most people i’d guess put stuff over there, it’s probably part of the magic of human minds. No simple detachment maybe, but it’s related.

things can get messed up when an individual can’t put whatever over there.

it’s an individual/s’ art I suppose, and probably adaptive aspects of personality could be considered somewhat from this.

always a work-in-progress maybe.

what interests me is the shared putting stuff over there, perhaps it’s in the territory of ideology. More’s probably informal, but has a formal front.

probably related psychological compartmentalizing, and in the broader expression of the many culture involves compartmentalizing.

some putting things over there is friendly (over whatever scales), some maybe not though.

i’m sort of the opinion everything works as well as it does because inidividuals mind their own business, grant self and others space – operating space. Human individuals are what they are because they differentiate/individuate. It’s central to the I, to identity. Not to be overstated, the differences depending how they are viewed might be considered small, important or not.

in a way putting stuff over there is a way of bringing it in. Perhaps related abstraction.

what of the homely experience of environment though, or more broadly of culture if you like? It’s not daddy, but certainly to some extent is for the satisfaction of human nature.

culture offers tools I suppose to help put stuff over there.

better than put in anywhere

>over there

Where’s that?

Bubblecar said:

>over there

Where’s that?

Not here.

Bubblecar said:

>over there

Where’s that?

understanding things of the external world – of the way it might be internalized – involves putting whatever in its place (so to speak).

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

>over there

Where’s that?

understanding things of the external world – of the way it might be internalized – involves putting whatever in its place (so to speak).

Isn’t that what dreaming is for?

transition said:

most people i’d guess put stuff over there, it’s probably part of the magic of human minds. No simple detachment maybe, but it’s related.

things can get messed up when an individual can’t put whatever over there.

it’s an individual/s’ art I suppose, and probably adaptive aspects of personality could be considered somewhat from this.

always a work-in-progress maybe.

what interests me is the shared putting stuff over there, perhaps it’s in the territory of ideology. More’s probably informal, but has a formal front.

probably related psychological compartmentalizing, and in the broader expression of the many culture involves compartmentalizing.

some putting things over there is friendly (over whatever scales), some maybe not though.

i’m sort of the opinion everything works as well as it does because inidividuals mind their own business, grant self and others space – operating space. Human individuals are what they are because they differentiate/individuate. It’s central to the I, to identity. Not to be overstated, the differences depending how they are viewed might be considered small, important or not.

in a way putting stuff over there is a way of bringing it in. Perhaps related abstraction.

what of the homely experience of environment though, or more broadly of culture if you like? It’s not daddy, but certainly to some extent is for the satisfaction of human nature.

culture offers tools I suppose to help put stuff over there.

I usually understand what transition says, but not this time.

I’ve never, and never known anyone to, deliberately put stuff “over there”.
You must be imagining it.

>I’ve never, and never known anyone to, deliberately put stuff “over there”.
You must be imagining it.

Yes, of course i’m imagining it.

I’d expect of the work minds in the social field (for starters) that consideration of the inner workings of minds (the influence it has on what is observed and understood of that external) requires constraining mechanisms, otherwise the force of an internal representation (of whatever external) can depart from a reliable, or helpful representation.

I mean most of us have feelings that contribute to the conjuring of a perspective, and most people would experience the sensation at some time that a perspective is more the product of the mind than what really might be out there. Or, that it displaces alternative perspectives.

So, by whatever magic, people put stuff over there (so to speak).

You, for example, are not just physically over there (to me), you’re in other ways over there. Not just happen to be physically elsewhere.

One of the attractions of the medium.

Not only do individuals put each other over there (so the I might do it’s business), probably people not uncommonly do it with their species. Have feelings or ideas or whatever that put the species over there.

transition said:

>I’ve never, and never known anyone to, deliberately put stuff “over there”. You must be imagining it.

Yes, of course i’m imagining it.

I’d expect of the work minds in the social field (for starters) that consideration of the inner workings of minds (the influence it has on what is observed and understood of that external) requires constraining mechanisms, otherwise the force of an internal representation (of whatever external) can depart from a reliable, or helpful representation.

I mean most of us have feelings that contribute to the conjuring of a perspective, and most people would experience the sensation at some time that a perspective is more the product of the mind than what really might be out there. Or, that it displaces alternative perspectives.

So, by whatever magic, people put stuff over there (so to speak).

You, for example, are not just physically over there (to me), you’re in other ways over there. Not just happen to be physically elsewhere.

One of the attractions of the medium.

Not only do individuals put each other over there (so the I might do it’s business), probably people not uncommonly do it with their species. Have feelings or ideas or whatever that put the species over there.

I think I understand now. You’re talking about the “us and them” dichotomy?

The what one’d integrate or incorporate as part of ego.

I mean there’s a lot of stuff an individual might think about (perhaps engage in some way), and along with that not want it to be a significant part of core ego. Everyone has ego.

There are of course always forces external that seek to have influence over what inhabits egos.

Politicians and media come to mind. Religions. Sport. Advertizers, of whatever. There are a lot.

Stuff needs to be delivered (into minds). Minds potentially have resistance, and countermeasures.

The delivery needs devices to get attention, and overcome resistance and countermeasures.

What’s needed is a surrogate (elements) for core ego that can flip it (or aspects of) unrecognizably.

The delivery from afar’s going to be like the friendly helpful neighbour in a small village, the type of friendly you are, or’d like to be. An enviable friendly, if you weren’t that already.

Anyway, I think everyone puts stuff over there, even the friendly neighbour (of the village example – think ancestral environments, what minds adapted for).

So, I think of the modern world if the every-day-practical-devices of putting stuff over there, apparently marginal to core ego, could be hijacked some, that might be quite effective.

> Stuff needs to be delivered (into minds). Minds potentially have resistance, and countermeasures.

Is the stuff to be delivered into minds fact or fiction?

It matters.