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.
Showing posts with label Vent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vent. Show all posts
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
