Linguistic structualism (sounds boring but isnt!!)

[Daniel]

Social construcionism is indeed interesting, but I as an OBE practioner have no other choice than supporting idealism, meaning that thought/consciousness/ideas come first to words/linguistics.
Just think of telepathy, where information is transmited without linguistic structures.
Makes sense?

[Anonymous]

To some extent, I agree, but I still feel there's something more out there. The key I believe lies in our REALLY early childhood days, if you can remember back that far. I can remember being anywhere from 1-2 years old, just before my brother was born, laying down in a bed or a crib in a condo my family called home. I was looking up at a smoke detector. I don't think i was able to talk or walk at the time (because of medical conditions I was born with), just experience, cry, laugh, make o-shapes with my mouth, etc. it was really strange to look at things and just wonder what they were. I was generally happy as a child, except for certain events which traumatized me. Despite my physical condition and the trauma which caused me a gap spanning 2-3 years in memory about my life, I was really independent mentally and spiritually. That's why I think there is more out there. There has to be. My dreams were so vivid and colorful as a child, now they're bland and dull for the most part, and despite the fact that I can remember them, they're hardly worth remembering. I realized one day in high school that I was conditioned by society in every aspect. Even spiritually, to an extent. I don't think I could become non-Christian, for instance. I grew up a Catholic, but I consider myself just Christian with no other label attached.

[kakkarot]

Linguistic structualism: this is the exact reason i don't like society. because people are taught how to be like someone else. i didn't grow up as part of society, but God made it so that i have had to integrate into it (to shape who i am going to need to be). i don't like society at all, but i still like the goodly people may or may not be a part of it.

personally, though, i'm a realist; i do my damndest to find out just how real the world about us really is. and i'm happy with it so far.

~kakkarot

[Lysear]

I just had a fantastic lecture and I thought I'd share some of it with you to see what others opinions of it are. As the title suggests it is about a theory known as linguistic structualism. In a nut shell this is what it is, (Linguistic structualism: "help I'm in a nutshell, how did I get into this bloody great nutshell..." ) seriously though, it is about human constructs, we have surrounded ourselves with our institutions and religions, buildings, economy etc, the theory is about trying to relate to the world outside of this superstructure, which in essence is impossible because whatever we think is due to how we've been taught to live and act. In the world of history there is presently a fierce debate about how far this should be taken. You see thats where the loop is, your stuck and can't get out because if you argue in favour of taking linguistic structualism extremely literally, then your own opinion is worthless! as the theory dicates that you have come to this conclusion through lessons learnt in society!!!

I find this hilarious, but fascinating at the same time, a kind of chicken-egg type scenario without the use of embryos or poultry.

I would love to hear what other people think about these ideas, it seems like it's irrelevant to projection/occult etc but in fact its not. it's one of the corner stones of it all, attempting to think outside yourself, is it possible to really do this or is it merely an illusion?