Is the Label "indigo", "crystal" or "rainbow" arrogant and delusional?

General Open Discussion for topics not covered anywhere else.
well math and programming are rather boring in themselve, like very rebarbative and austere, it is logic and it is pretty boring in itself, but it also give lot of possibility to model thing and to do physic or funny multimedia thing with programming, once you enter multimedia programming or simulation or physical thing math become very important, they are the bottle neck of the algorythm, i more learned this by need to model thing or achieve some algorythm, in themselve they are more technical bottleneck than something interesting in themselve, same with statistic it is more usefull to achive some goal as marketting or social studies, or in physics , in a way, i never found math very complicated, but they are very boring to study and it take a bit of time to get the right formula to do something, it is more a bother than nything else, but mathematics are used everywhere, from ingeneering to sociology to politics to meteorology, even if ppl using formula do not always understand everything about how the person came to the formula =)

for programming it depend on the language after, there are 'high level' language, like bison or basic, action script or other thing that already include a developped synthax generally object oriented, and low level programming such as C or assembler, high level language will look more like human language, with a developed synthax, low level programming will be way closer to material and electronic and is closer to math in the synthax than to spoken language
User avatar
h0bby1
 
Posts: 27777
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:48 pm
Articles: 1
Has thanked: 1578 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

Kazimierz Dabrowski came up with a good theory that descibes what we call Indigos. He found that some children were overexcitable in their sensory perceptions. Here are is a description of his findings:

Psychomotor
The primary sign of this intensity is a surplus of energy. Children with a dominant psychomotor overexcitability are often misdiagnosed with ADHD since characteristics are similar.

•Rapid speech

•Impulsive behavior
•Competitiveness
•Compulsive talking
•Compulsive organizing
•Nervous habits and tics
•Preference for fast action and sports
•Physical expression of emotions
•Sleeplessness
Sensual
The primary sign of this intensity is a heightened awareness of all five senses: sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing. Children with a dominant sensual overexcitability can get sick from the smell of certain foods or as toddlers will hate to walk on grass in their bare feet. The pleasure they get from the tastes and textures of some foods may cause them to overeat.

•Appreciation of beauty, whether in writing, music, art or nature. Includes love of objects like jewelry

•Sensitive to smells, tastes, or textures of foods
•Sensitivity to pollution
•Tactile sensitivity (Bothered by feel of some materials on the skin, clothing tags)
•Craving for pleasure
•Need or desire for comfort
Intellectual
This intensity is the one most recognized in gifted children. It is characterized by activities of the mind, thought and thinking about thinking. Children who lead with this intensity seem to be thinking all the time and want answers to deep thoughts. Sometimes their need for answers will get them in trouble in school when their questioning of the teacher can look like disrespectful challenging.

•Deep curiosity
•Love of knowledge and learning
•Love of problem solving
•Avid reading
•Asking of probing questions
•Theoretical thinking
•Analytical thinking
•Independent thinking
•Concentration, ability to maintain intellectual effort
Imaginational
The primary sign of this intensity is the free play of the imagination. Their vivid imaginations can cause them to visualize the worst possibility in any situation. It can keep them from taking chances or getting involved in new situations.

•Vivid dreams

•Fear of the unknown
•Good sense of humor
•Magical thinking
•Love of poetry, music and drama
•Love of fantasy
•Daydreaming
•Imaginary friends
•Detailed visualization
Emotional
The primary sign of this intensity is exceptional emotional sensitivity. Children with a strong emotional overexcitability are sometimes mistakenly believed to have bipolar disorder or other emotional problems and disorders. They are often the children about whom people will say, "He's too sensitive for his own good."

•Extremes of emotion

•Anxiety
•Feelings of guilt and sense of responsibility
•Feelings of inadequacy and inferiority
•Timidity and shyness
•Loneliness
•Concern for others
•Heightened sense right and wrong, of injustice and hypocrisy
•Strong memory for feelings
•Problems adjusting to change
•Depression
•Need for security
•Physical response to emotions (stomach aches caused by anxiety, for example)
Parents can get a better understanding of their gifted children by matching their child's behavior with the characteristics of each of these intensities. Telling an emotionally intense child to ignore teasing or not let the teasing bother him is impossible advice for the child to follow. Understanding what lies behind a gifted child's behavior will help parents better respond to that behavior.

http://gifteduniverse.com/characteristics-gifted-adult/test-yourself-are-you-gifted-and-overexcitable/
Magnus
 
Posts: 2968
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:50 pm
Blogs: 41
Has thanked: 705 times
Been thanked: 599 times

" wrote:Again you are steriotyping, they guy I knew was prestine with his school work, used to copy his german homework and it was just beautiful :)
Some will have difficulty , but lots of people with lessor IQs have difficulty and don't like school and find it boring and whatnot. :)


Gosh sam, didn't you say that school was really boring,
a waste of time, and what-not for you?? Many Indigo
students do not do well in school, yet score 150 and well above
in IQ.
An interesting educational development is being planned
by a friend of mine who is developing a Psi-Q test. He thinks
there is a high correlation [80%] between a high Psi-Q and poor
school performance as the magnus post above seems to indicate.
It would be interesting to be able to measure
the other variations of the ratio too.
I wonder where the individual with
a low Psi-Q coupled with an average IQ
would be in school performance.
I would also be interesting if age or gender
would cause a dispairity in the data.

You always bring up interesting points sam,
thank you once again.
be in harmony,
be in beauty.
psychic child
note:
Of the 2,000 students
I taught to use their
psychic abilities; most gained
10 to 60 points in their twice yearly IQ testing.
Several that tested in 105 to 120 in the begining
jumped to 135 and 150 IQ points in that year, and
jumped again in the next. School performance also
gained, but not as much.
Very interesting.
harmony,
pc
Psychic Child
 
Posts: 7935
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:59 pm
Blogs: 19
Has thanked: 3845 times
Been thanked: 3056 times

SAM.....I can see where you would think I was refering to hobby's words towards you in particular when I said the things about sarcasim...but not true.
I would have been impressed with his ability even if it was me he was using it on....it was rather funny ...I was commenting only on his words. I don't care what you two discuss or debate over..I was totally impressed in his ability to use sarcasim with such an art.....it's something I think I have in common with him. And he is right...we would be who we are and say what we say whether anyone was supporting our words or not. I am me regardless of what anyone else is...no one needs to support me for my words to be true to me and that is what hobby was saying....he didn't need me or anyone to agree with him. this is him....I can respect that in a person.

Careful not to be too paranoid that people are refering to you or to take any of this stuff too seriously. The entire universe could take an about face tomorrow...nothing is written in stone.
User avatar
Grandma Lola
 
Posts: 11740
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 2748 times
Been thanked: 2490 times

I think this is the same as arguing with muslims or christians, if people want to believe there is not reasoning with them or even a discussion without this ganging up.

I have to say the indigo child label is half right for most here, just drop the indigo bit :)
User avatar
SecretAgentMan
 
Posts: 9296
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:44 am
Blogs: 2
Has thanked: 887 times
Been thanked: 1048 times

And you just drop "Secret Agent". (you go girl(s)!)
User avatar
Mentalbox
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:55 am
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Trying to put something as expansive as the human mind/emotion into labels (especially those pushed forth by psychology) is more absurd than children calling themselves "Indigo" :)
User avatar
AmentiHall
 
Posts: 11486
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:12 am
Blogs: 57
Has thanked: 3127 times
Been thanked: 5294 times

Labels are not going away. I like them. Words are tools that we use to describe things. Ideally we wouldn't talk, but that is not going to stop either.

Dobrowski's theory was ignored. I saw a bunch of psychiatrists and none of them told me about these findings. If I had told them that I thought I was Indigo they would probably think I was a wacko for sure. I like the Indigo label too, but I mostly like the idea of it and not so much the science behind it. Since we can't prove anything spiritual, we have to resort to scientific means to prove patterns or else they are considered nonexistent.

Existential Issues and Giftedness
It is well-known that many famous art ists and musi cians have expe ri -
enced exis ten tial depres sion (Goertzel, Goertzel, Goertzel, & Hanson, 2004;
5
Dabrowski’s Theory and Exis ten tial Depres sion in Gifted Chil dren and Adults
Piirto, 2004). Emi nent per sons who have suf fered from this kind of depres -
sion include Ernest Hem ing way, Wil liam Faulk ner, Charles Dick ens, Joseph
Conrad, Samuel Clem ens, Henry James, Herman Mel ville, Ten nes see Wil -
liams, Vir ginia Woolf, Isak Dinesen, Sylvia Plath, Emily Dickinson, Edna
St. Vin cent Millay, Elea nor Roo se velt, Abra ham Lin coln, and Dag
Hammarskjöld. In fact, the famous 17th century gifted mathematician,
phys i cist, and phi los o pher Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) fully cap tured the
expe ri ence of exis ten tial aware ness when he said, “When I con sider the
brief span of my life, swal lowed up in the eter nity before and behind it, the
small space that I fill, or even see, engulfed in the infi nite immen sity of
spaces which I know not, and which know not me, I am afraid, and wonder
to see myself here rather than there; for there is no reason why I should be
here rather than there, nor rather now than then” (Pascal, 1946).
Yalom (1980), who is per haps the most widely read cur rent West ern
writer on exis ten tial psy cho ther apy, describes four pri mary issues of
existence (or “ulti mate con cerns”)—death, freedom, isolation, and mean ing -
less ness. Death is an inevitable occurrence. Freedom, in an exis ten tial sense,
refers to the absence of exter nal struc ture—that is, humans do not enter a
world that is inher ently struc tured. We must give the world a struc ture,
which we our selves create. Thus, we have social cus toms and tra di tions,
education, religion, governments, laws, etc. Isolation rec og nizes that no
matter how close we become to another person, we will never com pletely
know that person and no one can fun da men tally come to know us; a gap
always remains, and we are there fore still alone. The fourth pri mary issue,
mean ing less ness, stems from the first three. If we must die, if in our free dom
we have to arbi trarily con struct our own world, and if each of us is ulti -
mately alone, then what abso lute mean ing does life have?3
People are most often affected by exis ten tial issues as a result of their
own expe ri ence of puz zle ment from trying to under stand them selves and
the world, which then gen er ates feel ings of alone ness and exis ten tial
depres sion. The people who worry over these issues are seldom those in the
lower reaches of intel li gence or even in the aver age range. In my expe ri ence,
exis ten tial fret ting, or for that matter rumi na tion and exis ten tial depres sion
6
Dabrowski’s Theory and Exis ten tial Depres sion in Gifted Chil dren and Adults
3 The notion that exis tence is absurd—irra tio nal in ways that cannot be explained or
under stood with words or con cepts—was described by Kierkegaard and later expounded by
Camus, Kafka, and Sartre.
are far more common among (though not exclu sive to) more highly intel li -
gent people—those who ponder, ques tion, ana lyze, and reflect. This is not
sur pris ing since one must engage in sub stan tial thought and reflec tion to
even con sider such notions. People who mind lessly engage in super fi cial
day-to-day aspects of life—work, meals, home duties, and chores—do not
tend to spend time think ing about these types of issues. Brighter indi vid u -
als are usu ally more driven to search for uni ver sal rules or answers, and also
to rec og nize injustices, inconsistencies, and hypocrisies.
Other char ac ter is tics of gifted chil dren and adults also pre dis pose
them to exis ten tial dis tress. Because brighter people are able to envi sion the
pos si bil i ties of how things might be, they tend to be ide al ists. How ever,
they are simul ta neously able to see that the world falls short of their ideals.
Unfor tu nately, these vision ar ies also rec og nize that their abil ity to make
changes in the world is very lim ited. Because they are intense, these gifted
individuals—both children and adults—keenly feel the disappointment
and frus tra tion that occurs when their ideals are not reached. They notice
duplicity, pre tense, arbitrariness, insincerities, and absur dities in society
and in the behav iors of those around them. They may ques tion or chal lenge
tra di tions, par tic u larly those that seem mean ing less or unfair. They may
ask, for exam ple, “Why are there such inflex i ble sex or age-role restric tions
on people? Is there any jus ti fi able reason why men and women ‘should’ act
a cer tain way? Why do people engage in hyp o crit i cal behav iors in which
they say one thing but then do the oppo site? People say they are con cerned
with the envi ron ment, but their behav iors show oth er wise. Why do people
say things they really do not mean at all? They greet you with, ‘How are
you?’ when they really don’t want you to tell them the details of how you
are. Why are so many people so unthink ing and uncar ing in their deal ings
with others? And with our planet? Are others really con cerned with improv -
ing the world, or is it simply all about self ish ness? Why do people settle for
medi oc rity? People seem fun da men tally self ish and tribal. How much dif -
fer ence can one person make? It all seems hope less. The world is too far
gone. Things get worse each day. As one person, I’ll never be able to make a
difference.” These thoughts are common in gifted children and adults.
As early as first grade, some gifted chil dren, par tic u larly the more
highly gifted ones, strug gle with these types of exis ten tial issues and begin
to feel estranged from their peers. When they try to share their exis ten tial
thoughts and con cerns with others, they are usu ally met with reac tions
rang ing from puz zle ment to hos til ity.
http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/dabrowskis_theory_existential_depression_feb09.pdf

Grr...the words are all broken. Well, the link is worth looking at for all those gifted indigos who suffer from depression.
Magnus
 
Posts: 2968
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:50 pm
Blogs: 41
Has thanked: 705 times
Been thanked: 599 times

somewhere, intelligence is about understanding nature, and producing some kind of science that other ppl will learn after, intelligence has not been created by evolution to solve IQ test or school exams, at best those test are accurate to detect the ability of a person to understand nature, both physical and spiritual, math are supposed to be language of nature, but it is not teached to good way in school to make it in direct relation with nature, a bit more in physics, but the ability to learn science is not the same than the ability to understand nature and produce science, the ppl who read books vs ppl who write them, it is two different form of intelligence, society like ppl who can learn and just be robot to work for company for producing material goods, such as planes train or electronic device, but it doesn't mean they are more able to understand nature or to produce some science, they are just able to learn science produced by other enough for doing their compartementalised job in a corporation
User avatar
h0bby1
 
Posts: 27777
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:48 pm
Articles: 1
Has thanked: 1578 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

at best those test are accurate to detect the ability of a person to understand nature, both physical and spiritual


Really, then why is a vast array of high IQ people of many different beliefs, atheism, buddhism, christian etc. Also how does a high IQ person who is an atheist (which many are) understand the spiritual when they deny it's existance.

If you are an example then your spiritual IQ would be about 70 ;) which of course is different to an academic IQ.
User avatar
SecretAgentMan
 
Posts: 9296
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:44 am
Blogs: 2
Has thanked: 887 times
Been thanked: 1048 times

both physical and spiritual are part of understanding the nature, lot of those belief say the same that there is a god, a cosmic energy or physical energy at the base of everything, all inteligent ppl of every domain bible or physic say the same thing :) there is no difference between both rational scientitic ability and spiritual ability in the end , they are just different thing the mind can try to understand, understanding about physical or spiritual both need some form of intelligence , eastern things and hinduism are close to early philosophy and they interwind math and geometry with spiritual all the time, mandals as well as many indian symbol are mathematic, and they are looked as being sacred and to represent something also spiritually, faith prevent you to develop your intelligence, faith make you feel safe about the world while being ignorant, it remove the doubt which is the engine of understanding
User avatar
h0bby1
 
Posts: 27777
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:48 pm
Articles: 1
Has thanked: 1578 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

faith prevent you to develop your intelligence, faith make you feel safe about the world while being ignorant, it remove the doubt which is the engine of understanding


There is no intelligence with the supernatural or spiritual. Philosophy is a load of hogwash and contradictions and I think a chinese proverb sums it up best " Before enlightenment carrying water chopping wood, after enlightenment carrying water chopping wood"

I interpet this as meaning, life is mean't to be lived not analysed. History has shown that all religions and beliefs haven't proved anything to convince the atheist so the mind unlimately has no place in spirituality, the academic mind at least.

In the light of this you can only have faith in regard to spirituality as it has no logical basis. If it did there wouldn't be any atheists like richard dawkins.
User avatar
SecretAgentMan
 
Posts: 9296
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:44 am
Blogs: 2
Has thanked: 887 times
Been thanked: 1048 times

all form of modern spirituality stem directly from logic and rationalism, gnostic which is the basic principle behind the bible stem directly from early philosophy like parmenides, plato, latter on Leibniz or Nietzsche also approach spirituality and religion in a very rational way, monotheism would never be what it is today without the universalism that rationalism such as early philosopher or mathematician created, theologian where just the following of philosopher and then transformed back into philosopher after the revolution, both are the same and used in the same place in the society, those who create the law for the nation, during greek era, philosopher or sophist were making the law of the democracy, then theologian were making the rule for the monarchy and after the reovlution it started ack with philosophy, both are the same, true spirituality is coming from very rational thinking, and religion has been approched many time by rational mind such as theologian or philosopher before and after the christian era, plato speak all the time about enligthement such as all the early philosopher, logos is the same thing revered by philosopher and told to be in the bible both are the same, only ppl blinded by their faith in a particular religion or sterile scientific dogma can't see this :) may they be athiest such as liebinz or religios such as other scientific, or purely spiritual such as budhists monk or taoists , monism which is the root stone of monotheism has been created by mathematician and philospher as well as monadism and all what stem from thise kind of thinking, Leibniz made a big synthesis of this all including belief on god and monadology in a very rational way
User avatar
h0bby1
 
Posts: 27777
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:48 pm
Articles: 1
Has thanked: 1578 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

uh...yeah.
User avatar
Grandma Lola
 
Posts: 11740
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 2748 times
Been thanked: 2490 times

" wrote:There is no intelligence with the supernatural or spiritual. Philosophy is a load of hogwash and contradictions and I think a chinese proverb sums it up best " Before enlightenment carrying water chopping wood, after enlightenment carrying water chopping wood"

I interpet this as meaning, life is mean't to be lived not analysed. History has shown that all religions and beliefs haven't proved anything to convince the atheist so the mind unlimately has no place in spirituality, the academic mind at least.

In the light of this you can only have faith in regard to spirituality as it has no logical basis. If it did there wouldn't be any atheists like richard dawkins.


Philosophy is not hogwash. The knowledge from philosophy is wisdom from the spiritual aspects. Check out Pythagoras or Socrates if you think philosophy is a waste of time. Many physicists are philosophers at heart.

Diversity is nice. It creates balance and harmony if people are tolerant of one another. I consider myself a mystic or philosopher. I love science too. Math is awesome. My mind is not gifted with detailed orientation type stuff. I appreciate them though. I like to analyze the big picture so I am quite the opposite of these sorts of people. We need detail and big picture thinkers.

Creative types and realistic types, when they work well together can make some pretty good discoveries. Leonardo da Vinci and Einstein had the gift of having the two minds in their brain. This is very unusual so it requires that people work together to come up with ideas that those geniuses naturally worked out by themselves. To work well together, you have to like the other person. If you can't like someone, it's human nature to not want to cooperate. Cooperation is key to this kind of harmony.
Magnus
 
Posts: 2968
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:50 pm
Blogs: 41
Has thanked: 705 times
Been thanked: 599 times

all form of modern spirituality stem directly from logic and rationalism, gnostic which is the basic principle behind the bible stem directly from early philosophy like parmenides, plato, latter on Leibniz or Nietzsche


Anything written down about spirituality is conjecture at best. Nietzsche was an atheist. Philosophy is not spirituality. Spirituality is direct experience independent of the rational mind.

Leibniz made a big synthesis of this all including belief on god and monadology in a very rational way


You are missing the point. Not one ounce of spirituality can be rationally proven to exist in any meaningful way. Please address that point.
User avatar
SecretAgentMan
 
Posts: 9296
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:44 am
Blogs: 2
Has thanked: 887 times
Been thanked: 1048 times

Spirituality is energy. It exists. That is your proof.

Nietzsche was very spiritual btw. He suffered an existential crisis but he wasn't an atheist by today's standards.
Magnus
 
Posts: 2968
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:50 pm
Blogs: 41
Has thanked: 705 times
Been thanked: 599 times

The below is quoted almost verbatim and paraphrased slightly from the introduction of "The History of Western Philosophy" by Betrand Russell. I would highly recommend this book to anyone with serious intent at engaging in discussion about religion, science, or philosophy-- it is not a prerequisite for battle, but will arm you with an understanding of your opponent. You will understand your own position better and how to defend it. You may not get so angry anymore.

Sometimes a better understanding makes discourse on the subject irrelevant. Not to mention, when we are arguing a point that has already been argued by people smarter than us and people that have explored all the possibilities, we're wasting time. But if in the course of discourse, we come to befriend each other, then it wasn't all for naught!!!


--------------------------------------------------------

The conceptions of life and the world which we call "philosophical" are a product of two factors: one, inherited religious and ethical conceptions, the other [...] scientific, using this word in its broadest sense. [...] It is the presence of both that characterizes philosophy.

Philosophy [...] is something intermediate between theology and science.

Like Theology: it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has so far been unascertainable.

Like Science: it appeals to human reason rather than to authority-- whether that of tradition or that of revelation.

All definite knowledge [..] belongs to science.

All dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge, belongs to theology.

But between theology and science, there is a no-man's land, exposed to attack from both sides.

This no-man's land, is Philosophy.

Almost all the questions of most interest to the speculative minds is such that science cannot answer. And the confidant answers of theologians no longer seems so convincing as they did in former centuries.

Is the world divided into mind and matter?

And if so, what is mind, and what is matter?

Is mind subject to matter or is it possessed of independent powers?

Has the universe any unity or purpose? is it evolving towards some goal?

Are there really laws of nature or do we believe in them because of our innate love of order?

Is man what he seems to the astronomer? A tiny lump of impure carbon and water, impudently crawling on a small and unimportant planet?

Or is he what he appears to Hamlet? is he perhaps both at once?

Is there a way of living that is noble and another that is base?

Or are all ways of living merely futile?

If there is a way of living that is noble, in what does it consist and how shall we achieve it?

Must the good be eternal in order to be deserved to be valued?

Or is it worth seeking even if the universe is inexorably moving towards death?

Is there such a thing as wisdom? or is what seems such merely the ultimate refinement of folly?

No answer can be found in the laboratory

Theologies have professed to give answers all to definite, but their very definiteness causes modern minds to view them with suspicion.

The studying of these questions, if not the answering of them, is the business of philosophy.

Why then, may you ask, waste time on such insoluble problems?

individual: [terror of cosmic loneliness]
historian: [theories of the world and human life, what is good/evil, to understand an age/nation, you must understand its philosophy]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I choose instead, blissful ignorance!!!
User avatar
GenericIndigo
 
Posts: 6289
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 6:48 pm
Blogs: 16
Has thanked: 360 times
Been thanked: 1192 times

" wrote:You are missing the point. Not one ounce of spirituality can be rationally proven to exist in any meaningful way. Please address that point.


catholicism and the kind of retarded view you have on spirituality cannot be proven because it is scam to keep ppl dumb :)

being atheist doesn't mean you are not spiritual, being atheist is a spiritual belief, it say that there is no god above us, saying this is taking a spiritual position,being atheist is being spiritual without being religious or believing in the existence of a god.

you can be atheist, not having a defined religion and being spiritual or thinking about spiritual questions ..
User avatar
h0bby1
 
Posts: 27777
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:48 pm
Articles: 1
Has thanked: 1578 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

" wrote:Diversity is nice. It creates balance and harmony if people are tolerant of one another. I consider myself a mystic or philosopher. I love science too. Math is awesome. My mind is not gifted with detailed orientation type stuff. I appreciate them though. I like to analyze the big picture so I am quite the opposite of these sorts of people. We need detail and big picture thinkers.


both works together , you can't say you understand the big picture if you don't have an idea of how things work in a detail level, and you can't tell you understand fully how the detail work if it doesn't work in the picture, both work the same, it is a bit the paradox of the unity in greek philosopher, unity like the unit, the 'one', the atom, the monad, the fundamental piece present in everything, liebitnz say it is consiousness, and that each conscious has a unique point of view of the universe, and that it can percieve a defined amount of events, because event propagate with an attenuation, and consiusness has a perception thresold, like a waves is made of 1 billion drop and you can hear it, but if there is a single drop moving in the sea, you can't hear it, and around this aspect of unity, you also have the principle that all unit are the same, mathematically like if you take number 5, all the unit 1 inthe 5 are equals, all atoms in all object are the same, all monad are the same two, and understanding the monad is understanding everything in the big picture too, because the big picture is only made of monads, and there is nothing more in the big picture than identical monads, both view are in fact aiming at the same understanding of the monad, the unit, the base quantity etc =) it is the same principle with monism, the symbol of monism is a circle with its center as a point, it show the same thing, the center the point the unity and the whole circle representing the whole universe, both are linked together all the time, you can't really understand the whole without understanding the monad and vice versa =)



" wrote:Creative types and realistic types, when they work well together can make some pretty good discoveries. Leonardo da Vinci and Einstein had the gift of having the two minds in their brain. This is very unusual so it requires that people work together to come up with ideas that those geniuses naturally worked out by themselves. To work well together, you have to like the other person. If you can't like someone, it's human nature to not want to cooperate. Cooperation is key to this kind of harmony.


i don't like the term realistic in this context, artist are also realistic in a way, they are still trying to convey a message or show something about reality, a concept, or an abstract message, being creative is not antagonist to be realistic, and most of the artist know how to be realistic with ppl's mind, and how their art will impact someone, it is also the goal of art , and creativiy in the sense ingeenering also need to be realistic, i would maybe more oppose creativity to technical, technical behind how to apply an idea to material creation, know how to realise something already planned, the act of technical realisation in itself doesn't require creativity, and creativity can exist independantly of technical skills to realise it
User avatar
h0bby1
 
Posts: 27777
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:48 pm
Articles: 1
Has thanked: 1578 times
Been thanked: 2560 times


  • Similar Topics

    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to index page Indigo Cafe

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
cron