I know I’ve ask this before but I wanna know how folks deal with stuff like this, like…you’re not worried about living in delusion or living a lie just because you don’t get something or feel like you have to read every single thing to be sure about it?
For example, this user I came across:
3. everything vital is not only irrational but anti-rational and everything rational is anti-vital and herein lies the basis for a tragic sense of life
friendship is a mirror to presence and a testament to forgiveness
5. what exists for us is precisely what we need to know
to be on the way is a most important thing to be
space comes in infinitely many varieties
in a complex world, intelligence consists in ignoring things that are irrelevant
9. attachment creates vulnerability
longevity is fundamentally a thermodynamic problem
health is the slowest form of death we can create with our choices
evolution cannot occur in the absence of genetic errors
13. sublimation of primal urges into creative pursuits is a form of psychological alchemy that can be a powerful force for innovation
a world without sentiment would be meaningless, hence we must carefully choose what to care about
15. the route to nihilism is the instinct of reification. However lofty philosophies may be, remember their limits
while science illuminates collective understanding, the essence of moral truth flourishes through the free, attentive engagement of individuals
17. subjective realities obtain substance only from persistent thought
the unexamined assumptions of modern institutions are at the root of the most pressing problems of modern life
we can know more than we can tell
20. nobody takes a risk in the expectation that it will fail
humans are museums; filled with history they can no longer touch
the most beautiful harmony is composed of things at variance
23. home is where all your attempts to escape cease
time describes intervals between experiences on a mental continuum
the most significant potential of the imagination actualizes through embrace of contradiction and complexity without distorting reality
| sharing nonlinear thoughts on knowledge, culture, + innovation
Like, saying “non-linear thinking” makes it sound like they are smarter or in the know about something big that I don’t. Does none of this affect you guys? Or like number 17, that sounds like something I got from Buddhism, namely that we create distinctions and stuff like that. So if thought stopped then would subjectivity as well?
The maximum amount of total
arsenic collected from children’s hands was
4,743 ng (4.7 pg). This is compared with
the 3.9 pg that we reported previously
(Kwon et al. 2004).
To provide a perspective of relative con-
tribution of this amount of arsenic to the
overall exposure to arsenic, in our article
(Kwon et al. 2004) we included references
for the average daily dietary ingestion of
total arsenic:
38 pg (15 pg for children 1-4 years of age) for
Canada (Dabeka et al. 1993), 62 pg for the
United States (Gartrell et al. [1985]), 89 pg for
the United Kingdom (Food Additives and
Contaminants Committee 1984), 55 pg for New
Zealand (Dick et al. 1978), and 160-280 pg for
Japan (Tsuda et al. 1995). A range of arsenic
species that have different toxicities may be present
in food (Le et al. 2004). Estimated daily dietary
intake of inorganic arsenic was 8.3-14 pg in the
United States (Yost et al. 1998), 4.8-12.7 pg in
Canada (Yost et al. 1998), and 15-211 pg in
Taiwan (Schoof et al. 1998).
We did not monitor children’s hand-to-
mouth activity because this behavior has
already been documented in the literature
(Reed et al. 1999; Tulve et al. 2002). Our
intent was to provide direct measurements
of the amount of arsenic on children’s
hands. We recognize the importance of
these other studies, as we pointed out in our
“Conclusions” (Kwon et al. 2004):
The results?along with other information, such
as the frequency and habit of hand-to-mouth
activity, efficiency of transfer of arsenic from
hands to mouth, and repeated contact of hands
with CCA-treated wood surface after hand-to-
mouth activity?are useful for assessing children’s
exposure to arsenic
I understand some of the words, but I can’t evaluate the study.
I “deal with stuff like this” by looking at where it was published, who wrote it, and are the references valid? I can’t tell you how this article fits into the big question of cancer and cancer but I can tell that people who know what they are doing are figuring it out.
I look at your post, don’t know anything about the author, he references nothing, he makes up phrases I’ve never seen before, it’s published on his website and no one is using him as a source. If I worried if he was on to something, then I would also be worried about every other utterance of every random prison on earth. At that point I would realize I am the one who needs to fix what it is I worry about.
BTW, I googled this one and got a decent answer. If you want to learn about cognitive theories, then go explore them. There is no other answer to what to do about things you don’t know. If you didn’t know how to drive a car, would you jump in and hit the gas, or would you learn about driving first?
It has been argued31 that experiences, furthermore, give immediate justification for judgments such as (i). Here, I use the notion of ‘immediate justification’ as defined by Soldati (2012).32 To say that the perceptual experience provides the subject with immediate justification to judge (i) is to say that it gives her “a kind of warrant that does not depend on, for instance, any further inferentially acquired justification.” The experience as of the cat’s fur being silky can be used as evidence that the cat’s fur is silky, “without having to rely on any further evidence” to support the experience itself. The experience is a reason to judge the cat’s fur to be silky that is not itself in need of further justification. Note that this notion of immediate justification concerns the type of the epistemic warrant, not the strength of this warrant, or the psychological capacitiesinvolved in arriving at it. Justification that is immediate in this sense does not have to be infallible; in the case of perceptual experience, it is in fact typically defeasible. And to say that the experience warrants the corresponding judgment immediately is not to say that the judgment is arrived at in a way that is psychologically immediate; it does not, in particular, rule out that conceptual capacities are involved in the process, as they surely are, or that we need to have other beliefs in other to acquire the relevant concepts. The immediacy I have in mind characterises the (normative) justification relation between two states (the experience and the judgment), not their (factual) psychological relation.
And now I’m more confused than before. Is it saying that experience cannot be trusted?
We don’t even need to look to the past to know what it is to be “transformed from free agents to passive subjects.” Progression of technologies is inextricably linked to those power structures that set forth the rules of price, value, and social status, collectively defining the boundaries any individual’s freedom. So long as society has been of a technological nature, free agency remains elusive. Perhaps such a freedom is merely the intermediate goal on a path to something else, which might reveal itself through a latticework of ideas that are collectively telling us we are all part of something big, mysterious and impossible to explain.
Take a look at some of the trends so far. The impact of mobility technology on spatial dynamics has rendered land a scarce commodity, increasing its value while simultaneously reducing the cost of mobility. Similarly, as labor time is compressed, leisure time becomes a luxury, with its price escalating inversely to the decreasing cost of labor. The allure of artificially illuminated screens further commodifies daylight leisure. In response to these shifts, we consciously organize ourselves into hierarchical class structures, reinforcing these power and price dynamics while elevating those who embody intellectual or economic mastery over them. This pattern reflects our persistent tendency towards self-imposed servitude in the pursuit of survival.
One of the greatest threats to human autonomy and therefore flourishing is our own capacity to see through the fog of complexity, and to disillusion ourselves from those constructed features of our lives that bind us to conditions of unfreedom. Sometimes, the binding conditions are not even cultural. For example, our cognitive predisposition to visual stimuli is so pronounced that we rarely allocate enough expensive “free” time to develop skills for looking at the dark interior of ourselves-a practice that so many ancient traditions associate with a fundamental disruption of values-or, enlightenment. But in today’s society, where are the images of wisdom we can all aspire towards?
Even before a new philosophy can steer technological governance towards human flourishing, we will need to carve out new contexts (perhaps even so new that they break time-space frames) within which it becomes possible to develop an innate sense of what it is to be a human again.
The indexical word “I” has traditionally been assumed to be an overt analogue to the concept of self, and the best model for understanding it. This approach, I argue, overlooks the essential role of cognitive phenomenology in the mastery of the concept of self. I suggest that a better model is to be found in a different kind of representation: phenomenal concepts or more generally phenomenally grounded concepts. I start with what I take to be the defining feature of the concept of self, namely its “super-reflexivity”: to use this concept is not just to think of oneself, but to think of oneself as the thinker of the present thought. I call this familiar observation the “Thinker Intuition”. I review some shortcomings of the indexical model of the concept of self, which is the classical account of the Thinker Intuition. I go on to propose a different account, the “phenomenal model”, according to which the concept of self is a phenomenally grounded concept, anchored in a generic kind of cognitive phenomenology: the phenomenology of intellection.
Are you looking at the sites that are from quality science, or going into Reddit? Here’s my top hit
The author reviews research showing that repetitive thought (RT) can have constructive or unconstructive consequences. The main unconstructive consequences of RT are (a) depression, (b) anxiety, and (c) difficulties in physical health. The main constructive consequences of RT are (a) recovery from upsetting and traumatic events, (b) adaptive preparation and anticipatory planning, (c) recovery from depression, and (d) uptake of health-promoting behaviors. Several potential principles accounting for these distinct consequences of RT are identified within this review: (a) the valence of thought content, (b) the intrapersonal and situational context in which RT occurs, and (c) the level of construal (abstract vs. concrete processing) adopted during RT. Of the existing models of RT, it is proposed that an elaborated version of the control theory account provides the best theoretical framework to account for its distinct consequences.
Keywords: repetitive thought, rumination, worry, cognitive processing, control theory
Repetitive, prolonged, and recurrent thought about one’s self, one’s concerns and one’s experiences is a mental process commonly engaged in by all people (Harvey, Watkins, Mansell, & Shafran, 2004). Such thinking bridges many topics within psychology: social cognition, emotion, motivation, self-regulation, goal attainment, stress, psychopathology, and mental health. Examples of such thinking include worry, rumination, perseverative cognition, emotional processing, cognitive processing, mental simulation, rehearsal, reflection, and problem solving (e.g., Martin & Tesser, 1996; Mor & Winquist, 2002; Papageorgiou & Wells, 2004; Wyer, 1996). Across these constructs, there is considerable similarity and overlap in theoretical conceptualizations and operational definitions. However, because these constructs have emerged in distinct research domains, they are usually not equated with one another and have rarely been considered together. Moreover, research has shown that these constructs have diverse outcomes, such that repetitive thought (RT) can have both unconstructive and constructive consequences. For example, on one hand, within the cognitive processing literature, RT about symptoms and upsetting events has been conceptualized as necessary for people to come to terms with traumatic and upsetting events (Horowitz, 1985; Pennebaker, 1997; Rachman, 1980; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). On the other hand, RT about symptoms and upsetting events has been found to predict future depression (Ingram, 1990; Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991, 2000; Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1987) and poor recovery from traumatic and upsetting events.
It’s from the national library of medicine
Granted, I have searched the phrase a few times and had different hits each time. You call this “being pulled in different directions”. I call it a complex topic. You aren’t going to get easy answers about consciousness. You expectations don’t meet reality, then you explain that by thinking something is wrong.
Those are two very good sources. A good start. I don’t have the answers, so I can’t tell you how much time this will take. Obviously, a lot of people have spent a lot of time on the questions, and there are still people going at it, so who knows?
Her page deals a lot with questions of the self and how we know stuff, things that constantly make me lose sleep at night.
What is knowledge? What can we know? And how do we know?
These classic philosophical questions belong to epistemology, which extends far beyond the philosophical history of science to which it is too often reduced. Attentive both to the lessons of the cognitive sciences and to the normative requirements of knowledge, this volume introduces the most debated questions in contemporary epistemology in a new and accessible way. Its chapters were written by a new generation of French-speaking philosophers whose research is firmly rooted in the most vibrant international debates.
What do we know through our senses? How much trust should we place in perception? In memory? In testimony? Does reasoning allow us to expand the scope of our knowledge? Is it possible to extend our cognitive capacities? Are art and emotions tools of knowledge in their own right? Is self-knowledge of a particular kind? What could we know about God? What is it possible to know a priori? Under what conditions are our judgments justified? Are there norms governing belief and inquiry?
I guess the bigger question I would ask is how does this stuff not inspire dread in anyone. Every time I read something breaking apart the self it makes life seem not worth living or bothering with.
How do you guys resists this? Looking at the chapters in the first link (of this post) does it not fill you with fear or make you depressed?
It does. It is known in the world of psychology and therapy. You are not alone. But, it’s not something I can help you with. I and others have tried, but you say you’ve tried everything and nothing works.
I’ve tried therapy but it hasn’t worked out and it doesn’t help that these things have no answers. I also have this overpowering compulsion to read everything they’ve posted to make sure it’s not a threat, it’s anxiety x100. I also don’t think they could help with questions of the self.