Top Tweets for #Symbolically
#Symbolically, there are #manyways #toeat #theBreadoflife. #Theonlyway #maynotbe #atEucharist. #Symbolism #andfaith #crossroads. The #deeper the #symbolisms, #themore #profoundfaith. The #spiritualityofEucharist(the #HolyEucharist) #doesnotbeginorend there, it #transcends #there.
#OrganizedCrime and #Terrorism groups are not randomly picking #bank accounts they think are #symbolically #connected to their crime activities, that belong to someone on their list of targets (like myself), and #stealing #money from those accounts whenever they run out of money for their crime activities themselves. Even if #corrupt officials in #government, #LawEnforcement, and #banking, illegally #withhold money and wave it under their nose, to make them think they will steal from it, in exchange for illegal incentives (and promises of more). @AustralianLabor @LiberalAus @UN #FIFA #AFL
That includes those crime types sports clubs and franchises they are involved in (and the corrupt results that are like ransom to them).
these kids’ freedom and happiness being the legacy of mizisuaivantilllukahyuna’s love thats why they look like them #symbolically
Osiris isn't "from" the Orion system in a sci-fi or extraterrestrial #sense, but in Egyptian mythology, he is #symbolically tied to the Orion constellation as part of their spiritual and astronomical worldview.
Both Figures are #associated with the Cosmos (Osiris with Orian, Ashtar With Extraterrestrial #Realms).
Both are seen as #BenevolentGuides-Osiris for the dead, Ashtar for humanity's spiritual #evolution.
In #fringe theories, some might claim ancient gods like #Osiris, were actually extraterrestrial visitors, potentially #linking them to figures like Ashtar I'm reinterpretation of #history.
With that said, there's said to be no #evidence-Historical, Textual, or otherwise-to suggest #Ashtar are the same entity.. until today- Any #connections I've made, have been a modern, #QuantumInterpretation & energetic leap; rather than a #grounded fact. In their original contexts, they're distinct: #Osiris is an Egyptian God from a Terrestrial mythology, and Ashtar is a supposed Cosmic #being from the mid-20th-century contactee stories & by Merging the two we can see where #Agendas today are supporting the future #SpiritualRevolution... - the #King of the #Lazarus Pit.
@y2chaotic Osiris -> Ashtar -> Orian
#Jung: “As most people know, one of the basic principles of analytical psychology is that dream-images are to be understood #symbolically; that is to say, one must not take them literally, but must surmise a hidden meaning in them. …
How is it that #dreams are symbolical at all? In other words, whence comes this capacity for #symbolic representation, of which we can discover no trace in our #conscious thinking? Let us examine the matter a little more closely. If we analyse a train of thought, we find that we begin with an ‘initial’ idea, or a ‘leading’ idea, and then, without thinking back to it each time, but merely guided by a sense of direction, we pass on to a series of separate ideas that all hang together. There is nothing symbolical in this, and our whole conscious thinking proceeds along these lines.¹ᵃ If we scrutinize our thinking more closely still and follow out an intensive train of thought—the solution of a difficult problem, for instance—we suddenly notice that we are thinking in words, that in very intensive thinking we begin talking to ourselves, or that we occasionally write down the problem or make a drawing of it, so as to be absolutely clear. Anyone who has lived for some time in a foreign country will certainly have noticed that after a while he begins to think in the language of that country. Any very intensive train of thought works itself out more or less in verbal form—if, that is to say, one wants to express it, or teach it, or convince someone of it. It is evidently directed outwards, to the outside world. To that extent, directed or logical thinking is reality-thinking,² a thinking that is adapted to reality,³ by means of which we imitate the successiveness of objectively real things, so that the images inside our mind follow one another in the same strictly causal sequence as the events taking place outside it.⁴ We also call this ‘thinking with directed attention.’ It has in addition the peculiarity of causing fatigue, and is for that reason brought into play for short periods only. The whole laborious achievement of our lives is adaptation to reality, part of which consists in directed thinking. In biological terms it is simply a process of psychic assimilation that leaves behind a corresponding state of exhaustion, like any other vital achievement.
The material with which we think is language and verbal concepts—something which from time immemorial has been directed outwards and used as a bridge, and which has but a single purpose, namely that of communication. So long as we think directedly, we think for others and speak to others.⁵ Language was originally a system of emotive and imitative sounds—sounds which express terror, fear, anger, love, etc., and sounds which imitate the noises of the elements: the rushing and gurgling of water, the rolling of thunder, the roaring of the wind, the cries of the animal world, and so on; and lastly, those which represent a combination of the sound perceived and the emotional reaction to it.⁶ A large number of onomatopoeic vestiges remain even in the more modern languages; note, for instance, the sounds for running water: rauschen, rieseln, rûschen, rinnen, rennen, rush, river, ruscello, ruisseau, Rhein. And note Wasser, wissen, wissern, pissen, piscis, Fisch.
Thus, language, in its origin and essence, is simply a system of signs or #symbols that denote real occurrences or their echo in the human #soul.⁷ We must emphatically agree with Anatole France when he says:
‘What is thinking? And how does one think? We think with words; that in itself is sensual and brings us back to nature. Think of it! a metaphysician has nothing with which to build his world system except the perfected cries of monkeys and dogs. What he calls profound speculation and transcendental method is merely the stringing together, in an arbitrary order, of onomatopoeic cries of hunger, fear, and love from the primeval forests, to which have become attached, little by little, meanings that are believed to be abstract merely because they are loosely used. Have no fear that the succession of little cries, extinct or enfeebled, that composes a book of philosophy will teach us so much about the universe that we can no longer go on living in it.’⁸
So our directed thinking, even though we be the loneliest thinkers in the world, is nothing but the first stirrings of a cry to our companions that water has been found, or the bear been killed, or that a storm is approaching, or that wolves are prowling round the camp. There is a striking paradox of Abelard’s which intuitively expresses the human limitations of our complicated thought-process: ‘Speech is generated by the intellect and in turn generates intellect.’ The most abstract system of philosophy is, in its method and purpose, nothing more than an extremely ingenious combination of natural sounds.⁹ Hence the craving of a Schopenhauer or a Nietzsche for recognition and understanding, and the despair and bitterness of their loneliness. One might expect, perhaps, that a man of genius would luxuriate in the greatness of his own thoughts and renounce the cheap approbation of the rabble he despises; yet he succumbs to the more powerful impulse of the herd instinct. His seeking and his finding, his heart’s cry, are meant for the herd and must be heeded by them. When I said just now that directed thinking is really thinking in words, and quoted that amusing testimony of Anatole France as drastic proof, this might easily give rise to the misunderstanding that directed thinking is after all ‘only a matter of words.’ That would certainly be going too far. Language must be taken in a wider sense than speech, for speech is only the outward flow of thoughts formulated for communication. Were it otherwise, the deaf-mute would be extremely limited in his thinking capacity, which is not the case at all. Without any knowledge of the spoken word, he too has his ‘language.’ Historically speaking, this ideal language, this directed thinking, is derived from primitive words, as Wundt has explained:
‘A further important consequence of the interaction of sound and meaning is that many words come to lose their original concrete significance altogether, and turn into signs for general ideas expressive of the apperceptive functions of relating and comparing, and their products. In this way abstract thought develops, which, because it would not be possible without the underlying changes of meaning, is itself the product of those psychic and psychophysical interchanges in which the development of language consists.’¹⁰
Jodl¹¹ rejects the identity of language and thought on the ground that the same psychic fact can be expressed in different ways in different languages. From this he infers the existence of a ‘supra-linguistic’ type of thinking. No doubt there is such a thing, whether one elects to call it ‘supra-linguistic’ with Jodl or ‘hypological’ with Erdmann. Only, it is not logical thinking. My views coincide with those of Baldwin, who says:
‘The transition from pre-judgmental to judgmental meaning is just that from knowledge which has social confirmation to that which gets along without it. The meanings utilized for judgment are those already developed in their presuppositions and implications through the confirmations of social intercourse. Thus the personal judgment, trained in the methods of social rendering, and disciplined by the interaction of its social world, #projects its content into that world again. In other words, the platform for all movement into the assertion of individual judgment—the level from which new experience is utilized—is already and always socialized; and it is just this movement that we find reflected in the actual result as the sense of the ‘appropriateness’ or synnomic character of the meaning rendered.…
Now the development of thought, as we are to see in more detail, is by a method essentially of trial and error, of experimentation, of the use of meanings as worth more than they are as yet recognized to be worth. The individual must use his old thoughts, his established knowledge, his grounded judgments, for the embodiment of his new inventive constructions. He erects his thought as we say ‘schematically’—in logical terms, problematically, conditionally, disjunctively—#projecting into the world an opinion still personal to himself, as if it were true. Thus all discovery proceeds. But this is, from the linguistic point of view, still to use the current language, still to work by meanings already embodied in social and conventional usage.
By this experimentation both thought and language are together advanced.…
Language grows, therefore, just as thought does, by never losing its synnomic or dual reference; its meaning is both personal and social.…
Language is the register of tradition, the record of racial conquest, the deposit of all the gains made by the genius of individuals.… The social ‘copy-system’ thus established reflects the judgmental processes of the race, and in turn becomes the training-school of the judgment of new generations.…
Most of the training of the self, whereby the vagaries of personal reaction to fact and image are reduced to the funded basis of sound judgment, comes through the use of speech. When the child speaks, he lays before the world his suggestion for a general or common meaning; the reception it gets confirms or refutes him. In either case he is instructed. His next venture is from a platform of knowledge on which the newer item is more nearly convertible into the common coin of effective intercourse. The point to notice here is not so much the exact mechanism of the exchange—secondary conversion—by which this gain is made, as the training in judgment that the constant use of it affords. In each case, effective judgment is the common judgment.… Here the object is to point out that it is secured by the development of a function whose rise is directly ad hoc … —the function of speech.
In language, therefore, to sum up the foregoing, we have the tangible—the actual and historical—instrument of the development and conservation of psychic meaning. It is the material evidence and proof of the concurrence of social and personal judgment. In it synnomic meaning, judged as ‘appropriate,’ becomes ‘social’ meaning, held as socially generalized and acknowledged.’¹²
Baldwin’s argument lays ample stress on the limitations imposed on thought by language,¹³ which are of the greatest importance both subjectively and objectively, i.e.,#psychologically and socially—so great, indeed, that we must ask ourselves whether the sceptical Mauthner¹⁴ was not right in his view that thinking is speech and nothing more. Baldwin is more cautious and reserved, but at bottom he is plainly in favour of the primacy of speech.
Directed thinking or, as we might also call it, thinking in words, is manifestly an instrument of culture, and we shall not be wrong in saying that the tremendous work of education which past centuries have devoted to directed thinking, thereby forcing it to develop from the subjective, individual sphere to the objective, social sphere, has produced a readjustment of the human mind to which we owe our modern empiricism and technics. These are absolutely new developments in the history of the world and were unknown to earlier ages. Inquiring minds have often wrestled with the question of why the first-rate knowledge which the ancients undoubtedly had of mathematics, mechanics, and physics, coupled with their matchless craftsmanship, was never applied to developing the rudimentary techniques already known to them (e.g., the principles of simple machines) into a real technology in the modern sense of the word, and why they never got beyond the stage of inventing amusing curiosities. There is only one answer to this: the ancients, with a few illustrious exceptions, entirely lacked the capacity to concentrate their interest on the transformations of inanimate matter and to reproduce the natural process artificially, by which means alone they could have gained control of the forces of nature. What they lacked was training in directed thinking.¹⁵ The secret of cultural development is the mobility and disposability of psychic energy. Directed thinking, as we know it today, is a more or less modern acquisition which earlier ages lacked.”
¹ᵃ Cf. Liepmann, Über Ideenflucht; also my “Studies in Word Association” (1918/-19 edn., p. 124). For thinking as subordination to a ruling idea, cf. Ebbinghaus, in Kultur der Gegenwart, pp. 221ff. Kuelpe (Outlines of Psychology, p. 447) expresses himself in a similar manner: in thinking “we find an anticipatory apperception, which covers a more or less extensive circle of individual reproductions, and differs from a group of accidental incentives to reproduction only in the consistency with which all ideas outside the circle are checked or suppressed.”
² In his Psychologia empirica, ch. II, § 23, p. 16, Christian Wolff says simply and precisely: “Cogitatio est actus animae quo sibi sui rerumque aliarum extra se conscia est” (Thinking is an act of the soul whereby it becomes conscious of itself and of other things outside itself).
³ The element of adaptation is particularly stressed by William James in his definition of logical thinking (Principles of Psychology, II, p. 330): “Let us make this ability to deal with novel data the technical differentia of reasoning. This will sufficiently mark it out from common associative thinking.”
⁴ “Thoughts are shadows of our feelings, always darker, emptier, and simpler than these,” says Nietzsche. Lotze (Logik, p. 552) remarks in this connection: “Thinking, if left to the logical laws of its own movement, coincides once more at the end of its correct trajectory with the behaviour of objectively real things.”
⁵ Cf. Baldwin’s remarks quoted below. The eccentric philosopher Johann Georg Hamann (1730–88) actually equates reason with language. (See Hamann’s writings, pub. 1821–43.) With Nietzsche reason fares even worse as “linguistic metaphysics.” Friedrich Mauthner goes the furthest in this direction (Sprache und Psychologie); for him there is absolutely no thought without speech, and only speaking is thinking. His idea of the “word fetishism” that dominates science is worth noting.
⁶ Cf. Kleinpaul, Das Leben der Sprache.
⁷ My small son gave me an explicit example of the subjectivity of such symbols, which originally seem to belong entirely to the subject: He described everything he wanted to take or eat with an energetic “stô lôl” (Swiss-German for “leave it!”).
⁸ Le Jardin d’Epicure, p. 80.
⁹ It is difficult to estimate how great is the seductive influence of primitive word meanings on our thinking. “Everything that has ever been in consciousness remains as an active element in the unconscious,” says Hermann Paul (Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, p. 25). The old word-meanings continue to have an effect which is imperceptible at first and proceeds “from that dark chamber of the unconscious in the soul” (ibid.). Hamann states emphatically (Schriften, VII, p. 8): “Metaphysics misuses all the verbal signs and figures of speech based on empirical knowledge and reduces them to empty hieroglyphs and types of ideal relationships.” Kant is supposed to have learnt a thing or two from Hamann.
¹⁰ Grundriss der Psychologie, pp. 363–64.
¹¹ Lehrbuch aer Psychologie, II, ch. 10, par. 26, p. 260.
¹² Baldwin, Thought and Things, II, pp. 145ff.
¹³ In this connection I would mention the experimental “investigations into the linguistic components of association” (1908) made by Eberschweiler [q.v., Bibliography] at my request, which disclose the remarkable fact that during an association experiment the intrapsychic association is influenced by phonetic considerations.
¹⁴ See n. 5, above.
¹⁵ There was as a matter of fact no external compulsion which would have made technical thinking necessary. The labour question was solved by an endless supply of cheap slaves, so that efforts to save labour were superfluous. We must also remember that the interest of the man of antiquity was turned in quite another direction: he reverenced the divine cosmos, a quality which is entirely lacking in our technological age.
~C.G. Jung, "Two Kinds of Thinking," Symbols of Transformation (Collected Works Vol. 5) § 4, 11-17
[Bold mine. Italics his.]
![jungianLaura's tweet photo. #Jung: “As most people know, one of the basic principles of analytical psychology is that dream-images are to be understood #symbolically; that is to say, one must not take them literally, but must surmise a hidden meaning in them. …
How is it that #dreams are symbolical at all? In other words, whence comes this capacity for #symbolic representation, of which we can discover no trace in our #conscious thinking? Let us examine the matter a little more closely. If we analyse a train of thought, we find that we begin with an ‘initial’ idea, or a ‘leading’ idea, and then, without thinking back to it each time, but merely guided by a sense of direction, we pass on to a series of separate ideas that all hang together. There is nothing symbolical in this, and our whole conscious thinking proceeds along these lines.¹ᵃ If we scrutinize our thinking more closely still and follow out an intensive train of thought—the solution of a difficult problem, for instance—we suddenly notice that we are thinking in words, that in very intensive thinking we begin talking to ourselves, or that we occasionally write down the problem or make a drawing of it, so as to be absolutely clear. Anyone who has lived for some time in a foreign country will certainly have noticed that after a while he begins to think in the language of that country. Any very intensive train of thought works itself out more or less in verbal form—if, that is to say, one wants to express it, or teach it, or convince someone of it. It is evidently directed outwards, to the outside world. To that extent, directed or logical thinking is reality-thinking,² a thinking that is adapted to reality,³ by means of which we imitate the successiveness of objectively real things, so that the images inside our mind follow one another in the same strictly causal sequence as the events taking place outside it.⁴ We also call this ‘thinking with directed attention.’ It has in addition the peculiarity of causing fatigue, and is for that reason brought into play for short periods only. The whole laborious achievement of our lives is adaptation to reality, part of which consists in directed thinking. In biological terms it is simply a process of psychic assimilation that leaves behind a corresponding state of exhaustion, like any other vital achievement.
The material with which we think is language and verbal concepts—something which from time immemorial has been directed outwards and used as a bridge, and which has but a single purpose, namely that of communication. So long as we think directedly, we think for others and speak to others.⁵ Language was originally a system of emotive and imitative sounds—sounds which express terror, fear, anger, love, etc., and sounds which imitate the noises of the elements: the rushing and gurgling of water, the rolling of thunder, the roaring of the wind, the cries of the animal world, and so on; and lastly, those which represent a combination of the sound perceived and the emotional reaction to it.⁶ A large number of onomatopoeic vestiges remain even in the more modern languages; note, for instance, the sounds for running water: rauschen, rieseln, rûschen, rinnen, rennen, rush, river, ruscello, ruisseau, Rhein. And note Wasser, wissen, wissern, pissen, piscis, Fisch.
Thus, language, in its origin and essence, is simply a system of signs or #symbols that denote real occurrences or their echo in the human #soul.⁷ We must emphatically agree with Anatole France when he says:
‘What is thinking? And how does one think? We think with words; that in itself is sensual and brings us back to nature. Think of it! a metaphysician has nothing with which to build his world system except the perfected cries of monkeys and dogs. What he calls profound speculation and transcendental method is merely the stringing together, in an arbitrary order, of onomatopoeic cries of hunger, fear, and love from the primeval forests, to which have become attached, little by little, meanings that are believed to be abstract merely because they are loosely used. Have no fear that the succession of little cries, extinct or enfeebled, that composes a book of philosophy will teach us so much about the universe that we can no longer go on living in it.’⁸
So our directed thinking, even though we be the loneliest thinkers in the world, is nothing but the first stirrings of a cry to our companions that water has been found, or the bear been killed, or that a storm is approaching, or that wolves are prowling round the camp. There is a striking paradox of Abelard’s which intuitively expresses the human limitations of our complicated thought-process: ‘Speech is generated by the intellect and in turn generates intellect.’ The most abstract system of philosophy is, in its method and purpose, nothing more than an extremely ingenious combination of natural sounds.⁹ Hence the craving of a Schopenhauer or a Nietzsche for recognition and understanding, and the despair and bitterness of their loneliness. One might expect, perhaps, that a man of genius would luxuriate in the greatness of his own thoughts and renounce the cheap approbation of the rabble he despises; yet he succumbs to the more powerful impulse of the herd instinct. His seeking and his finding, his heart’s cry, are meant for the herd and must be heeded by them. When I said just now that directed thinking is really thinking in words, and quoted that amusing testimony of Anatole France as drastic proof, this might easily give rise to the misunderstanding that directed thinking is after all ‘only a matter of words.’ That would certainly be going too far. Language must be taken in a wider sense than speech, for speech is only the outward flow of thoughts formulated for communication. Were it otherwise, the deaf-mute would be extremely limited in his thinking capacity, which is not the case at all. Without any knowledge of the spoken word, he too has his ‘language.’ Historically speaking, this ideal language, this directed thinking, is derived from primitive words, as Wundt has explained:
‘A further important consequence of the interaction of sound and meaning is that many words come to lose their original concrete significance altogether, and turn into signs for general ideas expressive of the apperceptive functions of relating and comparing, and their products. In this way abstract thought develops, which, because it would not be possible without the underlying changes of meaning, is itself the product of those psychic and psychophysical interchanges in which the development of language consists.’¹⁰
Jodl¹¹ rejects the identity of language and thought on the ground that the same psychic fact can be expressed in different ways in different languages. From this he infers the existence of a ‘supra-linguistic’ type of thinking. No doubt there is such a thing, whether one elects to call it ‘supra-linguistic’ with Jodl or ‘hypological’ with Erdmann. Only, it is not logical thinking. My views coincide with those of Baldwin, who says:
‘The transition from pre-judgmental to judgmental meaning is just that from knowledge which has social confirmation to that which gets along without it. The meanings utilized for judgment are those already developed in their presuppositions and implications through the confirmations of social intercourse. Thus the personal judgment, trained in the methods of social rendering, and disciplined by the interaction of its social world, #projects its content into that world again. In other words, the platform for all movement into the assertion of individual judgment—the level from which new experience is utilized—is already and always socialized; and it is just this movement that we find reflected in the actual result as the sense of the ‘appropriateness’ or synnomic character of the meaning rendered.…
Now the development of thought, as we are to see in more detail, is by a method essentially of trial and error, of experimentation, of the use of meanings as worth more than they are as yet recognized to be worth. The individual must use his old thoughts, his established knowledge, his grounded judgments, for the embodiment of his new inventive constructions. He erects his thought as we say ‘schematically’—in logical terms, problematically, conditionally, disjunctively—#projecting into the world an opinion still personal to himself, as if it were true. Thus all discovery proceeds. But this is, from the linguistic point of view, still to use the current language, still to work by meanings already embodied in social and conventional usage.
By this experimentation both thought and language are together advanced.…
Language grows, therefore, just as thought does, by never losing its synnomic or dual reference; its meaning is both personal and social.…
Language is the register of tradition, the record of racial conquest, the deposit of all the gains made by the genius of individuals.… The social ‘copy-system’ thus established reflects the judgmental processes of the race, and in turn becomes the training-school of the judgment of new generations.…
Most of the training of the self, whereby the vagaries of personal reaction to fact and image are reduced to the funded basis of sound judgment, comes through the use of speech. When the child speaks, he lays before the world his suggestion for a general or common meaning; the reception it gets confirms or refutes him. In either case he is instructed. His next venture is from a platform of knowledge on which the newer item is more nearly convertible into the common coin of effective intercourse. The point to notice here is not so much the exact mechanism of the exchange—secondary conversion—by which this gain is made, as the training in judgment that the constant use of it affords. In each case, effective judgment is the common judgment.… Here the object is to point out that it is secured by the development of a function whose rise is directly ad hoc … —the function of speech.
In language, therefore, to sum up the foregoing, we have the tangible—the actual and historical—instrument of the development and conservation of psychic meaning. It is the material evidence and proof of the concurrence of social and personal judgment. In it synnomic meaning, judged as ‘appropriate,’ becomes ‘social’ meaning, held as socially generalized and acknowledged.’¹²
Baldwin’s argument lays ample stress on the limitations imposed on thought by language,¹³ which are of the greatest importance both subjectively and objectively, i.e.,#psychologically and socially—so great, indeed, that we must ask ourselves whether the sceptical Mauthner¹⁴ was not right in his view that thinking is speech and nothing more. Baldwin is more cautious and reserved, but at bottom he is plainly in favour of the primacy of speech.
Directed thinking or, as we might also call it, thinking in words, is manifestly an instrument of culture, and we shall not be wrong in saying that the tremendous work of education which past centuries have devoted to directed thinking, thereby forcing it to develop from the subjective, individual sphere to the objective, social sphere, has produced a readjustment of the human mind to which we owe our modern empiricism and technics. These are absolutely new developments in the history of the world and were unknown to earlier ages. Inquiring minds have often wrestled with the question of why the first-rate knowledge which the ancients undoubtedly had of mathematics, mechanics, and physics, coupled with their matchless craftsmanship, was never applied to developing the rudimentary techniques already known to them (e.g., the principles of simple machines) into a real technology in the modern sense of the word, and why they never got beyond the stage of inventing amusing curiosities. There is only one answer to this: the ancients, with a few illustrious exceptions, entirely lacked the capacity to concentrate their interest on the transformations of inanimate matter and to reproduce the natural process artificially, by which means alone they could have gained control of the forces of nature. What they lacked was training in directed thinking.¹⁵ The secret of cultural development is the mobility and disposability of psychic energy. Directed thinking, as we know it today, is a more or less modern acquisition which earlier ages lacked.”
¹ᵃ Cf. Liepmann, Über Ideenflucht; also my “Studies in Word Association” (1918/-19 edn., p. 124). For thinking as subordination to a ruling idea, cf. Ebbinghaus, in Kultur der Gegenwart, pp. 221ff. Kuelpe (Outlines of Psychology, p. 447) expresses himself in a similar manner: in thinking “we find an anticipatory apperception, which covers a more or less extensive circle of individual reproductions, and differs from a group of accidental incentives to reproduction only in the consistency with which all ideas outside the circle are checked or suppressed.”
² In his Psychologia empirica, ch. II, § 23, p. 16, Christian Wolff says simply and precisely: “Cogitatio est actus animae quo sibi sui rerumque aliarum extra se conscia est” (Thinking is an act of the soul whereby it becomes conscious of itself and of other things outside itself).
³ The element of adaptation is particularly stressed by William James in his definition of logical thinking (Principles of Psychology, II, p. 330): “Let us make this ability to deal with novel data the technical differentia of reasoning. This will sufficiently mark it out from common associative thinking.”
⁴ “Thoughts are shadows of our feelings, always darker, emptier, and simpler than these,” says Nietzsche. Lotze (Logik, p. 552) remarks in this connection: “Thinking, if left to the logical laws of its own movement, coincides once more at the end of its correct trajectory with the behaviour of objectively real things.”
⁵ Cf. Baldwin’s remarks quoted below. The eccentric philosopher Johann Georg Hamann (1730–88) actually equates reason with language. (See Hamann’s writings, pub. 1821–43.) With Nietzsche reason fares even worse as “linguistic metaphysics.” Friedrich Mauthner goes the furthest in this direction (Sprache und Psychologie); for him there is absolutely no thought without speech, and only speaking is thinking. His idea of the “word fetishism” that dominates science is worth noting.
⁶ Cf. Kleinpaul, Das Leben der Sprache.
⁷ My small son gave me an explicit example of the subjectivity of such symbols, which originally seem to belong entirely to the subject: He described everything he wanted to take or eat with an energetic “stô lôl” (Swiss-German for “leave it!”).
⁸ Le Jardin d’Epicure, p. 80.
⁹ It is difficult to estimate how great is the seductive influence of primitive word meanings on our thinking. “Everything that has ever been in consciousness remains as an active element in the unconscious,” says Hermann Paul (Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, p. 25). The old word-meanings continue to have an effect which is imperceptible at first and proceeds “from that dark chamber of the unconscious in the soul” (ibid.). Hamann states emphatically (Schriften, VII, p. 8): “Metaphysics misuses all the verbal signs and figures of speech based on empirical knowledge and reduces them to empty hieroglyphs and types of ideal relationships.” Kant is supposed to have learnt a thing or two from Hamann.
¹⁰ Grundriss der Psychologie, pp. 363–64.
¹¹ Lehrbuch aer Psychologie, II, ch. 10, par. 26, p. 260.
¹² Baldwin, Thought and Things, II, pp. 145ff.
¹³ In this connection I would mention the experimental “investigations into the linguistic components of association” (1908) made by Eberschweiler [q.v., Bibliography] at my request, which disclose the remarkable fact that during an association experiment the intrapsychic association is influenced by phonetic considerations.
¹⁴ See n. 5, above.
¹⁵ There was as a matter of fact no external compulsion which would have made technical thinking necessary. The labour question was solved by an endless supply of cheap slaves, so that efforts to save labour were superfluous. We must also remember that the interest of the man of antiquity was turned in quite another direction: he reverenced the divine cosmos, a quality which is entirely lacking in our technological age.
~C.G. Jung, "Two Kinds of Thinking," Symbols of Transformation (Collected Works Vol. 5) § 4, 11-17
[Bold mine. Italics his.]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GgIweizXwAA-q0U.jpg)
@jeb91380 @FluffyJeana @hauntedgauntlet @LBark55 @MoviesDayz @BearcatHog4ever @stillnewtwallen I was kinda mixed on it ; #seven . Its strengths are #acting; and it's look. But; it's often predictable. Their was ; #joke ;that almost was always #raining. But, it occurrs to me. It defiantly doesn't get better. As ; #symbolically u think it would . #hell is #hot...;
ಬಾಗಲಕೋಟೆ: ಬೀಳಗಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾಂಕೇತಿಕವಾಗಿ ನಾಮಪತ್ರ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ ಸಚಿವ @NiraniMurugesh
#Bagalkote #bilagi #assemblyelection #murugeshnirani #Nomination #symbolically #karnatakaelection2023 #kannadanews #today
https://t.co/ECYazonqU5
April 4, 2023. #Helsinki #NATO #OTAN #symbolically #dozen #adozen #Karjala #Karelia #Lidl #stopputin #donotletputinmeddle
Quite symbolically I am celebrating Finland's NATO membership with twelve #aitokarjalanpiirakka. We are safe now, putin dare not attack!
April 4, 2023. #Helsinki #NATO #OTAN #symbolically #dozen #adozen #Karjala #Karelia #Lidl #stopputin #donotletputinmeddle
Quite symbolically I am celebrating Finland's NATO membership with twelve #aitokarjalanpiirakka. We are safe now, not alone any more.
"Put differently, something about the #unconscious #complexes works #symbolically, and our mind must approach it with a symbolic capacity of understanding that resonates with the 'something-about-the-unconscious complex' that works symbolically. We have to be able to work symbolically to give the symbolic nature of the complex the adequate framework for being understood in our #consciousness. The complex speaks in symbols, and we must be intimate with symbolism to understand it. The complex has its own means of expression, and we have to grasp its unique way of understanding to receive that understanding. It's as if our mind has to be able to pull the understanding of the unconscious into consciousness as a magnet pulls in iron particles." ~J. Gary Sparks, Jungian analyst, The Call of Destiny: An Introduction to Carl Jung's Major Works, p. 131
On the new episode of Speaking of Jung: Interviews with Jungian Analysts
ఇండోనేషియా ప్రెసిడెంట్ #symbolically లాంఛనప్రాయంగా
ప్రధాన మంత్రి @narendramodi గారికి #G20Indonesia అధ్యక్ష పదవిని అప్పగించారు భారతదేశం🇮🇳 ఈ ఏడాది డిసెంబర్ 1 నుండి అధికారికంగా #జి20 అధ్యక్ష పదవిని చేపట్టనున్నారు.
@PMOIndia @mygovindia @PIB_India
https://t.co/jo6ovUV3Er
Indonesian President symbolically hands over G20 Presidency to Prime Minister @narendramodi
India🇮🇳 will formally assume G20 Presidency from 1st December this year.
#g20org @IndianEmbJkt @cgibali
#G20BaliSummit #G20Indonesia
@blsanthosh @shivprakashbjp @BJPMadhukarAP
HAPPY #RCSUNDAY ❤🏥
(Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal)
It was nice to meet with the #SamoanRedCross ❤️🇼🇸
We have now #symbolically #connected the movement across 193 countries.
Have a great day 🌎🌏🌍✨
Torbjørn C. Pedersen
Goodwill Ambassador of the Danish Red Cross.
1)The Key
Original July 2, 1999
I have discussed often the idea of #trusting one's reality to inform you in many ways both #symbolically & factually.With the #horoscope we learn to identify those symbols that reveal the identity to us, it is through the active application of 1/2
333 = 9
666 =1+8= 9
999 =2+7= 9
“In #numerology, the number 9 represents completion.
it #symbolically represents wisdom and experience, & buzzes with the energy of both endings and new beginnings.”
The #individual, #isolated but inexorably linked to others, #symbolically represented by a red ribbon to remember #blood, #life in #Cohesion with others. The #Message is that the #individual is he is not a #monad, but is part of a #cycle of #mother #earth.
#SURREALISM #art
Last weekend, the U.S. flew a B-1B strategic bomber over# the M East, over the Strait of Hormuz near Iran, #Symbolically, at various points along the route –which went from the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to Yemen, via Israel escorting US mombers!
Al Crooke
Sather Gate UC Berkeley https://t.co/FlppRXsC6A ~ Opening the way #symbolically for @WorldUnivAndSch @WUaSPress (@HarbinBook too? - re #RealisticVirtualHarbin in 1 #RealisticVirtualEarth) & for #WUaSFreeToStudents' https://t.co/K3NUhQbSt0 centric degrees https://t.co/OoT2iCUDie ?
Karnataka CM Yediyurappa "Symbolically" Inaugurated Covid-19 Vaccination Drive For Above 18
Video Link ► https://t.co/q2OMuAyMdC
#Yediyurappa #Symbolically #Inaugurated #Covid #Coronavirus #Vaccination #TV9Kannada #KannadaNews
Last Seen Hashtags on Sotwe
omegle (*)()(*)()***+filter:videos
Seen from Turkey
섹트
Seen from Algeria
momsonn
Seen from Canada
Cxnny
Seen from United States
nakbaday
Seen from United Kingdom
neymar135videotwitter
Seen from Mexico
boyfights
Seen from Australia
Saranya
Seen from India
momsonn()*****
Seen from Peru
แลกรูปเมีย
Seen from Thailand
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
241.6M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.1M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.2M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.4M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
89.8M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
83.8M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.3M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.1M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.8M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.1M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
62.9M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.3M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers