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?
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?