I'm not a psychiatrist... don't know that much about it.... however, I was always fascinated by the notion of transference or displacement....I find that it seems to work in very many instances.... Often I find that what people accuse me of doing is really what they are trying to do to me.....
On Jun 12, 7:09 pm, Lonnie Clay <claylon...@comcast.net> wrote: > Hmm... Lemme do some introspection. > > Okay mostly I use logic in the set theory sense. I categorize things which I > sense, and determine relevancy to decide whether I will be able to > consciously remember them later. If priority is sufficiently high, then I > assimilate an experience and evaluate its impact upon my situation > immediately. In order to do that, I must correlate the experience with my > knowledge base, determine required responses based upon successful > interactions in the past, and proceed with immediate stepwise responses > appropriate to meet the goals which I just conceived on the fly. Perhaps > examples will be easier, my introspection is somewhat incoherent since just > got up from a long nap. The first situation is easy, the second tricky. > > Easy : While going to the kitchen at night for a snack, I notice that one of > the cats is lying on the rug in my path. Based upon prior behavior, the cat > will probably take evasive action which could lead to the cat being kicked > rather than avoided. Solution : Slow down so as not to startle the cat, > approaching cautiously to see whether it will get up, or alternatively > pretend that it does not notice my approach. Simultaneously with slowing > down, begin veering off to one side so that the cat is reassured. Keep > watching the cat, since I know the path to the kitchen in semidarkness quite > well. Once past the cat, resume normal speed. > > Tricky : As I enter the shrink's office, I notice that a frowning, squinting > man is seated in the chair which will be opposite me if I take the usual > "patient" chair. Immediately activate contingency plan for seizing the > initiative in review sessions. As I seat myself, squirm about to appear > uncomfortable and say "I notice that we have a visitor today..." FOCUS upon > the regular shrink's response to attain maximum information from choice of > words, sentence structure, intonation, inflection, and body language. He > responds with "Yes, Dr x is a world renowned expert..." switch attention to > Dr x and notice that he is simultaneously uncomfortable and preening. > > Probability assessment, Dr x is not a specialist in abnormal psychology > alone, and is here to evaluate my intellectual capabilities among other > things. If he were a real expert, he would never be in this room, except in > the sense that he is an ex-spurt, having petered out in his career and finds > that time weighs so little that he can waste it on looking me over, rather > than viewing a video from the comfort of his office. Fire salvo number one > at doctor x, with "You always squint like that?" as I slump back in my chair > and spread my legs wide, indicating vulnerability, and surrender to the > authority of the incredible doctor x. Manage the session unobtrusively to > minimize the validity of the observations of doctor x, making damn sure that > he won't know what to believe. At session end, advance upon doctor x for a > parting handshake. Squeeze hard and keep squeezing until doctor x begins > pulling back his hand, communicating in unmistakable fashion that *I* had a > grip on the situation, knew that I did, and that he is a slouch by > comparison, or alternatively that I am just a hand bruiser. > > So how's it going doctor x? Had your fill and going to send in a heavier gun > for interviewing on the 28th? (Presuming my shrink has a Google alert and > passes this discussion along.) > Alternatively, perhaps doctor x totally outclassed me, and adapted his > responses to the situation as soon as I said "squint" so that he appeared > far inferior to his actual capabilities... > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > On Sunday, June 12, 2011 10:16:54 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: > > > Lonnie... just to carry the conversation along.... a lot of people > > I've heard use the word..."logic"... and there appear to be a lot of > > different methods or ways to do it ... different sorts of "logic".... > > Can you give me some notion of what you mean by "logic".... I'm always > > sort of interested as to whether someone's notion of "logic" is more > > "deductive"... or "inductive".... lawyers and such like "reasonable > > inferences" a lot.... but that's a sort of "social" take on > > "logic".... stick with telling me about your take on inductive or > > deductive or some combination, first... would you please? > > > Scientists usually tend to induction or experiment.... unless you get > > to theoretical sorts of scientists... they tend toward > > deduction....computer programmers?... I don't know... my guess is Math- > > based.... mostly deductive.... but you tell me... I'm just guessing... > > > On Jun 10, 4:04 pm, Lonnie Clay <clayl...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > Well sure, I referred to the notions that you should minimize the number > > of > > > factors upon which a conclusion is based. It is necessary to have factors > > > > which are not inconsistent with each other as well. You can often combine > > > > factors which are mutually supporting into a single precept which is used > > to > > > support a conclusion. If you have many factors present, then consider the > > > > possibility that you might be at a local minimum or inflection point in > > your > > > trajectory of reasoning rather than at an absolute minimum. Don't be > > afraid > > > to go back to "square one" and assemble factors all over again, laying > > them > > > out in your mind in an entirely different order of precedence... > > > > Finally, never assume that the least number of factors is the answer in a > > > > chain of reasoning, because there may be a tricky bastard like me who > > setup > > > the situation which you are attempting to understand. In other words > > *error* > > > is always a factor. > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > On Friday, June 10, 2011 12:47:28 PM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: > > > > > 6) Learn logical reasoning, especially the difference between > > > > necessary and > > > > sufficient. Engrave the precept of "Occam's Razor" upon your chest > > > > (metaphorically, not as a tattoo) and follow it faithfully but not > > > > obsessively. Keep an eye out for others who reason logically for they > > > > are > > > > your natural enemies or allies. The run of the mill who can't tell the > > > > difference between inclusion and exclusion in a set are of no concern. > > > > Recall steps 1-5 and gain experience at incoherence and confusion when > > > > appropriate... ? Lonnie > > > > > You know, Lonnie.... Ockham's Razor is just an "addage"... that wasn't > > > > even necessarily stated or "thought up" by Ockham... As I've heard... > > > > it was made up by others who wanted to be close to as good as > > > > Ockham..... anyway.... I think maybe it would be more "fruitful" and > > > > educational to actually learn something about what Ockham actually > > > > thought, himself.....Fuck the addage....HAR > > > > > On Jun 6, 10:30 pm, Lonnie Clay <clay...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > "My epistemological question is this - what do we know about > > knowing > > > > they > > > > > don't? What is our procedural epistemology - if we don't have one, > > are > > > > we > > > > > just smug not-quite so lackwits?" > > > > > > At the age of 11, I began to work on step 5), but I never completely > > > > stopped > > > > > cycling through steps 1-4)... > > > > > > 5) Work on clarity of thought and expression. Your thoughts are based > > > > > upon > > > > > your vocabulary and understanding of dictionary meanings which allow > > you > > > > to > > > > > understand (mostly) what others intended you to think through their > > > > choice > > > > > of words. Study sentence structure and parsing. Practice discourse, > > > > attempt > > > > > rhetoric, and avoid arguments since they are a sure sign that you are > > > > > > letting your ego misguide you away from caution. Be a wimp! I failed > > to > > > > > follow the path of the hopeless coward, and paid heavily for my > > error. So > > > > > > "clarity" includes convincingly pretending that you think something > > > > entirely > > > > > different from your actual thoughts. Tailor your expressiveness to > > > > conform > > > > > to the requirements of a situation. Avoid the impulse to be popular, > > be > > > > DULL > > > > > and uninteresting, beneath notice! Notice the behavior of others > > around > > > > you, > > > > > the braggarts, the shy ones, the popular and the despised. Don't > > stand > > > > out! > > > > > The one exception is for the standardized tests required for entrance > > to > > > > > institutions of higher learning, and major tests. Be a curve breaker! > > > > > Make > > > > > them all wonder how in HELL you are cheating so much that your score > > is > > > > the > > > > > top of the class! > > > > > > 6) Learn logical reasoning, especially the difference between > > necessary > > > > and > > > > > sufficient. Engrave the precept of "Occam's Razor" upon your chest > > > > > (metaphorically, not as a tattoo) and follow it faithfully but not > > > > > obsessively. Keep an eye out for others who reason logically for they > > are > > > > > > your natural enemies or allies. The run of the mill who can't tell > > the > > > > > difference between inclusion and exclusion in a set are of no > > concern. > > > > > Recall steps 1-5 and gain experience at incoherence and confusion > > when > > > > > appropriate... > > > > > > Congratulations! You are now qualified to be labeled as "That queer > > duck > > > > who > > > > > acts like Spock." > > > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
