I'm pretty sure that the applicable term is "projection." Lonnie Courtney Clay
On Monday, June 13, 2011 10:34:54 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: > > 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 <clayl...@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 <clay...@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 <cla...@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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/8qOLuyAaSaAJ. 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.
