.........I think you are defining behaviorists, and
> not Gestalt.
......................
Behaviorist<--->Gestalt is a false dichotomy. The two ideograms don't attempt
> to occupt the same belief space. Thet don't always accomatate one another, but
> can be made to work in concert.
You are probably right. (because you sound more right than me.) I really couldn't remember
which was which. (it's been eight years since my very limited exposure to the material.)
How is your hypothesis on measuring belief Rees?
I had this idea while driving my car- Belief "apprehends" a truth. I haven't taken it any
further than that. Does it mean anything to you?
>
I have been thinking about what you said regarding the , what was the word?...
inefficency(?) of some human behavior. (i.e. stuff that's fun and enjoyable.)
I totally agree with you and would offer this as a refinement of that thought.
Some inefficent behavior does have a rational end. Your example of baroque art has a very
rational end. It imparts status on its owner *because* it is so inefficient (i.e. it took
many crafts people and many hours of labour to create it.) Louis 14 took this one step
further and made his court an institute of fashion in order to keep his rivals at home
impoverished, trying to keep up with trends. The raj's white elephants served the same
purpose. There are a million examples of this in contemporary culture as well.
Other inefficent behavior is not rational at all (as you said, an antithesis to
rationality.) Bungy jumping, moshing, doing drugs, having prolonged and exhausting
(inefficent) sex, skiing (again - lots of examples) whose purpose, one could say, is to
make us feel "really alive".I think of these as being under the general term "play".
Any ideas on Play? Its purpose? (do we want another thread?)
Stephen