He discusses this in his book "The Cosmic Trigger", the first volume. It's absolute horseshit. RA Wilson never had an original thought in his live. Everything RA Wilson said was recycled and combined with whatever idiocy he thought might affect people. He never cared about "truth" because he outright said there is no truth, only perception. That is absolutely false, especially in light of the things he said that contradicted that assertion.
Besides, he was Timothy Leary's CIA handler and was taught by the CIA how to contribute to "Operation Mindfuck" as a wise mystic scholar.
No thought is original, because everything that we can think of as individuals already existed, and has already been perceived. Thinking by definition is a reflective action, you have to comprehend and perceive before you can think. So that's a poor argument, the most important inventions were all built on the backs of other people's ideas. The 4 stroke cycle was invented by a salesman with no formal education in engineering.
There is a truth, but it is beyond our comprehension, so I don't see the contradiction. Regardless we are part of that truth because we are part of true reality even if we can't perceive it directly.
He claimed he had a degree in engineering and pretended to to be somewhat scientific and rational in his reasoning process, but he never said anything that he could back up with facts. His 8 circuit psychology is just one of many other things he said but could never prove.
The 8 circuit idea was made up by Leary, who spent the majority of his life giving himself brain damage by his LSD usage. Using that, Wilson tied it in with a number of other ideas that happen to use 8 as a framework -- Kepler, Fuller, Mendeleyev, etc. Unlike chemistry, however, psychology has no counterpart in the natural world. It's all interpretation; it is not predictive and it is not replicable or reproducible.
Trying to force a paradigm where there is none is futile, like Kepler trying to fit his laws of planetary motion into Pythagoras's Law of Octaves.
Unlike chemistry, however, psychology has no counterpart in the natural world. It's all interpretation; it is not predictive and it is not replicable or reproducible.
It is actually. Humans have common archetypes, that is symbology that naturally triggers an emotional response. Not an emotion in the sense of getting hysterical or sentimental or what we commonly refer to as being emotional. More in the physiological sense, where emotion means a hormonal, and neuropeptide cascade in the body that forces you to focus on specific aspects of the world.
Wilson believed like Jung did, that understanding these archetypes is the goal of psychology because they determine our unconscious behavior. However these archetypes are forms of imagery that are metaphysical, not physical. It has been shown that dreams are means of our brain to organize our experiences, a sort of brain defragmentation. Then it stands to reason that the dream world is interacting with these archetypes directly, shaping what they mean to our waking conscious.
The fact that humans share common forms of perception, and common emotional responses to specific stimuli proves that archetypes exist, but they exist as metaphysical, psychic phenomena. Which makes it hard to draw concrete predictions, in any case it's not unlike most hard sciences like engineering, which require more trial and error and ignorance than we care to admit.
Trying to force a paradigm where there is none is futile, like Kepler trying to fit his laws of planetary motion into Pythagoras's Law of Octaves.
There is nothing wrong with trying to combine metaphysical constructs and synthesize a new system. Did you know that a lot of aerodynamic theory was adapted from Maxwell's theories of electromagnetism? I'm beginning to get the impression you're a person without any imagination or ability to think for yourself. Rather formulaic reductionism if you ask me.
understanding these archetypes is the goal of psychology because they determine our unconscious behavior.
Do they? Can anyone prove that? No, they can't. This theory of Jung's is interpretive, not falsifiable, not predictable, and not reproducible.
Did you know that a lot of aerodynamic theory was adapted from Maxwell's theories of electromagnetism?
Not surprising since they are both based on material phenomena that can be measured and tested. Metaphysics does not lend itself to that same kind of scrutiny.
Mind you, I'm not necessarily a materialist. But I'm not going to let you make this a discussion where you try to force me into taking the role of defending materialism. The materialist model is quite different from any metaphysical model. One can be tested and reproduced, the other can't.
Besides, I was talking about that fraud RA Wilson, who again I say was Timothy Leary's CIA handler and a paid disinformationist.
One can be tested and reproduced, the other can't.
It can, again, showing you lack imagination. Results are reproducible because humans share a common form of perception.
Material phenomena are measured in metaphysical space, because you're interpreting the result of an instrument, you're not perceiving things directly.
In that sense metaphysical phenomena are subject to the instruments used to measure them. You can't use a ruler, but you can use your own consciousness. If that's a faulty instrument it says more about you than the instrument itself.
If I tell you I weigh 142lbs can you tell anything about me? It's a repeatable measurement consistent and testable. Or do you need more cues to interpret the data?
Your instruments can lead you down blind alleys. Because you lack other cues your measurements are often only valid in a very narrow specific range. Outside that range you lose all predictive abilities, then your instruments become pure pseudoscience and you become aware of your own ignorance.
What I gather from you is you have a very idealized belief in science, almost bordering on scientism. This is hardly realistic.
Maybe you forget that your own senses are instruments and a lot of metaphysical interpretation happens to the sensory input data.
The anger and dismissive behavior is repeatable, measurable, testable, and predictable. Would you like it expressed in a numerical value?
I didn't know this was a debate or an argument. I thought were were just disagreeing with one another. You're the who started attributing motives and emotions to me that weren't there and trying to prove that I was arguing from a position that I wasn't. To wit:
Mind you, I'm not necessarily a materialist. But I'm not going to let you make this a discussion where you try to force me into taking the role of defending materialism.
To which you said:
What I gather from you is you have a very idealized belief in science, almost bordering on scientism. This is hardly realistic.
I would agree, if that's what I actually said. But it wasn't.
Besides, I state once again:
I was talking about that fraud RA Wilson, who again I say was Timothy Leary's CIA handler and a paid disinformationist.
We're done. You're a worthless troll, and a failure as a troll. At least "Old Bob" had a cult following. You're just a message board forum slider.
[ + ] Lost_In_The_Thinking
[ - ] Lost_In_The_Thinking 0 points 2 yearsApr 25, 2023 00:19:47 ago (+0/-0)
Besides, he was Timothy Leary's CIA handler and was taught by the CIA how to contribute to "Operation Mindfuck" as a wise mystic scholar.
[ + ] usedoilanalysis
[ - ] usedoilanalysis [op] 0 points 2 yearsApr 25, 2023 09:01:55 ago (+0/-0)
There is a truth, but it is beyond our comprehension, so I don't see the contradiction. Regardless we are part of that truth because we are part of true reality even if we can't perceive it directly.
[ + ] Lost_In_The_Thinking
[ - ] Lost_In_The_Thinking 0 points 2 yearsApr 25, 2023 10:15:14 ago (+0/-0)
The 8 circuit idea was made up by Leary, who spent the majority of his life giving himself brain damage by his LSD usage. Using that, Wilson tied it in with a number of other ideas that happen to use 8 as a framework -- Kepler, Fuller, Mendeleyev, etc. Unlike chemistry, however, psychology has no counterpart in the natural world. It's all interpretation; it is not predictive and it is not replicable or reproducible.
Trying to force a paradigm where there is none is futile, like Kepler trying to fit his laws of planetary motion into Pythagoras's Law of Octaves.
[ + ] usedoilanalysis
[ - ] usedoilanalysis [op] 0 points 2 yearsApr 25, 2023 10:46:59 ago (+0/-0)
It is actually. Humans have common archetypes, that is symbology that naturally triggers an emotional response. Not an emotion in the sense of getting hysterical or sentimental or what we commonly refer to as being emotional. More in the physiological sense, where emotion means a hormonal, and neuropeptide cascade in the body that forces you to focus on specific aspects of the world.
Wilson believed like Jung did, that understanding these archetypes is the goal of psychology because they determine our unconscious behavior. However these archetypes are forms of imagery that are metaphysical, not physical. It has been shown that dreams are means of our brain to organize our experiences, a sort of brain defragmentation. Then it stands to reason that the dream world is interacting with these archetypes directly, shaping what they mean to our waking conscious.
The fact that humans share common forms of perception, and common emotional responses to specific stimuli proves that archetypes exist, but they exist as metaphysical, psychic phenomena. Which makes it hard to draw concrete predictions, in any case it's not unlike most hard sciences like engineering, which require more trial and error and ignorance than we care to admit.
There is nothing wrong with trying to combine metaphysical constructs and synthesize a new system. Did you know that a lot of aerodynamic theory was adapted from Maxwell's theories of electromagnetism? I'm beginning to get the impression you're a person without any imagination or ability to think for yourself. Rather formulaic reductionism if you ask me.
[ + ] Lost_In_The_Thinking
[ - ] Lost_In_The_Thinking 0 points 2 yearsApr 25, 2023 11:56:18 ago (+0/-0)
Do they? Can anyone prove that? No, they can't. This theory of Jung's is interpretive, not falsifiable, not predictable, and not reproducible.
Not surprising since they are both based on material phenomena that can be measured and tested. Metaphysics does not lend itself to that same kind of scrutiny.
Mind you, I'm not necessarily a materialist. But I'm not going to let you make this a discussion where you try to force me into taking the role of defending materialism. The materialist model is quite different from any metaphysical model. One can be tested and reproduced, the other can't.
Besides, I was talking about that fraud RA Wilson, who again I say was Timothy Leary's CIA handler and a paid disinformationist.
[ + ] usedoilanalysis
[ - ] usedoilanalysis [op] 0 points 2 yearsApr 25, 2023 13:42:12 ago (+0/-0)
It can, again, showing you lack imagination. Results are reproducible because humans share a common form of perception.
Material phenomena are measured in metaphysical space, because you're interpreting the result of an instrument, you're not perceiving things directly.
In that sense metaphysical phenomena are subject to the instruments used to measure them. You can't use a ruler, but you can use your own consciousness. If that's a faulty instrument it says more about you than the instrument itself.
[ + ] Lost_In_The_Thinking
[ - ] Lost_In_The_Thinking 0 points 2 yearsApr 25, 2023 15:05:31 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] usedoilanalysis
[ - ] usedoilanalysis [op] 0 points 2 yearsApr 25, 2023 16:07:43 ago (+0/-0)
If I tell you I weigh 142lbs can you tell anything about me? It's a repeatable measurement consistent and testable. Or do you need more cues to interpret the data?
Your instruments can lead you down blind alleys. Because you lack other cues your measurements are often only valid in a very narrow specific range. Outside that range you lose all predictive abilities, then your instruments become pure pseudoscience and you become aware of your own ignorance.
What I gather from you is you have a very idealized belief in science, almost bordering on scientism. This is hardly realistic.
Maybe you forget that your own senses are instruments and a lot of metaphysical interpretation happens to the sensory input data.
The anger and dismissive behavior is repeatable, measurable, testable, and predictable. Would you like it expressed in a numerical value?
[ + ] Lost_In_The_Thinking
[ - ] Lost_In_The_Thinking 0 points 2 yearsApr 25, 2023 19:17:11 ago (+0/-0)
To which you said:
I would agree, if that's what I actually said. But it wasn't.
Besides, I state once again:
We're done. You're a worthless troll, and a failure as a troll. At least "Old Bob" had a cult following. You're just a message board forum slider.
[ + ] usedoilanalysis
[ - ] usedoilanalysis [op] 0 points 2 yearsApr 25, 2023 20:26:14 ago (+0/-0)