Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hypnosis reveals the Unconscious is structured like a language
12-19-2016, 10:20 PM (This post was last modified: 12-19-2016 10:20 PM by SteampunkScientist.)
Post: #11
(12-17-2016 07:08 PM)Ontical Wrote:  
(12-17-2016 03:23 PM)SteampunkScientist Wrote:  "we are nothing more than what we ingest around us, from those closest to us."

Poppycock. The unconscious mind is so infinitely more than this line of drivel, that it is like comparing an atom to a universe. Language came from it, and we are the eyes that look out of it.

I'm not being reductive and here's why -

The Unconscious is a language, or at least structured like one. Languages are like operating systems, it's not only words that qualify as language. Language can be expressed through body movements for one and the symbiotic and parasitic search for stability is another form of language for communion, or to be more accurate exchange. What is profound, is that as language is the operating system, it has the objective of communion with the other, so it has the other already in mind before the construction of ego (I). I don't think we can trace a cause and effect here in the way you describe, all we ever see is a constant conjunction, which is why I prefer to use a dialectical monism 'the unconscious is a language'. Language is both dependent and independent on the Unconscious and vice versa, they emerged with each other. one cannot be without two.

My main disagreement was the phrase (ha ha, language) "...nothing more than..."

We and "Unconscious" are far more than...

I get your clarification - that language and symbol manipulation constitute communication which from my viewpoint denotes the inter-dimensional "wiring" if you will - but the wires and connections that build a comparatively simple system such as a computer do not constitute what a computer is, or what it can do. Yes, it is an integral part of it, and it would not function without it, but a computer is not it's wiring, nor is it even the signals that are transmitted on those wires. Similarly living consciousness exist within a milieu of communication, are nevertheless much more than the communication.

An argument for the conscious mind as existing as an emergent result of the intercommunication can be made, and have been - but I think that is many times a hand waving argument without real evidence beyond some simple laboratory experiments in AI and within physical chaos systems - and there certainly could be substance to it. The persistence of the "I", the "goal director". that which "strives" - has not been demonstrated. In fact this "I" is always the sticking point.

We can program a complex robotic system with AI in such a way that it is "aware of itself" in some primitive fashion, that is, it has sensors and monitoring software to enable it to monitor it's health, it's battery life, etc. We can program it to recognize things, and take actions.

But the key phrase is always "We can program it..." Therein lies the rub. WE are doing it, as WE are the goal directors, not the machine we built. This very idea lies behind all of the various ideas and stories such as "Terminator" movies, etc. That somehow, someday, these machines will be SELF aware, where the self being referred to is that of the machine. In other words, the machine develops a true "I".

I suggest that this will not happen until some actual human person merges with the machine, and then will provide the "I".

And this thought is interesting as it then suggests that we ourselves may just be "meat machines" with something that has our "I" and is merged into us. Which further suggests that the "I" is something wholly "Other".

Magic: When you pull a rabbit out of a hat...
Magick: When the rabbit pulls you out of a hat...
In either case, you should keep a jaundiced eye on that hat...
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-20-2016, 02:36 AM (This post was last modified: 12-20-2016 08:29 AM by Ontical.)
Post: #12
(12-19-2016 10:20 PM)SteampunkScientist Wrote:  Yes, it is an integral part of it, and it would not function without it, but a computer is not it's wiring, nor is it even the signals that are transmitted on those wires. Similarly living consciousness exist within a milieu of communication, are nevertheless much more than the communication.

I think that depends on whether you look from the inside-out or the outside-in. I have the view of metaphysical materialism, if you don't start from 'I' and look at language as something we revolve around, rather than we in a centripetal position and more centrifugal, then the privilege of whether the signs or objects are 'more or less' is changed radically. Language transcends us.

The way I propose we approach this is by privileging writing over speech and thought. When I write down a word, I spit out my consciousness and can forget until a later time and it has so much more meaning than when it is in my mind or uttered and then lost in the past. Writing allows me to defer language from memory. When we discover ancient texts, or the writing of a dead author, we can apply so much more meaning to what is written as well as, or in exchange for the original intentions of the author (if possible). By shifting the focus from 'I' and to writing as a materialism for language, we end up with an endless sign chain without signifieds. This was the progression from Lacan to Derrida.

So I think it depends on the place that is taken when addressing value of this kind. In a rework of Marlowes' Faust, a 1994 film directed by Jan Švankmajer. It merges live-action footage with stop-motion footage and includes imaginative puppetry and claymation. The puppets represent a determinism and the determinism is language. At one point in the movie, Faust asks Mephistopeles if 'words are mightier than we' to which Mephistopheles agrees.

There is no need for causal force and ordinary meaning, when Derrida picks up from Foucault's episteme, an a priori in this world. Although Consciousness or nature may have come first, then culture and speech or thought may be the truest form or level of language, we have been immersed in an environment of written language for many thousands of years and so this can be classed as an environment, a nature that is a priori. I'm coming from a determinist stand point.

Quote:An argument for the conscious mind as existing as an emergent result of the intercommunication can be made, and have been - but I think that is many times a hand waving argument without real evidence beyond some simple laboratory experiments in AI and within physical chaos systems - and there certainly could be substance to it. The persistence of the "I", the "goal director". that which "strives" - has not been demonstrated. In fact this "I" is always the sticking point.

I think humans would have to have evolved to a certain point to be able to generate language, i'm not saying language caused our consciousness and so I am not valuing it in terms of chicken and egg. I'm saying 'we created our tools and our tools create us in return', our environment has engulfed us, that environment is language.

Quote:We can program a complex robotic system with AI in such a way that it is "aware of itself" in some primitive fashion, that is, it has sensors and monitoring software to enable it to monitor it's health, it's battery life, etc. We can program it to recognize things, and take actions.

But the key phrase is always "We can program it..." Therein lies the rub. WE are doing it, as WE are the goal directors, not the machine we built. This very idea lies behind all of the various ideas and stories such as "Terminator" movies, etc. That somehow, someday, these machines will be SELF aware, where the self being referred to is that of the machine. In other words, the machine develops a true "I".

I will not add anything else here, as I have explained my position when it comes to the kind of determinism and superstructure I am referring to and how it in turn influences our being.

A true 'I' must have sensation and emotions, in my opinion.

Quote:I suggest that this will not happen until some actual human person merges with the machine, and then will provide the "I".

I think it's already happened - the machine is language.

Quote:And this thought is interesting as it then suggests that we ourselves may just be "meat machines" with something that has our "I" and is merged into us. Which further suggests that the "I" is something wholly "Other".

Yes, which is why I said we are nothing more than an ingestion of the world around us, but this is hardly insignificant. By placing the focus on writing as a materialist form of language that is outside of our consciousness, inside and outside distinctions simply dissolve.

(12-18-2016 01:37 AM)Feywer96 Wrote:  If you mean, as in, the "language" of the dream (the symbols) comes first and the "imagery" (the meaning) derives thus, then I would hold agreement.

Yes, but symbols are a combination of signs and so there is a superstructure of language beneath the symbolic and the imaginary - the real is the sign structure.

Quote:I don't want to verge too much off topic here. Some people are more unconsciously effected by the symbols presented (in dreams a.k.a by the unconscious) than others. To be aware of that is a difference in itself.

In the OP I ended with -

from opening post Wrote:In understanding how language and symbols can shape our inner world, we can simply find 'others' to inform ourselves ... a determinism that we can be aware of and then expose our Unconscious to different desires.

Quote:We interpret everything through a language, be that "language" a set of symbols or signs presented by the unconscious or what ever. The unconscious would still be the unconscious even if someone couldn't discern what it was conveying through it's symbols.

Indeed, but we have discovered the Unconscious and it is structured like a language. Philosophy is always about obtaining the best possible explanations, be it through analogy or metaphor. This kind of explanation has more of a materialism to it and in my reply to Steampunk Scientist, I declared that i am coming from a metaphysical materialist position.


Quote:I'm not talking about acting on instinct, but how as the unconscious is able to bring things forth into consciousness without us being aware that they are.

Yes, like one of these:

[Image: 7156j6GRG-L._AC_UL320_SR254,320_.jpg]

When we press on the board, images or words can appear due to the substance underneath, but if we lift the top layer, the images vanish, but are still imprinted on the bottom layer. See my take on writing above. This is what Derrida refers to as 'the trace'.

Quote:But equilibrium is rarely achieved. And the sad fact is that reality consists of an endless cycle of inexorable opposites. Life is a battleground, it always has been, and always will be. If it were not - it would come to an end! ;P

I said stability, not equilibrium - you can have a stable system but have inequality - our current economy is perhaps the most glaring example. The language is the language of battle and that is the stability, but in the battle there is no equilibrium.

Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-22-2016, 05:51 AM
Post: #13
(12-20-2016 02:36 AM)Ontical Wrote:  [A true 'I' must have sensation and emotions, in my opinion.

Quote:
I suggest that this will not happen until some actual human person merges with the machine, and then will provide the "I".


I think it's already happened - the machine is language.

Quote:
And this thought is interesting as it then suggests that we ourselves may just be "meat machines" with something that has our "I" and is merged into us. Which further suggests that the "I" is something wholly "Other".

Yes, which is why I said we are nothing more than an ingestion of the world around us, but this is hardly insignificant. By placing the focus on writing as a materialist form of language that is outside of our consciousness, inside and outside distinctions simply dissolve.

This:
I think it's already happened - the machine is language.

That is a most excellent point! 1 point for Gryffindor!

Magic: When you pull a rabbit out of a hat...
Magick: When the rabbit pulls you out of a hat...
In either case, you should keep a jaundiced eye on that hat...
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-22-2016, 10:50 PM (This post was last modified: 12-23-2016 02:24 AM by Ontical.)
Post: #14
Haha, it's definitely an amazing point of view. I only recently got into Lacan and Derrida and they are absolutely amazing, they truly bridge the gap between philosophy and art. Check out Marshall McLuhan too, as he does something similar with language, but he uses the term 'medium' instead of signs.

More on writing as a theory of language : http://wizardforums.com/Thread-Language-as-Writing

Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-17-2017, 12:08 AM (This post was last modified: 01-17-2017 12:35 AM by Ontical.)
Post: #15




Go to around 32:50 for the interview with Jacques Lacan where he talks about the Unconscious is structured like a language. It's important to note the emphasis on a in the sentence, he says it is structured like a language.

Lacan is a cool customer too, if you watch the whole video, you will see moment during a public lecture where a young man pours flour and water all over his desk in a protest, he then gives a speech that sounds like some Situationist International ideas about how society is a spectacle.

Lacan doesn't lose his cool, but the young man who protests during the talk to call for a 'revolution', then spills the flour and water all over Lacan's nice shirt and tie! It's hilarious.

Anyway, back to the point. When Lacan says it is structured like a language, he means a kind of semiotic system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Auto-Hypnosis and Ritual Magick heavymetal_alchemist 10 341 05-08-2017 02:48 AM
Last Post: Blujuwel
  Derrida | World as language Ontical 0 182 01-03-2017 06:25 AM
Last Post: Ontical
  Language as Writing Ontical 0 205 12-23-2016 01:46 AM
Last Post: Ontical
  Language Philosophy tatdur 1 287 12-01-2016 12:41 AM
Last Post: Ontical
  Language as Physical Reality tatdur 0 290 07-21-2016 06:23 AM
Last Post: tatdur

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)