For living based on senses, maybe we could also say _intuition_ ? Lacan does this really interesting thing where he flips Descartes and splits the "I" (this appears in _ecrits_ and _Seminar XVII_ ), the body is in one place while the mind is off somewhere else, "I think where I am not, therefore I am where I do not think". There has to then be a unity between "I am" and "thinking", to be in one place our thinking has to conform (or self-reflect back on) being, not simply thinking as an efflux of being, in the sense of not: (really living) being causing us to not think, and thinking (abstractly) causing us to not be. I could say, I am nothing but my material economic-relations that make me up, but then I am forgetting these relations create my thinking, its not just the relations on their own.
I guess I’m missing how it is that the mind is separate from the body. Like what specifically indicates to Lucan that the mind is elsewhere from the body?
@@theblackponderer He writes about all these different types of discourses, one is called the Hysteric's discourse, it's almost like in this discourse I think he claims: we come to truth not by seeking truth (intellectually), but through error, and actions, and then the analyst looks over the hysteric and accumulates that knowledge. For the hysteric, there may be no inner monologue or mind, its just intuition and pure action. In that way subjects can be divided between mind and body, conscious agents and patients.
@@chhhhhris Yeah, I’m not understanding how the mind and body are different from an analysis of indirect discovery of truth. There is still an analysis going on using the mind which the body nourishes. The coming to truth, albeit indirectly, still uses the body to “come to it.”
@@theblackponderer For instance, someone who writes a book has to get that knowledge from somewhere, it didn't spawn in his mind on its own without the outside world.
@@chhhhhris Okay, but how does getting the knowledge from somewhere indicate that the mind is separate from the body? The writer receives the knowledge from somewhere using their body as a sensory perception device which interfaces with their mind to process and analyze the knowledge. In this way the mind and body are connected as a sense/perception network. I’m still not seeing how there is a separation of mind and body…
Really enjoying you tacking some of the older texts. If epistemology is a particular interest, it would be fascinating to see you discuss the Theaetetus and how it could relate to other works you've done like Hume and De Anima.
I'm trying to understand Aristotle's vision of mind in order to apply it to an understanding of hypnosis. Notedly is psychoanalysis (ie depth psychology) an offspring of hypnosis ( --hypnosis itself being offspring of a form of what we would call "energy healing" [for Mesmerism was ALL THE RAGE at the end of the 18th century in Paris and Vienna]). So did these beginnings serve as a cornerstones for a modern understanding of mind. This cornerstone (hypnosis) is very strong. So, what can be gained by understanding hypnosis through Aristotle's vision of the Soul? This is the question I pose. In this same regard by the way, I've found Kant very fruitful; and Bergson! Bergson my dawg. What thinkest thou?
This was my first Aristotle read and I had no idea what the heck I was reading when I read it lol
For living based on senses, maybe we could also say _intuition_ ? Lacan does this really interesting thing where he flips Descartes and splits the "I" (this appears in _ecrits_ and _Seminar XVII_ ), the body is in one place while the mind is off somewhere else, "I think where I am not, therefore I am where I do not think". There has to then be a unity between "I am" and "thinking", to be in one place our thinking has to conform (or self-reflect back on) being, not simply thinking as an efflux of being, in the sense of not: (really living) being causing us to not think, and thinking (abstractly) causing us to not be. I could say, I am nothing but my material economic-relations that make me up, but then I am forgetting these relations create my thinking, its not just the relations on their own.
I guess I’m missing how it is that the mind is separate from the body. Like what specifically indicates to Lucan that the mind is elsewhere from the body?
@@theblackponderer He writes about all these different types of discourses, one is called the Hysteric's discourse, it's almost like in this discourse I think he claims: we come to truth not by seeking truth (intellectually), but through error, and actions, and then the analyst looks over the hysteric and accumulates that knowledge. For the hysteric, there may be no inner monologue or mind, its just intuition and pure action. In that way subjects can be divided between mind and body, conscious agents and patients.
@@chhhhhris Yeah, I’m not understanding how the mind and body are different from an analysis of indirect discovery of truth. There is still an analysis going on using the mind which the body nourishes. The coming to truth, albeit indirectly, still uses the body to “come to it.”
@@theblackponderer For instance, someone who writes a book has to get that knowledge from somewhere, it didn't spawn in his mind on its own without the outside world.
@@chhhhhris Okay, but how does getting the knowledge from somewhere indicate that the mind is separate from the body? The writer receives the knowledge from somewhere using their body as a sensory perception device which interfaces with their mind to process and analyze the knowledge. In this way the mind and body are connected as a sense/perception network. I’m still not seeing how there is a separation of mind and body…
Really enjoying you tacking some of the older texts. If epistemology is a particular interest, it would be fascinating to see you discuss the Theaetetus and how it could relate to other works you've done like Hume and De Anima.
I’ll add it to my reading queue.
I'm trying to understand Aristotle's vision of mind in order to apply it to an understanding of hypnosis. Notedly is psychoanalysis (ie depth psychology) an offspring of hypnosis ( --hypnosis itself being offspring of a form of what we would call "energy healing" [for Mesmerism was ALL THE RAGE at the end of the 18th century in Paris and Vienna]). So did these beginnings serve as a cornerstones for a modern understanding of mind. This cornerstone (hypnosis) is very strong. So, what can be gained by understanding hypnosis through Aristotle's vision of the Soul? This is the question I pose.
In this same regard by the way, I've found Kant very fruitful; and Bergson! Bergson my dawg.
What thinkest thou?
Yeah, I'm not able to make a concrete connection between Aristotle's conception of the soul and hypnosis. Not sure if there is one, honestly.
This is my favorite text by Aristotle