I would like to explore an idea. The mind has pre-set variables, which seek to attach themselves to some value. In other words, there are pre-defined 'types' of meaning, and the mind seeks out something to fill in those slots. The mind takes in meaning as they relate to these variables. And when 'values' are inputted for all of these variables, a model for reality is created. And it is through these variables that we understand and perceive this reality. We are often very attached to the values we input for these variables. But we lose sight of the fact that it IS a variable. Any specific value for the variable is not primary, it is the variable itself, the 'type' of meaning which seeks out some value that is primary. It is these variables which are universal to us all, and they are the collective unconscious itself. Specific values of, our use of, and the meaning we give, these variables within our own minds, pool into the collective unconscious. And it is through this pooling of the multitude of specific values we all give them, that the archetypes, symbolic personifications of these variables, expand. These variables are not just random. They are built on an implicit pattern in reality, and the consciousness of it, itself. This is what is called the divine mind, of which the individual mind is a microcosm. The divine mind is the container of those variables, in away the variables themselves. We give expression to these variables, archetypes, through our personal specifics. But they are the same variables, the same archetypes, regardless of where they are given expression and meaning.
The word "variables" should be the word "instincts". Instincts vary a lot. Archetypes are implemented constructs of instincts that have taken experiential form in the unconscious, maybe the conscious too. Value is relative to survival, then evolution, then ultimate fulfillment. Happiness is a contemplative medium where value can be accurately known. Try re writing with those terms positioned appropriately and more definition may be produced.
Well, what you're saying is good, but I was saying something different. Variables exactly describes what I was trying to say. Think of an equation with variables. The variable is associated with a particular unit of measure, though it can have any value. But no matter what value it has, it is going to have that unit of measure, thus have that particular meaning. That is what I am saying. The mind has pre-disposed types of meaning which it can give, like variables in an equation, which all information it receives is processed through. These variables are given particular values by the individuals, but the variables, the type of information, the 'units of measurement,' are pre-existing in all human minds.
Hmmm, Journey seems to have a penchant for switching apples and oranges, context etc. Now we are looking at left and right brain issues, Which are related, but need context to be related to instincts, and they are separate.
I'm pretty sure "instincts" and "intuitions" are no different... Both are internal, and can be, for the most part, but not wholly, inculcated.
Intuitions are right brain products that have nothing to do with cognition, but might be well cognited. Instincts are phylogenetic DNA. Surely effected by inculcation, but maybe not. Main Entry: in·cul·cate Pronunciation: \\in-ˈkÉ™l-ËŒkÄt, ˈin-(ËŒ)\\ Function: verb Inflected Form(s): in·cul·cat·ed; in·cul·cat·ing Etymology: Latin inculcatus, past participle of inculcare, literally, to tread on, from in- + calcare to trample, from calc-, calx heel Date: 1539 transitive verb : to teach and impress by frequent repetitions or admonitions
Cognition is intuitive. What are you talking about? I think you're confusing the term "intuition" with "imagination"; but, still, imagination is cogitative. If you say that instincts are derivative of DNA, because our nature, our instinctual nature, is pretty much a product of biological hard-wiring, then, the same stands for intuition, because how one animal intuits reality, as opposed to another animal, has to do with said animal's brain chemistry and physiological structure, that is to say, their DNA (or hard-wiring).
So, cognition occurs outside of a subject's head? Lol You'll have to provide a link proving that. For what, for proving that thought occurs inside of a person's mind, and not outside? Lol, are you one of the types who only believes something because it's stated in some textbook (or some "credible" authority)?
http://janeadamsart.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/zodiac-wheel-cosmic-clock-by-halevi.jpg There are no standards to it, it is free-flowing. Take Cancer for example, what traits does it share with Gemini or Leo? Does it share any with Capricorn? What about Libra, or Aries?
Your response confounds cognition because you misrepresent my response. I've said nothing about inside or outside. These are people that agree with me. https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120615073454AAFb3Sx
Okay, so those people, on a random yahoo page, agree with you, and? Yet, note what that first guy said... "I spose it varies depending on the context its being used in" But, this all, and the inaccuracy of that link, stems from the misunderstanding, and a lack of critical examantion, of what thought (or "cognition") is. What is thought (or "cognition") other than the combining and re-combining, that is, the synthesis of ideas? What are ideas? Perceptual content. What's perceptual content? Intuition What's intuition? Subjective phenomena. What are intuitions and instincts? SUBJECTIVE.
RIght, lay persons with some knowledge. After one quick search following you stating that I was getting info from textbooks, and you havn't come up with a link yet supporting your position. Uh, really. And you expect me to answer your questions?
I'm pretty sure that I don't need a textbook to prove that "instincts" and "intuitions" are both internal phenomena... and that thought is a form of intuition (intuitive perception). P.S. Notice the prefix for both of those words... in-stincts... in-tuitions.
You're not alone OP. I can not find one thing you said here to be not possible. It's all fact that anything is possible. The divine mind = fact. All the probabilities under it are equal. That is extremely clever to say variables, because the word variable implies no meaning. Reality also = 100% fact because real must be 100%
I'm done with you. Originally your tried to say that they were the same, I said they are not. Now you are trying to say that I've said they are not internal.