# Can you distinguish between spirit of what was said and it's conceptual content?



## Who'sWho (Dec 22, 2020)

Ok, a wierd question that needs elaboration. Personally, I feel like everybody around me is clueless about the distinction of the two.

Basically, by spirit I mean a certain psychological/spiritual makeup that predetermines someones (or collectives) reaction to a phenomena that, only after the fact, finds it's idea structure to express itself in, and by doing so distorts or largely reframes what it is all about. Also, that usually, contradictions of someones worldview or ideology dont come only from bad logic but also conflicting spiritual makeup?

It's difficult to state examples because the detection of 'spirit' has more to do with the feel you get of the person, and their cumulative emotional character. But some of the more obvious examples - I could easily detect is someone advocating for anarchism because a) they have highly egalitarian, individualistic minds, or b) they are afraid of the abuse of power, or c) they want to destroy the existing hierarchy because it doesn't serve their selfish interests, or whatever other reasons might be.

Another example would be if someone says "you should live your life to the fullest", I could usually sense if a person is saying it because they don't want to accept resposibility, or if they are just trying to motivate somebody, or they are naturally full of energy and are kind of sad that others are not exploring the world as much as they are.

I noticed people are rarely aware of such nuances, and they tend to gravitate towards people who say things they conceptually approve of, and think of them as kindred spirits, even though the spirit that guided them towards such conceptions is totally different.


----------



## impulsenine (Oct 18, 2020)

Oh yeaaaaahhhhh!
Uhhhh
Oohhh
Ahhhh
OH YESSSS!
TRUE!

You mean, like, 5 people can say exactly the same thing but refer to 5 different things? Normal. Yes, I have thought about that many times. Especially when I was not understood by others.

People when they hear something said by someone they rarely try to understand what that person meant.
What he really meant.

They associate what they know about what they hear (information, emotions, previous memories), about the words.

Or they think depending on what is hidden in them ... subconsciously. Hidden desires etc.

For example, when you tell me "you should live your life to the fullest" I think that I should take more opportunities and that when they do not exist: I have to build them myself. Because that's how I have built the mindset about this stuff.

YOU KNOW? THAT'S ABOUT ME! I didn't give a shit about why you said it.
Because I transpose my own perspective on it and that's what matters for me (in this context)
I actually interpreted those words that way: "what would I mean if I said that to someone"?


But if you tell me in a broader context ... I will try to understand what you mean, what it means to you. And if I don't find out and I'm really interested in finding out ... I ask you. I ask for additional information.

But do you know what's cool? That's good sometimes. That people do not try to see what you said but they interpret it as they want. Because sometimes you say something with a purpose and people (if they have a more optimistic / positive perspective) will try to give it a positive image of what you said. Or if they are more melancholic and negative, as well.
A negativist.

Words are not so important when it comes to communication. When you want to send a message you don't have to rely only on words. There are many other important things. One of them is the emotion you convey.

That's what I understood from what you said (in fact, if I made an extra effort I could limit myself strictly to what you meant, but as you can see: I started from what you said ... your words, and I arrived in a direction that suits me, close to my nature).

Another example of something similar to this situation is when at an oral exam you don't really know the subject but you manage to say something interesting but very slightly wrong ... and the teacher sometimes feels the need to correct you (because you only made a nuanced mistake) and he gets to talk more than you and in the end he gives you a good grade because he has the feeling that you knew, you gave him the opportunity to manifest, he has some emotions on this topic and he doesn't know if he knew all that shit or you - if he created those emotions or you created for him.
And he practically gives his grade ... but he gives it to you.

People are generally superficial when it comes to words. That's why you sometimes have to see what "tickles" with someone and go on that pattern in order for effective communication to take place. Sometimes human conversations are like psychotherapy: I just help you find out your answers on your own. I don't propagate much. I especially felt this thing with people who have developed Fe. 

Well, I went far from the original subject, I think.


----------



## Who'sWho (Dec 22, 2020)

Yeah, I was speaking about those things as well as some other related phenomena. Partially, I think this is correlated to IQ and working memory. Because it can get really complex to factor in all the informaiton in order to get a feel of the nuance of what was said, it's hard to "read between the lines". I do most of it subconsciously, yet it obviously takes energy. 

Partially, I think this is related to self-knowledge. The more somebody is deluding themselves about who they are, they are far more likely to misunderstand other people's hearts. Partially, it's the opposite - misunderstanding can stem from myopic perspective that thinks everybody else is the same as they are.

Spirit and ideas compound on each other, and have a complex relationship. Spirit affect Spirit, ideas affect ideas, spirit affect ideas and ideas affect spirit. Not only are ideas often motivated by hidden subconsicous drive, often new ideas produce a change in spirit, for example, when it shattered some belief a person took dear. Or, when an idea awakens a part of ourselves that was dormant or neglected, so now this different drive or energy fights with the "old self" - for example, someone starts learning about biology, and science-popularizers imbue into their biology documentary a certain kind of spirit of freedom. Being affected with that spirit, somebody might become more libertarian, even though mythochondria and property rights don't have anything to do with each other.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

Yes, I do it all the time, but it gets very annoying when the extent of its influence isn't realized/ignored by those who chose to mask behind logic and sell it. Like a malicious piece of code in the software designed to integrate itself into my 'spirit'/psyche.
Recurring idealists with their ontological "proofs" of God, I think, can serve as an extreme example of that.


----------



## Who'sWho (Dec 22, 2020)

Allostasis said:


> Yes, I do it all the time, but it gets very annoying when the extent of its influence isn't realized/ignored by those who chose to mask behind logic and sell it. Like a malicious piece of code in the software designed to integrate itself into my 'spirit'/psyche.
> Recurring idealists with their ontological "proofs" of God, I think, can serve as an extreme example of that.


Even though I'm a theist I agree that people who flaunt around with ontological proofs of God are a good example of what I was talking about. There is a lot of dishonesty in apologists.


----------



## superloco3000 (Dec 15, 2017)

Who'sWho said:


> Even though I'm a theist I agree that people who flaunt around with ontological proofs of God are a good example of what I was talking about. There is a lot of dishonesty in apologists.


I have studied a lot of occultism, most modern logic people just use poor arguments about God and other spiritual realms, which may seem correct from the mind of a logical child, but is totally wrong if we study the real meaning of the problem.

For example, the real meaning of the Trinity that is present in many cultures around the world is: the father the mind, the mother the emotions and the child the action. 
I mean ... we are in a psychology forum and we still use God as a physical thing, but actually Carl Jung already explained that religious ideologies are in the psyche , because he studied occultism to create his new reinterpretation of the problem. 
So yeah ... most people who can't understand the real meaning that religions are an abstract interpretation of our psyche have no idea about religions. Trying to explain religions using physics is just a waste of time and a great limitation. The same thing happens in another way, trying to explain the laws of physics using religions is totally wrong too.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Who'sWho said:


> Also, that usually, contradictions of someones worldview or ideology dont come only from bad logic but also conflicting spiritual makeup?


Reason is the outcome of a proper emotional mindset and logical fallacies just as many ways to drift away from it. For example an argument ad populum is the heuristic stage of one's urge to hoard and breed.

The fallacies one indulges in are telling everything about one's dominating life drives, survival strategies, and the mindset that ensues. No logical error is ever random or artificial.

Since most people juggle with concepts that are emotional outlets to them, it is certainly useful to distinguish the concept from the motive, however I'd say that it's not anodyne that those people in particular have been attracted to this concept in particular. When a concept allows certain fallacies to creep in easily, I'd argue that it has been built to be compatible in the first place and what seems like a broad range of secondary motives weren't disconnected from the begining of its conceptualization.


----------



## Who'sWho (Dec 22, 2020)

IDontThinkSo said:


> Reason is the outcome of a proper emotional mindset and logical fallacies just as many ways to drift away from it. For example an argument ad populum is the heuristic stage of one's urge to hoard and breed.
> 
> The fallacies one indulges in are telling everything about one's dominating life drives, survival strategies, and the mindset that ensues. No logical error is ever random or artificial.
> 
> Since most people juggle with concepts that are emotional outlets to them, it is certainly useful to distinguish the concept from the motive, however I'd say that it's not anodyne that those people in particular have been attracted to this concept in particular. When a concept allows certain fallacies to creep in easily, I'd argue that it has been built to be compatible in the first place and what seems like a broad range of secondary motives weren't disconnected from the begining of its conceptualization.


I loved reading this!


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

IDontThinkSo said:


> Reason is the outcome of a proper emotional mindset and logical fallacies just as many ways to drift away from it. *For example an argument ad populum is the heuristic stage of one's urge to hoard and breed*.


I don't understand the leap in the bolded. If anything, ad populum should be mapped to having a tribal mentality. While I don't disagree that logical fallacies can come from assorted individual biases that source from underpinning issues, they can also come from by rote vomit.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

The motivation to use and sustain an ad populum/frequentia in a debate is drawn from an emotional circuit that was built around applications of this survival strategy (outnumbering) that predate language and intelligence. Breeding is the fundamental application that conditionned the perpetuation of such strategy, hence people rarely have sex to socialize ; they socialize to have sex. And they argue ad populum to socialize.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Not breeding, survival, since humans are the least adept at surviving on our own. We have no natural defenses against any externalities and can't even hunt without assistance. We're slow, clumsy, have dull teeth, have no claws, are inflexible, have no fur or armor, are small and are physically weak. We can't even digest cellulose so there's very limited flora we can consume. So we clump together like kitty litter to overwhelm obstacles aka tribalism.


----------



## Sidhe Draoi (Nov 25, 2016)

So much so its nerve-wracking for everyone involved, including me. maybe especially me.
i love words, eytymologies, word-play, and i also have a strong grip on psychological motivations, to name a few things that bring insight to my understanding of other people as well as myself.

my issue is i tend to ignore the superfical meaning of what they say, thats the thing that might go over my head. which makes ME less relatable and more full on intimidating despite my good intentions.

i know that whats said matters at face value, and i dont overstep that boundary. im still that grounded, but it can effect the flow of conversation and my perspective of the person negatively.

i might even be going so far as to feel nitpicky about what they say and how they say it.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Yes, but I can't always _discern_ the spirit, especially online.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Who'sWho said:


> Ok, a wierd question that needs elaboration. Personally, I feel like everybody around me is clueless about the distinction of the two.
> 
> Basically, by spirit I mean a certain psychological/spiritual makeup that predetermines someones (or collectives) reaction to a phenomena that, only after the fact, finds it's idea structure to express itself in, and by doing so distorts or largely reframes what it is all about. Also, that usually, contradictions of someones worldview or ideology dont come only from bad logic but also conflicting spiritual makeup?
> 
> ...


I think you're over describing it. Looking for deeper inner meaning?

Is it not possible to live life to the fullest while also tending to one's responsibilities?


----------



## Who'sWho (Dec 22, 2020)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I think you're over describing it. Looking for deeper inner meaning?
> 
> Is it not possible to live live to the fullest while also tending to one's responsibilities?


It totally is possible! That's exactly my point, haha.

What I'm trying to ask of people is can they read between the lines and notice when people say things such as this but actually have ulterior motives, sometimes even unknown to themselves. 

So, you may encounter 3 different people, and all three of them say this same line, but each person believes it or says it for different reason, that can be often discerned by understanding the spirit in which a statement was used.


----------



## Who'sWho (Dec 22, 2020)

Sidhe Draoi said:


> So much so its nerve-wracking for everyone involved, including me. maybe especially me.
> i love words, eytymologies, word-play, and i also have a strong grip on psychological motivations, to name a few things that bring insight to my understanding of other people as well as myself.
> 
> my issue is i tend to ignore the superfical meaning of what they say, thats the thing that might go over my head. which makes ME less relatable and more full on intimidating despite my good intentions.
> ...


Yeah this is relatable. noticing this discrepancy of surface vs underlying meaning will usually pull me out of the conversation for the moment, and I have to readjust and just let it go, or poke around it with indirect questions and play subtle devil advocate to sense what kind of a person I am dealing with. 

It's fun, I do it all the time. But at the same time, I am sometimes weirded out how such things go right over most peoples heads. I noticed most people just take what is said at face value, unless they dislike the person.


----------



## Who'sWho (Dec 22, 2020)

Saiyed Handsome **** said:


> Yes, but I can't always _discern_ the spirit, especially online.


True. I am mostly speaking of in-person conversations. Because they happen in real time and replies are not carefully crafted, as well as there is such a rich source of info in paraverbal and nonverbal aspects of a person.


----------



## superloco3000 (Dec 15, 2017)

Who'sWho said:


> True. I am mostly speaking of in-person conversations. Because they happen in real time and replies are not carefully crafted, as well as there is such a rich source of info in paraverbal and nonverbal aspects of a person.


I think we have lost a lot of the deeper meaning of our language, I mean ... 
Goodbye : god be with ye
Holiday: Holy day
Diva : God
Juggernaut : lord of the world 

We have to remember that the vowel "Ah" means a sacred ascent to heaven:
God
Ahura mazda
Jehovah
Ra
Shiva

So ... we have been losing the real meaning of words for a long time. The first "Magi" (ancient persian priests) used "spells" to create laws, religions, and so on. and the "magi" was a strong point to create the religion of Christianity (the three magi finding Jesus).

We are very dumb in our vocabulary, and we probably don't know most of its true meaning, we have lost a lot of knowledge and we use it in a trivial way.

We have lost the ability to express our spirit since the Greeks adopted ancient Persian and Indian knowledge to seek a more rationalistic point of view to explain the world.

This is the occult and ancient psychology but Carl Jung studied those concepts very deeply , oh.. well .


----------



## Sidhe Draoi (Nov 25, 2016)

ive gotten so deep into eytmologies and ancient histories that i cant look at the world the same way anymore.


----------



## SouDesuNyan (Sep 8, 2015)

People don't like it when I am not reacting to the spirit of others, but I do recognize it in others and within myself. It's advantageous most of the time to play the fool, to give people a false sense of control. Some might find it cute, but it's mostly a defensive mechanism. Conceptually, it's very close to game theory. Can anyone be trusted? Can I even trust myself? Who is the self? These are interesting questions that push people into the realm of spirituality.


----------

