Body-mind Quickie from wiki: “A symbol is something such as an object, picture, written word, sound, or particular mark that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention. For example, a red octagon may stand for "STOP". On maps, crossed sabers may indicate a battlefield. Numerals are symbols for numbers. All language consists of symbols. The word "cat" is not a cat, but represents the idea of a cat. Psychology has found that people, and even animals, can respond to symbols as if they were the objects they represent. Pavlov's dogs salivated when they heard a sound which they associated with food, even if there was no food.” Nixon said “I am not a crook”, immediately everyone thought of Nixon as a crook. “I am pro-life” and everyone thinks of me as a person who has great respect for life. “I am pro-choice” and everyone thinks of me as a person who has great regard for freedom of choice. “Don’t think of an elephant” and everyone starts thinking about an elephant. When I speak of mind almost everyone thinks of a stand alone entity functioning in a logical manner in which the body is merely a house for its place of habitation until death, at which time it, sometimes called the soul, floats away to a spiritual kingdom. I have coined the word body-mind, which I first discovered by reading Mark Johnson’s book The Meaning of the Body, because I wish the reader to think not of the mind as a separate entity residing in the body but because I want the reader to think of a body-mind gestalt. That is to say that the mind is an embodied mind, which cannot stand alone just as the heart cannot stand alone with the body bracketed. Quickie from Wiki: “The psychologist, Carl Jung, who studied archetypes, proposed an alternative definition of symbol, distinguishing it from the term "sign". In Jung's view, a sign stands for something known, as a word stands for its referent. He contrasted this with symbol, which he used to stand for something that is unknown and that cannot be made clear or precise.”
Everyone? Almost everyone? A bit sort of grade school simplistic, don't you think? Oh, sorry. You don't think, do you?
Coberst you are not a critical thinker. You read and you read and you read. You absorb information by the bucket load, but you then regurgitate it and pretend it is somehow the product of your critical thought process. When someone actually critically analyses your observations in an incisive way you respond with a childish jibe at them, calling their thinking simplistic, sophomoric, thoughtless. Mirror, mirror on the wall! If you truly could engage in critical thinking you could have extensive and meaningful debates with those persons. (But wait, you are so much superior to them, the great unenlighted, who lack your insights derived from self actualising critical thinking.) This spewing forth of 'reviews' of what you have read, coupled with the great reluctance to participate in the consequent debate is nothing more than public masturbation on your part. It isn't edifying, it isn't attractive. If you truly were a critical thinker you would find a quality discussion in this forum (there are a few) or on another forum (there are many) and there you would engage with the other participants, without pushing your agenda, without your laughable, smugly complacent misplaced sense of superiority. Will it ever happen? I doubt you have the courage. Coberst, you are running out of time.
