Philosophical Allerley
Thus it happens much, so much is forgotten so much, not meant an end and so this column was overloaded my life for the victims. Let us hope for better times and hereby open the next chapter.
I stayed in my previous Debauchery, more or less in daily observations, I try now the abstraction of ideas and descriptions to approach. The observant reader, this trend in the contributions of "speaking with a shower Spider" and "garbage" certainly have noticed.
I often wonder what it represents, that people differ with each other so much that there is interest and sympathy groups and their opposites. What might be something like this? In the animal kingdom is observed such segregation behavior within their own species rarely, if ever. A thought on this subject, I get: Could individuality retroactively justify perhaps in the differential perception of the people? I am convinced that there are different types of human perception. Some collect for example, every detail of their surroundings, others limited to the most important thing. The amount of information is defined depending on the capacity of the brain then the possibility to interpret the input, the as received on a daily basis and the desire for more or less information. Curiosity would be from this point probably be rated as a distinct form of high brain capacity, this system requires naturally for optimal utilization. Is this not the case, requires it to be more, it is reached, the "full measure" stops the learning and Wahrnehmungs-/Interpreatationsprozess. The law of the minimum, a process is only as productive as the least amount of raw material to specific permits. On the foundation of high storage capacity of the brain grows so auto mashing the desire for knowledge, based on which in turn improve the transfer associations and affiliations possible that surpass the combination of the sum of the individual components by a multiple, very similar to the potency of a cell tissue in contrast to the power of the same amount of individual cells. The way to knowledge, as since the recent days, the highest philosophy is sought out good, so of neural capacity as a condition which therefore influenced perception, or rather the perception of workload, the association, a comparison with existing data and, finally, the interpretation, based on the previously drawn cross-links.
The knowledge could thus stand in the way of error, which can be found at the respective bridge points.
first Lack of neural capacity (prevents curiosity)
second Limited or one-sided perception (which prevents the necessary input)
third Lack of association reservoir (prevents linkage of information)
4th Interpretation weakness (Prevents recognition of relationships)
tendency can be said that the errors are corrected more easily with increasing atomic number, with the exception of 4, for whom the ability to interpret missing, has to fight almost to the selbsen problems such as those whose memory simply not large enough, while the latter recognize their weakness and not sure so can hardly bothered by it, as opposed to those that carry the theory of knowledge in itself, but they are not able to interpret.
"What is it?" Asked the man
"What do you think?" Replied the woman.
man: "counter-questions are a rhetorical device that I use you would indeed have expected, but never expected of you. "
wife:" Why you relocate just yet seemingly so suddenly in the digital question Metakontext and interpret my Erwiederung so very relationship-oriented?
man. "Because I will not give me happy with the surface I shall therefore start their conversation strategy and then process your message, so I grasp the meaning in all its breadth."
wife: "You trust me, then, hide the meaning of my appeal to you under several layers of communication Benen Should I now feel insulted or flattered?"
man: ".. Their penchant for counter-questions is extremely good, but yes and no."
wife: "You can not access my last question with a yes or no answer."
man. "But I will not reveal my assessment of the relationship level, so please feel as little as possible."
wife: "I ask you what you want?"
Man: "But you wanted to talk to me."
wife: "No, I will send you an information in conversation never was willing to talk and even less."
man: "Put it adequate to sell their antipathy to me?"
wife: "No, I stick to facts."
man: "You are funny!"
wife: "No, I stick to facts."
Man: If you ever ever objectively were, they are there now no more if you tell me about my interpretations and motives questioned for those "
wife." If I do really "
man," Now you can finally this questioning and send me your information I too have an appointment "
wife," If man exceeds the Halys, he will destroy a great kingdom. "
man:" Why do you speak of me in the third person "
wife:" This is an oracle, the nunmal are like that. "
man:" I think it's not politically correct. "
woman:" I can live with it. "
man:" That I will die off, I did not say "
wife." Me neither. "
man: "Would be a shame to the Gedl with which I can now expect."
woman: "With nothing more beautiful than it pays for itself with money."
man: "They are already so emotional, Pythia."
wife: "It's great that you remember, Croesus."
like my readers to forgive me, but my thoughts are currently simply weigh too much and block my external perception, so they had to be satisfied today with inner perception.
This is again different, sincerely promised. Thank you for
's wait and the nice comments!
your Thessy
0 comments:
Post a Comment