I've seen this movie for several years. There are some questions and pictures that stay in my mind for a long time.
How does the protagonist heal himself?
Did the master's method to him have any effect?
The two questions are interrelated and have always bothered me. The protagonist is obviously self-healing. In terms of the process, the bullshit psychotherapy in the film (the reality is based on the psychoanalysis of Scientology) does promote the development of the human mind, but it is not the ultimate solution, it does not help the spiritual growth, nor does it bring happiness - this is also The reason why the protagonist finally broke with the master.
If we think of the human mind as a black box that only outputs information, but doesn't know when it's ingesting it, or algorithms, then all systems from astrology to psychoanalysis are just trying to send some symbols to the black body , and then observe its response. For example, "No Doors" in Zen Buddhism, and "Psychological Counseling" in the film, asking "Who are you", constantly denying the existing answers, and trying to promote different references to the problem. It is as if a spear was taken out of a mental fragment and stabbed at oneself. When people have self-doubt, resentment, and denial of reality, it is easy to break the original inherent cognition. The black body that was attacked began to resist, but instead became alive. From this perspective, psychoanalysis assumes a set of experimental summaries in bold: when we input a symbol a, the subject (or a hypothetical personality) outputs a set of symbols "b". We continue to input product b, and get the set of explanations "c", and so on. In this process, we inversely infer the subject's algorithm (such as xx personality) from the correlation of abc. But, we don't know if this is the only algorithm, so we must add environment parameters such as cdef to it, and things start to get complicated. This process is quite similar to the particle accelerator experiment. We cannot see the particle f and can only use the formula to calculate it. Throw it in a bunch, observe the trajectory, parameters of the collision, and push the model backwards.
Having gone around this far, I would say that the assumptions of psychoanalysis are clearly rigorous, an attempt rather than a system of axioms. To put it bluntly, no formula can indicate the initial algorithm in the black body, nor can it deduce the final algorithm (see Kant's proof of the human knowable range for details), but it can give the black body a symbol in the existing system, such as Jung The individuation of Freud's ego, id, superego. It's like taking something from the void, giving it to the devil, and seeing what you get, it's purely a fluke. To speculate on the devil's mind, forget it. At least, for the formula itself, we don't have any way to justify it (Gödel's problem).
This conundrum can be viewed in terms of semiotics - because there are too many unknown functions on both sides of the equation.
Semiotic axioms:
1. Symbols are the result of one-sidedness, and the process of generating meaning of all symbols is through the interpretation system (interpreting one symbol as another) This process includes the internal interpretation system and the external interpretation system f(x)=g(a)? m(b) As for how the two work together, I don't know.
3. The mental process is responsible for the internal explanation, a=g (a) cultural customs form the external explanation system b=m (b) the relationship between the two, it is generally considered that the mind is the foundation of culture, and the external explanation system (culture) is the internal explanation system. The remains and relics left by the interpretive system (mind), and the culture reacts to the interpretive laws of the mind (thinking: beliefs, cognitive patterns).
4. The mental interpretation system itself is a black box m(x) = ?
The black boxes of the mind constructed by Pierce, William James, Whitehead, Saussure, Lacan, Jung, Kant, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Buddha each have their own merits and can be basically divided into two types: the recognition that the mind is incomprehensible The bottomless bottom (Witter, Kant, Jung, Buddha) and the assumption that the mind has an inherent pattern (Lacan, Peirce, modern psychological systems). The former only admits that the mind can only intuition, and cannot assume formulas; the latter tries to deduce the black body using the symbolic formula itself.
From a personal point of view, when a person is confused, it shows that he is not clear about the operation of Axiom 4. But for the psychoanalytic system, since Axiom 3 cannot be fully established, the system fails from the root. This problem is similar to Gödel's incompleteness - if psychoanalysis is viewed as a self-consistent system, then either there are propositions in the system that it cannot prove right or wrong, or it cannot prove the absolute legitimacy of its own system . And as long as we pay attention to the reality of the moment, the feelings, judgments, and things we want to say are the new propositions—you don’t know if it really fits the system, or if it’s unexpected. If you want to take the next step, psychoanalysis is like the tarot card, resorting to probability, I am afraid that the law of large numbers is more convenient.
William James believes that introspection is the simplest and most useful method compared to complex psychoanalysis. To borrow a phrase, philosophy is nothing but regurgitating one's own thoughts. Another way of visualizing the bold, implanting beliefs rather than symbols, might bring a little light.
Those who work in the system are like walking on thin ice every time they take a step forward - but what is there to fear in the water. Some rivers, once they have passed, do not need to look back.
View more about The Master reviews
