Ulax

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/25/li Devastating

When sensible gun laws get put in place

@Raze ye might be limerence

You're welcome dude. Thanks for giving me the space to post it

Have ended up writing a proper essay here lmao. For the tl;dr, i.e. very brief answer: (Note: Metaphysical = What actually is, sociological = What is done in a given community and why) What is the difference between logical thinking and intuitive thinking? How can you tell? - There is no metaphysical difference, only sociological. Metaphysically, Logical thinking is conceptually impossible. All thinking is intuitive thinking. Because there can be no true or valid statements. Sociologically, within contemporary society, logical thought is simply a set of intuitive thoughts that are arbitrarily privileged over another set of intuitive thoughts. Can we really trust intuition? Aren’t all religions based off of intuition? Logic/critical thinking may be a better method? - Metaphysically, that is answerable, for the idea of 'trust' is arbitrary. Religions are based off intuition, yes. And, that last question is also metaphysically unanswerable. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Long answer Nice post. Not really feeling taking the test, but your questions have intrigued me. I think contemplation can be both logical and/ or intuitive. depends how you do it.. I think a big difference is that with logical thinking you can never really ever make it human. The idea is divorce the question from the will of man to the will of reason, imo. The end result of a logical contemplation is therefore more akin to an object. It is something discovered outside of you, like a chest of treasure. You follow the map correctly and you find the treasure. Otherwise you end up with fool's gold. On the other hand, with intuition, it is inherently human. It is you who must be accommodated for. It is a creatory act, where the answer is not so much an object, but an extension of yourself. I suppose that would difference if you defined intuition as purely a mechanism which sort of unconsciously sorts through everything rationally in your unconscious, and therefore the answer is still an object, just an objet that originates from a different source than logical contemplation, i.e. conscious v unconscious source. -------------------------------------------- One caveat I'll put in though. When I've talked about logical contemplation above, I did that with the assumption that logical contemplation is actually possible. I don't actually believe this. For that to be so, I believe there would have to be a way to say that an answer was true or valid. The former if the answer it yielded was true in some objective sense. The latter if the answer flowed from the premises one assumes when logically contemplating. The latter such that you could say this answer is valid, within the paradigm of my assuming the taken premises are true. However, I refute both the possibility of validity and truth. For there to be truth, I believe there must be some foundational justification. For, to say something is objectively true requires that that claim is justified. If there is no base justification, something true in of itself, an axiom if you will, then each justification is simply justified by another justification, and that one to another justification and down and down you go, in an infinite cycle of justifications. Therefore, any claim that any claim is justified is arbitrary, even this very sentence. Now, some folk say, well okay, that may be true, it may be there is no axiom. But! Alas, we can select axioms, and say if these axioms are true, despite the lack of base foundation, we can say that there are certain right answers in terms of what answers necessary follow from these axioms. We will not say that the answer is true, instead we will say the following. The answers are valid! However, to my mind, this too suffers the same fate as someone's claim of a claim's truth, and for the same reason. To argue that something flows from a set of axioms still requires some claim to truth. No matter how specific you make the axiom, you must in some way make an assumption about how the axioms connect together. For example, if you take these two axioms: 1. The sky is blue 2. All blue things are ugly And, by axioms, that is to say we can treat the propositions as necessarily true. You may say, okay, well we can say its valid that it follows that 3. The sky is ugly. Again, it is not 'true', but valid. However, the issue is that such a person has made numerous other assumptions, i.e. 'If A is X, and all X things are Y, then A must necessarily be Y'. The arguer may say, 'okay, let's just make that assumption and axiom then, and say the following' 1. The sky is blue 2. All blue things are ugly 3. If A is X, and all X things are Y, then A must necessarily be Y 4. Therefore, it is valid, that the sky is ugly However, the arguer can never win. This too suffers from various unthought assumptions, i.e. that, if 3 is true, then in 1 the sky can be taken to be A. The issue is there are always an infinite amount of assumptions made about how the axioms connect. No matter how many are addressed, the connection made between them, even in the paradigm of proving validity rather than truth, is always arbitrary. --------------------------------------------------------- I've goy a bit carried away here in my writing lol. But if you're still with me, you might be wondering, okay, cool, why does this matter to contemplation. Well, if nothing can be proven to be true, or valid, as they are conceptually impossible, then we must compare this finding against the fact that many people proclaim to be making claims that are true/ valid. So what are they doing? Why, to my mind, they must be engaging in intuitive contemplation entirely. There is no distinction between the logical and intuitive contemplator in essence. For the former is not possible. Any contemplation is a an act of intuitive creation. Now, in a given community, there will be certain intuitions that are shared by many, and that for whatever reason command great power. That is to say, they are able to gain the relevant consensus necessary in that community for these intuitions to be privileged over other intuitions. You can conceptualise that occurring in the material world and the psychic world, amongst one's own thoughts. But I won't go into my theory of mind for now. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Therefore, to repeat my answers: Do you think contemplation is more logical or intuitive? - I think contemplation is always purely intuitive What is the difference between logical thinking and intuitive thinking? How can you tell? - I think it depends on whether you are answering the question on a metaphysical (what actually is), or sociological level (How communities act and why). -- For the former (metaphysical) type of answer, the difference is that logical thinking is conceptually impossible, while the latter is possible. Therefore, all thinking is intuitive and none is logical. -- For the latter (sociological) type of question, the difference is that the logical thinking pertains to the intuitions that are privileged over other intuitions, with these other intuitions being deemed intuitive, or nonsensical. I note that this is only so in communities of whose dominant consensus is that logical thinking ought to be privelleged over intuitive thinking/ nonsensical thinking. Can we really trust intuition? Aren’t all religions based off of intuition? Logic/critical thinking may be a better method? - I don't think you can give a non-arbitrary answer to this question, on a metaphysical level. I'm not so interested in exploring the sociological answer to this here. All religions are based off intuition but so is all thought. And, again to argue that logical thinking is a better method, is to assume there is such a thing as logical thinking, at least in terms of the metaphysical type of logical thinking that I have mentioned. It is perhaps akin to asking, 'In our material world, does batman or the police force do a better job of stopping crime', to which one, with conviction, would usually answer, 'BUt batman does not exist?'. Therefore, logical thinking cannot be said to be a better method, as it does not exist.

@Identity Sounds great dude. Glad it helped with connection. Also, loving the sound of these ecstatic dances. Might have to try it out myself in the future

There's various definitions of consciousness that sometimes refer to quite different constructs.

The latter I'd say. I think the former is something else. Its an awareness of what one could have. However, without the all-encompassing love, the latter is always defined in large part by its lack. In contemporary society, the romantic relationship promises something it cannot deliver. The former, to my mind, is a sharing of a love one is already aware of. And, to the extent that the latter form of love is missing, the partners will look to take such love from each other. How about you? What is love for you

I put love, but maybe awareness could be another

Personally, I think its a result of life experiences. I think our non-traumatised self would be accepting and loving of our lying. However, perhaps, we condemn lying in ourselves because of the adverse effects of being seen as a liar. I don't think there's anything objectively wrong with lying.

Sick journal dude. Look forward to seeing what is to come

@Leo Gura Well said. I agree. Also, its his life purpose he's talking about. Personally, i kind of find it inspirational to see someone so passionate about what they do. I don't even agree with JP on a lot of things anymore. Plus the dudes got pretty severe ptsd

Im w raze on the ifs. I'd guess its a protector thats protecting a child part of you. It probably doesn't realise how old and capable you are right now. Once it does, that protector will likely be able to let go of its extreme role. From another perspective, my opinion is you just went through some shit in a given context and this was the way your psyche responded to it. Its understandable

@Raptorsin7 Thanks dude. I like the idea. I'll look into that.

Am on a year off of university, and I need a full time job. I want it to be aligned with my future career. My interests are related to philosophy, psychotherapy, sociology and teaching. I've worked quite a lot with kids in the past too. Pls feel free to just throw ideas at me (Am prepared to go outside the box)

1. https://youtu.be/JqrguFCiVxs 2. 3. 4. 5.

When i was younger I used to think philosophy was the be all end all. Nowadays, I think most of its a joke. It is akin to the telling of elaborate bedtime stories. I think its better to study sociology instead. And, namely the sociology of discourse. The academy has a certain structure to it, and takes place within a certain context and various systems operate to produce the set of knowledge that it does. To my mind, it is not that thinkers produce theories. Instead, those theories are imparted on them through systems external to their free choice. Be they systems at the level of mind, society or elsewhere.

Probably tea, journalling or medication

@Raptorsin7 Sounds great dude. Glad that you were able to connect with your parts there. And ye im right aligned with your thinking. I think if you're psychic system allows for it, do nothing meditation can be real useful. As it lets the parts flow. However, it might be that some protectors need talking to. But that's just me brainstorming

You are enough dude. Sounds like some childhood stuff around needing to earn attention. Short term, just don't go to places that overtly suck. Maybe see it as an exploratory thing. Where would you like to explore that you haven't explored before? What would you like to do? What's a place that suits both your interests.

Sounds good dude.

There are quite a few jobs that would be suitable for this tbf, i.e. being a lawyer.

@Someone here I'd take a mixed approach. Do both, even if your journaling isn't v much at first. And, I'd say look for a career/ job that is good enough, atm. Take the pressure off yourself. Baby step this part of your life if you want. And if you make mistakes its cool. And you've already been courageous in following your own path into philosophy. I.e. go and spend a night in a hotel and see how that is. Then maybe work a part time job you are somewhat interested in once per week. But, I'm in early 20s, so haven't got that much direct experience out in the proverbial real world yet myself.

I'd search around for a mentor/ set of mentors, be that in person or the internet. You can get multiple for different parts of your life. I.e. for personal psychology mine qre Richard Schwartz, Leo Gura, and newly Jay Earley, plus my psychotherapists I'm quite heaving on doing internal work, as I think once you work on your psyche enough the barriers to living in alignment kinda tumble down and the road ahead becomes much more clear. You naturally resonate in a creator territory more than a reactor one. But, that's more just something I have faith in, than something I've directly experienced.

The way i see it, all language is delusion. So any attachment to belief, which comprises language, is deluded. So, its pretty hard not to be deluded lol.