ЦенностныеОщущения *белого медведя Денверского зоо ↑
metanymous в посте Openmeta (оригинал в ЖЖ)
| Metapractice | |||||
| Лоренцовское моделирование | |||||
| 3. Год серого гуся | metanymous | ||||
| Человеческий мозг - орган кумулируемой традиции | metanymous | ||||
_______________________________________________
Боря, я собственно только из-за слов Лоренца ценностные ощущения этот отрывок переписал. ЦенностныеОщущения - вот что задает клетку реальности для нас, как для того белого медведя из денверского зоопарка, из общеизвестной книги по нлп. И вся эта история про развитие нлп - это еще более гротескная иллюстрация ограничивающей силы ценностных ощущений.
1 комментарий
You are right!
And the most significantely it is seen in linguistics constructions. For example, in languages of primitive people perception of spece begans from the speaking person. There is, at first, a notion "I" and "not I". And all space consequently divided on space I (and all inside me) and all around. Later appears I, Thou. And World divides on two. Appearence of "He" means that in language appear three substances: Space inside me, space around and space somewhere else that is not visible right now.
I don't know, maby I right some common (banal) thing? I just want to emphesize that Inga's study is very interesting, but it is very global and difficult, because it is about a basics of human understanding. I also want to point your attention on works of Humbolt, and especially on book of Ernst Cassirer "Philosophy of Symbolic Forms".
Boris.
And the most significantely it is seen in linguistics constructions. For example, in languages of primitive people perception of spece begans from the speaking person. There is, at first, a notion "I" and "not I". And all space consequently divided on space I (and all inside me) and all around. Later appears I, Thou. And World divides on two. Appearence of "He" means that in language appear three substances: Space inside me, space around and space somewhere else that is not visible right now.
I don't know, maby I right some common (banal) thing? I just want to emphesize that Inga's study is very interesting, but it is very global and difficult, because it is about a basics of human understanding. I also want to point your attention on works of Humbolt, and especially on book of Ernst Cassirer "Philosophy of Symbolic Forms".
Boris.