Ask Your Question

Revision history [back]

click to hide/show revision 1
initial version

What would be an efficient approach to furthering understandings of complex representations of sets of ideas like faith and how they relates to our perception and thinking.

My name is Joshua. I have no college experience, and no exposure whatsoever to academia. But I do have a passion for the truth, that is, an accurate depiction of the events of reality. An intimate component of such being, certain personal and social structures with intents that can help or hinder the harmony of humanity as a whole with careful manipulation of reality. (For example: It seems to be a natural response to weigh the cost of overanalyzing something that only needs to be understood functionally with the cost of risking some personal priority, perceived risk of status, authority or respect. And this type of social interaction, I believe, can model introspective interaction as well in the sense that if you were to lose authority or belief in your own intention or competency, that this will result in a chaotic situation where ignorance would lead to doubt and thus lead to lack of faith in oneself, and/or the ability of oneself in terms of intellectual or moral strength. So then the incapability of representing a more complete perception of the involved factors as a whole, in what would be a more ideal interaction with ones environment, stunts the progressive intent for a truer reality with the intention of maintaining or retaining personal or social peace. This would be a case of a personal structure facilitating internal harmony. At least probably, or hopefully anyway.)

This is a very general way of speaking and I don't necessarily expect an Exact answer as the preface may suggest. In the realm of cognitive science, linguistics, or any title given the type of search for representational models that correspond to human perception, there seems to be an inherent difficulty in developing a method with which to facilitate the representation of matters of real internal and external behavioral interaction. My question is simple, but not really.

What would be an efficient approach to furthering understandings of complex representations of sets of ideas like faith and how they relate to our perception and thinking? If you were to take 3 moments and define the length of those moments by "The point at which a specific abstract perception that can be described as its own unit, and a set of all of the seemingly infinite ways that it can potentially be related to other ideas, and thus a subset of many other specifically related sets of this type that evolve from birth to provide more proficient functionality, through the point at which a new abstraction, however intricately related to the first and the current process of some goal or intention that is attempted to be used functionally, first appears in the sense of awareness."(Taking for granted what must be a process of identifying the emotional quality that correlates with the idea that precedes its visualization.) And if you were to presume that these lengths only serve to describe a chronological relation between ideas and that they doesn't necessarily signify any other similarities that are understandable through this temporal relationship alone, you could say that at this first moment a statement is made and this will be the main subject of the next two ideas. The perception goes through potential intricate transformations of more foundational/emotional notions of validation and relation to the anticipated whole of the 3 moments as they relate to whatever intention is being pursued. This can be separated in a chronologic way as well only it contains many similar, equally plausible, situations that can result in the same functionality so it must be taken as a vague model even more so than the one for ideas that exist in a sense that they can be remembered and revisited, and/or used in the less aware sense if they meet the criteria of authentication at some prior point in time and then relatability to the context and then assimilation to a foundational/emotional notion of usability. (For example an idea that was originally an accumulation of intuition and became more solidified when related to experience and then associated with that experience, may come into another context as a model for that intuitive generality and serve as a functional representation of it as it is expressed in notions of seemingly mysterious foundational/emotional truths.) And so back to the original thought train. When, during the second moment, the thought that was represented during the first moment is potentially used to perceptualize the one during the second moment, and can be said to be so similar in its entire structure that either of them can be functional for representing the inference made that require either one individually or both, and the third moment is visualized as a aspect of either or both of these starting points regardless of their actual role in the process of revealing that intuitive progression, it would seem that there is a type of subjective versatility in the realm of mental ping pong that makes it difficult to give faith to any model for its representation that relies purely on notions that can be rationalized in the traditional way. The traditional way being that if you have a unit that is not necessarily able to be directly correlated to its past or future, but that represents a part of the integrated whole of thought processes, then that unit is subject to being obscure (as it should be) but unmanagable due to lack in faith in what it may help to realize.

If any person takes the time to actually give me any thoughts on the matter or answer my question however much intention or time is put into it, I thank you for your time and attention. The question again is:

What would be an efficient approach to furthering understandings of complex representations of sets of ideas like faith and how they relate to our perception and thinking? How can I organize sets that can be used to represent themselves, subsets of them selves, and that are subsets of other sets? Again, for anyone who has taken the time to read all of this, I really do appreciate it.