as adults we have what we grew up with as young kids the the innate or the natural ability to acquire a language but most of us we've also learned and gained another quite natural ability and that is to learn things on purpose right so and so those two natures do conflict i don't think they fit well together
for - key insight / quote - innate language learning is in conflict with intentional learning - David Long - Common Human Denominator - learning language
Theupholstery and the rugs muffle her but we can hear her clearly despite that.The tension between her lack of control and her attempt to suppress it ishorrible. It's like a fart in church.
Serena Joy's muffling cries symbolise the real comparative and biologically sinful nature of the act, that everyone else is awkwardly yet restraining to ignore. The "fart in church" really indicates a biological necessity, a response to a strict and man-made construct such as the church.
in a recent study with a very large group of six-month-old infants 100% of infants show this preference so it's not just a small statistically significant difference it's huge virtually every infant shows this
for - innate connection - innate care for others - study of infants with puppets show 100% preference for compassionate play over selfish play - Youtube - Tukdam talk - An Overview Of CHM’s Work On “Well-Being And Tukdam” - Prof. Richard J. Davidson
But if it's a story, even in my head.I must be telling it to someone. You don't tell a story only to yourself.There's always someone else.Even when there is no one
This shows that even as alone, even when it seems there is nobody, there is ALWAYS someone else.
Repression is not the end of the world. Freedom is always in grasp. Even when one feels alone, there is always another, even if it is in you.
It isn't a story I'm telling.It's also a story I'm telling, in my head; as I go along.
Does this show she has the mental power and control -- that there is a hinge of rebellion still in her, although almost completely oppressed?
Shows a bit of innate rebelliousness and power.
we're telling ourselves hey no elephant in my house nothing to worry about whereas the self that we really think we have is that self which is always 01:16:36 subject never object always agent never patient that self that is the enjoyer that stands opposed to the world and experiences it that acts on the world 01:16:49 the self that has a mind and has a body but is not itself a mind or a body that's the serpent and chandra kerdi thinks that if we don't pay attention to that serpent if we don't understand what 01:17:02 it is we believe ourselves to be in our heart of hearts we will never succeed in dispelling the illusion and hume also is trying to identify here 01:17:14 the serpent and he's identifying it as the idea that the word self even means anything
!- Chandrakurti : don't fool yourself about the elephant - keep your eye focused on the serpent - the actual FEELING and BELIEF that you are what experiences the mind and body, that you are the subject that witnesses all objects - this is the REAL sign that you are attached to the serpent, still caught in the self illusion. --This is the subtle self deception that is extremely difficult to overcome, the innate self illusion that comes from a lifetime of affective conditioning - to upright this innate self-illusion requires monumental effort - actions speak louder than words! - Hume is in essence saying the same thing as Chandrakurti
son kappa who i mentioned earlier identifies in his great book on the essence of hermenetics two different 00:33:57 kinds of self-grasping two different attitudes that you might have towards yourself he calls them innate self-grasping and self-grasping due to bad philosophy um 00:34:08 and son kappa argues there that philosophical self-grasping is really an attempt to make really good intellectual sense out of a deep illusion you can imagine 00:34:21 that as somebody saying gosh what i'm going to figure out is how drawing arrowheads on lines makes one line longer and one another line shorter right that's a dumb idea right but you can imagine people trying to do that or 00:34:33 somebody's saying i wonder how deep the water is in that mirage over there that's what sankampa thinks we're doing when we're really philosophically arguing that there's a self we're trying to make coherent and atavistic primitive 00:34:46 illusion but there's also that innate self-grasping that gives rise to that illusion it's on campuses it's actually really easy to get rid of philosophical self-grasping philosophical 00:34:58 self-grasping arises from bad philosophy and you can cure it by doing good philosophy so by the end of these four lectures you'll never believe in a philosophical argument for the self i'm sure of that but innate self-grasping he 00:35:10 thinks requires very long time of practice to try to effectively rewire the way that we understand the world
!- Tsongkapa : Innate vs philosophical self grasping - philosophical self-grasping is intellectual and can be mitigated by better philosophical argument - innate self-grasping is very difficult and comes from deep conditioning that wires our way of behaving in the world a certain habitual way - it takes great effort to rewire ourselves from innate self grasping
By and large, this first defense is effective and may be why many people who contract COVID-19 are asymptomatic.
It may be that some people have the virus enter their nostrils but the mucus captures it and the virus doesn't enter the cells.
The individual does not use this information and this processing to grapple directly with the sort of complex situation in which we seek to give him help. He uses his innate capabilities in a rather more indirect fashion, since the situation is generally too complex to yield directly to his motor actions, and always too complex to yield comprehensions and solutions from direct sensory inspection and use of basic cognitive capabilities.
The mention here of "innate capabilities" and the importance to yielding motor actions toward complex challenges, is noted. A question arises, regarding "basic cognitive capabilities" and their role in the process?
t much the poverty and narrowness of their minds, have taught them perhaps to rcpcut their Catechism and a few good Sentences, to read a Chapter and .my their Prayers, tho perhaps with as Jillie Understanding as a Parrot, and fancied that this was Chunn enough to secure them against the temptations of the present world and to waft them lo a better: and
This seems to expand upon an earlier annotation that asked whether rhetoric was innate or had to be taught. Here, Astell seems to indicate the "parroting" is innate, but complex rhetoric must be taught.
primary requirements fur eloquence arc innate
This is a very interesting idea that one's rhetorical capabilities are innate rather than learned or taught. Do all human beings have this innate capability? And if so, do only some choose to act on this ability?