Searching.

Searching is basically a virtue but not always.

Not: When your peace is in danger.
Not: When affection is not meant.

Function.

Just red to take critique general, not personal. This is appropriate. What hasn't function does not deserve respect? Often felt this way and I do take this personal. The reasons are in part obvious. Now I have to write an essay about the Rorschach. I am not seeing any connection with the psychological apparatus. It is not so the content of the interpretation, but the category where it falls in that is. This is very object-centered regarded so. Typical for the time where it is developed. I mean that people use their imagination subjectively and this is completely normal. Culture can be of influence, since culture is dependent on understanding. The influence is not of importance here. Categories and concepts. Relations! Guide both. Categories by membership. Concepts by vague logic (analogy or metaphor). But of course it are inkblot presentations so perception and projection interact with those processes, or this is the objective. I have a book called Visual Thinking but still need to read it. That will not be accepted anyway. I want to know what happens at first sight or in the combination of these 10 inkblots. I don't understand the use: writing an essay.

Eskimo Recordings.

Hating Life.

According to Freud rules have a hostile basis. Often. It is correct that when you show love in a miserable way you are better to show hate in a disguised neutral form. When you show dependence and guidance within it it is like you are aiming to be an equal (a friend till the end). Also it is so, for Freud, that impulse is connected with experience. Also perception is an impulse according to post-modernists, which gives clarity to the dangers of psychoanalysis for people in danger (people without network). In some way experience needs to be anchored to the mind, or better stated the ego. Own self-regulation and normal progress into the life as interaction of you and "other" is essential. This form of unconsciousness is most healthy but also easy boring or depriving for the ego as such. It is the ego which must create the unconscious after all. So people can go nuts in a situational way. Because their planning means seduced conduct, by image, by confusion. So many things that are cultural and this is situational context almost every time. It is an excuse. Excuses ain't bad I seem to say. Well, sometimes this is the area to intervene. While you cannot intervene this after all. You need excuses to exist and to be creative. Even if you are only a listener on the stage. We react in a formational way/form. We are giving love to be prone to seduction. We are listening to hate in the present to be constructive. We are listening to love, when love is real-made pleasure. We build on what is good and listen to everything to see reality. There's no need for a soul out of love. There's only need for a soul out of hate, when growing out of the other's helplessness and sadness.  Things are just what they are and content is only a structure to what things are. Are things so direct? Do we need to see weakness as no good because others can help? I think not, but there's to see how things evolve. Yes, seeing things now seems ever easy, it is about accepting, but wanting to see things later, is in fact not always so easy because you need something valuable. Love cannot be constructive because this ain't not the way of life. It must become the way of life to be happy. Of course it can seemingly become the way of life out of expressive needs (impulses inside and outside). So it grows as an experience into role and trust. What is of value is deeper seen what gets solved. I forget to say, that our experience is often love, when succeeded. You would be crazy to love something substitutive. As if you don't know how things progress. Your prediction is made out of residue, this happens never when in progress. This is pure regression and makes you unable to see reality of the present. Things that don't mean anything for the life, mean nothing for the life's progression, when they have influence for life and actually do not, they are bad influence because you make a progression of life which ain't real, a regression. A simplicity of leading a life? Loving so many things. Devotion is very essential and very real, but it needs some history. Not so much more.

Second Guessing.

Your psychological nature is nervous and secondary. Before you take action, you cautiously ponder over things and you review all possible alternatives and reactions. You strive systematically to find the best possible response to any given problem. Above all, you are a perfectionist and you have no rest until you optimize a situation, in each and every area, be it professional, pragmatic, aesthetic or in pleasure. You do not accept spontaneity and, to fully enjoy life and go further, you consider that demanding the best is the least you can do, even though it is detrimental to the rough forces associated with your instinct. Intellectual elements intervene before both the physical ones and your feelings: it is one of the essential clues to understanding your personality.

With this Ascendant, you come across as cerebral, clear-sighted, focused on details and on numbers, analytic, serious, competent, reasonable, modest, tidy, organized, spruce, industrious, provident, honest, loyal, reserved, shy, helpful, willing to progress, talkative, logical, hardworking, tactful, patient, precise, concrete, spiritual. You can also be narrow-minded, calculating, irritating, petty, hung up, anxious, cold, repressed or sarcastic.

I Am Not To Criticize Freud.

Very bright he must have been. Quite many things make sense and it is just far ahead in the scientific repertoire. It is a mythical figure of course. What makes sense for me right now is the principle of lust. That aggression and distraction are part of the normal repertoire of the healthy human unless it becomes dominant. In this case it is really perverse. Classes exist, that is so, see how people meet up and communicate and how they gain pleasure into this. When slow and fast meet up, there's just an impossibility of equal further contact when you want to keep it pleasurable. Sadomasochism quickly emerges into such a context. God thank there is respect for that. But some way, there's a choice to keep things nice and neat. The division bell of Pink Floyd makes me think of the possibility to let the high hopes give a chance. But with a view of something rather conceptual and abstract into the realism. Being ashamed of status is something which is crazy and narcissistic like into projection and identification in the other. It is also very partial, and puts for me too much exclamation on role as such. Personality is more than role. Horoscope is who you are (personality, body), ascendant is what your soul is (character, feeling). I don't know what to believe here but I see an analogy. The source of my intention is found, it's structure makes the distinction between the individual and the situation, while the connection between situation and collective is resisted. The purpose of this all is again like in previous writings here (I fall on them) a self-centered transference. Wanting to be secure for what I bring or do. Lust is all about doing and narcissism is trying to do better. Sometimes you do better of course and there should be enough respect and love for this because there is nothing wrong to it. This is a step forward towards the fact that situation is basis, in a deep individual matter. Regarding people as pretentious because they have or strive for success and aggressing them is a rule of the street. Which quickly becomes an aim for power. Every mission must be love and love cannot be build with power, but this is not realistic to live by. Objectives are met, goals ain't us and them.

Laughing In Psychoanalysis.

It sounds obvious that laughing is an escape of tension. So it often works at least. I wonder if reaction formation is rather typical in this way. Reaction formation is a form of dealing with anxiety (as final defense) which is the form per se that shows irony and 2-sidedness. So laughing may be due to certain unconscious impulses inside yourself. At least when there is some rebellion in one or the other unpleasant situation. Jews are connoisseurs into humor they say, maybe that's why laughing is typical and relativity is king in their conception. Freud claimed that the essence of being jew is beheld within his theory and he 'ever' claimed being against jews is the best resistance after all (this while joking). I thought this over after thinking about doctors that I like. Recognizable, it is.

Marr's Theory Of Vision.

Interesting theory with value for artificial intelligence studies. Of course this is a cognitive theory and has repercussions for the brain. Shortly explained this theory states visual perception happens in steps. First detail is processed, second structural detail, then contour and finally the relations in 3-dimensional space. In some way there is suggested that recognition is a process which gets input from this final step. In this way we are able to orient ourselves, estimate distance, and fill in when concrete visual information is imperfect. So we develop an observer-independent representation. It is in fact a computational top-down model. Most part of the process exists by calculation by the brain.

When I puzzle about the consequences of recognition and identification as a result we deal with a process which is of course also responsible for bias. A lot of importance in our psychology is present into the instantaneous reality of experience. So recognition may play the fool with this input, when more personal processes come into being. Of course this means also that stable accepting life is better than doing this actually. But in some way we make an exception on the rule and put trust into it. Recognition is perception, so far I was, and also the idea that thoughts without content are empty and intuitions without concepts are blind seems to fit this rumination. In other words, your perception is core business after all, while your cognition is the rescue squad. It is your perception which is king and with more depth you have to wait in space. Kant was right and philosophy would been wrong to follow his principles as guidance for philosophy. Since philosophy is the skill of the mind, not the eyes per se. Kant was a philosopher so therefrom his funny contradiction. You need to see... .

High complexity means reality/truth is hard to recognize. Still, consequences of decisions are real.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions <= unintended consequences. Doesn’t mean bad intentions / indifference gets you elsewhere

2 antwoorden21 retweets32 vind-ik-leuks

-- Yaneer Bar-Yam

Free Time.

When you are awake 10 hours a day and you listen to 100 songs a day you spend 18000 seconds to listening music. Which means you can spend still 18000 seconds to doing different stuff since you are awake 36000 seconds a day.

Thinking And Falling Down.

I saw a report about the power of intention. I come to see intention as a process which is mostly guided by the body. Of course there is also intention so far we have our mind in mind. The report was about being not so stressed by complexes or complexities which are not of use in the little steps we make in our lives. Most of all it is about feeling (good) I think. It is seeing the world as a less clearly demanding place. So that seeing things becomes possible as an act of love. Of course this is true, so far that a world of competition and pressure would only make you unnecessarily worried over certain things that aren't not so certain as a fact.

Later on, I agonized about an old post of mine. It is called reification. I was thinking this with what I learned out of this report. If there is such a thing as a conceptual archetype. Which is grounded in our minds, and which can be different across other types of people. This would be responsible for the creation of prototypes (which are regarded very important in our cognition) via abilities. An archetype, which is not necessarily deviated from Carl Gustav Jung, says something about how we think and imagine. How we feel, how we come to meaning and judgment. If this is true there should be certain distinctions. Like female psychology and male psychology. These are personality traits. Also abilities could be responsible for an other approach towards prototypes. Prototypes can differ, from person to person, and from culture to culture, ... It is the salience and the characterization which is important. But since the profile is not dependent of the content of it, there should be a sort of mentalism showing effect. A mentalism which is in association with personality and its structure (also the interaction and exploration of the world, of course). Since people are different in their approach to deal with a certain task. There are maybe levels and differences in how they come to a solution. What is of interest is the distribution. Basically, the mean is determined by high and low ends. But this is not interesting. To be collectively intelligent, the mean has to be determined by the same process which is of value at different levels. High intelligence means better adaptation. Low intelligence means worse adaptation. If this is the construct there would be more different ideas at the side of low intelligent people which makes the prototype more diverse. High adaption means conservative choice. Which is good, but gives no collective intelligent decisions. Since diversity is very important as a concept in self-organization, this means that when the group is big enough there will be a contra-intuitive gain. Which cognitive structure is responsible here fore is a mystery. Negativity (or the use of difference) is the basis of logic as well. Also there is such a thing as optimism biases. I don't see the point how this would translate into mathematical measures. There must be some dichotomy which is striking.

Pop Music.

Reality, modeling, repetition, shared joy, simplicity.

In combination with, ideas.

Perspectival Consciousness.

The thing about perspective that is that it has not to do with empathy per se. This means that foremost the action, and the state of affairs is hereby the most important thing. Still perspective is of major importance to learn and develop at the fullest. It is by perspective that we encounter new situations in an intelligent manner. Maybe it is a sort of selection and zoom who puts things in new combinations while integrating information. The senses are hereby very important since this extendedness forms a basis for the contact with the world.

Thoughts without content are empty, ...


This mediation is of course also with the thoughts there and the meaning they have in play. In some way choice is determinant and in life often enough casual. It is not all adaptation and affordance, it is also realism and know-how. There is some kind of centrality needed to be righteous. This is matter of "it" rather than "part." This principle is of course often used in humor and discrimination, even in nurture. The latter part gets stressed, but after all, this will bring you not much further. Certainly when punishment for essential being values is at stake.

Intuitions without concepts are blind, ...

No Tricks.

That is what I am thinking. The enactive approach to perception holds an implicit understanding which can be seen as sort of ongoing knowledge. But even if we can use body-language into social conduct it is not that this implicit knowledge grows over the other people like one or the other undefined system. No, we learn what we have to learn, and we do what we are able to. It stops somewhere, so why bother about processes that are shared into interaction and could have a special connection between world and others? But it does bother me of course, since there is no clear focus on real understanding. We understand implicitly, and the question remains unsolved what memory has to do with it. Cause how I see it now, it seems that we are talking about an explanation of procedural memory, which is in fact closely bound to action.

Of course perception is perception, and we could see things more in function of this concept than that of action. The role of action would be as a result very significant but not central. Maybe this is a good way to regard it, action learns us about the consequences of our deeds. Those results shape new perceptions, which is a process which could be linked with other processes, like Self-processes, categorization processes, judgmental processes, ... All processes which deal on a certain level with perception. But I am afraid of this simulation-analogy. I want to put things concrete. Some tasks could be more complex and more long-term, even if some write that complex tasks have to be handled with awareness. This is indeed a central claim, that they are not!!

Machean Vision.

It keeps me struggling that our perception is not machean. This equation is made from a picture in the late nineteenth century, which depicts a snapshot of a room. There are so many perspectives into the picture that this could not be the way perception works. There is just too many to look at. But if this is indeed too confusing for our perception. What is it then like, and more important why? Susan Blackmore states that our perception is vague and gets led by attention and pop-up mechanisms. Also the research at change blindness suggests that we let us lead by general scripts of what we are doing. The pop-up from the environment does not work well. At the same time Alva Noë suggests that our perception is guided by the environment. There is thus a major coherence problem between the statement that perception is bottom-up and the fact that essence is guided by top-down mechanisms as scripts. The action component disturbs everything. It is in this action (behavior or habit) that our perception becomes connected with the world. It could be that action works prereflexive and subpersonal. In this form perception forms a basis for our presence in the world which is not so well defined or even multidimensional. It is guided by the effects on which we anticipate and this is not in a vantage point manner. Maybe the independent character of our personal level qualities determine the psychological facts as the use of scripts or the use of our own desires for expression. At the other hand there to understand there is the taking of perceptual action knowledge needed. This prereflexive knowledge. Because this is the presence of what happens or moves. Verstehen, at the other hand is maybe something more resistant. To know already a position, and act this out, to develop above what you understand. Not so what happens, as a consequence, but rather what could happen more. Wikipedia uses the synonym participatory or interpretive understanding for Verstehen. Maybe this format is rather interactive than strictly confined to movement and action ("Begreifen"). Some people can paint with words, of course...

In-Group Empathy.

It seems logical, that preferences over needs determine feelings and evaluations.

So it would be logical that in-group sharing, is certainly when overcoming, is more empathic.

Temperament For Winners.

Temperament is a very interesting area in clinical psychology. Because unique aspects about persons come abroad, certainly in the area of how that they feel and relate their feelings. Broadly seen they make the distinction between easy and difficult temperament. I knew a girl who was difficult claimed by herself. But, she was foremost high in demand. For real life. I remembered some aspects about temperament out of a book I was reading back again and I try to make some differences into a structure. Actually they say that temperament is about feelings, well actually it seems more about behavior. So, you can deviate some knowledge into this. I make difference between normal behavior which is pretty spontaneous when you have an easy temperament, otherwise you would be shy. This is the basis of normal behavior and as such some sort of core. When you test people or try to know someone better. There are challenges, into temperament passivity is very good. It seems that giving credit to people is positive. But easy temperament can also mean that you are a loser. Therefore aggression is important to be not a loser. In many circumstances and certainly in a period (age) and lifestyle that goes along with selection. But this can be taken too much when you seem to be untouchable, then you are a criminal. It is also important to be sensitive and to have some touch with reality. Mostly you got tricked by manipulation if you are unwanted, and you playing the good guy. Further there is a matter of class. Anxiety is the feeling of the higher class. Doing all with lust, and making no difference while doing this is careless. This can be good, but it is more intelligent for a girl at least to have anxiety. In society and being together this is set by suspicion, making it impossible by judging someone paranoid is taking someone the right of the be suspicious in a legal way. At least there is some lust into this mechanism which gets spoiled. Finally there is a choice between being flat or being passionated. This up to prove yourself. The best is to be flat unless you are really awesome.

Who Knows?

Yes. According to Sigmund Freud the unconscious is completely passive. If this is true and people can control themselves, and let not everything know what they are about then there can be still different reasons.

- speed, intelligence and creativity of higher level
- social life and position, activity in deeds

Nobody knows, but we know together....

Visual Smart.

About the proposal about mate selection. Basically it is about frustration, well yeah also here, the healing emotion of judgment (which is complex). When people encounter a certain problem, it is well yeah, a problem. In the systemic view of cognition there are different parts which may play an importance. First of all intelligence is inference and inference is categorization (inference as well in social cognition). Which makes visual smart a way to get. But there is more. First of all there are models who test representation as a function of inspiration and going into representation is a process matter. Decision making is selection and knowledge the function of being appropriate. So these components must be connected with the problem of frustration as well. Is it so that more factors that influence the complex relation of a frustrating situation with positive evaluation will make the process more non-linear? I guess what matters is the person's Self (his soul also), which is different from general ideals. Being egocentric in a not directly egoistic way can be good, it seems (after some processing). But what do people really want? If you ask them they will always speak out of their complex Self and relationships. I think visual smart, is realistic smart as well. Unlike this proposal.

Being In By Being Out.

At the end of the movie "Shadow Of A Doubt," there is a projection of the world. In a sense, it states that crazy people bring the world to a dark world. But foremost it is a beautiful world. The feeling of love is very present. I brought me to the idea of egocentricity. That egocentricity is responsible for a fearful and pessimistic worldview. Only regarding the world from a position of the other gives it a valuable stance. So even if you are not in the in-group, you should certainly then not regard the world out of yourself. There's a magic when it comes to empathy. By still remaining in the view of the other, you are always still a part. Thus regardless of all the scientific facts about discrimination, they are often enough poisoning the mind in some slight way. As if they are responsible for creating new groups to start of. In complex matters, and in evolutionary matters, cooperation seems to be more important than competition. So it isn't smart to see things too dark. If you are confronted with yourself and your position in view, try to hook up. That is my insight. Be passively "there."

Escape From Behaviorism.

Towards cognitivism. Well. There's memory and there are semantic networks.

First is by reason of shortcomings in mind, like the recency/latency effect (Short-Term).
Second is by reason of patterns used as landmark of utility (Long-Term).

Recall without recognition is patternless, therefore associative (directed by reward).
Unless it is also governed by (cultural inherited) expectations (classical conditioning).

Patterns are important in memory and not simply learned by association. Because there are prototypes (and exceptions).

This is the case of semantic networks. That is basically the reason of the shift to cognitivism. Also the overriding that goes along this.

In other words: because we are limited at the one hand, and more intelligent at the other hand we use our mind by more than association and reinforcement.