Objectification; is an attitude that regards a person as a commodity or as an object for use, with insufficient regard for a person's personality or sentience.
I should add there is some exception when it comes to specialization and with regards to any field that is not psychology or it's subset morality.
That is, we fully recognize that someone donning a P.H.D. or Doctorate in some field is qualified to be as verbose as needed, even if their listeners do not understand and are merely consumed with awe.
But the Age of the Polymath is gone. Despite the historical fact that a large body of social and scientific progress was pioneered primarily by autodidacts. Anymore, to be recognized as someone possessing understanding in more than one field of human knowledge requires one spend their whole life in a study hall. They will achieve their goal just in time to die.
I make the exception with respect to psychology and it's subfield morality, because these are areas where people are easily offended and maintain their own personal reality or version of the facts regardless of the source of conflicting information. It wouldn't matter if God itself revealed it to them, they would still not be willing to accept it. But when it comes to building bridges, we readily recognize that some exerpience or technical mastery is real.
There is one other field of "Knowledge" which shares a wide skepticism despite it's conclusions and that is the philosophical study known as "Epistemology" wherein the limitations of human understanding are explored and defined. People get really sloppy about this and quickly arrive at their beliefs without ever considering a study of epistemology. When their convictions are apparently undermined by some bright epistemologist, they are satisfied to fall back on the institutionalized scientific establishment as if it were a concrete reassurance that epistemology is unimportant.
Even if you have a strong vocabulary, as I do, you merely alienate the majority of the population with what appears to them as excessive and oppulant verbiage. Recently I read two books employing the word "Stultify" which one author felt it was necessary to define lest it be erroneously associated with the word "stifle".
Because I read material from all ages, I occassionally slip in and out of middle-english and Shakespearian use of language and employ a mass of historical references that more often than not leave my listeners dumbfounded. It gets even worse when I engage in technical discussion of scientific theories, recently while discussing the effect of caloric intake on obesity I made the error of mentioning peroxisome-proliferator activated receptors, and at that very moment the conversation ended and it's contributors dispersed, as a matter of fact, even before I could finish saying it.
The idea that you have to work for knowledge and understanding is burried deeper than the mythical Atlantis, these days everyone already knows everything or their opinion or private reality is every bit as good as anyone else, so why would we need anything more than a kindergarten (a German word meaning "Child"+"Garden") mastery of language.
They called it "Lucifer" in a bid to shed light on the Biblical meaning as the Lightbringer. But the negative associations made the publication unpopular and they were forced to realize that it was futile. The first issue of "Lucifer" deals with this subject and explains the rational behind giving the name to the magazine. And sorry, I just double-checked it was Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society who published Lucifer. The article from Vol 1 of Lucifer can be read here: http://www.theosopher.net/dzyan/lucifer/lucifer_v1_n1_september_1887.pdf
"Piously inclined readers may argue that" Lucifer" is accepted by all the churches as one of the many names of the Devil. According to Milton's superb fiction, Lucifer is Satan, the "rebellious" angel, the enemy of God and man. If one analyzes his rebellion, however, it will be found of no worse nat,ure than an assertion of free-will and independent thought, as if Lucifer had been born in the XIXth century."
I ask because hypnosis uses a technique called "Anchoring" which, properly understood, is a utilization of the neuroscientific law known as Hebb's Law/Rule which was developed by the Canadian Psychologist Donald Olding Hebb in his work "The Organization of Behavior" in which he correctly stated "When an axon of cell A is near enough to excite cell B and repeatedly or persistently takes part in firing it, some growth process or metabolic change takes place in one or both cells such that A's efficiency, as one of the cells firing B, is increased" which is often paraphrased "Neurons that fire together wire together." and is, to-date, the only well-known form of neuroplasticity, called Hebbian Plasticity (See wiki; Hebbian Theory).
So what the hypnotist does is create a new association which acts as the "anchor". The most common form is a simple pat on the shoulder. The hypnotist asks you to think of something which brings up the associations they want, then they put their hand on your shoulder briefly. This causes the Axon for Cell A (representing the tactile sensation of being touched ont he shoulder) to undergo a metabolic change, that makes it more likely to cause firing of the Cell B (representing the thing which they got you to think of and it's associated emotions). They do this repeatedly to ensure a good neurological association, then they pat you on the shoulder whenever they want to control your state of mind and bring you back to the way you felt when the association was established.
Neurolinguistic Programming, developed by Richard Bandler, also uses the Anchoring technique and builds on association theory to provide a traversable mental map for the manipulator. They know that "Water" and "Boat" are associated, so if they want you to think about water, they will mention the word "boat" to you, they have techniques like this for evoking thoughts in you as if you thought of them yourself. But that illusion only persists as long as you believe you are in control of yourself and you do not see the associative causes underlying all of your thoughts and behavior. Which most people don't, so they are all very effective tools. Regardless of my superior understanding of these things, I refuse to use those techniques, but I see others doing it and achieving resutls. I'd be more like the early Christian scientists who published the magazine "Lucifer" because of all the negative associations attached to it which rape it of its actual meaning.
Symbolism yes, but more profoundly; asscoiation. Symbols are mere references to their associations. As in language, the words do not mean anything in and of themselves, but are empty pointers to real meaning which is not contained in language. In that way it is necessary for nations to have flags and "National Emblems" so they can trap all patriotism in their symbolism. Then they can turn around and say "Hey, look at this symbol, now doesn't that make you want to fight for us, erhgm, your nation I mean." See this flag, the Canadian one, it represents Liberty, Justice and Truth. See that flag, the American one, it represents the same thing. Great, now forget about them and get to work. If you want Liberty, Justice or Truth again, just have a look at this flag, you will be instantly filled with those feelings.
Hey, which came first national symbolism or hypnosis and neurolinguistic programming? It kinds of seems like the latter might have been the inspiration for the former.
In human terms, that is wherein humanity is raised erroneously above the level of biology this is called "Clever". In biological terms its called "Adaptation".
The difference is clever implies forethought, something humans do not actually have.
Okay as long as your pool table is flat. I used to go to the "Wrek'd Room" to play pool with my buddy Matt. In line with their name and the general appearance of everyone there, the poole table was pointing in every direction. That's where the robot would loose against a human player.
In order to have "graduates" you need to have a certain number of "drop-outs" and "never-wents". Or the term would be utterly meaningless. Therefor, as a drop-out, you can thank me for your status. Oh that's right, you forced me out. I almost forgot. You set the criteria and the limitations such that only a fraction of all entries to the strainer would pour out the bottom while the rest get stuck up in your meshwork. But that's how you designed it to be expedient and selecting the 'talent' you needed to support your industrial machine.
Learning to play an instrument can teach you how faithfully useless the conscious mind is. The more you try to be consciously involved in playing, the more mistakes you make. The conscious mind is only there as a buffer to planned actions, which is necessary initially to learn to play, but after, playing an instrument is a semi-conscious act performed by the cerebellum which is not conscious("muscle memory").
Humans were always capable of rationality; mystery solved. No, no, I know, they worshiped these devices, err. they used them to try to contact the Gods. Erm What else can I suppose that diminishes the intellect of every generation that ever came before this one? Oh I know, Aliens!
That is, we fully recognize that someone donning a P.H.D. or Doctorate in some field is qualified to be as verbose as needed, even if their listeners do not understand and are merely consumed with awe.
But the Age of the Polymath is gone. Despite the historical fact that a large body of social and scientific progress was pioneered primarily by autodidacts. Anymore, to be recognized as someone possessing understanding in more than one field of human knowledge requires one spend their whole life in a study hall. They will achieve their goal just in time to die.
I make the exception with respect to psychology and it's subfield morality, because these are areas where people are easily offended and maintain their own personal reality or version of the facts regardless of the source of conflicting information. It wouldn't matter if God itself revealed it to them, they would still not be willing to accept it. But when it comes to building bridges, we readily recognize that some exerpience or technical mastery is real.
There is one other field of "Knowledge" which shares a wide skepticism despite it's conclusions and that is the philosophical study known as "Epistemology" wherein the limitations of human understanding are explored and defined. People get really sloppy about this and quickly arrive at their beliefs without ever considering a study of epistemology. When their convictions are apparently undermined by some bright epistemologist, they are satisfied to fall back on the institutionalized scientific establishment as if it were a concrete reassurance that epistemology is unimportant.
Because I read material from all ages, I occassionally slip in and out of middle-english and Shakespearian use of language and employ a mass of historical references that more often than not leave my listeners dumbfounded. It gets even worse when I engage in technical discussion of scientific theories, recently while discussing the effect of caloric intake on obesity I made the error of mentioning peroxisome-proliferator activated receptors, and at that very moment the conversation ended and it's contributors dispersed, as a matter of fact, even before I could finish saying it.
The idea that you have to work for knowledge and understanding is burried deeper than the mythical Atlantis, these days everyone already knows everything or their opinion or private reality is every bit as good as anyone else, so why would we need anything more than a kindergarten (a German word meaning "Child"+"Garden") mastery of language.
"Piously inclined readers may argue that" Lucifer" is accepted by all
the churches as one of the many names of the Devil. According to
Milton's superb fiction, Lucifer is Satan, the "rebellious" angel, the
enemy of God and man. If one analyzes his rebellion, however, it will
be found of no worse nat,ure than an assertion of free-will and independent
thought, as if Lucifer had been born in the XIXth century."
So what the hypnotist does is create a new association which acts as the "anchor". The most common form is a simple pat on the shoulder. The hypnotist asks you to think of something which brings up the associations they want, then they put their hand on your shoulder briefly. This causes the Axon for Cell A (representing the tactile sensation of being touched ont he shoulder) to undergo a metabolic change, that makes it more likely to cause firing of the Cell B (representing the thing which they got you to think of and it's associated emotions). They do this repeatedly to ensure a good neurological association, then they pat you on the shoulder whenever they want to control your state of mind and bring you back to the way you felt when the association was established.
Neurolinguistic Programming, developed by Richard Bandler, also uses the Anchoring technique and builds on association theory to provide a traversable mental map for the manipulator. They know that "Water" and "Boat" are associated, so if they want you to think about water, they will mention the word "boat" to you, they have techniques like this for evoking thoughts in you as if you thought of them yourself. But that illusion only persists as long as you believe you are in control of yourself and you do not see the associative causes underlying all of your thoughts and behavior. Which most people don't, so they are all very effective tools. Regardless of my superior understanding of these things, I refuse to use those techniques, but I see others doing it and achieving resutls. I'd be more like the early Christian scientists who published the magazine "Lucifer" because of all the negative associations attached to it which rape it of its actual meaning.
Hey, which came first national symbolism or hypnosis and neurolinguistic programming? It kinds of seems like the latter might have been the inspiration for the former.
The difference is clever implies forethought, something humans do not actually have.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b7/Kellyposter1970.jpg