Video Creator’s Channel Jordan B Peterson

So You Were To Have Read Today The

section on classification is just a small section right on categorization and then the next section on cost. Basically on the Enuma Elish the Mesopotamian creation myth okay now that’s the most fun that’s the most archaic of creationists that we have in written form in anything approaching a state of completeness and so it’s interesting from the historical perspective because it’s so archaic it’s also an ex like the Mesopotamians had an extraordinarily well developed dogma religious dogma as far as i’ve been able to determine in some ways well well I think. In many ways Jewish and Christian theology are elaborations on a Mesopotamian theme now Iliad. It points out that the Mesopotamian creation myth, although it’s about 5 000 years and it’s old in its extent form is definitely based on oral traditions that are much older than that. So it’s not it’s not like you can say that the sumerians just originated the Enuma elish in a very brief period of time on ground that hadn’t been prepared.

They Just Codified Traditions That Have Been

handed down orally to that date. So we haven’t been written form now. The first thing I wanted to tell you about was this notion of categorization and I think I think this is. Roger Brown pointed out 20 years ago where there abouts that we have always in psychology tended to think that the way that people think is the way that scientists think and the way that we categorize things is in terms of the categories that we think are appropriate from the scientific or the logical perspective. Brown points out that this is well that is that a minimal amount of investigation basically in the psycholinguistic domain immediately indicated that.

This Was In Fact False And

that we do not categorize things naturally the way that people do scientifically. In other words, we Don’t use the notion of the proper set and he uses as a standard example of the proper set. The idea of triangles and you can tell what a triangle is absolutely you can define what’s a triangle. What isn’t There’s no fuzziness about the borders and everything either fits in the set or is outside of the set, and by contrast, our natural categories Don’t seem to be of that type. They have fuzzy boundaries and they’re more concerned with function so to speak or with affective relevance than with sensory and with with absolutely determinable sensory essence.

So We Categorize In Much More

vague manner, and it seems to me that it’s I give you a listing in this in this document of the qualities. of natural categorization as they’ve been described by George Lachoff in his book Women Fire and Dangerous Things and Black Ops is basically following up on a tradition that is I’m not a psycholinguist and this is all new news to me basically, but black Ops is being following up on a tradition that was established by Roger Brown and Eleanor Rosch, who is one of his students and Eleanor Rosh has made a big name for herself studying categorization The thing I think so interesting about. This is that what Rosh and Lachof describe as categories are very very much like the kinds of categories that religious thinkers have used that have been studied from a completely different perspective by people like Jung and Mercia Eliade so it’s not that surprising if you think about it because it’s obvious that religious categories aren’t proper sets they’re natural categories Arcane. People think in religious categories and have always thought that way so it’s not like it’s not that surprising what’s surprisingly. I guess more surprising is that the overlap between the two literatures is is not well explored or nowhere.

• mesopotamians extraordinarily developed dogma religious
• jewish christian theology elaborations mesopotamian
• perspective archaic ex like mesopotamians
• iliad points mesopotamian creation myth
• basically enuma elish mesopotamian creation

So The First Thing We Should Do

I guess is think of to think about this notion of categorization yeah Okay Lackhof describes natural categories as cognitive models. The first thing he says is that they are embodied with regards to their content, which essentially means that they can be used without necessarily being defined means that they are implicit in action without necessarily being implicit in description. So basically what Lackhoff is pointing out is that if you act towards a number of different things, as if they are the same thing with regards to your actions, then you are in fact you are in fact treating those objects. As if they’re in the same category because one domain of category can be fun like significance for motor output and that’s you think if you think about it’s like what defines chair that because chairs vary in all sorts of ways they vary so much that there’s very there may be very little sensory overlap between one chair and another. There’s not much.

Theres Not Much Similar Between A

stump. For example, and the kind of designer chair that you might see in a museum. They’re very different objects, but the thing they have in common is their implication for output which is the chairs or things that you can sit on right. They’re defined by their by their significance not by their sensory nature. So I used an example here, what makes a dog you you might say I can’t say but I know one when I see.

One Which Is Another Indication That

you’d be using a natural category dog is something friendly something to be petted and something to play with. Although such knowledge does not comprise everything that makes up what you regard as dog. The thing that’s interesting about those ideas something friendly something to be petted and something to play with is that in a sense those are not precisely the attributes of the dog think of the natural category of dog because what you’re if you define a dog as a friend or as something to play with you’re actually defining the object in terms of your interactions with it and not in terms of the object and a lot of the terms we use have exactly that nature like beautiful. For example, it says when you define it say if you define another person as beautiful, it’s very difficult to tell. Exactly where it is that that quality resides many people say beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

We Know Theres Quite A Substantial

amount of cultural variation in terms of attitudes towards beauty, so it’s very difficult to pin down what constitutes beauty From the objective perspective. I mean, there’s been a certain certain attempts to do that and they’ve been somewhat successful. But the point is is that as beauty is in the eye of a beholder, but it’s something that we naturally attribute to an object. So a lot of the things that we consider properties of objects are actually what Lachoff describes as interactional properties. They’re things that we attribute to the thing that actually arise as a consequence of our interaction with the thing so like the notion of friend when you when you describe if you put someone in the category a friend.

• mesopotamians
• mesopotamian
• sumerians
• iliad
• creationists

Youre Actually Describing Them In Terms

of your pattern of interactions with them, Although you attribute the qualities that make up those interactions to them and you do that automatically and what I’m suggesting with with regards to this study of categorization is that we do that that is the natural way that we think as we think about things in terms of their implication for our behavioral output and we need to do that because that’s what adaptation means if you’ve adapted to something you’ve structured your behavior well. Basically what you’ve done is structure your behavior in the presence of that thing so that it does what you want it to do? Which means basically that it doesn’t threaten you that it doesn’t hurt you that it furthers your progress towards a goal or that it constitutes that goal itself that’s behavioral adaptation and well those things. The things that make up that category of objects to which you’ve structured behavioral adaptation that’s explored territory that’s the domain of the known say in that domain is everything that you understand how to act towards now what I’m trying to suggest. In the course of this whole manuscript is that’s how your brain works. The scientific overlay of scientific categorizations is just a thin veneer on top of that and in some sense it’s an irrelevant veneer from the perspective of emotional regulation science has enabled us to describe.

Things Ever More Accurately So That We Can

keep track of them, but still what we’re interested in is determining how to behave in the presence of things that’s what we want to know okay. Now Lachoff points out a few other things about natural categories, and I want you to think about this in regards to the sorts of categories that we’re going to talk about for the remainder of course. He says they’re characterized by basic level, categorization of basic level primacy and basically what he means by that is that we tend to view things as in a category or as objects themselves if they’re the right size for us, In other words, that the world that we perceive, which is the world of experience, which is in some sense, the only world you can get access to is human sized the cat. There are categories that naturally spring to mind because they’re handy that’s a good way of thinking much like the English Imperial system of measurement. We can we define things in terms of the English imperial system and it’s very handy literally a foot is a foot long, an inch is the length of one digit.

I Mean The Point Lakh Is

trying to make is that the world of experience presents itself the way it presents itself because of the interaction between our physiology and whatever it is that’s out there now one of the things we’re going to try to explore is what does it mean to say whatever it is that’s out there I mean we tend to think of it scientifically as the objective world, which would be exactly the same as it is now if none of us were here except that none of us. would be here? The point Lackhoff is trying to make is that what we define as reality is somewhat more or what we experience is reality is more complex than that it’s an interaction between whatever it is that’s out there and us and everything that we think of is real. We define in like in terms of our experience of temporal duration and size and weight, and I guess the only way the only way you can get your mind around this to some degree is to try to think of what lackhoff is saying in a sense is that the fact that we’re human and have the characteristics that we have which are basically our limitations means that the universe is constituted in a particular way with regards to us is that we have a built-in level of analysis. It’s obviously not the subatomic level or the molecular. It’s not the cosmic level either it’s human-sized now if you start thinking about what would constitute reality in the absence of a human observer.

The First Problem That You Run

into is the problem of a reference point is you no longer have anything against which to judge things like duration or size, and certainly not things like certainly not things like color or beauty or emotional significance. Those categories obviously disappear what happens to the sensor categories is not all that easy to figure out either so I can’t I already can’t figure it out in the um. Richard Feynman in his book The Character of Physical Law.

Summary

The Enuma Elish is the most archaic of creationists that we have in written form in anything approaching a state of completeness . The Mesopotamians had an extraordinarily well developed dogma religious dogma as far as i’ve been able to determine in some ways . In many ways Jewish and Christian theology are elaborations on a Mesopotamic theme now Iliad. The idea of triangles and you can tell what triangles and the idea of triangle triangles are important to the study. So you were to have read today? The section on classification is just a small section right on categorization and then the next section on cost. The sections on cost and categorization are on the Enuma Elish. The section is on the Mesopotami creation myth, which is based on oral traditions that are much older than that of the Enumumai. The Enumai is about 5,000 years and it’s about 5 000 years old. We don’t use the notion of…. Click here to read more and watch the full video