3 ms·
Jacques Lacan's "Real, Symbolic, and Imaginary" categories come to mind. Not everything we experience has a material basis (eg: emotions, inner dialogue, expec
by what-no-tests 3y ago
Jacques Lacan's "Real, Symbolic, and Imaginary" categories come to mind.
Not everything we experience has a material basis (eg: emotions, inner dialogue, expectations, etc) but can be "anchored" in our minds through symbols. Those symbols can become a kind of vocabulary with which we can communicate with the subconscious (dreams, intuitions, what we notice/don't notice, ritual, etc) to change what and how we perceive.
Crowley's and Israel Regardie's approach to this field is worth looking into, even though there may be less esoteric ways to acquire the knowledge they shared.
- User23 3y agoPersonally I think Peirce's semiotic was digging in the right place, but sadly even his genius intellect wasn't able to bring those conceptions to unity in his allotted time.
- what-no-tests 3y agoExactly - cultivating one's ability to self-reflect, and increasing the critical distance between oneself and one's thoughts, to the extent that one can experiment with changing how one thinks in order to observe what one thinks as a result - that is the project. Working in the realm of the abstract, writing software, is a kind of playground that allows for this kind of experimentation. Paradigm shifts in system architecture and in how we conceive of daily life are in many ways alike. Recognizing that we have (even if limited) some capacity to adjust to our liking how we think, so we can think what we want (and feel how we want to feel, do as we want to do, etc) is magical and rewarding. To understand that it is only nihilistic fatalism and helplessness of blaming circumstance or others for what - in many cases - is our own shortcoming (with regard the above notes) is actually empowering and inspiring on so many levels. Anything is possible, if we put our mind to it.