How abstract is too abstract?

[Hmm]

Originally Posted by Bella

We Antisocial One!

[Antisocial one]

Hopefully you remember the context, and if not then you can look back there. The connection was finally made in my head and I think, to paraphrase your statement, you meant to say that all human development and progress is dependent upon intuitive leaps, and that without it, humankind would not be able to move forward. You claim that N is really the only factor that contributes to such progress. (To counter ahead of time any responses from S's here, I'll claim that without S each individual human would not survive in the immediate present, making advancement a moot point.)

My point was that by placing so much imperative on your senses you are ignoring huge part of the reality. But I understand that this is simply because of the way you are built.


Point of the example with nuclear energy was that the source of it is invisible for the senses. But entire thing exists, it is there, you don't see it but you can use it.
Plus, the logic that is behind it has "nothing" to do with common sense.



But if you want to talk about the progress and S/N it is fine with me.


For the start, you did not get it what I was saying.


My point is that for the progress we need both. But in the last 20 years things are going more toward N because of technology and advanced scinence. The problem in modern times is that N can understand the S sphere of interests but it is not good at it.
While S is lost in the world of N. What means that we can't close the circle anymore.


I think that few thousand years ago the entire S/N thing was more balanced. Because there was less abstract things for Ns to play with.
So differnces between us were smaller what means that communication was better/easier.
For example, what are the odds that ancient philosopher attends local horse race and what are the odds that modern astronomer enojoys in a good football game?
I think that the odds are not equal.


It looks to me this rapture will be growing with time and it could create serious problems for this world. Actually it already does.


For example look at the biggest controversy of our time - global warming
I think that it is real and it is much worse that people think it is.
The point here is not global warming it is thinking about it.


As the words say it must be global and it must be warming.
But it can happen that you have global cooling efect in some time. What is totally normal form perspective of physics.(actually it can be any other way) But that does not mean that global warming is not happening.


If you use common sense on the part I have just typed it doesn't make any sense at all. So it is logical to presume that the entire thing is BS.
Even the N that is not into it will say it is BS. That is because you need so much special knowledge to understand this, that you will need to devote your entire life to understand it.


Why am I saying this ?

If you spent years on building yourself in one direction there will be no way that you can talk about it with people that haven't done the same.


Because of that you get the scenario like the example with global warming and cooling. The actual problem is that the language(s) can't describe some things in a few words. In the reality the process of global warming does not exist. It is concept created by language.
Even if you use climate change the problem is still there.
This is because climate can't be in any other state then change.
So you must say that we have "Rapid climate change".
The next question is "I still don't see the problem with it? then I say because the name of the problem should be "Rapid climate change with the very bad outcome"


This means that we have gone from original two words "Global warming" to seven words" Rapid climate change with the very bad outcome"
The next catch is that the biggest problems of climate change are not about the air. What means that the name is wrong again.
I will stop here because I think that the point is proven.


The conclusion is that we have so much problems in communication because
S needs to classify everything in solid manner.

But the problem is that it can't be done for some things, as I have proven in this post.
So S has large problems with things that you can't classify or specify.
In the situation that you have wrong name for something it is inevitable that you do not understand it (at least not fully).

I hope that all this makes at least some sense to you.

I don't want to go too far off-topic by discussing your claim. My point is simply that it took me a few times of reading it before I understood your deeper meaning there. This would be a result of my slow-working N, don't you think?

In the case that I know the answer I would have never opened this thread.

[Cimarron]

Oh okay. That's an interesting claim to make (actually, about 3 or so claims wrapped together), and it seems it could have some merit. I may think about it later...some other time. (notice what I did there?) I'm not saying that to be rude or dramatic, I'm explaining my reaction, since it's relevant to our thread topic. I am shelving your thesis away to be considered another time.

So anyway, I suppose now we could go back to your question, "What are an S's general fears?" or we could have more general discussion. This thread doesn't feel like it has moved much though. We've wiggled around and gained a little perspective on both grounds, but can't find anything much farther than that.

[Antisocial one]

There is no need to go into the part at all.




How likely it is that something like this can happen to you?


That you wait in a line in a bakery, hoping to buy a newspapers.

[Cimarron]

What? Am I going to buy something to eat, and while standing in line I realized I could buy a newspaper as well? Or did I go there specifically for the newspaper? Or did I plan beforehand to get both, since I wanted both and I know they're both there? I don't get it. No, I probably wouldn't find myself in that situation.

I should probably add that I rarely go to bakeries, and thanks to the internet I also rarely read newspapers. But I answered your question assuming that both are normal.

[Antisocial one]

Originally Posted by Cimarron

What? Am I going to buy something to eat, and while standing in line I realized I could buy a newspaper as well? Or did I go there specifically for the newspaper? Or did I plan beforehand to get both, since I wanted both and I know they're both there? I don't get it. No, I probably wouldn't find myself in that situation.

I should probably add that I rarely go to bakeries, and thanks to the internet I also rarely read newspapers. But I answered your question assuming that both are normal.

The qustion is: Did you ever tried to by newspapes in bakery?
(there is no complications in the story)

[Cimarron]

No I haven't.

[Antisocial one]

I can proudly say that I have tried that today.

I was standing in line. But something was wrong, very wrong.
After 10 second I have figured what is wrong.


This is a price you need to pay if you live detached from "reality".

[Bella]

Originally Posted by Antisocial one

I will raise the bet.

What are fears typical for S?

That's a hard thing to answer, everybody has their own fears.

[Antisocial one]

Originally Posted by Bella

That's a hard thing to answer, everybody has their own fears.

That is the main reason why I have said that he doesn not have to answer the question.