GENIUS FORUMS

Hi!

I do not think there is an oneness of mind/body/etc intrinsically, I suppose culture also needs to become adult and sage afterwards, so, not only the baby becomes todler and todler becomes child etc, no also society becomes.

Problem is, how to grow consciousness and to accept your subconscious as being part of you without it confrontonting your ego. I'm at the moment in life now that I begin to integrate this and I can allow my subconscious to communicate with my ego but almost sporadically. Society has history to retrospect to, I have personal history (collective unconscious in Jungian terms) to introspect to.

However, through retrospection you confront yourself with facts, and with introspection also.

The problem is, individual components in society can't become conscious but move as one consciousness. Neurons are not conscious of themselves but we are.

So the problem I ask you is, how to see in an antimetaphysical world (assuming you agree) what the problem you describe is, in my eyes a completely integrated person who is able to translate his thoughts in normal language, say neurological terms and smith (do not know the proper grammar) his words in daily language as functional. I suppose that if your completely integrated you'll become moreso in agreement with being part of humanity instead of being self protective or ego -centric -istic.

My own theorem is that Freud for example lifted the veil by intuitive introspection then saw the world through it and intellectualized it. In my eyes Freud did a great job extending vision. However we needed a Wittgenstein to see more sense in the nonsense of Freuds thought patter(n)s.

Regards,

Justin

I'm having trouble following what you wrote, so I'll break it down, in order for myself to understand your thoughts. Before I do that, I'd like to communicate a few things with you: You seem to not be very patient when you write, so you end up trying to insert too my thoughts, without enough connections, so others may/do not understand exactly what your getting at (people don't understand what you wrote). Your spelling and punctuation could use some improvement. You basically have the same problem as myself, such as: incoherent writing (this doesn't mean thought, though there are similarities) and poor grammar and punctuation. This leads people to ignore your writing and/or not understand what the heck your trying to say. O.K. Now, let's try to understand your thoughts:

I do not think there is an oneness of mind/body/etc intrinsically, I suppose culture also needs to become adult and sage afterwards, so, not only the baby becomes todler and todler becomes child etc, no also society becomes.

I don't know were to begin, with this. There are a few obvious points. A few of these are: Jokes on you.

Problem is, how to grow consciousness and to accept your subconscious as being part of you without it confrontonting your ego. I'm at the moment in life now that I begin to integrate this and I can allow my subconscious to communicate with my ego but almost sporadically. Society has history to retrospect to, I have personal history (collective unconscious in Jungian terms) to introspect to.

I'd hate to start second-guessing what this means.

However, through retrospection you confront yourself with facts, and with introspection also.

Yes, I agree. I'm glad you realize this. I'd like to hear more about [your facts.

The problem is, individual components in society can't become conscious but move as one consciousness. Neurons are not conscious of themselves but we are.

I should learn some neurology.

So the problem I ask you is, how to see in an antimetaphysical world (assuming you agree) what the problem you describe is, in my eyes a completely integrated person who is able to translate his thoughts in normal language, say neurological terms and smith (do not know the proper grammar) his words in daily language as functional. I suppose that if your completely integrated you'll become moreso in agreement with being part of humanity instead of being self protective or ego -centric -istic.

I'm too fucked in the head to understand this. Interesting. Now the radio's talking to me...

My own theorem is that Freud for example lifted the veil by intuitive introspection then saw the world through it and intellectualized it. In my eyes Freud did a great job extending vision. However we needed a Wittgenstein to see more sense in the nonsense of Freuds thought patter(n)s.

So...Which one are you...?

You have to explain what you wrote and what your point is. It's too much for me, to understand, at this point.

;)

Hi RalphPL!

I'm going to analyse my own things through the pieces you broke down.

RalphPL wrote:Before I do that, I'd like to communicate a few things with you: You seem to not be very patient when you write, so you end up trying to insert too my thoughts, without enough connections, so others may/do not understand exactly what your getting at (people don't understand what you wrote).

Check!

RalphPL wrote:Your spelling and punctuation could use some improvement.

I know. I'm good at questioning and analysing what lies before me but bad in writing. I'm working on this. Also my English is being worked on.

RalphPL wrote:You basically have the same problem as myself, such as: incoherent writing (this doesn't mean thought, though there are similarities) and poor grammar and punctuation. This leads people to ignore your writing and/or not understand what the heck your trying to say.

Check!

RalphPL wrote:O.K. Now, let's try to understand your thoughts:

Goodo!

RalphPL wrote:

I do not think there is an oneness of mind/body/etc intrinsically, I suppose culture also needs to become adult and sage afterwards, so, not only the baby becomes todler and todler becomes child etc, no also society becomes.

I don't know were to begin, with this. There are a few obvious points. A few of these are: Jokes on you.

Ha!

Ok.

Reformulation. I do think that the mind is not able to evolve to its maximum on its own. I also think praxis is the way for thoughts to become embodied. If you don't practice its loses its value is my assumption. The biological and functional positions, dispositions and predispositions are throughout the ages emerging properties of a human being and of society. Not only a being becomes but also a society is a being and therefore becomes. However, I'm talking about metaphysics here and I don't want to presume that position. I'm not a Platonist. I think that all information that comes into the mind must be put into place by connection. The first question is, how does the underconscious interpret information? I suppose it gives it off to the mind in mythological images. However, a schizophrenic regresses like a shaman into this language not being able to "smith" his images into words.

RalphPL wrote:

Problem is, how to grow consciousness and to accept your subconscious as being part of you without it confrontonting your ego. I'm at the moment in life now that I begin to integrate this and I can allow my subconscious to communicate with my ego but almost sporadically. Society has history to retrospect to, I have personal history (collective unconscious in Jungian terms) to introspect to.

I'd hate to start second-guessing what this means.

How can you grow consciousness?
Following the last thinking, schizophrenia comes with often narrowing but also with growing consciousness, the problem is often that some ways in the mind are either opened or closed such that decompensation occurs in the mind.

There are in my eyes 2 kind of muscles, the consciously used ones and the subtle ones you use when as they say "talk to spirits", my "subtle muscles" are tintling when I use a pendulum for example. I assume my subconscious is directing it. At the moment I sense the subconscious when I walk and go "autopilot", I always come into known zones. When I walk on my "at the moment conscious faculties" I go for the most efficient route (by way of navigation and thinking).

Society has history to retrospect to, I have personal history (memories not per definition directly retrievable). Example would be: If your in a group of football players and make a joke so that they take you up into the group (joke dynamics), then you'll start talking about philosophy and they "correct you". This means the next time you'll probably not be able to talk philosophy and the group personality is shaped. I can't talk about childrens movies now or cartoons but I can refer to it, as an example: "Winny the Pooh!", I can connect it with the thoughts I have now: "Tao the Ching!". I invented this thinking myself but CG Jung I remembered afterwards calls this "fragmented history" "The collective unconscious", however, I do not know the intricacies of his thinking!

RalphPL wrote:

However, through retrospection you confront yourself with facts, and with introspection also.

Yes, I agree. I'm glad you realize this. I'd like to hear more about [your facts.

Hahaha, I do not hope my facts are suggesting authority!

Introspectively retreived facts CAN be coloured however, I think the subconscious does not lie. (Have to empirically confirm this as of yet)

RalphPL wrote:

The problem is, individual components in society can't become conscious but move as one consciousness. Neurons are not conscious of themselves but we are.

I should learn some neurology.

:) You did get the point? If so, the last question is rethorical on my side.

RalphPL wrote:

So the problem I ask you is, how to see in an antimetaphysical world (assuming you agree) what the problem you describe is, in my eyes a completely integrated person who is able to translate his thoughts in normal language, say neurological terms and smith (do not know the proper grammar) his words in daily language as functional. I suppose that if your completely integrated you'll become moreso in agreement with being part of humanity instead of being self protective or ego -centric -istic.

I'm too fucked in the head to understand this. Interesting. Now the radio's talking to me...

If you follow my functional suggestion you'll become pointed towards others. However introspective phenomenology (my own created philosophy) is directedness inwards to see the authenticity outside without losing the structure of thoughts that get scrambled if you move your inner symbols (=use your language and change the meaning of words inside on the things you experience and become estranged from others because you changed your inner "symbolism" (meaning of words)). So the question for me was (thought jump backwards), is neurology the proper language to describe humans (scientific vision, or vision towards the outside world)? Or does the functional way lead to the end of reasoning (I do not imply one as more important as the other, rather I try to search which becomes the last one to follow, I guess philosophy). I assume the 2 communicate (Wittgenstein (first person through proper language)<> Heidegger (First person description of the third person perspective) very very well if you'll accept them as communicatable. There is however one I did not call in this allinea and that is introspection, introspection should only be done if you at times cohere your thoughts and make it sound correct in the minds of others (Wittgenstein).

RalphPL wrote:

My own theorem is that Freud for example lifted the veil by intuitive introspection then saw the world through it and intellectualized it. In my eyes Freud did a great job extending vision. However we needed a Wittgenstein to see more sense in the nonsense of Freuds thought patter(n)s.

So...Which one are you...?

The introspective Phenomenologist

RalphPL wrote:You have to explain what you wrote and what your point is. It's too much for me, to understand, at this point.

;)

I hope you'll understand more of it now.

I added the background at points.

Be well!

Justin

As I suspected...! Btw, why do you mention schizophrenia, so often? Are you ill? Psychology student? An active member of these forums, with a new identity? Huh! HUH! Tell me...!-.-!

Reformulation. I do think that the mind is not able to evolve to its maximum on its own. I also think praxis is the way for thoughts to become embodied. If you don't practice its loses its value is my assumption. The biological and functional positions, dispositions and predispositions are throughout the ages emerging properties of a human being and of society. Not only a being becomes but also a society is a being and therefore becomes. However, I'm talking about metaphysics here and I don't want to presume that position. I'm not a Platonist. I think that all information that comes into the mind must be put into place by connection. The first question is, how does the underconscious interpret information? I suppose it gives it off to the mind in mythological images. However, a schizophrenic regresses like a shaman into this language not being able to "smith" his images into words.

Metaphorically, the brain is like a muscle. If you don't use it, it will atrophy and become weak. If you use it, it will develop and make many new connections between cells, growing and becoming strong. Of course, in order for this to take place, the body/brain must be healthy. Potential, means nothing, unless applied. Would Arnold/or Einstein make such extraordinary leaps in human potential, if they didn't work at it? Hell no!

How can you grow consciousness?

Apply. Evolve. Apply. Evolve.

There are two kinds of muscles: The ones' controlled without ones' awareness (heart) and the ones' controlled consciously (reaching for an apple).

Society has history to retrospect to, I have personal history (memories not per definition directly retrievable). Example would be: If your in a group of football players and make a joke so that they take you up into the group (joke dynamics), then you'll start talking about philosophy and they "correct you". This means the next time you'll probably not be able to talk philosophy and the group personality is shaped. I can't talk about childrens movies now or cartoons but I can refer to it, as an example: "Winny the Pooh!", I can connect it with the thoughts I have now: "Tao the Ching!". I invented this thinking myself but CG Jung I remembered afterwards calls this "fragmented history" "The collective unconscious", however, I do not know the intricacies of his thinking!

HA! Didn't know it was you. That picture you got there, looks like a cousin of mine;P

The intricacies, is what we're all trying to uncover.

phenomenology (my own created philosophy)

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&clien ... n&ct=title

Just do what an actor does and you can be whatever your heart desires, whether, it's true or false. You can construct your own reality and live INSIDE. They teach this in grade-9, Drama class.

Be well!

Thank you=) I wish you the same.

See-ya-around.

Guess that comment really got to you. Sorry. I almost broke-down, when I noticed you changed your picture. No hard feeling, I hope. Take care, Sweetheart.

RalphPL wrote:Guess that comment really got to you. Sorry. I almost broke-down, when I noticed you changed your picture. No hard feeling, I hope. Take care, Sweetheart.

Right..

RalphPL wrote:As I suspected...! Btw, why do you mention schizophrenia, so often? Are you ill? Psychology student? An active member of these forums, with a new identity? Huh! HUH! Tell me...!-.-!

Uh oh.

I want to study philosophy and then dive into a theology master so that I can help humans. I want to dive into their minds! I have some interpretations of schizophrenia myself and schizophrenics or case histories on schizophrenia inspire me. But I used the examples so much to keep it simple. Why use different examples if you have one already? It is also more easy for the brain to build one 1 or 2 examples instead of many. A couple of years ago I tried a book on freud and loved it, now I have some theorems of my own and combine that with Later Heidegger and Later Wittgenstein to pierce through much nonsense. I think I want to develop further and perhaps when I'm +-30 or so start studying at the Dutch Jung Institute and go into analysis to become an deeper analyst myself.

And you. Who are you? Defines, Moves, Constitutes you? (Oh and don't talk about my picture ok?)

And you. Who are you? Defines, Moves, Constitutes you? (Oh and don't talk about my picture ok?)

First of all, if you don't want people talking about your picture, you shouldn't have it up there. Secondly, I didn't say anything insulting about your picture. I simply stated you look like my cousin. If anything, I should be the one, who's peeved!

As for who am I? I'm 20yrs old and aspiring to become a MD. I'm also interested in the human mind and all its complexities and intricate workings. If you'd like to chat some more, please feel free to PM me. Also, I have some insight into schizophrenia, myself, because I've got a relative who "supposedly" has schizophrenia (they became psychotic a few times. Suicide attempt. Hospital stay and prescribed anti-psychotics. Delusions. All this and they run a successful business...etc). So yeah, PM me and we'll chat. Delve deeply and explain your thoughts as precisely as possible, one by one, this is a very interesting subject!:)

Very interesting stuff guys.

And just at the right time.

Justin, what remedy do you prescibe to those who have trouble articulating their mental landscape? I can highly relate to being unable to express myself when immersed in highly abstract imagery. So I tend to spout self-referencing jargon ("Tao Te Ching!") at moments when I incorrectly perceive others will be able to decipher. This hasn't been a problem growing up because I can introject others reactions, which leads to a form of subtle mind reading, but I'm now feeling the effects as I'm having trouble even talking to others. I also have bi-polar, with hints of schizophenic thought processing, which I don't really view as a negative because it enables some very interesting perceptions, but still can be taxing because I have yet to master it. If that's even possible :) None the less, the unconscious mind is a powerful tool, that I'm just now delving into.

Great!

So I tend to spout self-referencing jargon ("Tao Te Ching!") at moments when I incorrectly perceive others will be able to decipher.

I've never read "TTC", so I wouldn't know anything about it. I know exactly what you mean about the "mind reading part". It's almost like knowing the persons intent and whether they're lying, or not. The facial expression, body language, voice, eyes, and whatever is being said, all give clues...I have been wrong, but it was only due to the person becoming nervous, after noticing my intensive gaze upon them. I should work on being a little more subtle. Sunglasses work very well.

Steven Coyle wrote:Very interesting stuff guys.

And just at the right time.

Justin, what remedy do you prescibe to those who have trouble articulating their mental landscape? I can highly relate to being unable to express myself when immersed in highly abstract imagery. So I tend to spout self-referencing jargon ("Tao Te Ching!") at moments when I incorrectly perceive others will be able to decipher. This hasn't been a problem growing up because I can introject others reactions, which leads to a form of subtle mind reading, but I'm now feeling the effects as I'm having trouble even talking to others. I also have bi-polar, with hints of schizophenic thought processing, which I don't really view as a negative because it enables some very interesting perceptions, but still can be taxing because I have yet to master it. If that's even possible :) None the less, the unconscious mind is a powerful tool, that I'm just now delving into.

Hi Steven Coyle!

Wittgenstein has a lot to say about this.

May I suggest False Prison Volume I and II? (Wittgensteins ouvre)

Also the lectures of Dreyfus on the later Heidegger and the first part of Being and Time (through the Dreyfus lectures) are highly recommended!


I'll reiterate in my own fashion what they say and what I think.

First my schema of accessable things for the mind:
?
Humanity
Society
Culture
Subculture
Group
Duo
"Smith the words through the rules of of the above strata
(^Psyche towards outside^)
Smith words (Poetics).
(VPsyche towards insideV)
"Smith words for yourself
Rational visualisation
Mythological looking imagery (partial controll)
Greater personality which overwhelms the individual sometimes and this becomes their god sometimes. (Growth is stopping at this point)
?

What one should develop besides intellectual things:
Belly, Heart and Brain. I just recently got my belly and Heart open because my father supressed my emotions (I was to intens for him) so I got totally into an intellectual world and didn't want to experience the family forces anymore.

This document is all you need from the teachings of ouspensky http://www.ouspensky.info/gedachtegoed/man.doc

Critique on esoteric thought. The problem with esoteric thought is that like schizophrenia it nis not always understandable to others.

There is a danger, I call it playing chess with symbols.

Ask yourself. Do you give others information if you play chess? Or do you actually define the rules of your game that they need to invent?

The problem with DSM and ICD and PDM is that those describe surface matters and third person views but not how to behave in the first person perspective.

Then the Heideggerian thought is the prelinguistical development. Japanese children move on the back of the mother and later search for harmony, in the occident mothers have their childs on their belly and that gives them harmony and prelinguistically pushes them into search for individuality.

Also the ethos and style of cultures is defines throughout the ages and it is in my eyes important to attack all problems "at hand" on the same level without regressing into moods (self protection some would argue, "hastily"). Then like a little child who cries because it works you should think of a scheme to solve the paradoxes at hand. (With paradoxes I mean, attack the problem at hand and solve it so that it does not throw you into emotion the next time).

Example: I divide critique into ad hominem (personal attack) and a question from authority. The former I ignore if possible but if I have the urge I make a joke out of it, if it is the second I understand that the authority in question has priorities, namely NOT subordinating himself to you, I honestly awnser without one irritation because I understand his position, I found empathy towards his "critique".



One final note. In the above scheme, all outward levels are beings. So see groups moving as beings. Perhaps, yes. I will suggest the books of Elias Canetti namely Power and Crowds and the conscience of words.

Regards!

RalphPL wrote:http://www.mentalhealth.com/book/p40-sc01.html#Head_4a

How do you know someone is physically delusional or decompensating?

The one with medication is forcing a chemical structure (thus changing functionality?) and the other really helps someone dealing with his predispositions.

RalphPL wrote:Great!

So I tend to spout self-referencing jargon ("Tao Te Ching!") at moments when I incorrectly perceive others will be able to decipher.

I've never read "TTC", so I wouldn't know anything about it. I know exactly what you mean about the "mind reading part". It's almost like knowing the persons intent and whether they're lying, or not. The facial expression, body language, voice, eyes, and whatever is being said, all give clues...I have been wrong, but it was only due to the person becoming nervous, after noticing my intensive gaze upon them. I should work on being a little more subtle. Sunglasses work very well.

Subtle good.

Not withstanding the ripple effect generated, wading through, in sync with the never ending burden of sesquipedalianistic linguistics, be it in search of the universal meaning of procreation, linear time or, possibly eclectic rendevous with Einsteins, Neros, Notridamuses, Sleeping Prophets and the host-orical - (coining yet another rhetorical combination of partial words in my ongoing quest for the use of a hyphen, with the added pleasure of a descreet duel pun; Host + Oracle - or Hysterical) - of those "impotant" minds in history while we are deep in REM sleep possibly dreaming as some are known to, I feel obligated to briefly suggest the theory of voltage level increases of energy so prophiciently (<- i.e. partial word prophet) written and lectured on by yet another renoun, (and still living), Scientist/Engineer/..., Maurice Cotterell, Who asserts that this "must" expected of us all siting beliefs dating back to ancient civilizations such as the Peruvians, Egyptians, and Chinese, to name a few, will, at death, in fact increase God's energy, which in twisted parallel does seem to mirror a quote from Chief Seattle *see reply posted today in name of God thread; Unless of course, Chief Seattle indeed had the power of prophecy, foretelling of the "To catch a predator" series currently airing on MSNBC, since succumbing to the plausability of this as fact is indiginous of spiritual predispositions in men such as he, argueable within the text he (Chief Seattle that is) scribed, so ingenius and indiginous with the Native American's nonsingular use of the word "web" and the infamous Japanese baffling use of Native American language as code in WWII, respectfully. I apologize for the long sentence, and the misnomber that the english language literally has a procedure or sequence. Unbreakable? I think not. Well, I leave you with a proverb to fuel thought potentially increase voltage. Good Journey.

"Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children."
Ancient Indian Proverb

I'm going to attempt to rewrite what you wrote so you can let me know if I understood it all correctly, I hope you don't mind. :]

JustinZijlstra wrote:Hi!

I do not think there is an oneness of mind/body/etc intrinsically, I suppose culture also needs to become adult and sage afterwards, so, not only the baby becomes todler and todler becomes child etc, no also society becomes.

Problem is, how to grow consciousness and to accept your subconscious as being part of you without it confrontonting your ego. I'm at the moment in life now that I begin to integrate this and I can allow my subconscious to communicate with my ego but almost sporadically. Society has history to retrospect to, I have personal history (collective unconscious in Jungian terms) to introspect to.

However, through retrospection you confront yourself with facts, and with introspection also.

The problem is, individual components in society can't become conscious but move as one consciousness. Neurons are not conscious of themselves but we are.

So the problem I ask you is, how to see in an antimetaphysical world (assuming you agree) what the problem you describe is, in my eyes a completely integrated person who is able to translate his thoughts in normal language, say neurological terms and smith (do not know the proper grammar) his words in daily language as functional. I suppose that if your completely integrated you'll become moreso in agreement with being part of humanity instead of being self protective or ego -centric -istic.

My own theorem is that Freud for example lifted the veil by intuitive introspection then saw the world through it and intellectualized it. In my eyes Freud did a great job extending vision. However we needed a Wittgenstein to see more sense in the nonsense of Freuds thought patter(n)s.

Regards,

Justin

The oneness of mind isn't automatically recognized or available. It comes about through growth along a path set by certain stages. And just as there are stages through which the individual grows and becomes wiser, society evolves and needs to become wiser.

How can one become consciously aware and accept his whole mind including his subconscious which includes parts of himself he may not like (I'm adding this quote because I like it: "I am vast, I contain contradictions" ~Walt Whitman), without threatening the ego or losing stability? You are just beginning to do this. Through looking back on history you can learn things. Through looking inward you can also learn things. There are archetypes in your mind you must come to understand.

There are external facts perceived through retrospection, and internal facts perceived through introspection.

As a culture though, it is difficult to grow because a society is not conscious of itself like a person is conscious of himself. As a society we move as one, but we cannot become directly conscious of these attitudes, they can only be perceived through our own perspective. Though we are parts of society like neurons are a part of our minds, we are aware and neurons are not.

So the problem that manifests is how to see in terms of the practical reality rather than just the ultimate reality. The answer lies in becoming a person who is integrated in society in such a way that they are highly functional and can express themselves clearly and easily. If you achieve integration then you will be able to understand humanity and help others, rather than being egocentric.

You believe that Freud was one of these people. He understood the world through intuitive introspection and was able to translate his understanding to others through his work. But we still needed others to expound on his ideas.

(End of rewrite)

Is that what you meant?

I think intuitive introspection is very important. And understanding humanity is also very important. Lately I've been very interested in Jungian psychology. I'd also like to learn more about Freud; I only know his basic theories. If you have suggestions for either that would be great.

I'll definitely look into some of the books you suggested to Steven. (Just out of curiosity when you wrote "Wittgensteins ouvre" were you using french as in "chef d'oeuvre" which means master piece)

Interestingly, in my Humanities class right now, we are talking about the evolution of certain attitudes in society over time and how points of view have changed. In looking at culture you must try to see things through the differieng perspective of others over time, understanding their mind set, rather than judging it based on your biases. Anyways we're reading "Love and Death in the American Novel" by Fieldler which relates the differing attitudes of society, as evident in literature, to the projection of certain myths and archetypes in culture which often translate into stereotypes. It's quite intriguing.

I'm a neuroscience major btw.

I like the initiative cat10542,

[Pretty good translation]

You believe that Freud was one of these people. He understood the world through intuitive introspection and was able to translate his understanding to others through his work. But we still needed others to expound on his ideas.

(End of rewrite)

Is that what you meant?

Almost, Its almost trivial writing and thinking/intuiting it but I think Freud was on the verge and in the process of discovering much. You wrote: "expound", I would say: re-vision, Jung did a lot on this. But perhaps you already had the same thing on mind.

I think intuitive introspection is very important. And understanding humanity is also very important. Lately I've been very interested in Jungian psychology. I'd also like to learn more about Freud; I only know his basic theories. If you have suggestions for either that would be great.I bought a Dutch translation of Grundwerk (about 3000 pages), so if you know German you should certainly try Grundwerk of Jung, however I know no good work in English that is as good as this one. I suggest you start http://www.junginstitut.ch/main/Show$Id=1121.html there and perhaps mail them with your requests!

I'll definitely look into some of the books you suggested to Steven. (Just out of curiosity when you wrote "Wittgensteins ouvre" were you using french as in "chef d'oeuvre" which means master piece)

If I meant something like that I would say master harvest or magnum opus.
I meant: oeuvre /'{phon_three_colon}vr{shwa}/ noun [sing.] (from French, formal) all the works of a writer, artist, etc.: Picasso’s oeuvre

Interestingly, in my Humanities class right now, we are talking about the evolution of certain attitudes in society over time and how points of view have changed. In looking at culture you must try to see things through the differieng perspective of others over time, understanding their mind set, rather than judging it based on your biases. Anyways we're reading "Love and Death in the American Novel" by Fieldler which relates the differing attitudes of society, as evident in literature, to the projection of certain myths and archetypes in culture which often translate into stereotypes. It's quite intriguing.Ah! Interesting indeed! Perhaps Carl Gustav Jung - Matter of Heart (film from 1985) will also inspire you.

I'm a neuroscience major btw.

Ah! Well, I'm looking forward to your input!

Justin