Browsing the internet, I found a few texts which contained the word 'altrospection'. These texts have been around well before my blog, so I was interested in what they defined as 'altrospection'. All were used in the same way as this following quote:
"The word "introspection" has been in use for the knowledge of psychology we obtain by studying our own mental states, but there was no word to indicate the knowledge of psychic phenomena we obtain by observing others. Needing such a word. Professor Patten employed the word altrospection, to mean the knowledge of psychology we can obtain by observing the impressions that excite other people to mental activity, as judged by their reactions against their impressions."
-Reference
I found this definition a little inaccurate. Their prefix of 'altro' is Italian for 'other' and of course related to 'alt' or 'alternative'. In this case it does not necessarily mean a study from the exterior, but simply an alternative study or examination. I would have to say that the word 'altrospection' in their definition should be replaced with 'extrospection'. The prefix 'extro-' (from the Latin word 'extra-' is defined as 'from the exterior' or 'outward' and seems better suited to their needs. To give them credit, extrospection could be considered a type of altrospection, however the scope of altrospection seems too vast for what their application.
When I chose 'altro', I know I could have used the English prefix 'alt', however I think 'altspection' is a little clunky. I hope when you see the word 'altrospection' in my blog, you'll compare it to: 'a different perspective'.
-Side note: Could introspection be considered a type of altrospection? My first impression is that most of our examining or study of our life and world is done through things happening to us or within us. Therefore introspection is the most common type of examination? Therefore altrospection would refer to an alternative to the most popular type of inspection, which is introspection, separating introspection from altrospection.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
Chocolate cake conspiracies
I like to compare radical theories or conspiracies to a thick slice of moist, dark chocolate cake. Personally, I have troubles resisting it’s sweet icing coated crust and moist fluffy bitter sweet dough. Nibbling bit by bit I can enjoy each bite as much as the last; dissecting it’s many flavours, each sending a shiver of delight through my spine. Soon, it’s sugars course through my veins fueling a desire for action! But I know I will crash and crave another slice, so I sit calmly ignoring the rush. I know there is little nutrition to be had. I know I must still eat a regular fare. So I enjoy it while I digest what nutrition exists and move on.
In my last escapade of waning restraint, I was subjected to a barrage of ‘information’ covering various governments. In an attempt to strengthen his forthcoming treatise, the orator began by deconstructing the word ‘government’ into it’s Latin yoke. ‘Govern’ he said, comes from the word ‘gubernare’ which itself is derived from the Greek verb ‘kyberno’ which means to rule, direct or even control. He then went to say that ‘-ment’ is from the Latin word ‘mente’ which means ‘mindedly(sic)’ (or mind in the form of ‘mens’). This he compiled to define ‘government’ as ‘a control or rule of the mind’. I don’t feel to comment on his treatise, however this initial definition immediately, for me, deteriorated his credibility as an effective analyst. I agree with his point of ‘govern’ comes from ‘gubernare’. However I cannot agree with his point of ‘-ment’ being replaceable by mind, or ‘of the mind’. In fact, ‘-ment’ is a simply a suffix which forms a noun from a verb which describes the result or agent of that verb. If you had to trace the roots of ‘-ment’ to the Latin language, I believe you would find the Latin suffix ‘-men’ or -mentum which means ‘result of’ or 'agent of'. What is also worrisome is the way he used his Latin associations to define government. While ‘gubernare mente’ to him means ‘control or directing of the mind’, it could also mean ‘the mind that directs’ or ‘the governing mind’ which would actually properly define the word ‘government’ (even though the defining method is wrong).
It is interesting how he inappropriately associated Latin roots to the word and then analysed these associations to construct his own definition to fit his mandate. Maybe he did this by mistake, maybe not. He seemed very intelligent and well read, so I would guess that this mistake was either a conscious one or a result of the clouding passion he had for his conspiracies (I know, I know...). In any case it’s comical that he was misdirecting to inform about misdirection. I listened to a small excerpt of which little was consumable but nevertheless entertaining, however, the initial letdown left me with a burnt, dry chocolate cake instead of a nice fluffy one.
In my last escapade of waning restraint, I was subjected to a barrage of ‘information’ covering various governments. In an attempt to strengthen his forthcoming treatise, the orator began by deconstructing the word ‘government’ into it’s Latin yoke. ‘Govern’ he said, comes from the word ‘gubernare’ which itself is derived from the Greek verb ‘kyberno’ which means to rule, direct or even control. He then went to say that ‘-ment’ is from the Latin word ‘mente’ which means ‘mindedly(sic)’ (or mind in the form of ‘mens’). This he compiled to define ‘government’ as ‘a control or rule of the mind’. I don’t feel to comment on his treatise, however this initial definition immediately, for me, deteriorated his credibility as an effective analyst. I agree with his point of ‘govern’ comes from ‘gubernare’. However I cannot agree with his point of ‘-ment’ being replaceable by mind, or ‘of the mind’. In fact, ‘-ment’ is a simply a suffix which forms a noun from a verb which describes the result or agent of that verb. If you had to trace the roots of ‘-ment’ to the Latin language, I believe you would find the Latin suffix ‘-men’ or -mentum which means ‘result of’ or 'agent of'. What is also worrisome is the way he used his Latin associations to define government. While ‘gubernare mente’ to him means ‘control or directing of the mind’, it could also mean ‘the mind that directs’ or ‘the governing mind’ which would actually properly define the word ‘government’ (even though the defining method is wrong).
It is interesting how he inappropriately associated Latin roots to the word and then analysed these associations to construct his own definition to fit his mandate. Maybe he did this by mistake, maybe not. He seemed very intelligent and well read, so I would guess that this mistake was either a conscious one or a result of the clouding passion he had for his conspiracies (I know, I know...). In any case it’s comical that he was misdirecting to inform about misdirection. I listened to a small excerpt of which little was consumable but nevertheless entertaining, however, the initial letdown left me with a burnt, dry chocolate cake instead of a nice fluffy one.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Consciousness and Language
Consciousness, as a word, is a giant muddy swamp. With so many spiritual, biological, social, evolutionary and metaphorical descriptions, it is difficult to discuss without debating what it actually is. Let’s leave the debate of dualism and monism behind. Lets leave the spiritual, biological, social and evolutionary descriptions behind. Let's leave the metaphors behind, as metaphors are simply that. For this following question I only have to define a few ‘fairly’ indubitable points. Some of these points are more pertinent to the question than others, but I believe they are all important to defining the kind of consciousness I’m referring to. First, we know we may not always be conscious, as we cannot be conscious of the moments we are not conscious. Second, we know it can impede learning or inhibit our ability to perform difficult tasks. Think of a secretary (Alex) typing away. If Alex suddenly becomes conscious of its fingers' movements it will most definitely make a mistake or slow down. The same goes with piano players, sprinters, etc. Third, we know we can consciously imagine our present, past or future situations while leaving our body and situation (if applicable) behind (mentally speaking within our imagination… lets not allow this to be a point for dualism). Fourth, we can be conscious of what we are doing without pulling from past experiences (you can be conscious of new feelings) but to consciously reflect on something, whether in the present or past, you have to pull from past experiences and knowledge. Now for the question: Is it possible to have consciousness without language? Or more accurately: can we describe something consciously to ourselves without language?
I'm inclined to say yes, however I'm lead to believe that this conscious examination will be much less profoundly reflective of our existence up to that point. Example: I can consciously see myself sitting in a white walled room on a wood chair. I can see myself from another angle than that where I sit. I do so by comparing the walls that are white to how I know they should look like from that location. I can think of the color white in my head not as a word but as a comparison to something else white, say a flower or milk. By drawing a simile, I am not summoning up the full extent of the meaning 'white', as the word itself would. The word 'white' is based on everything I know as white whereas I have to compare the color of the wall to objects in my memory one by one if I don’t know of this word that represents it. The word ‘white’ acts as a sort of metaphor or a billboard of similes allowing me to pull from all my past experience to experience what I am seeing or imagining. I can do this to everything in the room as well as the feeling of the pressure of my elbows on the chair’s armrests. I can compare that feeling to lying on my elbows on my balcony. I don’t need the words: slight pressure not causing discomfort. However those words likewise bring up a lot more past experiences and feelings than elbows on a balcony.
It is impossible to truly answer this question. At least I can say at this time, with my resources, it is impossible for me to answer this question with complete substantiated conviction. Someone who has not developed language may have no inclination to consciously evaluate anything by drawing from past experiences. Linking one thought to another may be may be foreign to a mind that has not developed any language. How could you even begin to ask a subject with no language to introspect on any given subject? However images are a type of language, and have been used to communicate between people with no or little verbal language. I imagine pictorial communication would be much slower and less specific. So where did I get with this question? I guess nowhere. It would be safe to say however that language has greatly improved contemplative conscious thought.
Why did I pose this question? I guess to trace conscious thought backwards through time and even maybe understand intelligent animal behavior? I haven't fully reflected on it. No matter.
Maybe I’m off on some of the initial descriptions of consciousness. But right now I agree fully with them. I’m certain more research will alter my views, in which case I will update this. I realize this post will be easily nit-picked. It is short and only one thing should be drawn from it, and even that point is vague. I will not post a 60 page diatribe debating it's inconsequential details however, so comment as you wish, but I will only justify what I am trying to prove... which I don't think I managed all that well anyways.
I'm inclined to say yes, however I'm lead to believe that this conscious examination will be much less profoundly reflective of our existence up to that point. Example: I can consciously see myself sitting in a white walled room on a wood chair. I can see myself from another angle than that where I sit. I do so by comparing the walls that are white to how I know they should look like from that location. I can think of the color white in my head not as a word but as a comparison to something else white, say a flower or milk. By drawing a simile, I am not summoning up the full extent of the meaning 'white', as the word itself would. The word 'white' is based on everything I know as white whereas I have to compare the color of the wall to objects in my memory one by one if I don’t know of this word that represents it. The word ‘white’ acts as a sort of metaphor or a billboard of similes allowing me to pull from all my past experience to experience what I am seeing or imagining. I can do this to everything in the room as well as the feeling of the pressure of my elbows on the chair’s armrests. I can compare that feeling to lying on my elbows on my balcony. I don’t need the words: slight pressure not causing discomfort. However those words likewise bring up a lot more past experiences and feelings than elbows on a balcony.
It is impossible to truly answer this question. At least I can say at this time, with my resources, it is impossible for me to answer this question with complete substantiated conviction. Someone who has not developed language may have no inclination to consciously evaluate anything by drawing from past experiences. Linking one thought to another may be may be foreign to a mind that has not developed any language. How could you even begin to ask a subject with no language to introspect on any given subject? However images are a type of language, and have been used to communicate between people with no or little verbal language. I imagine pictorial communication would be much slower and less specific. So where did I get with this question? I guess nowhere. It would be safe to say however that language has greatly improved contemplative conscious thought.
Why did I pose this question? I guess to trace conscious thought backwards through time and even maybe understand intelligent animal behavior? I haven't fully reflected on it. No matter.
Maybe I’m off on some of the initial descriptions of consciousness. But right now I agree fully with them. I’m certain more research will alter my views, in which case I will update this. I realize this post will be easily nit-picked. It is short and only one thing should be drawn from it, and even that point is vague. I will not post a 60 page diatribe debating it's inconsequential details however, so comment as you wish, but I will only justify what I am trying to prove... which I don't think I managed all that well anyways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
