Thought and Language and other Miscellaneous Philosophical Discussion

[For Honor]

Hmm.... interesting. (I want to learn Chinese someday....... my dad has Cantonese audio tapes from when he used to see his martial arts Sifu back in HK.... maybe I'll get my hands on those someday)


================

Just to have a small start.... I didn't get very far, but these are some things I've been loosly pondering


First, narccistic as I am, I'll start with some personal things in my life. For me... I can be happy as is, right now. I've no attachments to anyone, or anything, really. I have my family, and I like family values and such, I like family traditions, and family activities, etc. But... I'm pretty well distanced from my family, and it is a unique one at that.....

But... I'm getting to... we all know the phrase "seeking happines externally" outside of yourself, etc. Well, I wonder...


When I was young, and didn't believe in love, I wasn't happy (because a lot of things). But at the same time, now that I've been touched by love, I always feel like there is something that is not quite there, (since I don't have a real significant other right now). So it's a strange thing. For me, it's almost as if there are two sets of laws that govern my life. The "non-love" laws, and "love" laws. I'm pretty sure this is an "individual basis" thing, because people love in different ways, etc, but still, I figure I'll use it to start this all off. (Eventually, or should I say, I'm sure this will branch off into "what is love?" and etc)

But the minute point I'm striving to ..... point out... is that....
As much as happiness comes internally, and is a state of mind... Happiness is a state of mind, I believe.... but as much as it is such.... there seems to be some sort of link to other people, no matter what.

From writing this, I'd "feel" that this reminds me of something else, or supports it - the idea that we are all in this together, humankind as a society, etc. Can one really be happy alone?

More than just the simple "emotion" of happiness, but also, fufilment, having a purpose, etc.. My initial reaction to this would be.... that everyone has a different personality type, so it varies immensly. However....... we're all human, still.






well, I guess this is a start..... if not a shoty one..........

 

[BonosSaint]

One interesting (and possibly related) thing that I think about sometimes is thinking in a particular language. English is the first language that I learnt, and I learned Chinese later. When I speak or write Chinese, I unconsciously have the words out in English first and then translate them. It's one of those split second things.

I don't speak any language fluently, but occasionally when I am surrounded by people speaking a language I speak a little (French, Spanish), I find myself starting to think in that language--on a very primitive level.

 

[BonosSaint]

When I was young, and didn't believe in love, I wasn't happy (because a lot of things). But at the same time, now that I've been touched by love, I always feel like there is something that is not quite there, (since I don't have a real significant other right now). So it's a strange thing. For me, it's almost as if there are two sets of laws that govern my life. The "non-love" laws, and "love" laws. I'm pretty sure this is an "individual basis" thing, because people love in different ways, etc, but still, I figure I'll use it to start this all off. (Eventually, or should I say, I'm sure this will branch off into "what is love?" and etc)

.......... [/B]

Clarify the "non-love laws" and the "love laws." I find that intriguing.

 

[For Honor]

I don't speak any language fluently, but occasionally when I am surrounded by people speaking a language I speak a little (French, Spanish), I find myself starting to think in that language--on a very primitive level.

Yeah, when I took Latin in highschool, I started incorperating those words into my english papers... it was kinda unusual.

But then a year or so passed, and a senior, I had no cpacity for Latin at all It's sostrange how one's memory can shift......

 

[For Honor]

I realize I am complex person. I think many people are complex, but..... There are...... there is a duality in my life.

If I abandoned love, and the whole idea of what it is, what I think of it, what it is to me, then I'm sure that I could still live and enjoy a "happy and fufilling" life. However.... abandoning love is something I would consider impossible, especially living in the modern world. However still..... I believe a person can abandon love inside themselves, and just not "love". But I think once you really know what it is, you don't "forget". (or at least that is how it seems)

The "love" laws.... Hmm, in reading a book about it, apparently it is more a feminine thing I have. Loving someone all day long, always thinking about them, making them a part of your awareness - I find myself being able to do that. Perhaps, for lack of better words, it is the "typical male" side of me batteling with the "feminine" love-inclinced side. In a boook I'm reading, it made an interesting distinction between men, who compartmentalize themselves when it comes to love, often being able to conciously make the decision "to love" or be in "love mode". One could also relate to, say, the "yin and yang" aspects of love.

*branching off* If one person is less inclined to love all the time, yet another is, wouldn't that difference create a balance? Or, possiblyl lead to a balance? Kind of like..... positive and negative currents..... *contained my thoghts*

ANyways........

My "non-love" universe and "love" universe are rather interesting to consider. I believe, should you go into it, that I am displaying a Gemini trait, which, apparently, is my "ascendant". But the duality between the two is interesting......

Perhaps why I can go back and forth between them, and so clearly lable them as one or the other.... is because I don't know which is the best, what is the right choice to make. I guess that is an individual basis, really, in regards to answers. But still.....

I've often wonderf if I can combine these two things, "love" and "non-love" laws, into one thing. It reminds me of quantum mechanics and general relativity. I don't know a lot about science or math, but... In knowing a tiny bit about the seeming incompatibility between those two... it reaminds me of my situation here.


**ah, I an now interupted. I don't like it when things break m y........ well, not my train of thought, but my....... um......... avalanche of thought, perhaps.

Upon my return (haha, that sounds very proper), I will continue!

 

[BonosSaint]

Need some more clarification. Are you defining love as loving or being loved or both? Are you making a distinction between love and "in love"?

I tend to compartmentalize too much, so would probably fall more into the masculine pattern. But perhaps that is more of a distinction between feelers and nonfeelers than it would be between men and women--however, I will grant you historically it has been men more so than women who have been considered the nonfeelers. Or feeling challenged--or feeling expression challenged, to be more accurate. I think that women are probably more capable than most men of flowing between the alpha (instinctive, receptive, creative state--or as my friend calls it "the inactive, active state) and beta (the logical, analytical, action state).

I still need further clarification on your "love" and "nonlove" universes. From the context of what I've read so far, they do not particularly seem to be incompatible. I'm not quite sure how the universes function in every day life.

(*branching off* If one person is less inclined to love all the time, yet another is, wouldn't that difference create a balance? Or, possiblyl lead to a balance? Kind of like..... positive and negative currents..... *contained my thoghts)

I guess it could lead to a balance. It depends on the needs and expectations of both parties. One would imply a need for some distance, the other a need for some intimacy. I don't think it would automatically lead to a balance, but a balance could be worked out.

 

[blueyedpoet]

in regards to thought and language: what language do i think in? what language do people of other languages think in? our native tongue? or, do we interrupt the language of thought into our native languages?

 

[BonosSaint]

You are separating "thought" language then as different from "spoken or written" language. Three step process then.
Thought language to native language to second language.

 

[blueyedpoet]

it's all very interesting...since we are on the topic of language, how do words come to represent things? do we just see a bunch of "chairs," assign the word "chair" to it, and then from then on recognize any similar object as "chair?" Or, was Socrates right? Did we have some kind of experience prior to birth in which we learned about universals?

 

[Angela Harlem]

I've got no useful understanding of Socrates to refute him, so please correct me here where needed, but I dont believe any of that. On a side note, did he take into account people all speaking different languages? Chair isn't chair in Hindi, after all. But I have wondered how we assigned words and why.

 

[BonosSaint]

Not knowing Socrates' writing on that (which sounds a little like Jung's collective unconscious) and being a practical child, I think someone assigned the word chair. But if you'd explain Socrates' position....

 

[For Honor]

It's not that I haven't anything to say lately. Indeed... it is the opposite.......

Tomorrow, though, if I can get some things done, I'll spill my philosophical beans. But I am so glad that this thread is in existance! I check up on it often

 

[BonosSaint]

Re: Language

I'm reluctant to assign a metaphysical explanation when a practical explanation is available. (However, I am always interested in how great thinkers approached something, so still would like to hear Socrates' position) I doubt when language began. there was any universal word for chair (As Angela Harlem pointed out, there is still no universal word for chair), just a need to communicate the idea of the chair. (OK, I know there were probably no chairs at the birth of language, although I assume they sat) The need for language was fairly rudimentary in the beginning. Now we have chair, dining room chair, easy chair, rocking chair, Chippendale chair, etc. We create words all the time now--I'm amazed at how fast the words spread, even among people who don't spend much time with any media. But there is an intense desire to identify things. We seem to worry if something doesn't have a name or an immediate explanation. Take for example, UFO's. (PS, whether or not aliens are visiting us is NOT a discussion option in this thread, please) But somehow just assigning a name to these objects (and how vague a name is unidenitified flying object) made us fret less. Okay, that whirling fiery thing with 100 foot neon lit blades slicing off the tops of trees is an Unidentified Flying Object. OK, let's go in now and what's for dinner?

I like to observe in this forum how people use language. On whole, we use it effectively. Our points are communicated. We usually know where each other stands. But we use words differently so a full understanding is lost, I think, and the reason we sometimes get bogged down in rehashes of the same arguments. I think that once you get past language describing physical things and enter into conceptual language, in a lot of ways it becomes a free for all. Our definition for concepts -- love, patriotism, ethics--are personal, based on our understanding of it, our experiences, our perceptions, our analysis, the outside language stimuli that formulated our definitions. You can have two people discussing a conceptual topic, not knowing that their personal definitions of these things are so different that they are miscommunicating all over the place. To say that the definition of something is only the dictionary definition would be absolutely naive. But so often, we are assuming the other person shares our definitions.

My best friend and I have been friends forever and a ton of our conversations are conceptual. Now we know each other, know how we use language and I cannot tell you how many times we have to stop each other to know how we are defining a specific word so we know whether the conversation is on track or not

(Kind of off the point, but I got a huge kick out of the jumper--sweatshirt confusion on another thread. I had to look up jumper. Funadamentally, we were talking about the same thing and didn't know it. You're right, Angela Harlem, it was our turn to be flummoxed.)

 

[For Honor]

My best friend and I have been friends forever and a ton of our conversations are conceptual. Now we know each other, know how we use language and I cannot tell you how many times we have to stop each other to know how we are defining a specific word so we know whether the conversation is on track or not

I know just what you mean about that...

Some people seem to get upset when I question the meaning of their words. But it makes such a vast difference... and then there is my friend who will start talking about a subject without intoducing it, and ... well.. I don't need to rant, heh heh heh........

 

[BonosSaint]

I'm guilty of the same nonintroduction as your friend. Just go right into a topic or switch it midstream.

 

[For Honor]

I do it too, I guess............. but I guess it's a pet peeve of mine, maybe? I don'tknow.........


======================

speaking about such things - should I try to stay relatively on topic, or should I jump around? I have a very sporadic thought process..... but that's because I..... have a very sporadic thought process.

But also it's....... how I associate with things, I think.


Anyhow..........

ns. You can have two people discussing a conceptual topic, not knowing that their personal definitions of these things are so different that they are miscommunicating all over the place. To say that the definition of something is only the dictionary definition would be absolutely naive. But so often, we are assuming the other person shares our definitions.

Fantastic point. It is a universal point that applies to all things. I think that so much..... strife in this world exists because people don't understand, or sometimes, don't want to understand.

I believe not understanding makes it much easier to express negative emotions - fear, hate, resentment, etc, etc, etc.........

 

[For Honor]

I finished watching two series of videos - each consisting of 3 parts of 50 minutes each. Now, it was a fairly introductory video (series), but it was informitive and thought provoking non the less.

It was called "Eastern" + "Western" philosophy.
( creative, yes)


However, feeling that the Eastern was kinda ripped off because it spoke mostly about religion directly, I was dissapointed. And as far as West goes...... (I think I might be a "pragmatic"... but I refuesed to be defined, so to say...), as far as the west goes, it seems like people have wasted hundreds of years concerning philosophy with god. I was sort of amazed.

But then again, I guess I shouldn't be. Kant sounded interesting, and so did one of those modern Pragmatists. And one person (damn, I better look it up), reminded me of this thread - talking about language and relationships. But it was so "stupid" in how they presented it, so I was like

(I'm tired, forgive me)

But I've had some major thoughts these last few days.
And there are still things I have to go over......

 

[For Honor]

Need some more clarification. Are you defining love as loving or being loved or both? Are you making a distinction between love and "in love"?

I tend to compartmentalize too much, so would probably fall more into the masculine pattern. But perhaps that is more of a distinction between feelers and nonfeelers than it would be between men and women--however, I will grant you historically it has been men more so than women who have been considered the nonfeelers. Or feeling challenged--or feeling expression challenged, to be more accurate. I think that women are probably more capable than most men of flowing between the alpha (instinctive, receptive, creative state--or as my friend calls it "the inactive, active state) and beta (the logical, analytical, action state).

I still need further clarification on your "love" and "nonlove" universes. From the context of what I've read so far, they do not particularly seem to be incompatible. I'm not quite sure how the universes function in every day life.



I guess it could lead to a balance. It depends on the needs and expectations of both parties. One would imply a need for some distance, the other a need for some intimacy. I don't think it would automatically lead to a balance, but a balance could be worked out.

Maybe what I was feeling was a sort of major transition from my "love compartment" (or "love room", as one book describes it)to the other compartments in my life...

(*branching off* If one person is less inclined to love all the time, yet another is, wouldn't that difference create a balance? Or, possiblyl lead to a balance? Kind of like..... positive and negative currents..... *contained my thoghts)

!!! ah, you're dangerously close to my master theory!!! heh.
I am almost afraid to get into it here, because it is somewhat... radical. But then again, I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees thing in the way I am refering to (but not yet speaking of).


================



Back about love......

This is something I've always wondered. (and forgibe my use of "masculine and feminine". I don't mean to sound sexist...)

But... I've been thinking about this in some ways lately - It's typically masculine to "avoid" love to some extent, as it is typically feminine to seek it. However, can both persons in a love relation actively seek love and still have a proper balance?

I would assume so. Just as two people canseek a relationship without love, as in, just for sex or something, etc.

But it's..... like..... if you allow someone to have what they "desire", will it still be desireable? And more than that, how relationships/desires change overime. (I realize I'm being very, very broad at the moment, but I'm quite tired, so I apologize). Eventually, I would take this whole discussion into love, and love everlasting, and "whether it exists". But it's almost like asking if you believe in god, I think...... It exists if you believe in it, or that sort of thing.

Also, another topic at some point - what is man's purpose?
That's juicy one.....
But one - or at least a few- thing at a time.......

 

[BonosSaint]

speaking about such things - should I try to stay relatively on topic, or should I jump around? I have a very sporadic thought process..... but that's because I..... have a very sporadic thought process.

I'm perfectly content with jumping around. I'm assuming right now, you're kind of jotting down notes here sort of before you formulate your position.

 

[BonosSaint]

Maybe what I was feeling was a sort of major transition from my "love compartment" (or "love room", as one book describes it)to the other compartments in my life...

!!! ah, you're dangerously close to my master theory!!! heh.
I am almost afraid to get into it here, because it is somewhat... radical. But then again, I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees thing in the way I am refering to (but not yet speaking of).


================



Back about love......

This is something I've always wondered. (and forgibe my use of "masculine and feminine". I don't mean to sound sexist...)

But... I've been thinking about this in some ways lately - It's typically masculine to "avoid" love to some extent, as it is typically feminine to seek it. However, can both persons in a love relation actively seek love and still have a proper balance?

I would assume so. Just as two people canseek a relationship without love, as in, just for sex or something, etc.

But it's..... like..... if you allow someone to have what they "desire", will it still be desireable? And more than that, how relationships/desires change overime. (I realize I'm being very, very broad at the moment, but I'm quite tired, so I apologize). Eventually, I would take this whole discussion into love, and love everlasting, and "whether it exists". But it's almost like asking if you believe in god, I think...... It exists if you believe in it, or that sort of thing.

Also, another topic at some point - what is man's purpose?
That's juicy one.....
But one - or at least a few- thing at a time.......

I'm not particularly politically correct, so I don't consider use of masculine and feminine sexist. As you said earlier, we're a blend of these traits. But it clarifies sometimes when you make those distinctions.


OK, that was an interesting question. "Can both persons actively seek love and still have a proper balance?" Are you implying there it is better to form balance to have a person who loves and a person who is an object of that love or that it forms a better balance if one person is more emotional and the other more distanced. Or if two people are equally needy for love, the relationship will implode since both needs cannot be equally met?
Or that in most relationships, there is a basic inequality in the depth of love each person feels, but that inequality creates balance of sorts. Sorry I'm a little confused here.

I figure we have to sort out the details before we get onto the big picture.

Eastern-western thought dichotomy. Always an interesting topic. Any dichotomy is. Completely different ways of looking at things and can they be blended? I think the most balanced people either learn or instinctively know how to blend most things. (Probably one of the ingredients of happiness--a topic you addressed earlier.)

 

[For Honor]

I'm perfectly content with jumping around. I'm assuming right now, you're kind of jotting down notes here sort of before you formulate your position.

Yes. Exactly.

Well, okay... that's good to know.....

 

[For Honor]

About masculine/feminine love.......

My question (to myself, perhaps) was really if two people can balancedly love each other. I personally dislike and outwardly dispise relationships where one person "loves" the other, and the other kind of just allows them to do it. I don't think that's a real relationship.

However, as far as primality goes, there is usually one person who is more "into" the idea of a relationship than the other.

Even though this is almost like questioning mankinds "maturity" (which I often do anyway), I wonder sometimes if two people can work together to choose to be in love, rather than it just being a silly, simplistic game of baiting and emotional chess.

I say it like that because I've seen some strange thing in my day. nd I imagine the way I read it I sound somewhat... dispassionate about "ideal romantic love". But more so, I'm just "against" the common idea of romantic, "emotional" love that some people seem to be looking for.

(I suppose what I'm doing is pretty foolish - taking a generalization and disecting it into an argument that I find favorable. But I still don't quite know how to word things yet...)

 

[For Honor]

A lot of my questions about love arise from the capacity I see in others. I know people are capable of loving, but it is..... such a strange thing in how they do it. I suppose that's part of it all........

=====


And then, this question that I hate the most: What is love?
There are so many different forms and levels, it's sort of..... repulsive to me. Yet I consider it quite a bit, in all reality.

 

[For Honor]

I suppose I willl leave off for now with this - though I don't know how purely philosophical it is.......


Anyone ever notice a sort of rise in energy when you are around others, in comparison to how you felt when being alone? I think energy, in many different forms, can trancend and interact and shift and move in that way...

Going back to thought and language, perhaps thoughts and language can be examples of ..... of........ modifications to that energy. Or perhaps..... different settings, or different.... seasonings..... some bitter, some sweet. Or thought (perhaps the "internal ""language""" ) and language (perhaps the "external language""", if you will), **, perhaps they are the mallable, adjustable parts of energy.

I'm looking for an analogy....... perhaps thought and language are a type of... fixture, or.....

something that you would attach to something else in order to select the outcome of the action. Damn, I can't think of an example........


Kind of like clay - one can have a mass, or a certain amount of energy, yet thoughts and language can mold it into a form. A positive or negative form, a ball, a weapon, etc.



If I can come up with a better way to explain it, I will.



I'm having trouble translating, if you will, from the thoughts in my head to the language that you are to read and understand Heh heh heh........

 

[BonosSaint]

I had to print out your posts and think about them.

I see what you are getting at. And I think I agree with you on a lot of points. Although it may exist, I would think that ideal romantic love, where you feel about the person every minute the same way you did when you first fell in love, is rare. I think, on the whole, maintaining the feeling of always being "in love" is impossible. Unfortunately, people are trained to expect that kind of love--women probably more so than men. From all the advertisements and the way love is portrayed in movies and literature, people develop unreasonable expectations for what is the rare (if at all) and not the norm. And they set themselves up for hurt and disappointment.

I was always bemused by people who spend more time planning the wedding than the marriage. They know the wedding needs work but somehow think the marriage will magically take care of itself.

Perhaps in a good but seemingly unbalanced relationship, it is not so much the absense of strong emotion on either side, but the discrepancy in the way each expresses emotion. I think that once one partner trusts that the other loves them, there is an acceptance of the differing ways of displaying it.

People may be powerfully attracted to each other initially, and for a while, that may suffice for love. And when they begins to fade--as it will--they may seek other ways to recreate that intensity of feeling. Maybe this is where your "baiting and emotional chess" come from (By the way, I liked the emotional chess line very much.) The participants may morph from drama queen/king to ice princess/prince to manipulate each other back to that initial frenzy, whether it is now destructive or not.

(And on a more cynical note, you can't eliminate the possibility that one or both are not loving, but involved in some intricate power play over the other, which itself gets them off and has nothing to do with love--but is just sexual/emotional weaponry.)

I think two people can choose to love. I also believe two people can fall in love and understand that that feeling will ebb and flow and that in order to last, the relationship has to have more dimensions than sexual attraction (although certainly the relationship is fuller when sexuality remains a strong part of it). I guess that is when commitment kicks in. Love may or may not be a conscious choice. Commitment always is. I do not believe that a person has only one soul mate.

I am always bewildered by what makes one person choose another or what moves the relationship from the initial introduction stage to relationship.

I still have to think about your last post.

 

[For Honor]

I was always bemused by people who spend more time planning the wedding than the marriage. They know the wedding needs work but somehow think the marriage will magically take care of itself.

^ One of the most disturbing things about marriage, or, as it were, the corruption/distortion/violation of marriage. It's no wonder why pre-arranged marriages canwork so well. Sometimes I really wonder if it is about love at all...

[qupte]I think two people can choose to love. I also believe two people can fall in love and understand that that feeling will ebb and flow and that in order to last, the relationship has to have more dimensions than sexual attraction (although certainly the relationship is fuller when sexuality remains a strong part of it). I guess that is when commitment kicks in. Love may or may not be a conscious choice. Commitment always is. I do not believe that a person has only one soul mate.

I hope that can be possible myself, but I've grown skeptical over the past few years. Two people who consciously choose to love each other, and make a commitment.... ............

as far as soulmates.... I think it's another one of those things like religion or love - they exist if you believe in it. More so, along the line of soul mates...... I think you "make" a soulmate. You can pick out common matches with personality tests, or astrology, etc, and I think those can offer some guidance (but like all advice, you should consider it, yet be wary of who is giving it and why, etc...)

*lost my train of thought/interuption

I am always bewildered by what makes one person choose another or what moves the relationship from the initial introduction stage to relationship.

Ironically, or should I say oddly, I'm slowly beginning to understand more about this phenominon. Believe it or not, astrology has helped me look at people in different terms - not that I read my horoscope everyday like a phrophecy from god himself, no, not at all - but the different perspectives has helped.

Personally, one experience has been very interesting to consider and analyze for myself - the separation and divorce of my father and stepmother. I have always had a great relationship with both, so I've been able to get a good understanding of how it all happened. And then, seeing my father's transition from the relationship he had to the relationship he is now in, it has been very interesting over these last 3 years.


One of my ultimate conclusions is something so cliche and simple. But it would have made thigns a lot more...... efficient.... it is: Honesty and communication.


=========


However.....
I don't want to turn this into a thread discussing relationships. There is a worthy place for such discussion here, but... it's supposed to be a philosohy thread, heh heh heh.

 

[For Honor]

This post is about self awareness, and is kind of scattered, I expect it will be..........


With all my talk about transcendence lately, I've realized that, in fact, I haven't transcended anything. It's more so that I've realized who I am, and my personality type. And, after doing enough research, and tests and stuff...

I was initially amazed and happy... because I could finally identify with something, even if it was a catagory or group. It felt nice to know that I'm not too unique, so to say. But then... I came to another realization - that all these years, I have not transformed, nor really grown.

More so than anything else, I've.... I've ripened and bloomed into what I was supposed to become, so to say. I don't believe in predetermination, to the extent that everyone's life is planned out from the beginning. But.... through researching personality types, I've gotten a much clearer portrait of myself. And yes, it is quite odd to "find yourself" outside of yourself, but it is kind of like a mirror..... in ....... seeing words illustrate the charecteristics or concepts in your head.

I suppose this also has to do with finding one's goals/purposes in life. Knowing yourself helps tremendously, so that you can build/live off of strengths AND weaknesses. I suppose this is a sort of maturation process that all people go through. Or at least, I would expect that.... yet.... for a fact I know adults who... admit their... uh... immaturity and not knowingness of things, as in, who they are, etc, etc, etc.

=========

Now, as for how this relates to other people...
(Being the conceited person I am, it appearst to help if I get "me" out of the way, and then speak of general terms)

I think people sometimes need to "know their role". Not so much that every person has a place and job to do. But in a way, they do. Society is a complex thing, no doubt. And the.... *damn what's that word* .... the scatteredness and disorganizedness of people and places is part of what makes life life, perhaps. But I think there is a great power and effort into the education of oneself about oneself. I think that schooling should focus on that, in fact. Understanding that some people are going to think in certain ways, perceive in some ways, talk, speak, act, fell, etc etc

But most of all, I think we need to promote the DIFFERENCE, and acceptance of this difference. Obviously, there is difference, and there always will be. And until mankind starts using these differences in productive, cohesive ways (instead of discriminiatory, deconstructive ways), our progress as a whole will be limited. I know discrimination is natural, and I've no different. But I make an effort to fight it, and if I can, I know others can, too.

I suppose for now I will leave off with a quote from someone.... steve coy? I don't remember where I read it or saw it

"Seek to understand others, and then to be understood"



I think that is one of the best ways for the world to make progress. From the nations down to the grassroots of you and I.

 

[For Honor]

^ oh yeah - a point I left out....

So, in a way...... self awareness and global/world/other awareness is related...


which can lead into my belief that all knowledge is connected. Knowledge/things/people/matter/etc. I believe everything is connected...

 

[BonosSaint]

Why don't people want to get to know themselves? I think a variety of reasons make people shy away from that.

I think those tests are generally fun and useful as a starter kit, so to speak, and sometimes you can learn things about yourself you didn't consider before. But they're not going to teach you more than you can learn from yourself if you're not afraid to look.
And you never get to ultimately know yourself, but you can get more than a nodding acquaintainceship.

I agree with you absolutely that schools should be able to understand people learn and perceive differently. Wonderful observation. A lot of people's gifts are left by the wayside, because they are not recognized. Every once in a while, you get a golden teacher who can do that. Every once in a while. But on a whole, I think it is beyond school's capability, although it shouldn't be. You need to look elsewhere.

I'm curious about your statement that you've ripened and bloomed into what you were supposed to become. Do you mean sociologically, spiritually? What are you looking for in transformation and growth?

I think a lot of people find answers about themselves outside of themselves. The difference between the extrovert and the introvert, which has very little to do with the life of the party vs. the wallflower. I read a great book on it one time, but cannot for the life of me remember the name of it.

I'm c

 

[For Honor]

you're ..... c? Like curious?


===========

I agree, personality tests can, at most, only be guides, or lights that you may be able to shine on yourself. They aren't.... direct interpretation of who you are. And I agree about what you said about schools, too

====

Anyhow....

I'm curious about your statement that you've ripened and bloomed into what you were supposed to become. Do you mean sociologically, spiritually? What are you looking for in transformation and growth?

ah, I'm out of time. More later