Making meaningful connections

[coberst]

Making meaningful connections

 

I have, in the last 24 months, been studying two disparate sciences, which have ‘magically joined-hands’ for me in a meaningful way. I have been studying cognitive science by Lakoff & Johnson, and psychoanalysis by Becker.

 

Psychoanalysis uses the unconscious as an instrument for therapy and for comprehending the nature of our species. Cognitive science provides us with empirically based scientific theories that illuminate how the unconscious manages to be such a dominant factor in human behavior.

 

These sciences represent, for me (perhaps not for you because they may be interested knowledge to you), what I call disinterested knowledge; I study them, not because there is money-in-it, but because I wish to understand what they can mean to me. As separate sciences they have become meaningful but it is in their confluence that I have found each to enrich the other and together to form a meaningful and satisfying experience.

 

I have found reason to believe that this experience of connection might correctly be called an artistic experience. We do not need an exceptional talent to ‘do art’; we all can practice the art form just with our ordinary talents.

 

Cognitive science informs me as to how our earliest, common, every-day type of experiences becomes an integral part of our complex abstract ideas and our symbolically driven sense of reality. Our neural structures that result from many of our experiences, especially our very earliest experiences as infants, become an integrated part of later neurological structures of abstract concepts that we develop throughout our life. One might think of these ‘primary experiences’ as forming a kind of herbal seasoning that ‘season’ the abstract concepts we develop constantly in life.

 

These early cognitive structures, these early neural structures resulting from first experiences, these early ideas formed by experience become ‘primary metaphors’. These neural structures season many of our abstract ideas that we create later in life because these structures act like metaphors for later abstract ideas. Our unconscious maps (transfers the structure) copies of these primary metaphors onto subjective ideas and thus these later subjective ideas have copies of primary experiences as permanent parts of these subjective abstract ideas.

 

Becker informs me that the child begins the process of becoming “human by forfeiting the aegis over his powers” first to the mother and then to society as s/he matures. The subjective concept we call conscience forms into each child by the child’s need for affection and anxiety over abandonment. The child’s natural animal instincts are placed on hold in order that s/he might fit parental demand.

 

The child’s instincts, established in its primate body, give ground to the symbolic social fictions of the parents and to society in general. S/he strives for meaning without the aid of an enlightened consciousness. This meaning becomes part of the embedded subjective concepts later constructed with the primary metaphors as part of the structure.

 

In a nutshell, I have learned that the neurological structures created in the very earliest experiences of a child become deeply and physically embedded into the neurological structure of subjective concepts of the adult throughout that individual’s life.

 

These are difficult to understand concepts that demand study; and if you are interested in reading more about such matters you can find them in “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson and in “The Ernest Becker Reader” edited by Daniel Liechty.

 

Have you experienced that ‘eureka moment’ when understanding happens, when connections are made that provide meaning for your life?

 

Would you not agree that such moments must be what the artist feels when such a thing happens with their painting, or music, or dance, or etc.?

[YT2095]

Numbers Mine.

1) Have you experienced that ‘eureka moment’ when understanding happens, when connections are made that provide meaning for your life?

 

2) Would you not agree that such moments must be what the artist feels when such a thing happens with their painting, or music, or dance, or etc.?

 

1> yes, it happens with reasonable frequency.

 

2> How would I Know?

[coberst]

Numbers Mine.

 

 

1> yes, it happens with reasonable frequency.

 

2> How would I Know?

 

 

Try empathy. I find it easy to imagine what an artist might feel when I have an experience of understanding.

 

 

Someone said “every work of art is a crystallized value judgment” I think the same thing applies to the act of understanding.

 

Bloch observed "the artist chooses the media and the goal of every artist is to become fluent enough with the media to transcend it. At some point you pass from playing the piano to playing music."

[YT2095]

I`m sure they did say that, However I still would Not presume to "Know" what they experience.

[coberst]

Empathy is a means for comprehending why others do the things they do. Empathy is a very important action for us all if we wish to learn to live together in harmony. It does not always work but it needs to be tried for the sake of harmony.

[YT2095]

erm... I`m fully aware of the definition of the word!

 

It does not always work

what are the consequences of that?

and the frequency of this?

[coberst]

erm... I`m fully aware of the definition of the word!

 

 

what are the consequences of that?

and the frequency of this?

 

The consequences can be insignificant or they can be catistrophic. If our political leaders try empathy with our 'enemies' and fail the results can be terrible, like a war. Of course, our leaders are of such poor quality I suspect thay never even thought of trying empathy. It is obvious they knew nothing about our 'enemy' before they started bombing. The same judgment goes for our (US) war in Vietnam.

[1veedo]

We were fighting communism. And lately we've been looking for oil (ahem, terrorist attacks and weapons of mass destruction). I don't think a lack of empathy caused either war, I think the basic military strategy and political position of the United States and other countries caused the wars.

Would you not agree that such moments must be what the artist feels when such a thing happens with their painting, or music, or dance, or etc.?

I believe this has been known for a quite a while. If you ask someone to draw abstract art of a certain emotion or quality, everyone's drawings come out about the same. Ex: anger, feminism, happy, etc. This hints at the connection between a work of art, the artist, and the interpreter. From what I know I don't think this is absolute and objective, there are just certain archetypes that are shared by humans.

 

Btw psychoanalysis is largely believed to be incorrect, along with the majority of Freud's works. Why they still teach that stuff in college is beyond me. Freudian psychology (aka psychoanalysis) isn't a necessary part of psychology, but is still part of the course for psychiatry (given that Freud pretty much invented psychiatry). Backing up a thesis with psychoanalysis isn't going to get you anywhere.

 

Cognitive science also is merely one part of psychology. I don't know if you're trying to infer the gestalt from learning these two models, but you'd be much better off to get a 101 book and read it instead (eg Psychology [8 ed] by David G Myers) to understand the bigger picture.

[YT2095]

and so, you can Now why I`de choose Not to use empathy as you suggested. but would much rather presume Nothing and just simply Ask

[Glider]

In a nutshell, I have learned that the neurological structures created in the very earliest experiences of a child become deeply and physically embedded into the neurological structure of subjective concepts of the adult throughout that individual’s life.

What? This doesn't make any sense. Are you trying to make inferences concerning neurological develpoment from psychoanalytical texts? Do subjective concepts have neurological structure? Have you accounted for neural plasticity? Do you have any evidence for your statement at all?

 

Btw psychoanalysis is largely believed to be incorrect, along with the majority of Freud's works.

True, and in any event, you (coburst) can't base any neurological inferences on Freud's work, because he rarely made any. Most of his explanations were metaphorical (e.g. 'steam engine' for 'sexual energy').

Why they still teach that stuff in college is beyond me.

In the UK, the British Psychological Society insist that all modules contain an element of the 'history and philosphy' of Psychology.

Freudian psychology (aka psychoanalysis) isn't a necessary part of psychology, but is still part of the course for psychiatry (given that Freud pretty much invented psychiatry). Backing up a thesis with psychoanalysis isn't going to get you anywhere.

Again, true.

[coberst]

Glider

 

As I mentioned in my OP the book "Philosophy in the Flesh" is my source of information for my claims regarding the neural structure of concepts.

 

Psychoanalysis started by Freud in an effort to find ways to help people suffering from psychic illness. Medication has become a more effective means for alleviating these problems and psychoanalysis now finds its primary value in helping us uncover the mysteries of human nature.

[1veedo]

Not to derail this thread but I think you might find this link useful:

 

http://skepdic.com/psychoan.html

psychoanalysis now finds its primary value in helping us uncover the mysteries of human nature.

Isn't this quite literally psychology's job? I think the formal definition of psychology is something along the lines: the scientific study of behavior and cognition.

[bascule]

If you really feel that way you should try to get ahold of this TV show:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_%28TV_series%29

[Glider]

Glider

 

As I mentioned in my OP the book "Philosophy in the Flesh" is my source of information for my claims regarding the neural structure of concepts.

You would do well to widen your research.

 

Psychoanalysis started by Freud in an effort to find ways to help people suffering from psychic illness. Medication has become a more effective means for alleviating these problems and psychoanalysis now finds its primary value in helping us uncover the mysteries of human nature.

No it doesn't. It is only a psychotheraputic approach (one of many and not a particularly good or effective one in my opinion). It never had anything to do with 'uncovering the mysteries of human nature' and couldn't, even if it was applied in that way.