Theory of Human Experience

[Kai]

I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.

Yes.

There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."

Interesting, can you evidence that claim?

It depends on the jurisdiction. 

'k...

So what does that mean, exactly?

That human experience should be taken by situation rather than grafting on stereotypes.

Easier said, we rely on schemas perhaps more than even PDcom readers may think.  Without them, we would spend too much time trying to interpret fairly obvious things.  Like on 23AE, Cain Aierte's post about accepting the obvious?

Anyway, that's more of a value judgement on what people should do, and the thing I'm working on is more a means of encapsulating and illustrating what it is to be human.

And the schemas "depend on the jurisdiction".

Why would you want to encapsulate it?

They don't.  The schemas we have depend on specific causalities, such as preexisting values and attitudes, and previous experience.

So, you are saying that every situation should be met the same way?

[Jasper]

I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.

Yes.

There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."

Interesting, can you evidence that claim?

It depends on the jurisdiction. 

'k...

So what does that mean, exactly?

That human experience should be taken by situation rather than grafting on stereotypes.

Easier said, we rely on schemas perhaps more than even PDcom readers may think.  Without them, we would spend too much time trying to interpret fairly obvious things.  Like on 23AE, Cain Aierte's post about accepting the obvious?

Anyway, that's more of a value judgement on what people should do, and the thing I'm working on is more a means of encapsulating and illustrating what it is to be human.

And the schemas "depend on the jurisdiction".

Why would you want to encapsulate it?

They don't.  The schemas we have depend on specific causalities, such as preexisting values and attitudes, and previous experience.

So, you are saying that every situation should be met the same way?

That's absurd.  I'm saying that schemas are dynamic patterns that we preconsciously apply to model the world we live in.  They are cognitive shortcuts that change a little every time they're used; either to become more absolute or different in some way based on new feedback.

[Kai]

That YOU apply to the world we live in. For example, I don't make decisions within seven breaths, nor do I think most decisions should be made that quickly. That's your model, not mine. All or nothing statements are pretty useless when applied to humans, or living organisms in general.

Thus, it depends on the jurisdiction.

[Kai]

Different jurisdictions have different cultures. 

And different individuals have different emotional states at different times and every situation has it's own circustances.


Things sorta have to be on a "per individual" basis, except when they aren't, and that again depends on the situation and circumstances, aka the jurisdiction.

[Reginald Ret]

I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.

Yes.

There is only one statement that works for all of human experience. And that is, "It depends on the jurisdiction."

I have another one:  "It's more complicated than that."

Yes.

I often want to scream this at people.

[Golden Applesauce]

Funny how people start ignoring my posts whenever I have valid points.

I'll have something as a response in a little bit later - off to class.

[LMNO]

I have valid points.

[Jasper]

I disagree with both of your propositions. Especially the second one.

And you make so many valid points.

I wish I could be like you.  I wish I could post a shitty one-liner and claim victory. 

Fuck you.

[Kai]

The problem is that you've failed to provide evidence for your points. LMNO is perfectly within his bounds to simply disagree.

[Jasper]

The problem is that you've failed to provide evidence for your points. LMNO is perfectly within his bounds to simply disagree.

I have spent this whole thread defending my claims.  That wasn't what I wanted for this thread.  This thread was started in hopes of improving what I had, which involves replacing bad ideas with good ideas.  So far, all anyone has offered is "your ideas are bad".

Your "jurisdiction" argument lacks strength because it doesn't explain anything.

[Golden Applesauce]

The problem is that you've failed to provide evidence for your points. LMNO is perfectly within his bounds to simply disagree.

I have spent this whole thread defending my claims.  That wasn't what I wanted for this thread.  This thread was started in hopes of improving what I had, which involves replacing bad ideas with good ideas.  So far, all anyone has offered is "your ideas are bad".

I (and I think that a couple of others posting in this thread) think coming up with a simple set of statements that describes all of human experience in a useful way is flat out impossible.  Here's something I posted a little while back explaining my position on this.

1. Discordianism recognizes that the universe is a lot more confusing, bizarre, and complicated than we like to pretend.
2. Discordianism recognizes that people are a lot more confusing, bizarre, and complicated than we like to pretend.
3. Attempts to simplify the world and the people in it can be useful in some circumstances and necessary in others, but one must always be careful to distinguish these simplifications from the world itself (if there is a world distinct from our understanding of it).  We can talk about people in terms of Discordians and Cabbages, Perverts and Normals, Wardens and Inmates, or whatever the dichotomy du jour is, but that's just a way of talking - people are infinitely weirder than that.  Likewise, there is more to the world than Black Iron Prisions, Horrible Truths, Emergent Systems, Rational Thought, and whatever other superstitions you believe in.
4. ANY attempt to describe or explain any significant part of the world in a countable number of statements is either wrong (e.g., "There are two kinds of people...") or doesn't actually explain anything (e.g., "The universe is composed of Chaos.")

Your "jurisdiction" argument lacks strength because it doesn't explain anything.

This is true.  Frankly I'm not sure what Kai is going on about here, other than saying "it depends."

Breath control is the key to a great deal of human nature.

3.  Breath control is what gives us the ability to use language.  Trufact.  Without it, we would not be able to make word sounds properly.  Breath control demonstrates a level of self-awareness and bodily control that is unique to thinking animals.  Dolphins do it too, so it's not *uniquely* human, but it is definitely not common among animals.  Breathing is linked to a lot of preconscious systems, such as our moods, level of arousal, and psychological state.  Try altering the way you breathe and see how it affects you sometime, there is interesting stuff there.  Breath manipulation techniques span the gamut of human experience, from yogic practices, singing, speaking, and even autoerotic asphyxiation.   So yes, a huge theme in human experience is breath control.

Is breath control interesting?  Yes. Is it a "key" to human nature?  I dunno.  It's true that breathing differently affects your moods (and the moods of  those around you) in ways that are interesting and not necessarily obvious - but I wouldn't count that as "key to a great deal of human nature" any more than any other physiological process is "key to a great deal of human nature."  It's certainly an element of human experience, and it informs other elements of human experience (like singing, as you mentioned,) but just from being told about breath control you wouldn't be able to deduce the incredible psychological effects of singing and chanting together - and in fact I'm not sure what you could deduce other than "humans have a way (breath control) to influence their own mental state."  Perhaps simply "Humans can influence their own mental state" as a more general statement?

(BTW, breath control isn't required for language use - it may be necessary for spoken and sung communication, but quite unnecessary for signed or written languages.)

1. Agonizing over all the possible options rarely makes for good decisions that you might not have made in the heat of the moment.  Read "Blink" by Gladwell.

1. Ive taken months to make some decisions; that gave me time to research my options, to actually base my decision on knowledge, rather than "intuition".

Sure, you can make just about any decision in seven breaths or less, but should you?  I've heard of Blink before, and there is research to suggest many kinds of decisions are made in the first X seconds and that thinking about them longer doesn't do much more than justify the decision you already made... but not all of them.  Setting aside the class of problems JohnNyx alluded to (those where just acquiring relevant information takes longer than however many seconds), there are decisions so complicated that just explaining what you've decided takes longer than seven breaths ("We've decided to organize our business model in this fashion...") and a large number where it takes far, far longer than seven breaths just to consider all the reasonable possibilities - or even to recognize them all.

The human condition*.
* Being the set of all conditions and experiences that are uniquely human.

If you accept "the human condition" as a legitimate descriptor of the human condition, why do you need to have the other ones?

Maybe impulse control is a broader more relevant category?

Sure, but the only problem there is that impulse control is so variable from one person to a next - some people manage to censor every course of action they come up with, while others go to the other extreme of doing everything that pops into their mind (I'm thinking of some pretty extreme ADHD kids I've met.)

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Trying to explain human nature in a few lines makes one of those quantums thingies.  They change their behavior as soon as you describe it.

Because they're asshats.

[Jasper]

The problem is that you've failed to provide evidence for your points. LMNO is perfectly within his bounds to simply disagree.

I have spent this whole thread defending my claims.  That wasn't what I wanted for this thread.  This thread was started in hopes of improving what I had, which involves replacing bad ideas with good ideas.  So far, all anyone has offered is "your ideas are bad".

I (and I think that a couple of others posting in this thread) think coming up with a simple set of statements that describes all of human experience in a useful way is flat out impossible.  Here's something I posted a little while back explaining my position on this.

1. Discordianism recognizes that the universe is a lot more confusing, bizarre, and complicated than we like to pretend.
2. Discordianism recognizes that people are a lot more confusing, bizarre, and complicated than we like to pretend.
3. Attempts to simplify the world and the people in it can be useful in some circumstances and necessary in others, but one must always be careful to distinguish these simplifications from the world itself (if there is a world distinct from our understanding of it).  We can talk about people in terms of Discordians and Cabbages, Perverts and Normals, Wardens and Inmates, or whatever the dichotomy du jour is, but that's just a way of talking - people are infinitely weirder than that.  Likewise, there is more to the world than Black Iron Prisions, Horrible Truths, Emergent Systems, Rational Thought, and whatever other superstitions you believe in.
4. ANY attempt to describe or explain any significant part of the world in a countable number of statements is either wrong (e.g., "There are two kinds of people...") or doesn't actually explain anything (e.g., "The universe is composed of Chaos.")

I'm willing to consider that the premise may be too strongly stated.  I'll rethink it.

My breath control statements come from my chat dialogues with LHX from 2007 and earlier and a conversation I had with Telarus last year at KCon.  It's kind of difficult to describe accurately & convincingly, but I feel strongly that breath control has a lot to do with what it is to be human.

If you accept "the human condition" as a legitimate descriptor of the human condition, why do you need to have the other ones?

Because (sigh) it is more complicated (nuanced) than that. 

My inspiration for this was the neuroscientist Dr. Ramachandran, who said

It is ironic that most scientific discoveries come not from brandishing (or sharpening)
Occam's razor — despite the view to the contrary held by the great majority of scientists and
philosophers — but from generating seemingly ad hoc and ontologically promiscuous conjectures
which are not called for by the current data.

[Dimocritus]

I AM MY OWN JURISDICTION

or maybe

"Be your own jurisdiction."

Either way, this:

Trying to explain human nature in a few lines makes one of those quantums thingies.  They change their behavior as soon as you describe it.

Because they're asshats.

and this:

I have another one:  "It's more complicated than that."

[Fuquad]

Asthmatics are not human.

Fact.