Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

A consequence of this position is that meaning is not given "in itself," rather meaning is interpreted hermeneutically. The narrative process is an active process of interpreting the meanings) of one's present lived experience in relation to one's future and past, and expressing it in some form, whether it be language, gesture, art, or some other way. Narration is a meaning making process of interpretation.16 It is an ordering and structuring of our experience. Because this process of discovering or interpreting meaning is not fixed (i.e. is hermeneutic), the interpretation is subject to change as is the narrative. Change is possible because our future possibilities are not determined. As therapists we can assist a client in re-interpreting their past, re-narrate their experience, and attend to the 'ghosts' ofm fear that haunt the symptomatic body.

To narrate is to interpret. More specifically to interpret one's experience in light of the inherent ambiguity of existence. The value of a narrative lay not in some universal, non-contextual, atemporal correspondence between a person's past experience and the narrative, but rather it lay in the thematic articulation of the meaning of an experience. It is the symbolic naming of a human truth of lived experience, one that is subject to change. But what is ambiguity and how does it arise? Ambiguity arises when we try and reflect on what we do naturally, which is experience life. In discussing our relationship to the questions of space and time we can notes that We use our body as if we are this body; we move, we bathe, we lie in the sun. Without thinking we shake hands, we talk. We have no trouble living the answer to these questions. As soon as we start thinking about them, however, as soon as we try and examine them, the difficulties are incalculable. Matters which, prereflectively, were clear, become obscure after reflection. Ambiguity arises when we try to interpret, reflect, understand what is lived, pre-reflective, bodied-forth existence. We try and make sense of our experience, hence interpretation is what makes the world - nothing else.

Moreover, our experience is always ongoing, ever-moving, and never still. It is born, lives, and dies like every passing moment. With the flowing of time our experience moves from the present into the past. Our words should flow with them. In this sense our past is dead and we can not reclaim it, for no voice can reach us from the land of the dead. The truth lay in the passing, not in building narrative monuments that will last for all of time. Not even the song of Orpheus, whose voice had "the power to tame radical otherness," could bring Eurydice, the meaning of his life, back from the land of the dead. In order to live in the present, where the birth of meaning lay, or to be open to future possibilities, we must name and give voice to our past experience. Then we must let it go to live in the past, the land of the dead, where it belongs, just as Orpheus had to let Eurydice go.

The upshot of my view is thus: time is one dimensional and all the same at once; space is interpretation.

Any comments on this?

I can't think of any now but what you wrote is quite interesting!JM

So are you saying Time is linear? If so, this is the typical view of most people. We look forward. However what makes us a part of space and time is what we have done in the past to bring us to the point we are now. And we relay on memory to intrepretate our world to best suit us in this ever changing universe. So Time is not linear after all, it's 3 dimensional. Past, Present & Future. We think about the past, we live in the present, and we are ever thinking about the future. So our mind, our intrepretation, is in 3 places at once.

You have a very good argument, however if you don't mind some advise. . . Tune down your wording. Say what you need to say simplely without harbouring your argument with fancy words.

I'm not saying Time is linear, but that it is one dimensional - no past, present or future in reality, but in experience.

so the lost son of Sout Africa returns

But experience is not one dimensional. If it were, the ability to remember the past could not exist.

You don't seem to know what Linear time means. You seem to think that applying past, present and future to the definition of time is not linear - that is infact what linear time means! So if you think past, present and future exists - 3 dimensional in your words, then you believe in linear time, not me. Look up your definitions:

Linear time is a major feature of our Western cultural world-view, apparently initiated by Newton some 300 years ago. It portrays time as an absolute physical reality, and says that the passage of time is independent of consciousness. So it doesn't matter what you think, feel, or do, or how you look at time, time doesn't change as a result. In the linear view, time flows like a conveyor belt that moves horizontally from past to present to future at the same unchangeable speed for all of us.

I say that time actually does not exist - it is not linear - not broken up into past, present and future, but one dimensional.

Reborn Again: "But experience is not one dimensional. If it were, the ability to remember the past could not exist." That's what I said - only in experience is it 3 dimensional - look at my post.

finti, Who or what are you talking about? A lost son???

lost in more than one sense of the word

Wow, you write very much like a complete hammer from south Africa who used to frequent this forum. He got kicked out for being such an arrogant and childish fool that he annoyed everyone. No offense intended, welcome to the board philo, er I mean player.

I really don't know what you guys are talking about - if the philo guy was banned, then how can I be him? Please , it's my first time here, don't make assumptions about me for which you have no base.

you mean beside the fact that you write exactly the same lame ass BS pseudo intellectual stuff as he did, Mona Lisa avvy and the choice of your location, the location of one of philos nemesises?

Listen finti guy, don't bash my opinions by calling it BS or pseudo intellectual - that's totally uncalled for. Mona Lisa? I just like the painting - what the hell is your problem?

call it for how I see it

Am I a Nemesis? Cool I always wanted to be someone's Nemesis.

Incase you don't know what a psuedo intellectual is I refer you to a previous thread :

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f75/t324014.html

I think you guys are utterly rude. This is a philosophy discussion forum - you are just disrupting it. I will have to report you if you keep on messing up my thread.

artist <---Michelangelo

I check the report Player. And the guys are entitled to their opininons. As long as there is no bashing there is no problem. You gonna have to tolerate others opinions.

Windancer, they are of the topic, that is disruptive - and finti called my opinions Bullshit - that's bashing!

No that is no less bashing than calling ones opinion's idiotic. If you called someone an idiot, that would be bashing.

Now lets get back on topic.

no thats an opinion about your opinion if you cant handle people having that opinion about your writings you shouldnt have posted them

I didn't call anyone an idiot!

did you see the word IF in there?

And you run, and you run to catch up with the sun, but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death

Every year is getting shorter
Never seem to find the time
Plans that either come to nought
Or half a page of scribbled lines
Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way
The time is gone
The song is over
Thought I'd something more to say

Since when did you start writing bad poetry Finti? And what does bad poetry have to do with this topic?

Now This is crappy poetry KD
This is the world
where it is not ultimately
an effort to dismiss things flowing,
but it is all the absence
of any absolute.

Holy that is crap! Stick to the smart-ass comments and stay away from the bad poetry.

Pink Floyd

I tend to see time as past, present and future all combined. Time is an illusion. There is only the present. Everything else is either dead or not born yet.

Has anyone ever watched Stephen King's The Langoliers? Now there's some freaky $hit! And it falls in the realm of this discussion.

Sorry debbiejo, but I have no response to your question because I believe I have stated my opinion on this particular avenue of the subject. Once the argument shifts to another area I'll voice my opinion again.

OH by the way ^ I really did like The Langoliers....You know they'll get you....they come for all the bad little boys and girls..

Please Storm, KharmaDog and finti, quit spoiling this thread by posting nonsense off the topic!

shut up Werner you are so pathetich it is actually amusing

Keep this on topic please!

Any any problems you have, take it to PMs, not on the boards.

nah we leave that to the female part of this board

Those aren't your views, you copied them from here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~rationalmystic/epnarr.htm

liar

Burned!

After reading this:



I see a clear picture. Don't be a plagiarist.

Edmund Husserl would be very upset with you player/werner. Talk about unoriginality.

You might know of the original sin
And you might know how to play with fire
But did you know of the murder committed
In the name of love you thought what a pity

debbiejo/Player.

I thought I was actually talking with an intelligent, well educated person, with a broad view on a variety of philosophical subjects. I'm very disappointed that your words are not your own and are formulated by others. I was really hoping for a stimulating, philosophical conversion with a schoolled individual. Now I'm afraid this was not meant to be.

I don't get why you are putting my name with Players???

I'm a girl...

I'm not him. ....ha ha ha.

My bad. Sorry debbiejo.

....I DON'T KNOW WHO I AM ANYMORE....AAHHH!!

anymore?

As the philosopher would say: "Do we really know who we are?"

The one good thing about schizophrenia is that you always have someone to talk to......Yea..like she said..

We can't alway know ourselves, because we are always changing..Sometimes we just take bits of it with us.

I merely plagiarized to see how the the members here would react to some real philosophy - one member - can't remember his name - told me to dumb down my word usage - to use simpler words - it just shows that either his vocabulary is rudimentary or that he can't handle real philosophy. Sorry for that anyway.

dont overrate philosophy, it aint nothing but hogwash

I think philosophy is the quest for truth and meaning. You can't simply call it hogwash. If you think it's hogwash then what are you dwelling around for in a philosophy forum? Philosophy is at the core of our thoughts - we can't live or think without it, even if we're not aware of it, we still think and live by some kind of philosophy. Philosophy in essence is just the mere thinking about life - if you don't think about life/philosophise, then you might as well be an inanimate object or a plant for that matter. What distinguishes an intelligent being from all others is the ability to think on an intellectual/philosophical level.

it is fun to look at people trying to be smarter than they really are

or at least thinkt they have the ability to do so

It is no doubt that we as human beings can think on an intellectual level and other beings cannot - do you deny this obvious fact?

people cant think allright, some think they are brigither than they really are though

Surely there are quite a few really bright, highly intelligent people out there, like scientists, artists, etc.?

I think Misty is bright...

dont know why artists should be considered intelligent

I take exception to that finti, but you are correct, a;ot of my peers are dumb as a bag of dead mice

Do you know that the way you are brought up and personality trait also changes the reasoning of someone?

By saying someone dumb you are grateful for your privilage or are you just unleashing random anger?

P.S. you might be seen dumb by someone else...

Originally posted by finti
dont know why artists should be considered intelligent

exceptional artistic ability is definitely a sign of inteligence, finti. It takes considerable intelligence to produce a great work of art - there are many facets one has to master in order to produce a great art piece - composition, light effects, pose, creativity, originality, proportion, etc. That's why they talk of artistic genius.

Thanks PeterKSL, you sound quite bright too.

its a skill, dont have to be intelligent to produce art. They produce what they see, as for light composition that is something they learn, protportion aint all that either a lot of tricks there

Originally posted by finti
its a skill, dont have to be intelligent to produce art. They produce what they see, as for light composition that is something they learn, protportion aint all that either a lot of tricks there

You are right - you don't have to be intelligent to produce art, BUT you HAVE to be intelligent to produce great art. Why do you think there are good and bad artists? Moreover, an exceptional skill requires intelligence. Have you ever seen agreat artists with the IQ of a retard?

cause some artist sucks at what they do, they dont have the necessary skill to produce art, as for great art thats a matter of opinion. Some might find a piece of art great while another think it sucks again doesnt have to do with intelligence it has to do with skill.

I wasnt talking about retards, I was tallking about that artist doesnt nesseceraly need to be highly intelligent to produce art, big diffrence there

You don't get my point - GREAT skill DOES require intelligence.

"Have you ever seen agreat artists with the IQ of a retard?"

There was a self proclaimed "great artist/genius" on this site a while back named Philosophicas who, as far as I could gather, had the IQ of a french fry.

no it doesnt, it only requires that YOU HAVE A SKILL in what you do, whether it is a great skill is a matter of opinion. A lot of people think Edvard Munch was a great artist, I think his stuff sucks, personally I dont find any of his works above mediocre

Familiarity... nothing more to say...

Originally posted by BackFire
"Have you ever seen agreat artists with the IQ of a retard?"

There was a self proclaimed "great artist/genius" on this site a while back named Philosophicas who, as far as I could gather, had the IQ of a french fry.


Wow, subtle burn there Backfire!

People are smart in different ways. Just because you're not a rocket scientist or in an equivlant profession doesn't make you dumb. For example, a rocket scientist may know the chemical formula of rocket fuel, but I'm pretty sure this same scientist wouldn't know how to farm. There are so many different kinds of smart. Not everyone can be smart in everything.

no Im pretty unique there

Originally posted by finti
no Im pretty unique there


Slam! That can be intrepretated in so many different ways.

I know thats why I put it that way too