|
collegekid
Aug 14, 2002, 12:24 AM
Post #26 of 47
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
I guess the concept is too subtle for me then... I prefer the method of climbing that involves grunting and cussing as opposed to higher mental states.
The extent of my knowledge of psychology is one class on development...so if you are going to write anything further, please do so in layman's terms. Otherwise, sorry for "getting dreadfully redundant and superfluous."
Is what you're talking about simply the state known as "the zone"?
[ This Message was edited by: collegekid on 2002-08-13 17:26 ]
|
|
|
|
|
metoliusmunchkin
Aug 14, 2002, 12:34 AM
Post #27 of 47
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2001
Posts: 1410
|
Jon (collegekid) wrote:
Quote:Is what you're talking about simply the state known as "the zone"?
No. It is far more complicated than that. Basically, what this theory is describing, is the integrating (and eventually, the merging) of both the conscious and unconscious mind, so that one can perceive the intentions of the unconscious mind, consciously.
It also describes the psychodynamics of climbing (how climbing can emotionally/mentally effect you). I suggest looking up "psychodynamic" in the dictionary.
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Aug 14, 2002, 12:36 AM
Post #28 of 47
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
basically, knowing what is holding you back mentally. ?
|
|
|
|
|
roclymber
Aug 14, 2002, 12:47 AM
Post #29 of 47
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2001
Posts: 157
|
The ability for the mind to be able to hold someone back in anything is definitely evident, and the reverse is true too for the mind in raising your self confidence (The mind is not something outside the body, Im just addressing it as such to make it easier to relay point.)
Though I have two problems with metolius' theory. And it may be due to a lack of understanding (reading conscious and unconscious over and over so many times can confuse the point.) so let me try to explain. You are proposing to heighten one's ability in climbing by combining the characteristics of the unconscious mind to the conscious so the climber is not aware (aware is a bad word, but fits) of his inabilities or abilities? That way only his physical inadequacies will stop him?
And now for my other question.
I don't think many people have this "mental setback" if it is the case. They may do, but it is definitely hard to identify. For example if a climber were to think that he could not do a problem, then he simply wouldn't do it. If he tried, and fell because he lost his grip, then I wouldn't attribute that to his mental state at the time. Maybe a fear of heights or disappointment may stop some, but to others that could be an advantage something to utilize to force themselves to climb better. In the top competitions, I fail to see why any of the most elite climbers would have anything in their minds to hold them back. And what if you were able to completely climb everything free solo style (e.g. spiderman) What in your mind could possibly act as a hinderance?
Just something to ponder. I touched philosophy, but never really found a love because I encountered too many paradoxes(sp?)
-matt
|
|
|
|
|
metoliusmunchkin
Aug 14, 2002, 3:22 AM
Post #30 of 47
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2001
Posts: 1410
|
It is not merely a case of the mentality of a climber holding him back, it is a matter of mental enlightenment that can cause one to better enjoy a climb, become more aware of one's self, become more aware of the distinct climb one is on, and to completely delete all mental inhibitions.
Seeing as climbing is ideally a mentally charged sport, it is the mind's inhibitions that cause a climber to not reach his full potential. We must firstly concentrate on disallowing such inhibitions to affect us in any way, and consequently attempt to get rid of them.
As such, as we find that the unconscious mind leads us to better climbing (the lack of concentration upon logic, and the concentration upon the autonomic functions that should appear while climbing), we must work to realize such unconsciousness. Basically, we must become conscious of the unconscious mental functions that allow us to climb at such a wonderful level.
If this delicate art is perfected, there is no telling of what we may accomplish as climbers. The perfection of such an art renders its perfecters the ultimate mental game to aid his or her climbing, and thus only the physical aspects of the sport need work on.
|
|
|
|
|
dynamic
Aug 14, 2002, 4:12 AM
Post #31 of 47
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 439
|
Sometimes I wonder if this entire paradigm of 'psychodynamic' is manipulated with misplaced intent. I just listened to a tape on improving memory. It was good, but I found that much of its content wasn't really powerful, but more that the time spent dwelling on the issue of memory might make one more focused throughout the day on remembering. I find it amusing that such issues can be so simple yet intriguing and entertaining to pursue in methods of theory, art, and prescriptivism.
One other thing I wonder is that perhaps that positive results in attentiveness to psychodynamics is actually from being distracted by psychology rather than enhanced by focusing on it. It seem to me that the most effective psyching up stems naturally from some stimuli such as mulling over defeat, success, or hunger. Highly subjective to the individual yet also quite generalized for humanity.
I agree with most everyone here, munch- good post.
|
|
|
|
|
katydid
Aug 14, 2002, 12:59 PM
Post #32 of 47
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2002
Posts: 3212
|
What a great read over my morning tea! Next time I'm up in the Bruce Peninsula, m'munch, I'll let you know. (Probably Labour Day weekend....) We can do some bouldering, and then I'll buy you a root beer and we can get down to some serious talking about psychology and philosophy.
Assuming you're game, of course.
Kate
|
|
|
|
|
wonder1978
Aug 14, 2002, 1:57 PM
Post #33 of 47
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2002
Posts: 250
|
Collegekid, I did not mean 'redundant and superfluous' to be an attack on your post, sorry that you may have interpreted it this way. What I meant was that from here on out the argument could only be re-ruminated and would perhaps not lead to greater understanding of munchkin's theory. Concerning that point I see now that I was half wrong.
I still have to disagree though. Yes, if we could become aware of our unconscious self we would perhaps be more efficient climbers (but perhaps not as it has never been done to the extent mentionned). But this to me is still an impossibility as the main characteristic of the unconscious, what gives meaning and significance to the concept is its being UN-conscious, its being something outside our awareness and not retrievable. Self-hypnotism maybe the only solution to this riddle and that I am sure would be pretty unique to witness.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
acrophobic
Aug 14, 2002, 3:46 PM
Post #34 of 47
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2002
Posts: 368
|
hypnotism and meditation are pretty much exactly the same.
it shuts off your left brain... hypnotism is pretty much described as "knowing what you are doing, but just don't care why you are doing it". That's why you can get guys to make out with other guys under hypnotism. Right brain says: sex = this emotion regardless of the gender. Left brain says: sex = only do it to this gender, as doing it with same gender is pointless and wrong.
This is why in greek times it was not out of the ordinary for 2 men to "fall in love".. their society was very right brain driven... they encouraged arts and myths and liberal minds. Not saying that switching to right brain thinking will make you bi-sexual... just a point in case.
I think the unconscious and the "void time" (as i like to call it) are two different things. There are many theories behind dreams and such.. most think it is a time the brain reorganizes important information and such, sort of like de-fragging your computer . All animals dream… My dog dreams sometimes when he is asleep. One time he woke up abruptly form I guess was a bad dream and hid under the table for 10 minutes and wouldn’t even come out for bacon!
IN any case, it is a pretty widely documented theory… and maybe people live and die by the practice of controlling their minds. Yogi are know to be able to slow down their resting heart beat and breathing by up to 50%, along other involuntary body functions.
|
|
|
|
|
metoliusmunchkin
Aug 14, 2002, 6:46 PM
Post #35 of 47
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2001
Posts: 1410
|
Steve (wonder1978) wrote:
Quote:But this to me is still an impossibility as the main characteristic of the unconscious, what gives meaning and significance to the concept is its being UN-conscious, its being something outside our awareness and not retrievable.
It seems as though you perceive that the consciousness of certain unconscious thoughts (or the realization of their existence), still renders such thoughts in the unconscious category. This is wrong. Once something not known to the conscious mind becomes known (taken from unconsciousness) it is now conscious, and no longer unconscious.
Surely it would be extremely difficult to consciously realize any mental matters of unconsciousness within ourselves, but that is precisely why the attainment of such a mental status is very rare and hard to come by - as I have stated many times before.
The chances of one actually attaining such a level of mental self-realization, and their conscious knowledge of certain unconscious orders given to the physical body (which causes this so-called "Zen" or "Zone" while climbing) are extremely minimal. Slim to none actually.
Quote:Self-hypnotism maybe the only solution to this riddle and that I am sure would be pretty unique to witness.
I have not yet considered the contemplation of how self-hypnotism can affect these theories, though I'm sure it would not work. One must be so in tune with their mind to realize the unconscious. Rendering one's self hypnotized will to some degree great this "in tune-ness" to their mind, and perhaps delete all chances of their realizing certain unconscious matters.
Andrew (acrophobic) wrote:
Quote:There are many theories behind dreams and such.. most think it is a time the brain reorganizes important information and such, sort of like de-fragging your computer.
This is yet another theory that I have not yet contemplated, and is very interesting. Maybe the only way of actually realizing the means of the unconscious impulses is through the conscious realization of the meaning of dreams...
Quote:Yogi are know to be able to slow down their resting heart beat and breathing by up to 50%, along other involuntary body functions.
Yogi are the highest form of mental control. They are very rare to this day and age, though I am sure that they could easily reach such a state (conscious realization of the unconscious) seeing as they worship themselves - very internal people. Their entire religion is based upon it, their life rather. Very interesting...
Kate (katydid) wrote:
Quote:What a great read over my morning tea! Next time I'm up in the Bruce Peninsula, m'munch, I'll let you know. (Probably Labour Day weekend....) We can do some bouldering, and then I'll buy you a root beer and we can get down to some serious talking about psychology and philosophy.
Assuming you're game, of course.
Of course I'm game! Give me a shout when you're going down, and maybe PM me with some more details. Then we can definitely work out a meeting (hopefully).
|
|
|
|
|
phillycheese
Aug 14, 2002, 8:06 PM
Post #36 of 47
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 584
|
metolious: i've been following this thread for a while and while your premise sounds good, it is faulty at the core. it's a logical fallacy to say that both consciousness and unconsciousness can co-exist. it's like saying that you can exist in non-existence. to know non-existence is impossible, for non-existence can't be known through existence. even the state of non-existence is not possible for to be in a state is to "be", and you cannot "be" in non-existence. it's a non-entity. so in essence, non-exsistence can't exist in existence or otherwise. (see the semantic problem?) just as unconsciousness cannot be known through consciousness. an awareness of uncosciousness is possible, but not a knowledge. maybe that is what you were getting at. awareness is different than knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
wonder1978
Aug 14, 2002, 8:42 PM
Post #37 of 47
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2002
Posts: 250
|
in total agreement with phillycheese on this point
steve
|
|
|
|
|
metoliusmunchkin
Aug 14, 2002, 11:34 PM
Post #38 of 47
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2001
Posts: 1410
|
Phil (phillycheese), how is it impossible to become conscious of certain unconscious thoughts? You have stated that "non-existence can't be known through existence," however the unconscious mind exists. Therefore, it can be known to the consciousness (existence).
|
|
|
|
|
waxman
Aug 15, 2002, 12:16 AM
Post #39 of 47
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2002
Posts: 173
|
You have quite the vocabulary for a fourteen year old.........Hooked on Phonics worked for you? Sorry, I must be jealous or something. Give me a break!
|
|
|
|
|
phillycheese
Aug 15, 2002, 12:58 AM
Post #40 of 47
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 584
|
metolious: i see where you are trying to go but you are missing the definition of what consciosness is. to simplify it and not take it to heideggerian terms(we could go forever on semantics so i'll try not to take it there), lets just say to be conscious is to know empirically, or through sensory perception, whether it's touch, taste, sound, sight, etc. however, in order to be conscious, they all have to be filtered through our brain and processed into thought. unconsciousness is the antithesis. it is to know while not using the empirical realm. can this be? can we truely know without sensory perception? this all will lead to epistemology and metaphysics. can one truely be unconscious and yet still process conscious thought?? you cannot know of unconsciousness unless you are conscious which will always eliminate unconsciousness. you end up with a fallacious argument based on circle logic. one more time for clarity, you must consciously be unconscious to know the unconsious which ends up begging the question.
sorry for the confusion, but these topics are never cut and dry. good philosophical debates will go for days.
BTW: i'm not posting in order to up my count or start an arguement, and i also know that there probably are holes in my arguement as well so i welcome all criticism with open arms. i like to learn and progress, and criticism is a great step in progression of thought.
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Aug 15, 2002, 1:18 AM
Post #41 of 47
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
could we stop using the words "consciousness" and "unconsciousness" so much?
I agree with phillycheese.
Does one need to have conscious access to his/her entire mind in order for it to function better? For example, could you imagine what could happen if you had control over involuntary bodily functions? Dangerous things to mess with. I suppose for a yogi or a monk, this idea works, since that type of person has been practicing control over subconscious functions for some time. But to do so requires a different lifestyle...one with less complication and stress. If you wish to leave society and live in the mountains with a cult for the rest of your life, controlling the subconscious in order to become a super-climber is possible. To become truly "in tune" with your mind requires concentration, time, and a lack of distractions (this is why yoga classes are taken in the dark , without music)
I suppose simply doing yoga or some other relaxation technique could help you to climb better. I don't think that is nearly as extreme of mind control as m'munchkin is talking about though.
I think simply believing in yourself (consciously) would vastly improve one's climbing...watch pro tip #7 at http://www.climbxmedia.com/index4.html.
Don't forget that the conscious mind has a large influence on the subconscious mind...thinking good thoughts will ultimately make you feel better.
fav quote of mine: "if you think 'sh t' you'll climb sh t"
[ This Message was edited by: collegekid on 2002-08-14 18:32 ]
|
|
|
|
|
metoliusmunchkin
Aug 15, 2002, 1:41 AM
Post #42 of 47
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2001
Posts: 1410
|
Let me firstly state how much I appreciate all of your contributions to this thread of mine. It does however discourage me that there aren't as many people contributing to such a thread as I would have hoped.
Jon, each of your points are vallid, however, each of your questions can be answered within my previous posts, use your head. You must find such answers. I will no longer repeat myself, because as Steve had previously stated, this thread is getting rather redundant.
Phil, the word consciousness is being used in the context of being aware of certain things, or the knowledge of their existence. It is not necessary to know theories or facts through the basis of "touch, taste, sound, sight, etc." but to simply know of their existence, consciously.
|
|
|
|
|
phillycheese
Aug 15, 2002, 1:59 AM
Post #43 of 47
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 584
|
metolious: being aware/conscious is done empirically. however, i completely agree with you in that knowledge is not limited to empirical evidence. we have progress in our thinking since David Hume made that idea popular in the 19th century. and yes, this is getting redundant and will end up digressing into a semantics debate. Steve, as i'm sure you know, Derrida would have much to say about language and it's digression. that being said, thanks again metolious for a great conversation and i look forward to more of your insights.
|
|
|
|
|
metoliusmunchkin
Aug 15, 2002, 2:13 AM
Post #44 of 47
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2001
Posts: 1410
|
Phil (phillycheese) wrote:
Quote:metolious: being aware/conscious is done empirically. however, i completely agree with you in that knowledge is not limited to empirical evidence.
Thank you. I feel very strongly of this.
Quote:[..]thanks again metolious for a great conversation and i look forward to more of your insights.
Your welcome (although I'm really not sure what I have done). I too look forward to my next insights, however one is never sure what they will be. We will just have to wait and see.
|
|
|
|
|
wonder1978
Aug 15, 2002, 2:18 AM
Post #45 of 47
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2002
Posts: 250
|
yes in deed phil, Derrida would have a ball, and would probably be pissed at all of us for our shallowmindedness. I deal too much with Derrida at the university (and foucault and Lacan and heidegger and Hegel and Barthes and many others for that matter)to even think about them on rc.com. But it seems I have trouble resisting a heated philosophical debate, eventhough philosophy is not my main thing. (more of a literary kind of guy)
It was extremely entertaining nonetheless.
m'munchkin will surely be a talented scholar one day.
Regards, Steve
|
|
|
|
|
krustyklimber
Aug 15, 2002, 2:46 AM
Post #46 of 47
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 25, 2002
Posts: 1650
|
Hey let's go back to philosphy, I'm lost and my head hurts, and not once in this thread has Munchie said "Krusty totaly gets it!"
That was more fun for me anyway!
Right on Munchie!
You know how I feel!
Your Friend,
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
metoliusmunchkin
Aug 15, 2002, 11:47 PM
Post #47 of 47
(2348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2001
Posts: 1410
|
Jeff (jeremiah_the_bullfrog) wrote:
Quote:i always thought climbing was just a way to get out and get up high.
Yes, but with the utilization of such mentalities (or the mental enlightening - becoming conscious of unconscious climbing related impulses) one can acquire an even greater "high."
|
|
|
|
|
|
