Thinking in ideas vs. thinking in symbols

[Ouroboros]

In the course of a debate between Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins-- to which I WOULD link, except that the part I'm referencing isn't discussed in detail-- Dawkins observes that he believes that he thinks "in ideas," while Peterson thinks "in symbols."

Questions: have you encountered this dichotomy before? If so, do you associate it with any particular authors?

Does the dichotomy apply to anything in your personal experience?

And last, how long will it take for this to turn into a thread about science vs. religion?

 

[psikeyhackr]

The Tyranny of Words (1938) by Stuart Chase

That is derived from Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski's ideas about General Semantics.

The trouble is many of our ideas are the result of words, symbols, we got from other people. Korzybski would say that God is a symbol without a refferant.

Robert Heinlein and A. E. van Vogt got interested in General Semantics in the 1940s. It makes one aware of the precision of one's thinking. A lot of talk is just pushing emotional buttons.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Institute of General Semantics - Home

www.generalsemantics.org

 

[Ouroboros]

The Tyranny of Words (1938) by Stuart Chase

That is derived from Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski's ideas about General Semantics.

The trouble is many of our ideas are the result of words, symbols, we got from other people. Korzybski would say that God is a symbol without a refferant.

Robert Heinlein and A. E. van Vogt got interested in General Semantics in the 1940s. It makes one aware of the precision of one's thinking. A lot of talk is just pushing emotional buttons.

What would you cite as an example of a word or symbol borrowed from one culture by another with (I assume) some loss in original meaning?

 

[psikeyhackr]

What would you cite as an example of a word or symbol borrowed from one culture by another with (I assume) some loss in original meaning?

Alaska, I just learned that yesterday.

Indian legends from the land of Al-ay-ek-sa

gutenberg.org

Al-ay-ek-sa, where once the Red Men bold
Roamed the forests and fished in the streams,
And around their campfires told and retold
Strange legends a thousand years old.

I would assume the native Alaskans had no official border between the United States and Canada. That is paleface nonsense. LOL

In his novel Robert Heinlein mentioned LOGLAN.

An attempt to create a logical language. All current languages evolved under prescientific conditions.

 

[psikeyhackr]

In his novel Robert Heinlein mentioned LOGLAN.

ROFL

Sorry, I didn't name the novel.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Relatively famous/popular, the Libertarians are orgasmic about it. I have read lots of Heinlein. I think he was too smart to be a Libertarian.

 

[RAMOSS]

The Tyranny of Words (1938) by Stuart Chase

That is derived from Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski's ideas about General Semantics.

The trouble is many of our ideas are the result of words, symbols, we got from other people. Korzybski would say that God is a symbol without a refferant.

Robert Heinlein and A. E. van Vogt got interested in General Semantics in the 1940s. It makes one aware of the precision of one's thinking. A lot of talk is just pushing emotional buttons.

You know who else got interested in General Semantics? L Ron Hubbard. He wrote a book based on a lot of those concepts, made it into a self help book, and then marketed it as a religion. The book he wrote that ripped of and simplified General Semantics was dianetics.

 

[MrWonka]

In the course of a debate between Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins-- to which I WOULD link, except that the part I'm referencing isn't discussed in detail-- Dawkins observes that he believes that he thinks "in ideas," while Peterson thinks "in symbols."

Questions: have you encountered this dichotomy before? If so, do you associate it with any particular authors?

Right-wing types have a tendency to need order. They need to classify things, categorize them and label them in order to understand them. They tend to struggle with abstract thought. In order to process a new problem, they have to compare it to an old problem and if they can't it just frustrates them.
Liberals are far less fond of labels and hate being pigeonholed even when the description is fairly accurate and are far more willing to embrace nuance.
For conservatives, it's very important to them that you know they are a man, or an American, or a Christian, or a Republican. Liberals often don't even like referring to themselves as liberal or Democrat no matter how accurate the term applies.

 

[psikeyhackr]

You know who else got interested in General Semantics? L Ron Hubbard. He wrote a book based on a lot of those concepts, made it into a self help book, and then marketed it as a religion. The book he wrote that ripped of and simplified General Semantics was dianetics.

I started reading it long ago. If I remember correctly he seemed to have this fixation on abortions and just went on and on about it. Never finished it.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Liberals often don't even like referring to themselves as liberal or Democrat no matter how accurate the term applies.

I am a Von Tzu anti-socialist agnostic.

Von from John von Neumann of game theory
Tzu from Sun Tzu for Art of War
Antisocial because I'm a smart aleck asshole
Agnostic because if there is a god he/she/it must have a lower opinion of religion than I do.

ToxicDrums.com

Former domain of a blog covering articles from a wide range of fields from science to entertainment.

www.toxicdrums.com

Former site is gone. Woe is me!

totse.com | Economic Wargames

totse.com - Economic Wargames - Alternate view of economic behavior and economists' misleading information about current system.

newtotse.com

 

[Mustachio]

In the course of a debate between Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins-- to which I WOULD link, except that the part I'm referencing isn't discussed in detail-- Dawkins observes that he believes that he thinks "in ideas," while Peterson thinks "in symbols."

Questions: have you encountered this dichotomy before? If so, do you associate it with any particular authors?

Does the dichotomy apply to anything in your personal experience?

And last, how long will it take for this to turn into a thread about science vs. religion?

This explains why Jordan Peterson doesn’t have any ideas. He’s just thinking about a lobster 24 seven. That debate sounds unwatchable and I have no doubt this will not turn into any discussion

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Right-wing types have a tendency to need order. They need to classify things, categorize them and label them in order to understand them. They tend to struggle with abstract thought. In order to process a new problem, they have to compare it to an old problem and if they can't it just frustrates them.
Liberals are far less fond of labels and hate being pigeonholed even when the description is fairly accurate and are far more willing to embrace nuance.
For conservatives, it's very important to them that you know they are a man, or an American, or a Christian, or a Republican. Liberals often don't even like referring to themselves as liberal or Democrat no matter how accurate the term applies.

Left, right, conservative, and liberal are defined differently in other countries and times. Meaning that the labels are meaningless to any rational thinking person. Those labels are what factions have given themselves and is the irrationality that causes tribalism and division among populations, that leads to hate, killing etc. It is how we got to the Civil War and how January 6th happened.

In a nut shell such beliefs of left and right are just as primitive as religious beliefs and racism. It results in the only thought that comes out of people who believe in the left and right myth: My side is better than yours. Its the bedrock thinking of Hitler, Trump, Stalin, and Mao. As long as we keep the left vs right myth alive we make it easy for authoritarians to divide populations. And most people will be upset at my observations since their tribalism is too solidly based in the myth of the left and right.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

You know who else got interested in General Semantics? L Ron Hubbard. He wrote a book based on a lot of those concepts, made it into a self help book, and then marketed it as a religion. The book he wrote that ripped of and simplified General Semantics was dianetics.

Which is why General Semantics died. Everyone but Hubbard jumped ship when it went from rational thought to irrational religious thought.

 

[Ouroboros]

Right-wing types have a tendency to need order. They need to classify things, categorize them and label them in order to understand them. They tend to struggle with abstract thought. In order to process a new problem, they have to compare it to an old problem and if they can't it just frustrates them.
Liberals are far less fond of labels and hate being pigeonholed even when the description is fairly accurate and are far more willing to embrace nuance.
For conservatives, it's very important to them that you know they are a man, or an American, or a Christian, or a Republican. Liberals often don't even like referring to themselves as liberal or Democrat no matter how accurate the term applies.

Wow, I was so sure the thread would get twisted into religion vs. science, but instead it's Liberal vs. Conservative, with no relevance to the specific topic.

The whole screed in post #8 is just self-flattering nonsense, so there's nothing worth critiquing. So I'll move on to analyzing the broad political postures in keeping with my original concept.

Conservatives on the whole tend to be focused on ideas. They reject the notion that the government can just spend indefinitely and never pay for it; they insist that people have to be adults. For some this makes them unsympathetic; they won't validate throwing the borders open to every Tom, Dick and Harry because they know that would lead to economic chaos.

Liberals are focused more on a very limited range of symbols. They bleed for the economically disadvantaged but what they really love is the image of themselves as pillars of generosity, particularly when they're being generous with someone else's property. Some of the Caucasian ones are so in love with the symbol of themselves as martyrs that they'll accept guilt for things they did not personally do, because the act of self-abasement makes them feel symbolically better than those Caucasians that won't do such things.

Now that's an example of ideas vs. symbols, if anyone's curious.

 

[Ouroboros]

This explains why Jordan Peterson doesn’t have any ideas. He’s just thinking about a lobster 24 seven. That debate sounds unwatchable and I have no doubt this will not turn into any discussion

You win the award for Silliest Comment for June 2022. And that's saying something for this board.

 

[Bear5131]

Right-wing types have a tendency to need order. They need to classify things, categorize them and label them in order to understand them. They tend to struggle with abstract thought. In order to process a new problem, they have to compare it to an old problem and if they can't it just frustrates them.
Liberals are far less fond of labels and hate being pigeonholed even when the description is fairly accurate and are far more willing to embrace nuance.
For conservatives, it's very important to them that you know they are a man, or an American, or a Christian, or a Republican. Liberals often don't even like referring to themselves as liberal or Democrat no matter how accurate the term applies.

Understandable, most liberals are mutts and a quarter of them don't even know who their real fathers are, such a tragedy.

Also college educated liberals tend to rush into manufacturing trying to tell us uneducated folks we should try a solution their way, us knowing full well we did it like that 40 years ago and doing the same thing again won't give you different results

Btw I am a proud white, Polish/German American born at Northwestern hospital in Chicago.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Conservatives on the whole tend to be focused on ideas. They reject the notion that the government can just spend indefinitely and never pay for it; they insist that people have to be adults. For some this makes them unsympathetic; they won't validate throwing the borders open to every Tom, Dick and Harry because they know that would lead to economic chaos.

Do Conservatives ever talk about Adam Smith and Wealth of Nations?

Why don't they advocate mandatory accounting in the schools since Smith wrote about education and said "read, write, and account? That could have been done since Sputnik. How would that have affected the economy by now?

 

[MrWonka]

Conservatives on the whole tend to be focused on ideas. They reject the notion that the government can just spend indefinitely and never pay for it;

That's weird, cause they are the ones who always spend without paying for it. Virtually all of America's National Debt over the last 40 years is a direct result of Republican policies without sufficient taxes necessary to pay for it.

they insist that people have to be adults.

Is that what you're calling Trump? An adult? The guy who filed for bankruptcy 7 times? The orange man-baby who still to this day can admit that he's a loser?

For some this makes them unsympathetic; they won't validate throwing the borders open to every Tom, Dick and Harry because they know that would lead to economic chaos.

Really? Cause our founding fathers were so desperate for cheap foreign labor they went out and stole human beings and forced them to work for them.
Now you're telling me that we have millions of people waiting on our borders happy to voluntarily come to do low-paying jobs for us and we're turning them away?
The reason we currently have all this inflation is that we have a shit load of low-paying jobs available and not enough workers to do them all. The best thing we could possibly do for our economy is let in more migrant workers.

Liberals are focused more on a very limited range of symbols. They bleed for the economically disadvantaged but what they really love is the image of themselves as pillars of generosity, particularly when they're being generous with someone else's property.

Got some bad news for you chief. 70% of America's GDP comes from counties that voted for Biden. That means that Liberals are the ones making most of the money in this country, and we're the ones paying the majority of the income taxes.
It is liberals who are trying to help out poorer Republican parts of the country and Republicans are too stupid and proud to take it.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's weird, cause they are the ones who always spend without paying for it. Virtually all of America's National Debt over the last 40 years is a direct result of Republican policies without sufficient taxes necessary to pay for it.

Is that what you're calling Trump? An adult? The guy who filed for bankruptcy 7 times? The orange man-baby who still to this day can admit that he's a loser?

Really? Cause our founding fathers were so desperate for cheap foreign labor they went out and stole human beings and forced them to work for them.
Now you're telling me that we have millions of people waiting on our borders happy to voluntarily come to do low-paying jobs for us and we're turning them away?
The reason we currently have all this inflation is that we have a shit load of low-paying jobs available and not enough workers to do them all. The best thing we could possibly do for our economy is let in more migrant workers.

Got some bad news for you chief. 70% of America's GDP comes from counties that voted for Biden. That means that Liberals are the ones making most of the money in this country, and we're the ones paying the majority of the income taxes.
It is liberals who are trying to help out poorer Republican parts of the country and Republicans are too stupid and proud to take it.

Yeah, I'm sure you've got some partisan factoid behind your claim. I actually think everyone in power spends while they can, but Dems like Biden have gone nuts, failing to keep pace with where the deficit should be after Biden's excessive spending.

At least Trump didn't need handlers to feed his Ovaltine at night.

A slavery reference is really off-topic here, but if anyone stole the slaves, it was their fellow Africans. Americans and others bought Black people because they could labor in the hot sun longer than lighter skinned peoples before showing ill effects, so it wasn't like the slave owners just chose Africans at random.

Legally supervised migrant workers are one thing; admitting any schmoe who can get a court date before disappearing into the ether is another.

More partisan factoids. The Left has no interest in helping the Right, they just want total hegemony without compromise.

 

[dmpi]

Language is symbols and their interrelations. So is math. Very handy when trying to commuicate an idea to others. A child can think before he's fluent in language because the brain has the basic building block for thought. Intuition and instinct would be a example of 'thinking in ideas'.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Language is symbols and their interrelations. So is math. Very handy when trying to commuicate an idea to others. A child can think before he's fluent in language because the brain has the basic building block for thought. Intuition and instinct would be a example of 'thinking in ideas'.

And 'God' is a symbol for what...?

And then there is the famous paradox question, "Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?"

Of course the answer is Yes. What does LIFT mean? If God creates a rock in a region of intergalactic space with a net gravitational force is zero, then no matter in which direction it is pushed it is not lifted because there is no gravity to LIFT against.

But with no God and way to get to intergalactic space for the test then that language is about what?

 

[dmpi]

And 'God' is a symbol for what...?

And then there is the famous paradox question, "Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?"

Of course the answer is Yes. What does LIFT mean? If God creates a rock in a region of intergalactic space with a net gravitational force is zero, then no matter in which direction it is pushed it is not lifted because there is no gravity to LIFT against.

But with no God and way to get to intergalactic space for the test then that language is about what?

'God' is a man-made construct that symbolizes an entity that works and exists at a 'higher level' than we do. 'higher level' is analogous to the 2-dimension (2D) vs. 3-dimension (3D) in physical space. People who live in 3D can see and interact with the people in 2D but not the other way around. This entity is responsible for the origins of the universe and (we would like to think) guidance of our ultimate path forward.
With regard to God and the Rock. Language (symbology) has a difficult with self-referencing which leave to paradoxes. Such as the statement "I an lying" commonly know as the liar paradox. Language is just a tool to help us describe and map how the real-world works. Don't let semantic issues drive your understanding of the real world.

 

[Eurotrash]

In the course of a debate between Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins-- to which I WOULD link, except that the part I'm referencing isn't discussed in detail-- Dawkins observes that he believes that he thinks "in ideas," while Peterson thinks "in symbols."

Questions: have you encountered this dichotomy before? If so, do you associate it with any particular authors?

Does the dichotomy apply to anything in your personal experience?

And last, how long will it take for this to turn into a thread about science vs. religion?

Did Peterson define what he meant by symbols? That's a very broad category, and I think symbols could be a sub category of ideas in some cases. And I imagine when Dawkins said "ideas" he may have meant abstract concepts. I know I'm just getting into semantics, but "ideas" and "symbols" both seem very non-specific in the context of "thinking."

As an academic, (English literature) I can say that some writers say they think in "images" (symbols?) while others say they think in "language" (ideas?) And of course, language is a system of symbols, but you have very different kinds of symbols in written language, say in a pictographic language versus a languge that uses symbols for sounds. I know I tend to think in both images and other sensual media -- touch, sound, etc. I think ideas, but they come to me through the senses. I think these two guys were being a little simplistic, and maybe too either/or, but I didn't hear the conversation.

 

[Ouroboros]

Did Peterson define what he meant by symbols? That's a very broad category, and I think symbols could be a sub category of ideas in some cases. And I imagine when Dawkins said "ideas" he may have meant abstract concepts. I know I'm just getting into semantics, but "ideas" and "symbols" both seem very non-specific in the context of "thinking."

As an academic, (English literature) I can say that some writers say they think in "images" (symbols?) while others say they think in "language" (ideas?) And of course, language is a system of symbols, but you have very different kinds of symbols in written language, say in a pictographic language versus a languge that uses symbols for sounds. I know I tend to think in both images and other sensual media -- touch, sound, etc. I think ideas, but they come to me through the senses. I think these two guys were being a little simplistic, and maybe too either/or, but I didn't hear the conversation.

No, neither scholar defines the terms, though Peterson starts out by contrasting "ideas" vs. "aesthetics," which may be a crucial difference.

I believe the idea you express, that symbols could be a subcategory of ideas, goes back in roughly comparable forms for some time, even keeping to the post Renaissance era. The oldest known to me is the 18th century scholar Giambattista Vico, but I don't want to get into his specific system.

My own take is that both symbols and ideas should be thought as different manifestations of "tropes," which are semi-standardized formulae for how things and people interrelate.

Take the statement "the sun is the source of life." This CAN be an entirely representational IDEA, in that the speaker observes the beneficial physical effect of the sun's rays on growing things and even on people to some extent. IDEAS in my conception are strongly linked to observations about cause and effect.

However, the statement can also be a more pure symbolic construction, in which one does not think of the sun's influence as physical but spiritual. The sun is made into a SYMBOL of human spirituality, and so we can get "aesthetic" stories like the narrative in which the Egyptian sun-god descends into the darkness every night and fights demons. Thus for those who place value in the story, whenever the sun rises in the morning, they feel as if chaos has been vanquished for another day. The "cause and effect" there is entirely hypothetical and based more in desire than in observation.

 

[Eurotrash]

No, neither scholar defines the terms, though Peterson starts out by contrasting "ideas" vs. "aesthetics," which may be a crucial difference.

I believe the idea you express, that symbols could be a subcategory of ideas, goes back in roughly comparable forms for some time, even keeping to the post Renaissance era. The oldest known to me is the 18th century scholar Giambattista Vico, but I don't want to get into his specific system.

My own take is that both symbols and ideas should be thought as different manifestations of "tropes," which are semi-standardized formulae for how things and people interrelate.

Take the statement "the sun is the source of life." This CAN be an entirely representational IDEA, in that the speaker observes the beneficial physical effect of the sun's rays on growing things and even on people to some extent. IDEAS in my conception are strongly linked to observations about cause and effect.

However, the statement can also be a more pure symbolic construction, in which one does not think of the sun's influence as physical but spiritual. The sun is made into a SYMBOL of human spirituality, and so we can get "aesthetic" stories like the narrative in which the Egyptian sun-god descends into the darkness every night and fights demons. Thus for those who place value in the story, whenever the sun rises in the morning, they feel as if chaos has been vanquished for another day. The "cause and effect" there is entirely hypothetical and based more in desire than in observation.

I have read some Vico! I love him! OMG. The New Scence, I think is what I read.