reflection

[wildcat]

Schroedinger's Wildcat.

The cat in the box.
Dead and alive.
Aren't we all?

Even then.. do not open the box.
Illusion is better.
Does the illusion exist?
Everything exists that is.

Ok, understood. And the object cannot think.
Thought is the response of memory - J. Krishna

Another thing:
The point in life is to take care of the young.
Last edited by wildcat : 10-20-2007 at 03:03 AM.

Was that in jest?

True. Do the eyes of memory look forward?
They look back in the closet.

Half in jest..

 

[dane]

Do you still post on INTPc?
Would you?

 

[wildcat]

Copenhagen Convention Effect

Look v. Reflect

True Neutrality v. Bias

Having an opinion means ignoring truth

In the sense you cannot ignore what you see.

Do you still post on INTPc?
Would you?

Jesus said some plants do not root because the ground is bad.

The ground is not bad per se.
It is good for other kinds of plants.

 

[Night]

Jesus said some plants do not root because the ground is bad.

The ground is not bad per se.
It is good for other kinds of plants.

Very well said.

 

[elfinchilde]

Jesus said some plants do not root because the ground is bad.

The ground is not bad per se.
It is good for other kinds of plants.

Yep. And there's good ground for my wildcat here, all the space, sunlight and water he needs to bloom.

 

[white]

Jesus said some plants do not root because the ground is bad.

The ground is not bad per se.
It is good for other kinds of plants.

And to the OP.

The self will always be subject to its own perspective. Unless we choose a loci removed from ourselves, i.e. distancing. As humans, we will always be subjective. Even if we choose a school of thought/logic to proceed upon, "to be fair". It would be objective to us, but subjective to those we go against, is it not?

Then perhaps that we call "objective" is simply the subjective selection of facts which support our own principles, ideals, beliefs. Or sufficient distance from pure subjectivity: though not being subjective, does not make one objective.

But what are those, but illusions.

And where's the line between illusion and delusion?

Merely a subjective one.

Is dispassionate sympathy and observation truly possible? I'd reckon objectivity can at best, be a perceiving function. Subjectivity can be both perceiving and judging?

 

[raincrow007]

This thread reminds me of Lee:

Justificationism

Criticalism

 

[dane]

Well said, Wildcat.

My loss, but thank you.

 

[Night]

Well said, Wildcat.

My loss, but thank you.

Stick around here, dane.

 

[Mycroft]

The subject looks upon the object.
Does the object look upon the subject?
The object reflects upon the subject.

The object does not look.
The subject does not reflect.

Is the reflection differentiated from the look?

Only if you choose a side.

To look upon reality is to be reminded that you are that-which-perceives-reality-in-this-way. In that manner, the object is a reflection. Yet, as our faculties and form arose in response to reality, we are a reflection as well.

Two Zen koans:

~Two mirrors facing each other. There is no image in between.
~The eye cannot see itself.

 

[dane]

If MBTI is a classification of one's cognitive system,
i.e how one thinks (classify), imagines (create), perceives (observe),
and assuming

1. cognition, conscious or not, is the basis of behavior,

2. cognition is a choice, conscious or not, of the degree of predominance of the three processes,
for e.g., as wildcat said, "let go",

then really, one's MBTI function can be xxxx.

Also, as "thought is the response of memory",
i.e. a mental heuristic,
then the MBTI function of most people is due to habit or extant influence.
That is, they do not make a conscious choice.

The predominant mode of cognition can be a choice.
Your MBTI can be a choice, your choice.
Choice is not freedom, but it can reflect self-awareness.

 

[wildcat]

If MBTI is a classification of one's cognitive system,
i.e how one thinks (classify), imagines (create), perceives (observe),
and assuming

1. cognition, conscious or not, is the basis of behavior,

2. cognition is a choice, conscious or not, of the degree of predominance of the three processes,
for e.g., as wildcat said, "let go",

then really, one's MBTI function can be xxxx.

Also, as "thought is the response of memory",
i.e. a mental heuristic,
then the MBTI function of most people is due to habit or extant influence.
That is, they do not make a conscious choice.

The predominant mode of cognition can be a choice.
Your MBTI can be a choice, your choice.
Choice is not freedom, but it can reflect self-awareness.

Yes!

And where have we then the I?

It is long I have been into Zen.
That was the interspace between the Beatnik and the Hippy eras.. 1961.
You could hear the echo of Zen in some speeches of John Kennedy.

Fractal math is the play of the mirrors.
The subject cannot reprehend.

 

[dane]

The I as in Ixxx?

Or the I as in choice self-awareness?

But you must refer to the latter: it is of paramount importance.
The "I" is in the subject; it is the subject.
Quote earlier, "the inherent impossibility of objectivity".
Choice = subject

The "I" as the object, in choosing to be objective, becomes the "I" as the subject.
Objectivity is not finality.
"I" am Sisyphus.

Have I misunderstood your question?

Please enlighten.

 

[wildcat]

Stick around here, dane.

Well said.

Please enlighten.

A blank table?

You raise your hand.
Who gives the order?
The choice.

The I is conscious of itself in reflection only.
The choice is already there.

The conscious is aware of the choice only after the fact.

The I is conscious.
Of what?
Of itself in reflection.
As you say.

 

[dane]

A blank table?

You raise your hand.
Who gives the order?
The choice.

The I is conscious of itself in reflection only.
The choice is already there.

The conscious is aware of the choice only after the fact.

The I is conscious.
Of what?
Of itself in reflection.
As you say.

Not a blank table. Just needed to know if it is set right.

And yet we can choose anytime.
There's the hope.

Well said.

Hmm. Thank you, my Lord Hierophant and good Sir Night.
Sticking around would be improper. (Isn't someone going to make this sound so wrong? )

Love your avatar, Night.
wildcat, I will seek you in the INTPc archives.

 

[wildcat]

Hmm. Thank you, my Lord Hierophant and good Sir Night.
Sticking around would be improper. (Isn't someone going to make this sound so wrong? )

Love your avatar, Night.
wildcat, I will seek you in the INTPc archives.

Stick around. See the sights.

 

[wildcat]

had wanted aelan to go first (competitive sisters hehe), but she doesn't seem to be on. so ok, elfie takes a first stab...

as per my PM answer to wildcat earlier:

perspective!

would be even more interesting if you added in 'ive' to subject and object--ie, subjective and objective. hehe.

ie, once a side (perspective) is chosen, there is no difference between a reflection and a look.

however, if the object remains an object (ie, objective), then that is a reflection, as it is an opinion taken without passing judgment. while if the subject remains a subject (ie, subjective), that is one who passes judgment.

hence, the answer is in two things:

1) it's a matter of perspective, and

2) the difference is in whether one passes judgment, or not. no judgment = distinction between a subject/look and object/reflection. judgment => no differentiation between a reflection and a look.

because to reflect is to do so impassively. it is to understand and accept, without judgment. To look is to do so hastily, and to pass a judgment.

Yes. In other words
The jump into conclusion.
To pass a judgement is to refuse to see.
To do is not to see. To see is to be still. To be still is to know.
Elfie knows.

 

[wildcat]

For many years people thought that the moon produced it's own light instead of reflecting that of the sun. A lot depends on what you know and where you stand

Exactly. What you know depends on where you stand.

 

[wildcat]

And to the OP.

The self will always be subject to its own perspective. Unless we choose a loci removed from ourselves, i.e. distancing. As humans, we will always be subjective. Even if we choose a school of thought/logic to proceed upon, "to be fair". It would be objective to us, but subjective to those we go against, is it not?

Then perhaps that we call "objective" is simply the subjective selection of facts which support our own principles, ideals, beliefs. Or sufficient distance from pure subjectivity: though not being subjective, does not make one objective.

But what are those, but illusions.

And where's the line between illusion and delusion?

Merely a subjective one.

Is dispassionate sympathy and observation truly possible? I'd reckon objectivity can at best, be a perceiving function. Subjectivity can be both perceiving and judging?

Ludere is to play.
In ludere > illudere.

As if in mocking.
A misunderstanding bent on hope.
A blind.

Delusion is when the blind is removed. The unmasking.
The harsh reality of the sober morning.
The game is over.

Petrouchka is a clown. He is deceived by his own ludus. Yet the music of Stravinsky is not about the ludi-crous. It is about the subjective experience.
Petrouchka about Petrouchka.

In the trick pictures they used multiple mirrors. They were very popular in the twenties.
Four men play poker. But when you look closely, it is only one man.

As you say, there is no line.
Unless it is all a line.

 

[elfinchilde]

Ludere is to play.
In ludere > illudere.

As if in mocking.
A misunderstanding bent on hope.
A blind.

Delusion is when the blind is removed. The unmasking.
The harsh reality of the sober morning.
The game is over.

Petrouchka is a clown. He is deceived by his own ludus. Yet the music of Stravinsky is not about the ludi-crous. It is about the subjective experience.
Petrouchka about Petrouchka.

In the trick pictures they used multiple mirrors. They were very popular in the twenties.
Four men play poker. But when you look closely, it is only one man.

As you say, there is no line.
Unless it is all a line.

...because there is no difference between there being all a line, and no line.

because it is not lines. it is circular---in that sense, there is in effect no 'side'---sides to take (perceptions) only occur, perhaps because people are at diametrically opposite ends of the circle.

but if one walks long enough along the line, if one explores far enough,it all leads back.

brilliant. thanks, wildcat.

Edit: yes. To play is greater than not to play. Plato was right: "You learn more about a man in an hour of play than in a year of work."