Aspies For Freedom

It is a polemic work, not didactic, and is best understood in such context.  A stumbling block that I had was how he made such a big deal over things that were, to me, commonplace.  I finally realized that this was because General Semantics had already penetrated our culture to some limited extent.

Failure of analysis is death, not just for one, but sometimes for thousands or millions of people.  Failure of analysis put Hitler in power.  Failure of analysis--what is also known as "mindlessness" in recent cognitive literature, is fine for people who just want to be industrial drones, but if they have any influence on others, failure of analysis is a recipe for disaster.

In an autocracy or oligarchy, failure of analysis is fine for most people to blithely blunder through life upon.  In any society in which decisions of the people are given some weight, it is the way to self-destruction.

We can no longer afford to be a mindless society.

I don't know anything about semantics. But I know a lot about mind and consciousness, which are opposites. Mind is unconsciousness. So DogBrain, what is needed in society is consciousness, not mind. The Hitler issue was related to unconsciousness. When there is only mind(ing) then you can call that madness, 100% unconsciousness.

Really?  And just what professional cognitive science journals does this hypothesis of yours appear in?  When I write of mindlessness/mindfulness, I use them as the professional cognitive scientists use the terms.  So, if my reading of the professional literature is in error, please point me toward the proper scientific literature.

How is analysis automatically unconscious while lack of thought--lack of analysis--is automatically conscious?

Likewise, love isn't automatically irrational, it can lead to irrational conclusions and behavior, but it is not automatically irrational.

It is difficult for me to communicate the right tone in a written text. I should use other words. My opinion stated as a fact can be interpreted as offensive and arrogant, I should keep that in mind.

I don't know the professional literature. Probably when I would read the professional literature, I will see it as incorrect. My source is religious literature which, in my opinion (I'm improving!), is correct. Mindfulness and consciousness are different things, as I see it.

According to me, love is a feeling, is irrational. Rationality and thoughts/thinking and logic are more or less the same things. Feelings are the opposite. You can apply logic to objectively observable behaviour, but the feeling itself is irrational, as I see it.

I guess my perception/definition of the word mind is different from yours. That's why confusion arises. To me, mind consists of thinking, feeling and impulses/instinct. Mind to me is unconsciousness because automatically, after you were born and grew up, thinking, feeling and impulses/instinct developed. You are reactive then. Mindfullness will not be the ideal.

Without consciousness you only react, you are not in control, anybody can push your buttons. What is needed is consciousness to be able to respond (not to react), to be your own master. Consciousness is "above" analysis.

Love is a feeling--neither rational nor irrational.  Most basic emotional states are a-rational.  Our response to them determines whether or not we are being rational or irrational.

What would you call an alteration in neurotransmitter levels?  Is that objectively observable?

Dopamine and endorphine spike:  interpreted as "falling in love".
Chronic oxytocin elevation:  interpreted as "long-term love" (be it amor, friendship, etc.)

I am not saying that our emotive conditions are "merely" or "just" changes in neurotransmitter levels.  There is an interpretive layer to it, as well.  The "feelings" we claim to have are meanings we assign to neurobiological states, but it is the objective, observable neurobiological change that comes first.  Since it is a matter of interpretation and assignation of meaning, it is amenable to rational forms of thought.

This, of course, flies in the face of all the pretty little tales our society wants us to believe.  We are "supposed" to be helpless in the face of our "emotions".  We are "supposed" to not be able to actively decide when it's time to ride the wave and when it's time to step back.  Or if we can do it, it means that we are somehow "damaged" for daring to question our society's dogmas attached to "feelings".

But it is this assignation of meaning, this "extra" step that actually does give true depth to these "feelings".  We have frontal cortices, and they are not distinct and separate from the amygdala.  Only when all mental faculties are involved, including the rational, is there full experience to any emotive state.

This is known as "mindlessness" by cognitive scientists.  You are free to go around and tell the tens of thousands of them that they're wrong, but I doubt they'll change all their terminology around you.

This is known as "mindfulness" by cognitive scientists.