Maxims, rules of thumb and other observations on human cognition and sociocultural affectations

This will be added to on an irregular basis...
  • What is said to humans directly is received with skepticism and considered with dubiousness while that which is heard in passing, especially that which most conforms to their mentality or prejudices, is readily believed.
  • Humans have a certain cognitive latency between exposure to new information or experiences and the ability to think dispassionately and intellectually about it.
  • Humans have a certain cognitive spectrum starting with the moment of exposure to new information or experiences and ending with some point at which the thing is effectively "in the past" for them.
  • This cognitive spectrum is linked to the emotional process often referred to as shock, anger, denial and acceptance.
  • The more and faster information or experiences are presented to people and the closer the quarters and the lesser the distance between people, the more their early reactions in the passionate emotional stage are reflected back to them in the manner of responses to those reactions from others in light of those responses.
  • The more outrages which are suffered without sufficient time to allow emotional bleed-off, the farther the bar for subsequent reaction and outrage are pushed, and the more further events must progress before reaction and outrage.
  • It is possible for serious detriments to eventually sit below this threshold for long enough for their damaging effects to build and multiply until their entire society undergoes some reactive convulsion.
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Soon to come, some thoughts on self, other, one, etc.

I don't follow one school as might be clear by now. I believe that Jung, Freud and others all have made important points. For instance I believe logically that if you conceive that there is you, then there must be not you. If there is something that defines you, something else must not define you. There is you and then there is not you. There is self and there is other.

I also believe in archetypes, but no so simplistically as Jung did, rather I think that archetypes are implied through experience and reaction to experience in the multiply re-entrant logical paths of experience and cognition that we have, and that the archetypes are not only those inherent to our existence as two legged animals but also those we create in society and culture.

So I'll be writing about those as time goes by. I will not flatter myself as Kant would have put it, to think I am mounting a critique of pure existence, but I do hope to put down some ideas of value that cut to the central logical matters of existence and implication.

That by the way is another theme I note in the world: implication and assumption. I'll write of that as well.

Astronomy Picture of the Day