thoughts on the 'indigo' phenomena?

[P A]

When the senses fail, your intuition takes over; that's how scientists start there work trying to understand the mysteries of life. They sense something first, then go out and prove it (or try to).

Well no, actually, that's not at all how the scientific method works, nor, to my knowledge, is such a description reflective of how the discipline is/has been conducted by real scientists in this or any time period. Scientists do not formulate and test their hypotheses according to the whimsical caprice of their 'intuitions.' With their well-trained eyes and brains, they detect meaningful patterns in the natural world which can be assessed for descriptive and/or predictive validity by way of rigorous experimentation and applied mathematics. If it weren't for the coldly analytical Newton and the preternaturally sagacious Galileo, neither you nor I would 'know' the first thing about gravity. Without the ingenuity of a Gauss or Maxwell, you would be similarly ignorant of the force of electromagnetism. It is not the 'intuition' and 'feelings' of these great minds that we must predominately thank for their illuminating theories, but, rather, their singular, almost superhuman powers of problem-solving ingenuity and logical thought.

Come to think of it, it's interesting that you chose these examples in particular, since they prove so fruitful in explaining the power of the power of the scientific method in comparison, to, say, shamanism. The chief reason that anyone 'knows that gravity is there' is that, in fact, you really can see it, hence the possibility of Newton's formalizations in the first place. Insofar as gravity describes a fundamental force of nature, one can perceive it in action anytime one drops something, attempts to float for any longer than half a second in midair, etc. The converse is true with electromagnetism, but in this case, one can sometimes literally see its most direct manifestations, e.g., an arc of lightning.

 

[!!4iV4HF9R34g]

Why label anything? And also, what traits of an 'indigo' would warrant a negative label anyway? I was under the impression that the traits were positive for the most part..

I think that if I had a child fitting into this description, I would praise and encourage all their light and talent and positivity, while helping them overcome any challenges they might have to the best of my capabilities and resources. If this meant that I would have to suffer a diagnosis of autism or something similar in order to get access to the resources and help offered by doctors and people who work with the autistic, I would gladly let them label her, for the sake of any possibility that she could be helped.


Also, I'm pretty sure it was Einstein (though I may be mistaken) who said that all genius is simple in hindsight.

 

[P A]

neuroscientists admit that they do not know much about the brain

Eh, not really. If so, they're just being modest. Sure, there's quite a lot that's yet to be discovered, but they sure have done a bang-up job so far.

what would you label a person of this mental disposition?

Why does such a disposition require a label in the first place? Why can't we just agree that, when it comes to personality traits and level of intelligence, some kids in this world are just radically different from most other kids (irrespective of any psychiatric disorders, etc.), and leave it at that?

The traits are going to be present no matter the label, the difference being that the indigo child label will have a positive effect

I think that what most of the people in this thread are contending is that the 'Indigo' label will not have a positive effect on the child's self-image and psychological development in the long run.

whereas an "official" label will tell you that you're crazy, need to change your attitude and mindset to fit in with "normal" conventions.

Says who?

 

[pk.]

What came first, the logic or feeling?

"Come to think of it, it's interesting that you chose these examples in particular, since they prove so fruitful in explaining the power of the power of the scientific method in comparison, to, say, shamanism. The chief reason that anyone 'knows that gravity is there' is that, in fact, you really can see it, hence the possibility of Newton's formalizations in the first place. Insofar as gravity describes a fundamental force of nature, one can perceive it in action anytime one drops something, attempts to float for any longer than half a second in midair, etc."

Yes you can see that objects fall, but it is that something which does it that you cannot see, the in-between. You feel that there is something causing it, so you logically try to explain it.

"The boy was a full man before he ever knew what was meant by atmosphere." - Henry Adams.

Also Isaac Newton studied the occult. I personally believe that that influenced his deep insight into nature...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies

 

[P A]

Also Isaac Newton studied the occult. I personally believe that that influenced his deep insight into nature...

Richard Feynman famously lambasted 'the occult,' and I personally believe that this attribute (viz. his endorsement/disapproval of a completely irrelevant subject) did not in any way influence his groundbreaking work in quantum electrodynamics.

Also, what do you mean by 'the occult,' anyway? Given the historical context within which much of Newton's scientific work and intellectual life were couched, his religious beliefs were more-or-less inevitable. Nevertheless, some of his more exotic theological treatises would have branded him as a 'heretic' by the RCC's standards at the time. If you're referring to his study of alchemy (a modified from of which is now called chemistry), this too was a natural product of the era in which Newton was forced to work. To my knowledge, Newton didn't dabble in anything more paranormal than a little theological writing 'on the side.' But, as mentioned above, all of this is basically beside the point.

You feel that there is something causing it, so you logically try to explain it.

No. 'You' don't do anything. 'You' don't 'feel' that there is a 'thing' that is causing the movement. Isaac Newton proposed a coherent idea as to how this movement is brought about using rigorous processes of thought, not intuition.

 

[rangrz]

...I don't 'feel' anything when I study my physics work. Really, I have zero 'feelings" or 'intuition' about, say, quarks. I can only deal with them thru logic, math, and experiment.

 

[pk.]

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly.
I'm crying.

Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come.
Corporation tee-shirt, stupid bloody tuesday.
Man, you been a naughty boy, you let your face grow long.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob.

Mister city policeman sitting
Pretty little policemen in a row.
See how they fly like Lucy in the Sky, see how they run.
I'm crying, I'm crying.
I'm crying, I'm crying.
Yellow mother custard, dripping from a dead dog's eye.
Crabalocker fishwife, pornographic priestess,
Boy, you been a naughty girl you let your knickers down.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob.

Sitting in an english garden waiting for the sun.
If the sun don't come, you get a tan
From standing in the english rain.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob goo goo g'joob.

Expert textpert choking smokers,
Don't you think the joker laughs at you?
See how they smile like pigs in a sty,
See how they snied.
I'm crying.

Semolina pilchard, climbing up the eiffel tower.
Elementary penguin singing Hari Krishna.
Man, you should have seen them kicking edgar allan poe.
I am the eggman, They are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob goo goo g'joob goo goo g'joob.
Goo goo g'joob goo

 

[Thou]

"Psychological issues" - What, from the opinion of a psychologist? What is a "normal" state of mind? Are religious people and surrealist painters crazy? Isn't labelling someone ADHD setting up someone for failure?

I wasn't labled (dx'd?) and as a result was bored to tears and failed High School courses that I couldn't sit still for.

So in my case the adverse is true, though I'm not saying this because I disagree with you. I think you're quite correct.

I believe that attention disorders are vastly misdiagnosed in the United States intentionally for profit (or out of ignorance, which from a doctor I think is actually WORSE).

I also believe that these symptoms in children/later adults arise out of an environmental response to a childhood crammed to the brim with constant stimulus and unwavering entertainment in the form of television, video games, etc. If you take a look at the statistics in marketing on adverts directly aimed at children and the insane symbolism used to tap into their vulnerable young ID's you'll see this quite clearly, and if you're anything like I am, you'll start to dry heave out of sheer disgust at the practice.

In a society where both parents have to work so much just to feed their children, everyone suffers. Even if the children don't go hungry, they end up being raised by a television set. I'm incredibly intelligent, but can't sit still or focus/learn worth a shit. Now I need to pay a cognitive behavioral therapist and work my ass off with them just to regain something I used to have. Same with contentment.

 

[!!4iV4HF9R34g]

Oh my god, I can't even watch Fox except for animation domination...
Has anyone ever watched Glee?? Holy shitfuck, I swear to god, when I saw like less than five minutes last night, I wanted to punch somebody.
It's appalling what is thought of as cool.
Kids get a lot of this barrage, but I think the worst of it is directed at adolescents not children.
So off topic, but I can't help but rage..

 

[KamMoye]

If, when properly applied, the scientific method is utterly incapable of 'validating' the existence/coherence of a purported phenomenon of the natural world, what alternative method do you suggest?

It's funny that people who are not religious or spiritual will unknowingly use science as their God. I'm not saying you do or don't, I'm just highlighting logic like this as an example of how it's typically done.

 

[!!4iV4HF9R34g]

^ Word.

 

[Mu-ham-mad]

Thoughts on the indigo noumenon? Or am I being a kant?!

 

[P A]

^That was actually pretty funny.

 

[Mu-ham-mad]

Awwwww, thank you Sir! I do try. (a kiss)

 

[P A]

It's funny that people who are not religious or spiritual will unknowingly use science as their God.

Wrong.

 

[pastelcircus]

*walks in,

>.>
<.<

walks out*

 

[Mu-ham-mad]

In - out - in - out
Shake it all about!
You do the okey kokey then you turn around.....
That's what it's all about!
Oi!



Ooooooooooooooooooooo the okey kokey..................

 

[Draind]

"Psychological issues" - What, from the opinion of a psychologist? What is a "normal" state of mind? Are religious people and surrealist painters crazy? Isn't labelling someone ADHD setting up someone for failure?

ive been labeled adhd and am far from a failure, nor did my teachers, parents, or coaches think that in anyway shape or form, that i would be a failure because of it.
religious people are crazy haha, they start wars over "love everyone" ideals.

 

[P A]

ive been labeled adhd and am far from a failure, nor did my teachers, parents, or coaches think that in anyway shape or form, that i would be a failure because of it.

And you know what the punchline is, for people like you and I wrt PK? When we, the very people on whose behalf he has attempted (unsuccessfully and wrongly) to speak, back him into a rhetorical corner merely by offering our our own personal experiences to the contrary, we are the bullies, the closed-minded ones, and the boring rationalists smoking their tobacco-only pipes in their oak-furnished studies. Not that PK has actually said as much, but, IME, that is most often the lamentable case when phony New Agers make a critical attempt at philosophy of science, etc.

 

[panic in paradise]

boring rationalists smoking their tobacco-only pipes in their oak-furnished studies. Not that PK has actually said as much, but, IME, that is most often the lamentable case when phony New Agers make a critical attempt at philosophy of science, etc.

there is no such thing as a boring rationalist, we are constantly presenting ourselves with new information.