions, people could realize what you are about and move on immediately.

Given you have misconstrued all these concepts to create arguments that don't exist, like several others in this thread, there is no point addressing them.

syzygy wrote:

Animus wrote:This is the thing, you talk about everying being "one" and that would be as far as you can take that. With that I would tend to agree, but then you split the one into two "masculine/feminine", "anima/animus", etc.. you've already embarked on the dual, on reductionism.

It is the All that has manifested into vast diversity. It is the All that has divided into the equal and opposite (yin-yang, masculine/feminine) parts fundamental to all creation. I merely accept this.

It is the fact that you only take it that one step, and its vague and illusory, its too abstract of an abstraction.

I acknowledge the abstract and it's different properties compared to that which is 3-dimensional. In response to your assertion that by discussing abstract phenomena in abstract ways that we create gross errors of perception, I pointed out that is not the case. I pointed out that when we reduce it and define it, it actually becomes distorted (that to define the abstract, we lose what it is, given the abstract is not defined.) Thusly, doing so is what creates gross error of perception. To me this is part of the Adam and Eve(read: humanity) delusion: the delusion of the ego: I can understand and quantify everything. I can be like God by entering into and identifying with the psychological space of linear thought and time. And then we create our fall from the Grace of just Being in the ongoing moment of creation, balanced in relationship with All.

Profound and abstract truth may be experienced/known by those who are willing to take the road of experience, beyond thinking, quantifying, etc which can also include thinking/quantifying. The key is in what one identifies with. The minute we identify with the thought, we begin to create our own ego, separation, distortion and conflict/suffering.

Neuroscience for example reduces the brain to the smallest observable or differentiable phenomena and works from there. It uses much more discrete arbitrations and consequently is capable of explanation with clarity and without too much confusion. It also doesn't rely on illusory terminology like "masculine/feminine" which could easily be misattributed to the human phenomena.

I'm all for science in terms of that which is observable. Neuroscience cannot break down the yin-yan concepts of equal opposites making up all of the physical dimensions. Neuroscience cannot break down symbolism to observable parts. Etc.

I think this Jung stuff or your stuff maybe, is like the lazy man's answer to big questions, or perhaps its for the individual too afraid to reduce things even further. Its certainly not for wanting to keep things whole, as you've already begun reducing the whole, just to a shallow and narrow extent.

It was years ago I talked to you about holons. About parts that are whole within themselves, and yet parts of other wholes. The ultimate truths are paradoxical, and hence, linear, logical methodology can only describe material correlates, which are not the abstractions such correlates relate to.

You say you "pointed out" that you reductionism increases errors, but you didn't point it out, you asserted it. I can demonstrate the opposite by beginning with a higher-level abstraction; human, and reducing this into the male-female persuasions, or the adult-child classifications. Although these are arbitrations of a continuum, without them you could not explain or identify adequately certain phenomena. For example, "humans that menstruate" are attributable to the "female" sub-class of the classification "human". The further you take this, the clearer the phenomena becomes. E.g. prepubescent females do not menstruate, post-menstrual females do not menstruate. You cannot explain with any detail the phenomena of menstruation without reduction and you can't clearly explain it without adequate depth of abstraction.

You can continue the process to finer forms of abstraction, to the point where you understand the biological and psychological effects and affects of the phenomena, you can explain the hormonal changes that take place, but if and only if you reduce the "whole" to an adequate depth of abstraction. If all you ever do is look upon the "whole" then there is nothing to be said about it, the "whole" is a point-of-reference and not an element to be referenced as it pertains to menstruation.

I don't know where you would even begin explaining anything without some form of reductionism, the very term "explain" indicates a causality which relies on distinct things. If you go about making these distinctions sloppily or without sufficient caution then you run into all kinds of errors. For example, "menstruation is an anamoly of the feminine aspect of nature", while this is true to some extent, it is quite a bit more vague and problematic than stating "the females of a species, within statistically defined age groups, menstruate", one could take this 'map' further and provide more detail. Such as defining "species" and "female".

As the 'map' analogy goes, its a bit like a cheap map which only shows the gross boundaries of a territory versus the map based on satellite imagery that shows with greater detail the precise boundaries of a territory.

syzygy wrote:

Animus wrote:I've heard this nonsense from you that your mind creates your illnesses, something about your 3rd shakra being malaligned and generating a hole in your ear-drum. This is bordering on total solipsism, and yet you use abstract symbolism enough that you can get some people to agree with you, without understanding exactly what it is you believe. You talk about turning on/off street lamps with your will. Another kind of solipsism and you couch this in vague and vain philosophy which uses terminology appealing to desire, symbolism with phenomenology that is pleasurable not neutral.

I just think, probably not many people here are solipsists in this same way, perhaps Talking Ass is, or perhaps he just identifies with your terminology! That's why I find it disengenuous, It took me a long time to realize that you just like certain terminology and your actual philosophy is completely absurd. If you were clearer with your expressions, people could realize what you are about and move on immediately.

Given you have misconstrued all these concepts to create arguments that don't exist, like several others in this thread, there is no point addressing them.

No, I don't think I did. Lets examine this, you aren't stating your ideas clearly and then I misunderstand them, isn't that what my initial concern was? I thought it was quite clear when you said to me "I walk under street light. streetlight goes off. The one streetlight going off happens basically any time I walk past it at night. Last night, another light that usually does not go off went out when I walked past. It's basic observation to connect myself into this phenomenon, as that is how it plays out: due to my interaction. Even if I take the ego out of the equation, my physical organism still walks past the lights, and the lights go off. for the record, I don't consciously create this phenomenon...it always surprises me when it happens, because I'm never thinking about it. The two other people who I've seen this happen to with regularity...they are logical thinkers, and therefore also recognize the base cause/effect: " I walk under light. Light turns off." They don't understand why this happens, they merely know it does."

I'm sorry, but that is the epitome of what I'm concerned about. You know the light goes off when you walk under it, because the light went off when you walked under it. That is a pretty crude observation, it's sort of like; stating the obvious. "The sky is blue, because when I look at it, the sky is blue". Yet, you imply that this has some relation to a psychological trait you have, you suggested to me that I should experience this too based on my "personality type" the fact that I'm an "air sign". Which is another set of crude and error-prone abstractions.

In the end, you can escape critical analysis by escaping into the abstractions, you can say that I am misunderstanding, which is quite apparently the consequence of vague expression, and that keeps you away from criticism. I know how much you want to avoid criticism and analysis.

Its like when we have a dialogue on something, like sexual deviance, and I talk about the statistical observations in clinical psychology or functional magnetic resonance imaging, and then you reply "Well.. see... I see things from the light". No I don't see, it sounds like you are 'pulling rank' on me with this divine light you have which I don't, and thus you will always be correct and will never have to undergo any kind of criticism. As it is, you view my criticisms as "hostile" and "negative" and then won't talk to me anymore. You say "If things aren't coming from love" - which means a phenomenal state of elation to you - "then they are wrong". Thus you avoid criticism of any kind, you draw your superior understanding from "the light", which contradicts observable data, and you ignore and even deny the physical.

I just think, probably not many people here are solipsists in this same way, perhaps Talking Ass is, or perhaps he just identifies with your terminology!

The Talking Ass feels that all description-systems that we use are constructs that can never accurately describe what it is they map. But, some description-systems may be better than others for describing certain things. Also, description-systems are part of our human legacy and they go through constant metamorphosis, so that we have in our possession---through our language---an archaeological heap of signs and signifiers which often end up haunting us, following behind us, so that when we turn suddenly around we see elusive shadows which we interpret in different ways, depending on our disposition. (Myself, I always see the Wee Donkeys that my mother wove into elaborate childhood stories which kept me entranced for hours---but more of that later, as time permits).

Consciousness is so intricately linked to the material platform that Talking Ass is uncertain how it can be unwoven, and what precise tools we will ultimately use to do so. He is aware of the ascendancy of the materialistic definitions---that consciousness is to be found only as an epiphenomenon of matter---and he basically accepts this idea, since articulating any other idea involves one in speculation, mythology, spiritism, and God only knows what else. (He often has said that to use this kind of language puts us in a sort of 'graveyard of meaning' since these antiquated, quaint terms are wedded to old and rather dead concepts).

Talking Ass will always say that he supposes there are intricate mysteries that underpin our lives, the manifestation of consciousness, and he often says that the proper attitude is one of a sort of reverent awe that things exist, that we are here and we perceive. He is not at all opposed to a scientific articulation---a new De Rerum Natura (an ongoing one at any rate)---and sees this as inevitable on one hand, and also that eventually a new, unified theory of consciousness will evolve from it. "No matter what", he says prophetically, chewing a mouthful of grass, "we have to go forward into the new paradigm'. Then, he lets loose a torrent of urine onto the stable floor which seems, to onlookers, like it will never cease and may flood the place. At this point he turns and winks impishly.

Talking Ass does not identify as a Jungian, but sees Jungianism as "an attempt to construct a conceptual pathway to the Divine", and he often says that we need these conceptual pathways. We need an avenue through which the mysterious spirit can enter our (conceptual) world. He often mentions---or he did at one time, he feels its been over-used at this point---'the Spirit Mercurius', a symbol or emblem of a certain something that exists outside of our own mental construct, so limited in fact. He is fond of saying that this 'Mercurius' always has a weird way of manifesting himself and that 'he' should be paid attention to. Essentially, this 'Mercurius' is consciousness so grand that man is always awed before his manifestation, and that there is really no way to say what exactly 'it' is. He believes that it is this 'sprit' that 'stands behind' and fundamentally IS all that we see manifested here. That this 'knowledge' is hidden, is part of the deep mystery of things.

With all that said, he then proceeds to sniff you out for sugar cubes, and since you seem to have none, he unceremoniously goes right to sleep, snoring rather grossly. To all appearances, your interview has come to an end

Does that consciousness tell you the nature of sexual deviancy Talking Ass? OR does it imply that physical illness arises out of psychological deluions? Are you so bound up in it emotionally that you can't handle criticism?

syzygy wrote:

Talking Ass wrote:Well, I couldn't relate. It was sort of twinkle-fingered and sentimental. Here is a friend of mine working out an old folk melody. What range! What manly sentiments! Enjoy!

try this version...it's...well, shall we say a little less "twinkle-fingered". or sentimental.

what I LOVE about androgyny (note Gary Numan's obvious androgynous look...) is the balance...the effeminate meets manly...

Animus...these lyrics are up your alley...the beauty is balanced by menace, death chants, mayhem, etc...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnvOGO387ag

Down in the park
Where the machmen meet
The machines are playing `kill-by-numbers
Down in the park with a friend called `five

I was in a car crash
Or was it the war?
Well, Ive never been quite the same
Little white lies like I was there

Come to zom-zoms, a place to eat
Like it was built in one day
You can watch the humans
Try to run

Oh, look, theres a rape machine
Id go outside if it looks the other way
You wouldnt believe
The things they do

Down in the park
Where the chant is death, death, death
Until the sun cries morning
Down in the park with friends of mine

We are not lovers
We are not romantics
We are here to serve you
A different face but the words never change

oh...and the Marilyn Manson version--it's beyond androgynous, it's otherworldly!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGb-rnWhzIk

Or, the androgynous is not distinguished between effiminate and manly. Its not as if the two separated and became one, but they always were one and no separation occured. Sort of like how reality is one, and then you split it up into the anima/animus or love/hate. Or like saying a 5 cent piece actually is the combination of two 2.5 cent pieces, and not simply a 5 cent piece which could be conceptually broken into two 2.5 cent pieces.

Does that consciousness tell you the nature of sexual deviancy Talking Ass? OR does it imply that physical illness arises out of psychological deluions? Are you so bound up in it emotionally that you can't handle criticism?

I don't know where you are going with this recent talk of sexual deviancy. I'm not quite sure what you are driving at. For the time being, I reserve the right to remain silent.

Since I used the term 'Mercurius' in the same context with Jung, I assume you mean the consciousness he would refer to as the Collective Unconscious, or some part of our psyche. And I think the answer is yes. If you have ever engaged in profound meditation, you may have experienced states where you become aware of certain things (a vision or epiphany). Also, one can have very, very revealing dreams in which there appears to be a 'speaker'; something that wants to make something known to you through the language of dreams, and by pondering on those symbols and what stands behind them, your own consciousness (small 'c' in this case) is instructed. There is a great deal in mystical experience (for example Aldous Huxley assembled a whole broad range of it in The Perennial Philosophy which was part of his musing in the later part of his life and career) that is not necessarily explained away by science.

About not being able to handle criticisms, I am not sure of you are talking about me or about Syzygy. I think you are referring to her, for some reason or other. There are many reasons why people---why we---often cannot take criticism. Maybe because we have invested so much time assembling a 'world-view' that we resist having to examine it, or dismantle it. Or, we are attached to our 'cherished notions'. What you may find to be true, on this forum, is that one specific and naturally tendentious 'male' personality will often lock horns with the other extreme, the 'female'. To understand better this dynamic you might consider taking a look at some of Jung's formulations on the different 'functions'. It could help you when you run up into another, very different way of 'interfacing' with reality.

Here's a basic outline:

Basically, THINKING refers to the faculty of rational analysis; of understanding and responding to things through the intellect, the "head" so to speak. Thinking means connecting ideas in order to arrive at a general understanding. The Thinking-type often appears detached and unemotional. The Scientist and the Philosopher are examples of the "thinking type", which is found more commonly in men.

FEELING is the interpretation of things at a value- level, a "heart"-level rather than a "head"-level. Feeling evaluates, it accepts or rejects an idea on the basis of whether it is pleasant or unpleasant. According to Jung this is the emotional personality type, and occurs more frequently in women.

Thinking and Feeling are both rational, in that they both require an act of Judgment. Sensation and Intuition are both irrational, in that they involve no reason, but simply result from stimullii (whether external or internal) acting upon the individual.

SENSATION means conscious perception through the sense-organs. The Sensation personality-type relates to physical stimulii. But there is a difference according to whether the person is an introvert or an extrovert.

So we could have an Introverted-Sensation type, such as an artist, who experiences the physical world (sensation) from the perspective of the psychic or inner consciousness (introversion). As opposed to this, the Extroverted-Sensation type would be the person who is a simple materialist or hedonist, interested only in physical or pragmatic things. This type tends to be realistic and practical. At worst, one may be crudely sensual. This personality-type occurs more often in men.

Finally, INTUITION is like sensation in that it is an experience which is immediately given to con-sciousness rather than arising through mental activity (e.g. thinking or feeling). But it differs in that it has no physical cause. It constitutes an intuition or hunch, a "gut"-level feeling, or an "ESP" experience. It is the source of inspiration, creativity, novel ideas, etc. According to Jung, the Intuitive type jumps from image, is interested in a while, but soon loses interest.

Talking Ass wrote:

Does that consciousness tell you the nature of sexual deviancy Talking Ass? OR does it imply that physical illness arises out of psychological deluions? Are you so bound up in it emotionally that you can't handle criticism?

I don't know where you are going with this recent talk of sexual deviancy. I'm not quite sure what you are driving at. For the time being, I reserve the right to remain silent.

Since I used the term 'Mercurius' in the same context with Jung, I assume you mean the consciousness he would refer to as the Collective Unconscious, or some part of our psyche. And I think the answer is yes. If you have ever engaged in profound meditation, you may have experienced states where you become aware of certain things (a vision or epiphany). Also, one can have very, very revealing dreams in which there appears to be a 'speaker'; something that wants to make something known to you through the language of dreams, and by pondering on those symbols and what stands behind them, your own consciousness (small 'c' in this case) is instructed. There is a great deal in mystical experience (for example Aldous Huxley assembled a whole broad range of it in The Perennial Philosophy which was part of his musing in the later part of his life and career) that is not necessarily explained away by science.

Science can explain that, not in a formal theory, but with a bit of imagination you can see the connections, and it takes a lot less imagining than Jung. I have during meditation been presented with religious iconography, but not without being skeptical. Its not as if this imagery originated outside of the brain - atleast not in the general sense that other phenomena do not. What is happening here - seems to me - is that the brain is representing a multitude of phenomena moment by moment, in the process of meditation you are quieting down the more salient stimuli, or simply not attending to it. giving the other features an opportunity to be more salient.

About not being able to handle criticisms, I am not sure of you are talking about me or about Syzygy. I think you are referring to her, for some reason or other. There are many reasons why people---why we---often cannot take criticism. Maybe because we have invested so much time assembling a 'world-view' that we resist having to examine it, or dismantle it. Or, we are attached to our 'cherished notions'. What you may find to be true, on this forum, is that one specific and naturally tendentious 'male' personality will often lock horns with the other extreme, the 'female'. To understand better this dynamic you might consider taking a look at some of Jung's formulations on the different 'functions'. It could help you when you run up into another, very different way of 'interfacing' with reality.

Here's a basic outline:

Basically, THINKING refers to the faculty of rational analysis; of understanding and responding to things through the intellect, the "head" so to speak. Thinking means connecting ideas in order to arrive at a general understanding. The Thinking-type often appears detached and unemotional. The Scientist and the Philosopher are examples of the "thinking type", which is found more commonly in men.

FEELING is the interpretation of things at a value- level, a "heart"-level rather than a "head"-level. Feeling evaluates, it accepts or rejects an idea on the basis of whether it is pleasant or unpleasant. According to Jung this is the emotional personality type, and occurs more frequently in women.

Thinking and Feeling are both rational, in that they both require an act of Judgment. Sensation and Intuition are both irrational, in that they involve no reason, but simply result from stimullii (whether external or internal) acting upon the individual.

SENSATION means conscious perception through the sense-organs. The Sensation personality-type relates to physical stimulii. But there is a difference according to whether the person is an introvert or an extrovert.

So we could have an Introverted-Sensation type, such as an artist, who experiences the physical world (sensation) from the perspective of the psychic or inner consciousness (introversion). As opposed to this, the Extroverted-Sensation type would be the person who is a simple materialist or hedonist, interested only in physical or pragmatic things. This type tends to be realistic and practical. At worst, one may be crudely sensual. This personality-type occurs more often in men.

Finally, INTUITION is like sensation in that it is an experience which is immediately given to con-sciousness rather than arising through mental activity (e.g. thinking or feeling). But it differs in that it has no physical cause. It constitutes an intuition or hunch, a "gut"-level feeling, or an "ESP" experience. It is the source of inspiration, creativity, novel ideas, etc. According to Jung, the Intuitive type jumps from image, is interested in a while, but soon loses interest.

All of this stuff makes sense on a neurological level, the "reason" is pretty straight forward, all of the neocortex functions the same way and is fairly well understood. You can create an artificial neural network on your home PC and have it do many of the same things we equate with "reason", which is really a process of prediction and representation. To put it in one word; contiguity.

The emotional system is a bit different, and you are right, it puts things into a dichotomous good/bad framework, which is essentially flawed as QRS point out and I hope you agree. It is the fundamentally delusional aspect of mind. It can only say "this feels bad" or "this feels good". Our gustatory system evolved to favour fruits with high glucose concentrations, and thus we think it sugar tastes "good", but this is illusory in that candy also tastes "good", infact it often tastes better than fruit. This makes sense because it has higher glucose rations. Point is that the emotional system is prone to gross error, and gives an illusion of duality, far more than reason does. Sure it is essentially based on a cause and ultimately the purpose is to present an organism with a crude value system. But that means it is only really useful insofar as we seek value. If we are trying to explain what value is, it serves as a root cause, but itself cannot explain itself.

Intuition is a bit illusory too because it takes context into account and doesn't do so systematically, yet it functions on the same system as reason. Anyway, I have issues with this forum in that I can't see what I type or correct erros, so I'll eave it there for now.

Talking Ass wrote:What you may find to be true, on this forum, is that one specific and naturally tendentious 'male' personality will often lock horns with the other extreme, the 'female'.

Interesting that you bring this up... Animus and I know we are very similar personality types and have represented the stereotypical "masculine/feminine" split through our preferences, in that one of us is a "thinker" and the other a "feeler" in terms of Jungian/Myers-Briggs preferences (all our other preferences are identical). We have spent ungodly amounts of time on message boards locked in head to head battle for about 3 years now, off and on...

It's textbook.

According to these same systems, one can become balanced within one's self over time, by developing one's least developed function. When one denies it's validity, instead of developing it, one does so at the expense of wholeness.

We have spent ungodly amounts of time on message boards locked in head to head battle for about 3 years now, off and on...

Well, I'm but an ass, yet my 'intuition' tells me that Animus would do well to plunge repeatedly into your feeling function---say over a period of a few weeks. It helps if this is repeated often. While I can't speak for others, still this always seems to work for me and my Ginny. If I can be of any more help, please don't hesitate to ask.

Talking Ass wrote:

We have spent ungodly amounts of time on message boards locked in head to head battle for about 3 years now, off and on...

Well, I'm but an ass, but my 'intuition' tells me that Animus would do well to plunge repeatedly right into your feeling function---say over a period of a few weeks. It helps if this is repeated often. While I can't speak for anyone, else this always seems to work for me and my Ginny.

I told Animus the same thing........







:D

Ugh

lest I offend anyone....I admit I was joking in my last entry.