non sum

[stilltrucking]

We remain of necessity strangers to ourselves, we do not understand ourselves ... furthest from himself," — with respect to ourselves we are not "knowers"

Freud claimed he was not familiar with NIettzsche. It seems unlikely to me.

Freud provided useful tools for understanding the secret desires of the masses.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6413643126#

I would call it an example of sorrowful wisdom.

[Non Sum]

ST: Here is an example I would give of sorrowful wisdom, the insights of Freud the archeologist of our souls and how they have been used to mold public opinion.

NS: What has the (mostly discredited) ramblings of Sigmund, and his 'armchair science' got to do with "wisdom"?

It is indeed "sorrowful" that fools can come into fashion, and pass off their delusions as wisdom. Modern psych has rejected him, as science always has, and with many in the profession considering him little more than a charlatan.

[stilltrucking]

If you want to know check out the video.

Okay

[stilltrucking]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6413643126#

check it out

Non Sum wrote:

Isn’t it a famous French engineering maxim: “Sure, it works in practice, but will it work in theory?”

That is the pity of Freud.

[Non Sum]

ST: check it out

NS: Please, do not take offense, ST, but I never listen to web audios, or watch web videos. I got into the habit from years with dialup impatience, and, while my current costly satellite server is a lot faster, its download speeds have yet to exceed my level of impatience. I can read much faster than people usually speak. So, I cannot forsee a time when I'd rather watch & listen (regardless of download speeds) than simply read it.

For your generous forbearance, have another Thoreau:
"Time is but the stream I go a-fishing in."

[stilltrucking]

"Isn’t it a famous French engineering maxim: “Sure, it works in practice, but will it work in theory?”

[Non Sum]

St: compared to what?

NS: ?

[stilltrucking]

Not sure I understand your question. Kansas? Or maybe the 22 nd letter of the Greek alphabet.

[Non Sum]

My mistaken read of your signature line's: "Compared to what?"
I thought you were making an actual inquiry of some sort. Please disregard.
Warmest regards, NS (Non Sequitur)

[stilltrucking]

Back at you Non Sum
Yes I know
Time is money
Sorry you did not have the time to watch the video

For manifestly you have long been aware of what you mean when you use the expressing ‘being.’ We however, who used to think we understood it, have now become perplexed.

“the bewildered herd” reply to Non Sum
Picture of Freud’s den





He liked tshatshke(s)

Try to
Think of him as an armchair cultural anthropologist
I can see that you are a no nonsense kind of guy
Only the facts jack, hard science only
Hmmm
Well okay
Yes we are rugged individualists you and I
We were not born to follow “the bewildered herd”
After Nietzsche
After Freud
So many acronyms for these post modern days
B.C. and A.D. don’t cut it anymore
We could use B.G. and A.G.
Before and after Godot.



Yes we are rugged individualists you and I
We were not born to follow “the bewildered herd”


I might re-title this thread
To Latin and other dead languages.
As my old classics professor would call out in despair when translating a bit of lyric poetry from the ancient tongue .

“What an enemy we have in Greek”

Thank for the modulation
"like a chess game with someone you admire"
If I get the chance I will try Thoreau again.
sincerely
jt

[Non Sum]

ST: Sorry you did not have the time to watch the video

NS: “Time” is not the issue. At my age, time’s not much of anything. I lack the virtue ‘patience,’ along with most of the other deadly virtues.

Fascinating pix! Freud’s den is … is … What the hell is it?

ST: He liked tshatshke(s)

NS: Googled that sucker. It’s either ‘young girls,’ or ‘trinkets.’

ST: Try to
Think of him as an armchair cultural anthropologist

NS: Okay. A safer methodology than doing anthro field work, I’m sure.

St: I can see that you are a no nonsense kind of guy
Only the facts jack, hard science only

NS: Not at all. Far from it. More, ‘hard mysticism,’ and other such nonsense.

ST: Yes we are rugged individualists you and I

NS: How do you figure that?

ST: We were not born to follow “the bewildered herd”

NS: I’ve always managed being “bewildered” on my own.

ST: We could use B.G. and A.G.
Before and after Godot.

NS: Works for me.

ST: If I get the chance I will try Thoreau again.

NS: I hope that you do. There’s a good deal of similarity between him and his friend (fellow transcendentalist) Emerson. Your friend, Nietzsche, I understand, enjoyed Emerson.

”The philosopher, as a man indispensable for tomorrow and the day after the morrow, has ever found himself, and has been obliged to find himself, in contradiction to the day in which he lives; his enemy has always been the ideal of his day.” (Nietzsche)

[stilltrucking]

Stalemate. If you ever watch the video please let me know.
Adam Curtis did an amazing job with archival footage from the BBC library. Millions of miles of film at his disposal
You ask me to defend this

For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

I tried




The pictures are from Freud' office and collection is preserved as a museum
http://www.freud.org.uk/

Poor old Freud
doctor assisted suicide
I think maybe
it weren't the cancer
or the cigar is a cigar
it was despair that drove him to it
Vanity of Vanities.

[Non Sum]

ST: I tried

NS: Did you? Not in my eyes.
You go to a "discussion" in order to be linked to videos, do you? If this vid has 'meaningful content,' then what prevents you from digesting that meaning, in the informative service of self and others, for later summation & regurgitation. Did your college papers do no more than simply send the reader to your sources? Am I not worth 'Your' effort, rather than my own alone?

I've seen many other posters fill their posts with links, as if to say: "go read this article I (not you) think you should read, watch this video in place of 'my own' response to 'your own question to me,' expend 'your' patience downloading and listening to somebody you never wanted to hear in lieu of my actually bothering to answer you."

You are certainly welcome to draw, and support, 'your' responses from any source(s) you wish, but why should I do the work for you? If you have something to say, then say it. If only your source has something to say, then 'you' take an effort to read it until you can make something of it that is your own to give. That is when you can truly say, "I tried."
NS (Neural Substitution)

[stilltrucking]

Well I have failed in your eyes.
Oh my
Lions and tigers and bears.
Were do we take if from here?
Like I said I was thinking of re-titling this thread
But I can't
Seems not the right thing to do.
Leaves all the replies out of context sort of
and not fair to you.

Freud the most influential thinker of the 20th century. The genie is out of the bottle the damage done. I can only hope we will move beyond him in the 21st He only came into this discussion because you did not like my choice of quotes from Ecclesiastes

If the 19th century is to be governed by the opinions of the 18th and the 20th by the 19th, the world will always be governed by dead men.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Bernays is Freud's nephew. He learned a lot from his uncle. So did Joseph Goebbels.

Walter Lippmann's book, Public Opinion, published in 1922, detailed the study in which he and Edward Bernays were involved while in London during the First World War. It had to do with painting pictures inside people's heads, which were cunningly and deliberately designed by expert craftsmen to mislead not only individuals but entire societies.

Edward Bernays also produced a book, Crystallizing Public Opinion, and in 1928 published a sequel to the first appropriately entitled Propaganda. His helpmate in this endeavor was the master manipulator and historian, H.G. Wells...
http://www.real-debt-elimination.com/re ... f_spin.htm

See Also:

Edward Bernays bragged that his book "The Crystalization of Public Opinion" was prominently displayed in Goebbels private office.
The war for your mind!!!!!

Yes I think Ecclesiastes said it well.
The Adam Curtis's video is very interesting. Almost as interesting as Bowling For Columbine

For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Thanks for playing.
My father {Crazy Mike) once played the great Bobby Fischer to a drawl in a tournament. They say paranoid people make the best chess players.
He taught me to play when I was very young, he would play me with his back turned to the board. He had the whole thing in his head. I was so afraid of him I could not concentrate.

In my father's pain and suffering he turned to a study of Freud. My father (aka Crazy Mike) was a dangerous man of a little knowledge. He knew my fears so well. But I hardly see or smell the dead rats with maggots anymore.

In round 1 of the 1956 US Amateur Championship, Fischer drew with Michael Tilles. ...United States Chess Federation


I would never brought Freud into this if you had not found fault with that quote from Ecclesiastes.

Thanks for playing.
sincerely
jt

[Non Sum]

ST: Thanks for playing.

NS: Et tu ST

I do in fact see a good argument being advanced on your side, whether intentionally, or not:

Bringing in Siggy makes the valid point that, ‘wisdom,’ and those considered to be its wise providers, are estimations residing within the eye of a beholder.

The Ecclesiastes quote, coming from a source that I too consider to be ‘wise,’ makes the point that, even the agreed upon providers of wisdom are capable of messing it up sometimes. (Socrates also does that often, imo.) And the additional point that, again, one man’s wisdom is another’s folly.

All salient, and valid, points. Which indicates to my hedonic self that, the ‘wisdom’ that I personally hold as being such must include the quality of increasing happiness. Failing that essential (to me) quality, I fail to see how the label of ‘wisdom’ could ever be applied(?).

I like the Einstein cartoon, but, of course, mathematics and theoretical physics, do not ‘require’ effective practical applications like clinical psychology does.
Be well, NS