Psychological Essentialism of Our Weapons

[Gyakuto130 139]

Psychological essentialism is a cognitive bias in which people believe that physical objects such as weapons have a hidden, unchanging ‘essence’. This inner essence makes them what they are and causes their outer traits. People look past what they can see on the outside and assume a hidden nature. They assume a deep, unseen reality exists inside an object. Young children show signs of this way of thinking as did warriors with their special weapon of choice. For example, swords made by Masamune Gorō Nyūdō were considered ‘evil’ (examples of them having killed or injured members of the extended Tokugawa clan) and to counteract this possibility, auspicious, talismanic symbols, like the crane, Fudō Myōō and dragons were sometimes cast/carved onto the sword's tsuba (handguard), engraved onto the blade or inscribed onto the tang of a katana. This was believed to imbue them with good fortune which was passed onto the wielder, simply by ownership and touch. Even today, we give our special weapons names that likely embody our own wishes for particular personal characteristics, we wrap them in precious silk brocade, before handling them we might bow to them, store them with rare incense to beautifully fragrance them. But in reality they are just lumps of steel, timber, leather silk etc; totally inanimate!

Many of us believe we’re immune to such superstitions but during lectures on psychological essentialism, Dr Bruce Hood hands out a fountain pen once owned by Albert Einstein, to the audience who enthusiastically pass it around and handle it. Then he offers money to anyone in the audience who will wear the cardigan that once belonged to child serial killer, Fred West. Only the most contrary or macho people take him up on the offer. But they’re actually just objects made of bakelite, metal and sheep's wool.

We’re strange creatures…

 

[Fungus2]

We’re strange creatures…

Yet, we are also just a lumps of tissue, which reductionists would see also as a lump of matter, predominantly oxygen, carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen.

Nature itself is strange too...

 

[drop bear129 4]

But we function via story as well.

Metacognition is understanding that while it is a fantasy. We will still choose to engage in it.

 

[Gyakuto130 139]

Yet, we are also just a lumps of tissue, which reductionists would see also as a lump of matter, predominantly oxygen, carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen.

In consciousness research, this is known as the ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. It’s the difficulty of explaining why physical brain processes result in subjective, first-person experiences, such as the redness of a rose or the feeling of pain.

Nature itself is strange too...

Yes indeed…

So would you wear a child serial killer’s clothing? Do you have a lucky pair of socks? Do you touch wood for good luck? Do you have sword you have names after the spirit of a fox?

 

[isshinryuronin19 19]

physical objects such as weapons have a hidden, unchanging ‘essence’. This inner essence makes them what they are and causes their outer traits. People look past what they can see on the outside and assume a hidden nature. They assume a deep, unseen reality exists inside

An interesting phenomenon likely going back to prehistoric times. Giving an object anthropomorphic and even quasi-sentient qualities definitely makes it more exciting and has provided inspiration for several fantasy action stories.

Weapons seem to be the main recipient of such beliefs. I think the main reason is that (like Nature) they are givers and takers of life; one's survival intimately tied to it. A sword naturally doesn't swing itself; it needs a swordsman. To wield his sword to the fullest potential he must have an intimate familiarity with its nature: Length, weight, and balance and how these qualities interact with his biomechanics. And in TMA there is the wielder's mental attitude/spirit that interacts with and guides the body mechanics.

Just as the weapon is an extension of the body, it is also an extension of one's spirit. Our ki infuses our body and weapon. So, the weapon (or at least the weapon's use) becomes a reflection of us, making it easier to be seen in an anthropomorphic sense. This doesn't exist in the weapon itself - it's just metal - but when taken in hand by an expert, it becomes something a little more???

Aside from its physical construct, the weapon only has what we give it. But if we give it some metaphysical power perhaps it can draw out something extra in ourselves and allow us to express greater ability.

Thanks for a thought-provoking topic.

 

[Gyakuto130 139]

citify An interesting phenomenon likely going back to prehistoric times.

It might be something to do with the investment of time in creating something like an axe head or, much later, a katana that make one imbue it with great (spiritual) value and perhaps actual spirit.

Giving an object anthropomorphic and even quasi-sentient qualities definitely makes it more exciting and has provided inspiration for several fantasy action stories.

We give our vehicles an essence, even giving them a gender! Remember the films, ‘Christine’ and ‘The Lovebug’?

Weapons seem to be the main recipient of such beliefs.

Again, I wonder if that’s due to the investment of time in their manufacture or learning to use them. Might it it be because of the terrible act they are designed to accomplish; we sanctify them to absolve ourselves of a potential moral crime.

I think the main reason is that (like Nature) they are givers and takers of life; one's survival intimately tied to it.

Oh, I didn’t read ahead!

A sword naturally doesn't swing itself; it needs a swordsman. To wield his sword to the fullest potential he must have an intimate familiarity with its nature: Length, weight, and balance and how these qualities interact with his biomechanics. And in TMA there is the wielder's mental attitude/spirit that interacts with and guides the body mechanics.

So you favour the ‘time investment’ hypothesis? That’s my favoured idea…

Just as the weapon is an extension of the body,

I think that’s called ‘tool embodiment’…or for complex machines, mechano-physical association. When you drive a car or fly a plane, you feel like your body is extending into it and becoming part of the machine because one’s control of it is so complete. I have a friend who is a poor driver and he doesn’t experience this embodiment with his car…mechanosensory-physical dissociation, perhaps.

it is also an extension of one's spirit. Our ki infuses our body and weapon. So, the weapon (or at least the weapon's use) becomes a reflection of us, making it easier to be seen in an anthropomorphic sense. This doesn't exist in the weapon itself - it's just metal - but when taken in hand by an expert, it becomes something a little more???

Quickly, write this down…it’s really good!

Aside from its physical construct, the weapon only has what we give it. But if we give it some metaphysical power perhaps it can draw out something extra in ourselves and allow us to express greater ability.

I think this is an excellent hypothesis…

Thanks for a thought-provoking topic.

I heard about it on the BBC Radio Four programme. They were talking about a young violinist whose Stradivarius was stolen from a cafe in a London train station. She went to pieces and was unable to perform because of reliance on that special instrument. Eventually she decided to have a violin specially made for her annd get back to her career. What she found was the new violin expanded her abilities in playing. She was no longer constrained to playing ‘Stradivarius tunes’ (‘Lark Ascending’ was said to be written with a Strad in mind) and it hugely expanded her repertoire and her career blossomed in unexpected areas. Losing her Strad and having a bespoke violin went from a tragedy to a wonderful rebirth!

As an interesting epilogue to this, music psychologists asked hundreds of violin music experts to blindly rate a Stradivarius’s tone with a brand new, elite violin. They virtually all preferred the modern violin over the fabled Stradivarius. The reputation of the Stradivarius made it subjectively sound better, but objectively, new violins actually sound better! Psychological essentialism in action.

 

[Fungus2]

In consciousness research, this is known as the ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. It’s the difficulty of explaining why physical brain processes result in subjective, first-person experiences

This "problem" is almost conceptually isomorphic to a questions in physcis where one asks why an inside observer would see what it in fact sees, when the objectivity - often frames in terms of an observer equivalence class suggest that this "choice" is non-physical.

I think the problem asks the wrong question, as the question presumes that there exists a non-subjective (objective) "physical reality"; but that is an assumption only.

The alternative question (IMO better) is to ask - does (and why) interacting subjective "inside views" lead to an emergent APPARENT objectivity (ie effective equivalence relations between views).

What I know and see, defines fine me - it is not something that should be "explained" from the non-physical gods-view perspective. This is often stressful as it suggest that reality is not as strictly objective as we like to think. It may well be emergent.

So would you wear a child serial killer’s clothing?

For 100k Euro, in the context of that lecture, sure.

But just for fun, or for 10 Euro - no - but the reason is not superstition, it's more about the social interactions: by wearing it might be interpreted as endorsing or something bringing attention to something terrible. This is why I would avoid do it; as a social signal of disliking what it symbolize, and if there other aspiring werid people out there, they should not get the idea that doing such things will get them "fame".

Do you have a lucky pair of socks? Do you touch wood for good luck?

Definitely not. For me a "lucky pair" of socks, is two with same colour and pattern when you randomly pull two from the drawer

Do you have sword you have names after the spirit of a fox?

No, I just name IP-devices after characters in Star wars or Lord of the ring, but that's just for fun. I think its easer to remember than "DESKTOP-XVZ3C3D".

 

[windwalker099130 160]

Zen in the Art of Archery

"Near the end of Eugen Herrigel's account, when he is leaving Japan, his teacher Awa Kenzō gives him his best bow and tells him:

“When you shoot with this bow you will feel the spirit of the Master near you.”

Awa then tells him not to let the merely curious handle it and, once he has gone beyond needing it,

“to destroy it rather than preserve it as a relic.”

 

[Gyakuto130 139]

This "problem" is almost conceptually isomorphic to a questions in physcis where one asks why an inside observer would see what it in fact sees, when the objectivity - often frames in terms of an observer equivalence class suggest that this "choice" is non-physical.

I’m a lay physicist () and I increasingly believe that the ‘shut up and calculate’ brigade within physics have an excellent model of the physical world, that makes incredibly accurate predictions but bears little resemblance with actual reality…whatever that means!

I think the problem asks the wrong question, as the question presumes that there exists a non-subjective (objective) "physical reality"; but that is an assumption only.

Oh no, you’re conjuring frightening ideas again.

The alternative question (IMO better) is to ask - does (and why) interacting subjective "inside views" lead to an emergent APPARENT objectivity (ie effective equivalence relations between views).

Physicist calculate, those calculations produce highly accurate results, but the model is so…unimaginable it can’t be reality…please As someone once said, ‘The universe has no obligation to be understandable to us’ and I’ve likely fallen into that trap of obligation.

For 100k Euro, in the context of that lecture, sure.

Wimp! I’d do it for €5. It just a cardigan!

But just for fun, or for 10 Euro - no - but the reason is not superstition, it's more about the social interactions: by wearing it might be interpreted as endorsing or something bringing attention to something terrible.

Yes, that’s one of the excuses people make for not trying the cardigan on.

This is why I would avoid do it; as a social signal of disliking what it symbolize, and if there other aspiring werid people out there, they should not get the idea that doing such things will get them "fame".

Is there a suspicion in your community that you might be a serial killer? No, then it shouldn’t be a problem!

Definitely not. For me a "lucky pair" of socks, is two with same colour and pattern when you randomly pull two from the drawer

I have 90 pairs of socks. Seriously!

Me too. My WiFi router was called ‘Light without Heat’

 

[Gyakuto130 139]

Zen in the Art of Archery

"Near the end of Eugen Herrigel's account, when he is leaving Japan, his teacher Awa Kenzō gives him his best bow and tells him:

“When you shoot with this bow you will feel the spirit of the Master near you.”

Awa then tells him not to let the merely curious handle it and, once he has gone beyond needing it,

“to destroy it rather than preserve it as a relic.”

Awa Kenzō Sensei, knew about psychological essentialism and the restrictions to which it can lead

 

[Fungus2]

I’m a lay physicist () and I increasingly believe that the ‘shut up and calculate’ brigade within physics have an excellent model of the physical world, that makes incredibly accurate predictions but bears little resemblance with actual reality…whatever that means!

Oh no, you’re conjuring frightening ideas again.

Physicist calculate, those calculations produce highly accurate results, but the model is so…unimaginable it can’t be reality…please As someone once said, ‘The universe has no obligation to be understandable to us’ and I’ve likely fallen into that trap of obligation.

I think there is a tension between accurate vs beeing precise. The accurate and humble answer is often imprecise, and the precise answer is often a simplification, only coming with an illusion of accuracy.

The timeless and apparent immutable lawlike system of nature, is I think an arfitact from making the inference on a small subsystem from a dominant external perspective.

Temporal naturalism (History and Philosophy of Physics)​

"...the effectiveness of mathematics in physics is limited to necessarily incomplete modeling of subsystems of the universe, hence the effectiveness is reasonable. Wigner’s worry about the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is physics” is resolved by reducing our expectations for what mathematics can represent from a correspondence with every property of the whole universe to a very effective, but approximate, description of the observed behaviours of subsystems of the universe...."
-- Lee Smolin, Temporal naturalism

If one embrace that nature is (even at physics level) is always in motion and evolving, it is easier to understand. Thinking there is a fixed timless set of truth, creates the fictional embedding that gives rise to artifacts and paradoxes. At least this is my stance.

I have 90 pairs of socks. Seriously!

The solution to getting a random draw always lucky is to only keep only black socks without pattern. The only outcome that breaks this is when you get one socks with a hole

 

[Holmejr]

Humans ponder.

 

[windwalker099130 160]

Interesting posts

Thought this might add another perspective to some of the views expressed.

The fact that something is not immediately accessible to an observer does not establish that it is imaginary. Some observations require trained perception and reproducible conditions.

“Anybody who wants to repeat an experiment in modern subatomic physics has to undergo many years of training...”


Only then will he or she be able to ask nature a specific question through the experiment and to understand the answer.

Similarly, a deep mystical experience requires, generally, many years of training under an experienced master and, as in the scientific training, the dedicated time does not alone guarantee success. If the student is successful, however, he or she will be able to ‘repeat the experiment’.

The repeatability of the experience is, in fact, essential to every mystical training and is the very aim of the mystics’ spiritual instruction.


A mystical experience, therefore, is not any more unique than a modern experiment in physics. On the other hand, it is not less sophisticated either, although its sophistication is of a very different kind.”

The Tao of Physics - Fritjof Capra​

An old book,,,interesting reading.

 

[Gyakuto130 139]

I think there is a tension between accurate vs beeing precise. The accurate and humble answer is often imprecise, and the precise answer is often a simplification, only coming with an illusion of accuracy.

The timeless and apparent immutable lawlike system of nature, is I think an arfitact from making the inference on a small subsystem from a dominant external perspective.

Temporal naturalism (History and Philosophy of Physics)​

"...the effectiveness of mathematics in physics is limited to necessarily incomplete modeling of subsystems of the universe, hence the effectiveness is reasonable. Wigner’s worry about the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is physics” is resolved by reducing our expectations for what mathematics can represent from a correspondence with every property of the whole universe to a very effective, but approximate, description of the observed behaviours of subsystems of the universe...."
-- Lee Smolin, Temporal naturalism

If one embrace that nature is (even at physics level) is always in motion and evolving, it is easier to understand. Thinking there is a fixed timless set of truth, creates the fictional embedding that gives rise to artifacts and paradoxes. At least this is my stance.


The solution to getting a random draw always lucky is to only keep only black socks without pattern. The only outcome that breaks this is when you get one socks with a hole

…I like swords

 

[Gyakuto130 139]

Interesting posts

Thought this might add another perspective to some of the views expressed.

The fact that something is not immediately accessible to an observer does not establish that it is imaginary. Some observations require trained perception and reproducible conditions.

“Anybody who wants to repeat an experiment in modern subatomic physics has to undergo many years of training...”

Because setting up an executing experiments requires skills that must be learned and practised?

Similarly, a deep mystical experience requires, generally, many years of training under an experienced master and, as in the scientific training, the dedicated time does not alone guarantee success. If the student is successful, however, he or she will be able to ‘repeat the experiment’.

The repeatability of the experience is, in fact, essential to every mystical training and is the very aim of the mystics’ spiritual instruction.

Bruce Hood talks about these ideas in his book. The supernatural (the religious and the superstitious kinds) do not make any repeatable predictions in the way science does. They are entirely subjective but some find them satisfactory to give meaning to their lives.

A mystical experience, therefore, is not any more unique than a modern experiment in physics. On the other hand, it is not less sophisticated either, although its sophistication is of a very different kind.”

I think it probably is very different. A scientific hypothesis should make repeatable, accurate predictions. If it doesn’t it requires a radical overhaul and further testing.

The Tao of Physics - Fritjof Capra​

An old book,,,interesting reading.

I never read that book since when it was first published, I didn’t know enough physics to appreciate it or have any idea what ‘Tao’ is….I still don’t!

 

[drop bear129 4]

But we function via story as well.

Metacognition is understanding that while it is a fantasy. We will still choose to engage in it.

So for example.

"When I grow up. I want to be a doctor. I will go to school. Get good grades, study doctor stuff. And go for a job at a hospital"

That is a story. But you need that story to become a doctor.

 

[isshinryuronin19 19]

I was one of the top vocational college recruiters in Orange County, CA for a number of years, giving in-classroom lectures to over 10,000 high school seniors. My favorite topic was goal setting.

"When I grow up. I want to be a doctor.

This is a fantasy, a story, a dream.

I will go to school. Get good grades, study doctor stuff. And go for a job at a hospital"

This is a plan, basic as it is.

you need that story to become a doctor.

Yes, this is the first step. When you add a viable plan to your fantasy/story, it is no longer a dream - it has become a goal.
DREAM + PLAN = GOAL
Now there is a chance for fantasy to become reality.

 

[Gyakuto130 139]

…I really like swords

 

[Fungus2]

…I really like swords

Apologies for the diversion!

I actually have ONE sword, and its a blue Jedi lightsaber with sound effects, it is indeed magical

 

[Gyakuto130 139]

Apologies for the diversion!

I actually have ONE sword, and its a blue Jedi lightsaber with sound effects, it is indeed magical

That’s not a sword, it’s a child’s toy!

But…please post a photo of it