Ryan S's Comments
philatelists are an interesting bunch. I've been studying a bit of philately lately. This stamp could have been worth a bunch but with 3 billion made and no recall its worthless.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
"Cognitive dissonance" is a widely misunderstood phenomena often cited by people with only introductory understanding of logic. Cognitive dissonance is like balancing a toothpick on-top on the edge of a glass. It may fall this way, it may fall that way, but in all probability it will fall one way or the other. The toothpick would have to be particularly balanced to rest on the edge of the glass.
Cognitive dissonance is probably a more enlightened state than either of the alternatives. That isn't the problem, the problem is when the toothpick always falls to one-side because it is biased.
Cognitive dissonance is probably a more enlightened state than either of the alternatives. That isn't the problem, the problem is when the toothpick always falls to one-side because it is biased.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
So let me be clear now. I don't care if you are gay. You do what you want. I realize there are inclinations at birth and I also know that we can dampen or feed our inclinations, and I know that through deep contemplative meditation we can rework a lot of our minds. And I realize that is not happening in our society. I realize that by-and-large, if I abstract my thinking out to the extreme God's-eye of the world, it appears that homosexuality is not very conducive to production and appears to be primarily based in "I want" and "I need" egotistical striving, which is at odds with community. So its on it's motivational basis alone that I see problems with it. Nevertheless, you are free to do whatever you want, and if it is a mistake, that is your right too. This is why I don't make much issue out of whether or not it is okay, but I make an issue out of the arguments for its acceptance.
My ideal is that this whole issue gets put away as soon as good arguments start to surface and the flawed, illogial, nonsense is abandoned.
My ideal is that this whole issue gets put away as soon as good arguments start to surface and the flawed, illogial, nonsense is abandoned.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
@onecooldan
I'm simply reducing it to it's basist constituent parts. My concern is rationality, not retaliation to some pathos.
A rational argument for the acceptance of homosexuality would be that the a)inclination is personal, b) it operates within a domain of mutual consent, and c) even if it was problematic, we have a right to make our own mistakes.
These are good arguments for accepting homosexuality as a personal thing. Good for removing any top-down control of the phenomena because it puts it in the domain of your "inalienable rights" to be a fallible person. It still doesn't address whether or not homosexuality is right with God or with nature, but it at least makes it legitimate constitutionally.
The argument "I was born that way" is a knee-jerk excuse that isn't very well thought out. I can give you tons of better arguments than that. It is a reaction to a perceived "pathos", and as such, it is nonsense.
I'm simply reducing it to it's basist constituent parts. My concern is rationality, not retaliation to some pathos.
A rational argument for the acceptance of homosexuality would be that the a)inclination is personal, b) it operates within a domain of mutual consent, and c) even if it was problematic, we have a right to make our own mistakes.
These are good arguments for accepting homosexuality as a personal thing. Good for removing any top-down control of the phenomena because it puts it in the domain of your "inalienable rights" to be a fallible person. It still doesn't address whether or not homosexuality is right with God or with nature, but it at least makes it legitimate constitutionally.
The argument "I was born that way" is a knee-jerk excuse that isn't very well thought out. I can give you tons of better arguments than that. It is a reaction to a perceived "pathos", and as such, it is nonsense.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Actually, I'd like to share a little known method with you. It's from eastern philosophy so it isn't very popular in the west. Western philosophy has focused on Aristotlean logic on the bases of his law of identity. Which could probably use some explanation as well.
Aristotle's law of identity states; a thing is what it is. This axiomatic statement coul hardly be denied but there are elements contained within it that reveal a paralogic similar to eastern philosophy. The statement has a counter-part known as the law of non-contradiction. The notion that there can be no contradictory phenomena like a square-circle or a wooden-iron. So the law of identity is expanded under the law of non-contradition to; a thing is what it is and not what it isn't.
The negative property of a thing "not what it isn't" will prove important to understanding the vast significance of the law of identity. Leibniz famously formulated the law as "A=A" and some around his time asserted that denial of the law of identity should be punishable under the law. Virtually nobody argues about the law of identity for good reason.
Liebniz's formula could be expanded to include the law of non-contradiction as A=A&&A!=!A. This formula says "A (a thing) is equal to itself, and not equal to what it is not." (I'm using formulas I learned from computer programming). This is important! Because the thing is not just itself, it has a negative aspect, it IS not what it isn't.
This addition basically solves the riddle of the relative structure of the universe, because the very identity of a thing is relative to what it is not. We should expect to find an underlying continuity between the identity of one thing and the identity of all other things.
In eastern philosophy, Nagarjuna, developed a negative dialectic which is now known as "Nagarjuna's negative dialectic" and is formulated as Thesis->Antithesis->Synthesis. The method begins with a proposition or thesis such as "All human behavior is determined by genetics." and derives the anti-thesis, which would be "All human behavior is determined by nurture." and finally attempts to synthesise the two "All human behavior is the combination of nature and nurture." Which, not so surprisingly is the modern view of academic psychology. But it hasn't always been that way, between the behaviorists and the humanist psychologists there has been fierce debate about which one determines human behavior.
But, since Aristotle's law of identity is the basist and most axiomatic law underpinning all experiential reality, it must be true of everything we can possibly experience. We can therefor apply the negative dialectic method to everything and achieve significant results.
The method doesn't end at the synthesis however, the method continues with the synthesis as the new thesis. If the thesis were "All human behavior is determined by environment and genetics." we may derive as an antithesis that "All human behavior is determined by the individual." and derive a synthesis from that. The further into this method we go, the further outside of normal english description we get, to the point of not being able to adequately describe the synthesis. Though it may nevertheless be true, and probably is.
We tend to think in simplified opposites, and the language reflects this. It is no simple task to synthesize opposites like this and come up with ways of describing the results. How would we describe human behavior that is "all determined" by the environment, their genetics and their own activity? And is it sufficient to stop there? Or is there more we are missing?
Anyway, its a very useful tool, which should, based on what we now know, always yield practical results.
Aristotle's law of identity states; a thing is what it is. This axiomatic statement coul hardly be denied but there are elements contained within it that reveal a paralogic similar to eastern philosophy. The statement has a counter-part known as the law of non-contradiction. The notion that there can be no contradictory phenomena like a square-circle or a wooden-iron. So the law of identity is expanded under the law of non-contradition to; a thing is what it is and not what it isn't.
The negative property of a thing "not what it isn't" will prove important to understanding the vast significance of the law of identity. Leibniz famously formulated the law as "A=A" and some around his time asserted that denial of the law of identity should be punishable under the law. Virtually nobody argues about the law of identity for good reason.
Liebniz's formula could be expanded to include the law of non-contradiction as A=A&&A!=!A. This formula says "A (a thing) is equal to itself, and not equal to what it is not." (I'm using formulas I learned from computer programming). This is important! Because the thing is not just itself, it has a negative aspect, it IS not what it isn't.
This addition basically solves the riddle of the relative structure of the universe, because the very identity of a thing is relative to what it is not. We should expect to find an underlying continuity between the identity of one thing and the identity of all other things.
In eastern philosophy, Nagarjuna, developed a negative dialectic which is now known as "Nagarjuna's negative dialectic" and is formulated as Thesis->Antithesis->Synthesis. The method begins with a proposition or thesis such as "All human behavior is determined by genetics." and derives the anti-thesis, which would be "All human behavior is determined by nurture." and finally attempts to synthesise the two "All human behavior is the combination of nature and nurture." Which, not so surprisingly is the modern view of academic psychology. But it hasn't always been that way, between the behaviorists and the humanist psychologists there has been fierce debate about which one determines human behavior.
But, since Aristotle's law of identity is the basist and most axiomatic law underpinning all experiential reality, it must be true of everything we can possibly experience. We can therefor apply the negative dialectic method to everything and achieve significant results.
The method doesn't end at the synthesis however, the method continues with the synthesis as the new thesis. If the thesis were "All human behavior is determined by environment and genetics." we may derive as an antithesis that "All human behavior is determined by the individual." and derive a synthesis from that. The further into this method we go, the further outside of normal english description we get, to the point of not being able to adequately describe the synthesis. Though it may nevertheless be true, and probably is.
We tend to think in simplified opposites, and the language reflects this. It is no simple task to synthesize opposites like this and come up with ways of describing the results. How would we describe human behavior that is "all determined" by the environment, their genetics and their own activity? And is it sufficient to stop there? Or is there more we are missing?
Anyway, its a very useful tool, which should, based on what we now know, always yield practical results.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Placebo's rarely work. Yes.
This is what I think, there is a dialectic process here. Now, I don't expect many of you are familiar with dialectical thought, which involves holding two seemingly opposed views in mind simultaneously.
Consider for example the computer keyboard I am typing on. I refer to this object as a "keyboard" but I may also refer to it as a number of individual keys, supplanted on a Printed Circuit Board, with a molded plastic shell. If I want to describe it in greater depth I could talk about the metallurgic components of the PCB or the polyethylene composition of the keys. There are many ontologies, many depths to the "keyboard". A dialectical thought in this regard would be to entertain simultaneously the image of the complete keyboard and all of it's constituent parts. In-fact, to perceive it's actual infinity of depth.
Likewise, the physical world and the phenomenal (mental) world are one and the same world separated only by apparent differences. Whatever occurs mentally also occurs physically in some respect. When you are elated mentally is correlates with activations of your nucleus accumbens physically. Dialectically holding both perspectives in mind simultaneously, we can see that anything, placebo or not, which affects the psychological well-being of an individual, also affects their physical (neurological) well-being.
If you can master dialectical thought in this way, golly gee, the whole world will become a lot clearer.
This is what I think, there is a dialectic process here. Now, I don't expect many of you are familiar with dialectical thought, which involves holding two seemingly opposed views in mind simultaneously.
Consider for example the computer keyboard I am typing on. I refer to this object as a "keyboard" but I may also refer to it as a number of individual keys, supplanted on a Printed Circuit Board, with a molded plastic shell. If I want to describe it in greater depth I could talk about the metallurgic components of the PCB or the polyethylene composition of the keys. There are many ontologies, many depths to the "keyboard". A dialectical thought in this regard would be to entertain simultaneously the image of the complete keyboard and all of it's constituent parts. In-fact, to perceive it's actual infinity of depth.
Likewise, the physical world and the phenomenal (mental) world are one and the same world separated only by apparent differences. Whatever occurs mentally also occurs physically in some respect. When you are elated mentally is correlates with activations of your nucleus accumbens physically. Dialectically holding both perspectives in mind simultaneously, we can see that anything, placebo or not, which affects the psychological well-being of an individual, also affects their physical (neurological) well-being.
If you can master dialectical thought in this way, golly gee, the whole world will become a lot clearer.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
@Geo
That may just be the lodge you belong to or contemporary scottish rite freemasonry. In the ancient world, masonic initiation rites involved an amount of fear that struck at the heart of the initiate. Masonic orders were set up to protect the secrets of the craft of masonry. Initiates had to swear to uphold all the masonic secrets or face brutal punishment and possibly death. Masonic scholars assert that these threats were never carried out however. They were simply meant to cause fear.
But freemasonry became less to do with actual masonry and became a symbolic masonry of the mind. This is probably not obvious to the majority of freemasons who practice freemasonry. All of this, btw, is information I got from those masonic archives. A book on freemasonry written by freemasons and my uncle who is also a 33rd degree freemason.
There are variations on the initiation rite, such as being blind-folded, with the cable-tow around the neck, dragged around the room and beaten with harmless objects. There are esoteric practitioners of masonry as well as those who practice it just for the community.
"The Senior Warden in the West represents the Soul which is associated with the Moon. The Junior Deacon's rod bears the Moon as its emblem, which signifies the communication of the light of the soul to the Ego. For the Soul (Greek psyche) may be considered to be the center of our unconscious mind. The line of communication between the Ego and the Soul is the first requisite of the regeneration of the spiritual man. As the psychologist Carl Jung suggested, the journey to understand ourselves commences with the act of turning the Ego's gaze inward to confront our Unconscious.
This is the symbolism of the lodge and its officers. Next time you watch the opening and closing of the lodge or one of the degrees consider these veiled meanings. Consider the implications of the absolute authority of the Spirit over our inner and outer life. Consider how the Ego, in order to be rejoined to the whole personality must abdicate its illusory kingship. The Ego must become aware that it is not the center of the whole, but only the center of consciousness, and that its power comes from deeper within. Consider how the Soul is in charge of the lodge when it is "at labor" – that is, when it is engaged in the important inner work that happens within the Unconscious."
The Meaning of Masonry
A Voyage through the Psyche
by Bro. James W. Maertens, Ph.D. 32°
(Originally published in the Lake Harriet Harald, May/June 2009)
http://www.lakeharrietlodge.org/lhl277/MainMenu/Home/MasonicLibrary/MeaningofMasonryReviewEssay/tabid/417/Default.aspx
The initiation rites may have slackened or have been removed all together in some lodges that don't focus on the esoteric or for legal reasons.
That may just be the lodge you belong to or contemporary scottish rite freemasonry. In the ancient world, masonic initiation rites involved an amount of fear that struck at the heart of the initiate. Masonic orders were set up to protect the secrets of the craft of masonry. Initiates had to swear to uphold all the masonic secrets or face brutal punishment and possibly death. Masonic scholars assert that these threats were never carried out however. They were simply meant to cause fear.
But freemasonry became less to do with actual masonry and became a symbolic masonry of the mind. This is probably not obvious to the majority of freemasons who practice freemasonry. All of this, btw, is information I got from those masonic archives. A book on freemasonry written by freemasons and my uncle who is also a 33rd degree freemason.
There are variations on the initiation rite, such as being blind-folded, with the cable-tow around the neck, dragged around the room and beaten with harmless objects. There are esoteric practitioners of masonry as well as those who practice it just for the community.
"The Senior Warden in the West represents the Soul which is associated with the Moon. The Junior Deacon's rod bears the Moon as its emblem, which signifies the communication of the light of the soul to the Ego. For the Soul (Greek psyche) may be considered to be the center of our unconscious mind. The line of communication between the Ego and the Soul is the first requisite of the regeneration of the spiritual man. As the psychologist Carl Jung suggested, the journey to understand ourselves commences with the act of turning the Ego's gaze inward to confront our Unconscious.
This is the symbolism of the lodge and its officers. Next time you watch the opening and closing of the lodge or one of the degrees consider these veiled meanings. Consider the implications of the absolute authority of the Spirit over our inner and outer life. Consider how the Ego, in order to be rejoined to the whole personality must abdicate its illusory kingship. The Ego must become aware that it is not the center of the whole, but only the center of consciousness, and that its power comes from deeper within. Consider how the Soul is in charge of the lodge when it is "at labor" – that is, when it is engaged in the important inner work that happens within the Unconscious."
The Meaning of Masonry
A Voyage through the Psyche
by Bro. James W. Maertens, Ph.D. 32°
(Originally published in the Lake Harriet Harald, May/June 2009)
http://www.lakeharrietlodge.org/lhl277/MainMenu/Home/MasonicLibrary/MeaningofMasonryReviewEssay/tabid/417/Default.aspx
The initiation rites may have slackened or have been removed all together in some lodges that don't focus on the esoteric or for legal reasons.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Of course the vast majority of high-school girls will be dating men in their 20s. There are some interesting reasons for that, but none that any girl wants to hear. I don't know why they can't see it for themselves. It's all in the pages of Strauss' The Game or in the instructional videos for The Mystery Method.
Young girls and women assert that older men are more mature (as mature as they are). But this isn't true. Older people can be weaker in ego, more apt to set their immediate desires and concerns aside for the delayed-gratification. That may amount to maturity, but it is also what makes a successful psychopath. Being able to refrain from acting on egotistical striving does not put an end to egotistical striving, it just sets up a buffer for delayed-gratification.
With that said, the girl in the scenario is not as mature as she can imagine. Her egotistical desires are predominant in the whole rationalization. In-fact, there is never any other reason for engaging in an intimate relationship with another human being except ego. We want to be loved. Which isn't love.
Young girls and women assert that older men are more mature (as mature as they are). But this isn't true. Older people can be weaker in ego, more apt to set their immediate desires and concerns aside for the delayed-gratification. That may amount to maturity, but it is also what makes a successful psychopath. Being able to refrain from acting on egotistical striving does not put an end to egotistical striving, it just sets up a buffer for delayed-gratification.
With that said, the girl in the scenario is not as mature as she can imagine. Her egotistical desires are predominant in the whole rationalization. In-fact, there is never any other reason for engaging in an intimate relationship with another human being except ego. We want to be loved. Which isn't love.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Few of us have a problem with it because as grown adults who have already been subjected to these mentalities our whole life, we are generally accepting of violent imagery and/or the "princess" innocent victim type. But when you break them down rationally, neither mode of operation is really civil.
I got into the habit of catching myself whenever I had even the slightest violent impulse. It became most obvious to me in the way I would impulsively stamp out the lives of insects inside and outside my home. If a bug wandered past me, I was likely to kill it. As I tried to stop doing this, I realized just how ingrained the behavior was. Even as I intended to stop doing it consciously, unconsciously I was still doing it. It made me disgusted with myself and the whole damn society for accepting this sort of thing.
Can you believe it, now when I see someone stamp out a bug I feel compassion for the bug. I don't say anything to the person, because I know the behavior isn't conscious. But I think of it in these terms; when I stamped out bugs, I could identify a shot of power, a sense of control originating from the subconcsious. Not much, but a slight sense of being bigger or having power. And that right there, disturbed me enough to not want to do it anymore.
I got into the habit of catching myself whenever I had even the slightest violent impulse. It became most obvious to me in the way I would impulsively stamp out the lives of insects inside and outside my home. If a bug wandered past me, I was likely to kill it. As I tried to stop doing this, I realized just how ingrained the behavior was. Even as I intended to stop doing it consciously, unconsciously I was still doing it. It made me disgusted with myself and the whole damn society for accepting this sort of thing.
Can you believe it, now when I see someone stamp out a bug I feel compassion for the bug. I don't say anything to the person, because I know the behavior isn't conscious. But I think of it in these terms; when I stamped out bugs, I could identify a shot of power, a sense of control originating from the subconcsious. Not much, but a slight sense of being bigger or having power. And that right there, disturbed me enough to not want to do it anymore.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
There are initial differences observed at birth, but the brain is highly adaptive. Encouraging violence or an innocent victim mentality are both going to impact the kid.
Thanks for the info Alex, very interesting to my studies.
Thanks for the info Alex, very interesting to my studies.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I have this idea everytime I eat tacos. Which is probably about twice a month now, but it used to be once a week. I've expanded into other meals. Mostly homemade. Eating out happens about once a month now. I just thought this was the most obvious marriage of food stuff. But, realizing I'm not a chef, there must be some reason for not doing it, or it would be done. But that may be a bit of flawed logic on my part.
@acbenk01
I'm not sure what you know about the human metabolic system. To my knowledge it's fairly complex and involves hundreds or thousands of elements, depending on the depth of the model. I do know that ghrelin is a hormone produced in the stomach which acts as a messenger to the brain as to the contents of the stomach. Wikipedia relates: "Ghrelin is a hormone produced mainly by P/D1 cells lining the fundus of the human stomach and epsilon cells of the pancreas that stimulates hunger.[1] Ghrelin levels increase before meals and decrease after meals. It is considered the counterpart of the hormone leptin, produced by adipose tissue, which induces satiation when present at higher levels. In some bariatric procedures, the level of ghrelin is reduced in patients, thus causing satiation before it would normally occur."
As too, can ghrelin production be out of control. Even to the point of feeling deathly hungry all the time. When identified such individuals are given the name Prader-Willi Syndrome.
"Prader–Willi syndrome patients have high ghrelin levels, which are thought to directly contribute to the increased appetite, hyperphagia, and obesity seen in this syndrome. Cassidy states the need for a clear delineation of behavioural expectations, the reinforcement of behavioural limits and the establishment of regular routines.[21]"
Compulsive eating is a hallmark of PWS and often food needs to be regimented to PWS sufferers. Meanwhile, understand that the way you feel when you haven't eaten in a couple of days, may be how they feel their whole life.
With that said, PWS is the extreme of a known, but not well known part of the vast metabolic system. There can be variations of this that go out of the radar because they do not appear as compulsive. Never-the-less, because all things are caused, we can at least assume that whatever self-control they may exercise, it is not sufficient in them to resist their urges. As you have appeared to indicate, but its not clear how insisting that, the "fatties" are going to magically gain "self-control".
@acbenk01
I'm not sure what you know about the human metabolic system. To my knowledge it's fairly complex and involves hundreds or thousands of elements, depending on the depth of the model. I do know that ghrelin is a hormone produced in the stomach which acts as a messenger to the brain as to the contents of the stomach. Wikipedia relates: "Ghrelin is a hormone produced mainly by P/D1 cells lining the fundus of the human stomach and epsilon cells of the pancreas that stimulates hunger.[1] Ghrelin levels increase before meals and decrease after meals. It is considered the counterpart of the hormone leptin, produced by adipose tissue, which induces satiation when present at higher levels. In some bariatric procedures, the level of ghrelin is reduced in patients, thus causing satiation before it would normally occur."
As too, can ghrelin production be out of control. Even to the point of feeling deathly hungry all the time. When identified such individuals are given the name Prader-Willi Syndrome.
"Prader–Willi syndrome patients have high ghrelin levels, which are thought to directly contribute to the increased appetite, hyperphagia, and obesity seen in this syndrome. Cassidy states the need for a clear delineation of behavioural expectations, the reinforcement of behavioural limits and the establishment of regular routines.[21]"
Compulsive eating is a hallmark of PWS and often food needs to be regimented to PWS sufferers. Meanwhile, understand that the way you feel when you haven't eaten in a couple of days, may be how they feel their whole life.
With that said, PWS is the extreme of a known, but not well known part of the vast metabolic system. There can be variations of this that go out of the radar because they do not appear as compulsive. Never-the-less, because all things are caused, we can at least assume that whatever self-control they may exercise, it is not sufficient in them to resist their urges. As you have appeared to indicate, but its not clear how insisting that, the "fatties" are going to magically gain "self-control".
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
And they say being bilingual makes you more compassionate and open-minded. Scheisse!
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I once came upon an archive of masonic writings. You know, the kind of stuff that is supposed to be locked up in one of their lodges. Or, so the conspiracy theorists assert. I found this page amid thousands of conspiracy pages and began studying the collected works.
What I gathered from the archives was that Freemasonry is essentially an anagogical procession though the symbolism and rites of the craft. Initiation rites are designed to humiliate and embarass the individual, so as to strike hard at their callous ego. Much of the craft focuses on the destruction of ego and the cultivation of antagonistic love (Brotherly Love).
"Thought is a force, and philosophy should be an energy, finding its aim and its effects in the amelioration of mankind. The two great motors are Truth and Love. When all these Forces are combined, and guided by the Intellect, and regulated by the RULE of Right, and Justice, and of combined and systematic movement and effort, the great revolution prepared for by the ages will begin to march. The POWER of the Deity Himself is in equilibrium with His WISDOM. Hence the only results are HARMONY." - Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, 1871
I'm trying to track down the archives now, as I think someone will find them interesting.
What I gathered from the archives was that Freemasonry is essentially an anagogical procession though the symbolism and rites of the craft. Initiation rites are designed to humiliate and embarass the individual, so as to strike hard at their callous ego. Much of the craft focuses on the destruction of ego and the cultivation of antagonistic love (Brotherly Love).
"Thought is a force, and philosophy should be an energy, finding its aim and its effects in the amelioration of mankind. The two great motors are Truth and Love. When all these Forces are combined, and guided by the Intellect, and regulated by the RULE of Right, and Justice, and of combined and systematic movement and effort, the great revolution prepared for by the ages will begin to march. The POWER of the Deity Himself is in equilibrium with His WISDOM. Hence the only results are HARMONY." - Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, 1871
I'm trying to track down the archives now, as I think someone will find them interesting.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
PLEASE NOTE: This letter has been written in a special way. It contains difficult but necessary truths. Some people may feel uncomfortable or upset while reading the first half of the letter, but it is important to keep reading until you reach the second half.
When you get there, you will understand why the first part needs to exist. Please do not be upset or afraid. That is just your ego reacting the way all egos do. Merely observe the negative feelings and let them pass. This letter has been written to help you.
Dear YOU,
Straight away, before anything else, I want you to understand that what you are about to read is a love letter, written because I love you. In fact, it's very possible that I love you even more than you love yourself, which is why I'm writing to you today.
It's also why I'm going to tell you some things that might be hard to hear. In fact, they WILL be hard to hear. The first thing I'm going to tell you might hurt worst of all.
YOU, my dear beloved creature, are INSANE. Not just a little insane, in the way you think of the people you may know who are diagnosed with "depression" or 'bipolar disorder" or what have you. Your insanity isn't something so easily treated with a pill or a visit to a therapist. I wish it were.
Your insanity is systemic, very nearly universal, and absolutely incurable from within the system that sustains it. Every "professional" you might go to for help is as crazy as you are. Get that straight right here and right now. Your insanity is not recognized, acknowledged, or understood by the "mental health system." In fact, all that system can do is help you become a happier crazy person.
Continued at link: http://actualsanity.com/
When you get there, you will understand why the first part needs to exist. Please do not be upset or afraid. That is just your ego reacting the way all egos do. Merely observe the negative feelings and let them pass. This letter has been written to help you.
Dear YOU,
Straight away, before anything else, I want you to understand that what you are about to read is a love letter, written because I love you. In fact, it's very possible that I love you even more than you love yourself, which is why I'm writing to you today.
It's also why I'm going to tell you some things that might be hard to hear. In fact, they WILL be hard to hear. The first thing I'm going to tell you might hurt worst of all.
YOU, my dear beloved creature, are INSANE. Not just a little insane, in the way you think of the people you may know who are diagnosed with "depression" or 'bipolar disorder" or what have you. Your insanity isn't something so easily treated with a pill or a visit to a therapist. I wish it were.
Your insanity is systemic, very nearly universal, and absolutely incurable from within the system that sustains it. Every "professional" you might go to for help is as crazy as you are. Get that straight right here and right now. Your insanity is not recognized, acknowledged, or understood by the "mental health system." In fact, all that system can do is help you become a happier crazy person.
Continued at link: http://actualsanity.com/
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
I'm well aware that language has evolved. As in the case of the distinctions of personhood and non-personhood which originated or were formalized with Tertulian c. 400 A.D. This is an important fact when considering the writings and inscriptions of cultures before this time. The term "person" comes from Latin "persona" a term used in Roman plays to refer to the role played by the actor. A persona therefor was the outward facing appearance of a part. And this came to refer to the "persona" or "personality" of individual humans. Whereas before this time, its likely that there was no such concept of personhood. This could explain why so much of the literature from the time depicts natural forces as personal and persons as impersonal interchangably with modern usage. The intriguing question for me then is, is personhood a really valid distinction or has its meaning changed since Tertulian, and/or is the evolved distinction truthful?