|Topic:||Re:Re:NLP and phenomenology|
|Posted by:||John Schertzer|
Ryan there you go being Ryan again. Love it. I also loved Heidegger for precisely the same reasons you hated Husserl. To me, if it's philosophy, it's all about nominalizations and generalizations of all sorts, which are like huge high level chunks of categorical rule making by which we sort representations, similar to the way numerical data distributes patterns...|
Anyway, I was always surprised and tickled by how people could have conversations on a very nominalized level, and then point to something concrete, and agree that it was what each was talking about. Kinda funny huh?
How do these things ever coincide? I sometimes think there's something to the look and feel (not to mention sound) of the nominalization (perhaps a shared hallucinatory synethesia) that made it very specific. At times.
There's something very sensory-oriented about language (perhaps the way it maps associatively as a whole) that we're still missing, and that's a point in this discussion of femdemonology as well.
|Topic||Date Posted||Posted By|
|NLP and phenomenology||19/07/2002 01:23:35||Christer Magnusson|
|Re:NLP and phenomenology||25/07/2002 20:10:30||Martin Fry|
|NLP and phenomenology||28/07/2002 19:40:56||Martin Fry|
|Re:NLP and phenomenology||14/01/2004 17:18:48||Juan Arce|
|Re:Re:NLP and phenomenology||03/08/2002 02:35:03||J Rose|
|Re:NLP and phenomenology||26/07/2002 22:19:56||John Grinder|
|Re:NLP and phenomenology||13/01/2004 13:50:00||Juan Arce|
|Re:Re:NLP and phenomenology||13/01/2004 14:07:27||Pete West|
|Re:NLP and phenomenology||13/01/2004 19:44:33||Ryan Nagy|
|Re:Re:NLP and phenomenology||13/01/2004 19:56:55||Lee|
|Re:Re:NLP and phenomenology||13/01/2004 20:31:42||John Schertzer|
|help me please||02/02/2004 02:54:35||hoainam|