Karl

The operative word that gives you away is the word you use 'convincing'. I am not in the habit of 'convincing' anyone. I leave that to the word weavers. Would I argue the point if my friend was willing to discuss his premise ? Most certainly. Would I continue the discussion if we could not settle on clear definitions in the order of the Trivium method ? No. My infatuation as you call it, it not a tool of persuasion, it's a method of learning to learn. It's a tool for my own comprehension and safety. Like an anti virus tool. If the grammar is incorrect, the definitions not defined, or their are specific fallacies present within the grammar it gets rejected. This allows the flexibility to have ideas re presented in a clearer form. If you offer me rotten meat, or a food that I can't identify should I just eat it ? It is exactly the same. I'm clunky at it that's all. It takes time to poke at the layers and see the fallacies. The more I do it, the easier it is to see the errors in the grammar as presented. Far from making me blind, it stops me blindly accepting rubbish.

Absolutely for problem solving and skill activities a mind full of turmoil is pretty limiting.

Logic is useless without grammar to convey complex concepts. Animals can be as logical as you like, but it is only necessary for the integration of concepts, first grammar then logic and finally rhetoric.

'Being divided between subconscious and full consciousness awareness' what makes you think this is so ? Your emotions prompt the subconscious to bring the underlying conflict into full conscious awareness. Concepts are stored in the subconscious. It's like a disc drive on a PC. Full conscious awareness can only handle a certain amount of direct input so, in general, everything else is handled without choking it, that leaves it free for discovering new experiences and integrating concepts. Not sure where you get the idea about the split in acting and responsibility. I certainly don't see any split.

Dogs can also be trained, as can many animals. However they react more or less predictably, they don't reason over the trauma or training and modify that behaviour. They can be taught to modify it, but they don't reason, it's we, as humans that reason that a traumatised dog can be rescued. I think there is a strong similarity between suicide and wanting to move into a life of automatic action in which reason and responsibility are abdicated for an easier option. Everyone must decide the best course for themselves. If that option is appealing then this is what will be attempted. I don't get 'being responsible for your emotions' ? That's another abdication. It's the complete responsibility for the individual and independently identified self that I'm talking about and not just the emotions arising from the actions. The negative emotions that you seem to be talking about are the result of internal conflict/contradiction. These are the result of being fed/or accepting faulty concepts. These concepts don't accord with reality but they are accepted anyway and processed by the subconscious just the same. They are like a virus and the emotions are the warning mechanism. Being 'responsible' for these emotions is really to say that they must be accepted and dealt with, but to ignore the underlying contradiction. In other words 'accept the program' and don't squeal. Accept the abuse and don't make a fuss. Trying to find a way to negate the emotions is like taking a drug to lessen the pain. The problem is that condition often makes it impossible to discover how to accept reality and delete the virus causing the problem.

We don't have a pure, unthinking survival instinct. It means we can be self destructive. An animal doesn't intentional commit suicide. You have reasoning wether you like it or not you have individual identity and self responsibility for all actions and the emotion that goes with it. You are aware of your actions. Animals perceive directly, they do not apply reason, they don't regret past actions or fear the future. Is it your intention to dispense with the ability to reason and therefore avoid the responsibility of action and the accompanying emotions ?

Well I'm a strange sort of person so I don't doubt it :-)

I definitely wouldn't draw an analogy between minds and parachutes. They have nothing in common, but that's -even jokingly-just how easy it is to be lead astray. Same with a positive mindset. There is a lot of things that tell you to accept what is being said. I used to be in that group. I was usually the one saying it. Not any more, those days are long gone. My mind is open the rational explanations and well reasoned arguments. Logic is my bouncer. Come dressed in trainers and shorts and you don't get in :-)

It seems you wish to think like as a Salmon. You are trying to create an automatic consciousness in which animal instinct and emotions are the proving ground for you. That is unfortunate. I have no idea why that should be appealing but that's not my business. It just seems a waste.

Yes I clicked it. I think we are on a very different wavelength if you think you can have a rational conversation with a dog. I'm not even sure Dr Doolittle got that far. Animals have intelligence and instinct but those things can exist without higher level reasoning ability. A dog can be trained to do all kinds of brilliant things-guide dogs, search and rescue, sheep, hunting etc but all these things are instinctive to a dog in a pack that has the ability to hunt, fight, mate, defend, lead, organise etc. Indeed many very successful humans show tremendous cunning and intelligence but very little application of reason. Use it or lose it.

Flexible isn't malleablity. I've been a recipient and a proponent of such twaddle in the past. Conmen have used the arts of deception throughout history to gain prestige, power and wealth. Writing volumes of such slick unconscious messaging does not infer these writers are any less of that nature than any other confidence trickster. Sometimes philosophers gain an authoritative stamp that they shouldn't have, and their work has been ingested by generations as factual reality. I always remember that philosophers are just men, they have no special knowledge and so, every word of their arguments should be carefully and systematically examined for validity.

Not exactly Brian. Animals don't communicate with us and show no ability in conceptual transfer. It's not impossible that they could not develop reasoning, but for the moment they don't exhibit it. That they have higher cognitive function isn't really controversial. My point anyway is that we do have reasoning ability, we aren't animals, there is no need for conjecture and so if we have it, then we should use it. If we don't, I suspect it's disuse will become permanent.

Well, I certainly won't be arguing with that assertion.

What for ? I'm only looking for clarity. A poor argument is just that and nothing more. If we produce coherent arguments then we can all learn something, but shrouding things in mystic jumbo jumbo and obscurity benefits neither proposer or listener. A clear argument-even if I do not agree with it-stands on its own and can be examined and tested. An unclear argument is just wasted words-a soup of nothing, forming nothing.

This is also as I understand it, but how do others define those two concepts ? Do they see them as one ?

This is contained in the quadrivium so I'm aquatinted with the geometric, musical, cosmological and number concepts. Fascinating stuff.

You have a weird way of saying things but you make my point admirably.

Calling it 'trolling' won't push me off course one bit. Coming up with obscure definitions won't wash either. Learning requires clear definitions and the ability to communicate concepts. If you are either unable to communicate the concept or are being deliberately obscure, then I hold that your argument is invalid and irrelevant. Chucking bucket full of ad hominem's just looks like padding and deflection.

You don't half learn some stuff on this forum. Time to do some digging.

What are 4th way fragments ? I understand 3rd way the Hegel dialectic thesis, antithesis and synthesis

I'm very clear in my perceptions, I have no contradictions and everything is transparent. I don't need all these concepts of 'no mind' and 'knowing', things are far simpler than all that fluff and confusion. Geometry is geometry. Intuition is a feeling. If you believe intuition is something else then you must accurately define it so we can all converse on that plane otherwise we could be miles apart. When you talk in terms of 'unrefined understanding' or 'no understanding' doesn't wash with me. If you are capable of knowing then so am I all you need is to communicate your concept clearly. If you cannot then you are using obsfscuration to cover your own inability to define your concept-you either haven't ever defined it, or you realise that you cannot define it adequately and are blustering.

That isn't correct. The mind stores concepts created from experience. These concepts are building blocks that can be integrated to bring new insights. Provided the thinker is clear about the concepts which they admit, then the easier is the integration. The more rubbish is admitted the more bad integrations are made. So, even a mind not skilled in certain facets can make leaps that are not possible by the mind which is occupied with trying to integrate false concepts. It's simple really, just like any computer Rubbish in means rubbish out. It becomes cumulative errors compounded on more errors. If intuition is repressed then these errors pile up and the intuition becomes useless except to fire off warnings incessantly. It's like a process in which the products, machinery and motors are so snarled up that warning klaxons and lights are no longer indicating one simple fault, but multiplicities of faults.

Intuition is just a feeling, you can feel something isn't right in some way but it has to be investigated to discover why that feeling has arisen. It points to an internal contradiction. Geometric forms are 2 or 3 dimensional constructions. The mind isn't a separate entity it's where thoughts manifest and are presented in conscious awareness.

That just sounds like none sense to me. Can you define any of that in lay mans terms ? "Dazzling accomplishments" ? "The less the mind will value the mind" ? "The fruits" ? I can see that perhaps you mean the flows are thoughts ? That the labels are definitions of concepts ? Is that what you mean ?

You can have plain old fear too, not just plain old pain. Fear is most definitely based on the future outcome which is quite correct. So fear can arise and no suffering is present. Suffering always indicates a contradiction in conceptual understanding and so it can also be the cause of Fear, but it isn't necessarily a prerequisite of fear. It's fairly easy to sort this one out. When irrational fear is present then look for the cause, it will always be seen as two distinct concepts in conflict. Acknowledge the conflict, resolve the contradiction and the irrational fear vanishes like magic. So fear is present in fight or flight. Do I run from this lion or remain still ? If I choose to run, then how far do I run, in what direction, can I outrun the lion, is it catching me. There is no suffering, just fear.