quote:

Originally posted by Slylee my brain is full:P

Yeah, I feel I always need John Mnemonic's harddrive whenever I read Renegade's posts! ahaha

"...Where is my motivation! I'm losing my motivation! Im smoking my, INSPI-RATION!!!!!...."

___________________
[email protected]
AIM: nevermind897
[RMB]addict
======================================

quote:

Ok, enough of my ramblings.. I hope that was educational.

Nah all your posts are educational man - you never fail to be able to add one more dimension to my my brain.

Just for the record, my post was a critique of graphology, not a condemnation of it. Like I said, there is, undoubtedly, a fairly solid foundation behind it, and I don't doubt that the style with which we write is a reflection of our personality in some way. I do, however, question just how specifically we can use associate particular assets of our writing style with assets of our personality. Now, again, I alomost certainly don't know as much about the subject as you (given that all I know about it comes from the book I was talking about it before and from what you've told me ), but I still think it's important to shine the epistomological torch on things like this.

Anyway, just saying.

quote:

Further: As you say personality is latent, it is also mutable like dissipative structures I mentioned beforea long time ago. And if you say the writers follow predicates [loops] of copybook [in your case], then our presumptous identity is made up -- adapt by following subliminal precepts. I cannot compute that. If it were the case with each modern-based societies, we would all be drones.. There would be no Einsteins, no Hawkings, no Mckennas, no Teslas, no Edisons.. NO SCIENCE!! Scary, aye? :P

Just on this point, I wasn't suggesting that personalities are in any way latent, or inherent to put it another way. I was simply suggesting that it was the subconscious manifesting itself in our handwriting style, not consciousness in itself. Thus it is our latent personality - which we have little say over - manifesting itself in our handwriting: neither our egos (Freud) nor personas (Jung) but our super-egos (Freud) and unconscious egos (Jung) that manifest themselves.

Thus, the latent personality I was referring to here wasn't to suggest that all personalities are entirely latent, but to suggest that there is a latent, almost incomprehensible part of ourselves, that, while being quite maleable and changing, still resides deep in the subconscious. This is what I meant by latent - the part of ourselves that we cannot access to change, and that remains mostly unconscious to us for most of our lives, but still governs us in such a way that even the way we write (if we wish to accept graphology as a legitimate science - which I have no issues with) can be attributed directly to this part of ourselves. Just to clear things up.

And yes, this solution does have some fairly ugly implications for free-will, but I think that, given the direction neurology and psychology are heading in, it would be hard to refute the deterministic nature of our existence. I wouldn't be suprised if our frame of consciousness - that is, that about ourselves which we know we can control - continues to shrink as these two doctrines continue to develop their understanding of the human enigma.

Anyway, I think that's a discussion for a new thread altogether......

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nah all your posts are educational man - you never fail to be able to add one more dimension to my my brain. Just for the record, my post was a critique of graphology, not a condemnation of it. Like I said, there is, undoubtedly, a fairly solid foundation behind it, and I don't doubt that the style with which we write is a reflection of our personality in some way. I do, however, question just how specifically we can use associate particular assets of our writing style with assets of our personality. Now, again, I alomost certainly don't know as much about the subject as you (given that all I know about it comes from the book I was talking about it before and from what you've told me ), but I still think it's important to shine the epistomological torch on things like this. Anyway, just saying. Just on this point, I wasn't suggesting that personalities are in any way latent, or inherent to put it another way. I was simply suggesting that it was the subconscious manifesting itself in our handwriting style, not consciousness in itself. Thus it is our latent personality - which we have little say over - manifesting itself in our handwriting: neither our egos (Freud) nor personas (Jung) but our super-egos (Freud) and unconscious egos (Jung) that manifest themselves. Thus, the latent personality I was referring to here wasn't to suggest that all personalities are entirely latent, but to suggest that there is a latent, almost incomprehensible part of ourselves, that, while being quite maleable and changing, still resides deep in the subconscious. This is what I meant by latent - the part of ourselves that we cannot access to change, and that remains mostly unconscious to us for most of our lives, but still governs us in such a way that even the way we write (if we wish to accept graphology as a legitimate science - which I have no issues with) can be attributed directly to this part of ourselves. Just to clear things up. And yes, this solution does have some fairly ugly implications for free-will, but I think that, given the direction neurology and psychology are heading in, it would be hard to refute the deterministic nature of our existence. I wouldn't be suprised if our frame of consciousness - that is, that about ourselves which we know we can control - continues to shrink as these two doctrines continue to develop their understanding of the human enigma. Anyway, I think that's a discussion for a new thread altogether......

Haha, Expanding the cranium is always beneficial.. And yes, I understood you clearly. I was just humoring you.

As far the latentness, Freud/Jung psychology is just one way of trying to understand human dynamics and the limitations imposed. Buddhist psychology like Tibetans' experimental perception of Duality (All egos, subconscious) is observable. They see the practice of mindfulness can illuminate the latent through insight, through self-awareness, and through friction of interdependent polarities (conscious vs. subconscious).

So graphology + graphotherapy could be the instrument of mindfulness. Plus, the hand is the most importand part of our body, we use it everyday of our lives. The hand itself has a subconscious mind-body connection.

The subconscious always leave telltale traces, we just don't have adequate skill to observe it until we create a co-processor.


KtP
u:[s]

BTW - what about the samples? You're not wiggling out of this one!