Sanctuary

[SpheresOfBalance]

SoB: ... I really like playing the part of a mirror...
SoB: I have no want or desire to treat them the way they treated another.

Are you telling me that you can't see the contradiction between those two self-descriptions?
None whatsoever! It's your take that is contradictory, not my meaning. To say "I really like playing the part of a mirror," is circumstantial. Are you to say that you don't do things you don't necessarily want to do, but are compelled to do something, and of all the possibilities of what could be done, you prefer a particular one, not because you like it in and of itself, but because you 'know' it's the best thing to provide? Such is this case. Again it's you taking my words out of context to fit your preconceived ideas, of what someone must mean, as apparently, you can see it no other way.

I'm beginning to believe that I'm much more complex (deeper) than some of you.

SoB: Don't offend, then I won't, treat in kind. Yes, it's really that simple.
Mick: It's not quite that simple if you believe, as you clearly do, that "they deserve it" justifies your offence.
SoB: Not at all, you're speaking of grudges ...

No, I'm speaking about your attempt to justify yourself doing the same thing you criticised someone else for doing, on the grounds that it's not wrong to do it if it's a punishment.
Who said anything about punishment, I only mentioned a mirror, treating in kind, for one to view oneself. If that's all it is, how could it ever be seen as a punishment? Unless you admit that what Arising did was a punishment, would be the only case in which you could say so.

Remember, Bill started this thread without attacking anyone. Who was the first attacker, (punisher in your mind)? Arising_uk, that's who. Arising, attacked the Poster, not the posters argument, not that in this case there necessarily was one. But if you could call it an argument against religion, which would be your best bet, where is the meat of Arising rebuttal. Arising clearly attacked the man first, then wrapped it up with what could be considered some possible help. Is that the price one must pay for Arisings 'help,' condescension?

The complication that raises (which I think has you trapped in an inconsistency) is that the wrong-doing that you imagine you are justly punishing may itself be justifiable on that basis, as a punishment for an earlier wrong-doing. If so, your justification fails, and you are guilty according to you own lights.
Incorrect, as this is a new thread, and Bill attacked no one, he was just venting his life for all to see. Only someone with a chip on their shoulder, a grudge holder, follows someone around, haunting them with attacks of condescension.

The so called 'help' at the end of Arisings bit was seemingly loaded, but of it all was the most benign, the condescension on the other hand, was in fact uncalled for, in this particular thread.

I'm curious, do any of you people believe we change, (grow), or do you think there is no room for treating anyone differently, because once a snot-nosed kid, always a snot-nosed kid.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Incorrect, I only ever treat in kind, closely observing how 'they' treat either me or others, you're condescending on a regular basis.

Show me where? I'm often insulting but I think I rarely condescend as I take what the other says seriously and most of the time offer advice or an honest opinion.
I'll give you the fact that it's a matter of opinion, largely based upon the ignorance/knowledge quotient, of the one judging.
But, here you go:

I do, the answer is no you won't. Mainly because you actually have no wish to as I've already given you two very good techniques...

First you act as if you could know him better than he does, while in the same breath placing yourself as an authority of the 'proper' techniques, that he should follow, as surely compared to him, you, in fact, know.

Really, you've got to be kidding me? Who died to make you an all seeing god of anything? I would imagine that most PhD's would wipe the floor with you, me and Bill, as to anything we could say about anybody/anything that's on topic for this forum, quite the wide range. And I wouldn't necessarily give them absolute authority of their particular field either. Such is the doubt I have, as I consider the current limitations of humankind. Do I really need to deliver my favorite quote from my favorite philosopher?

This is a philosophy forum, if one does not like ones thoughts critiqued then go to a social network site or a new-age love in.
Agreed, yet you attack the man and not his argument. Sure with loaded words you give some supportive advice at the end, but only after attacking his person.

No, obviously you only believe, both that you, "know what you believe," and that you, "understand what you know." But then, that's been your case since I've first known of you. For example, you can't possibly 'know' what Bill might do in any 'particular' instance; clairvoyance is a myth, that 'charlatans' try and sell. And in your case, obviously, a means to condescend.

This is a philosophy forum, what one types should be what one thinks and I think you do Bill an injustice in thinking he doesn't know what he is saying or doing when he types. Unlike you I address what he and others say not some view of what I think is going on.
You've been very polite in this rebuttal, and I thank you for it. I sense restraint, and commend you for it. So I feel bad for specifically calling you out, saying that you don't know, yet you know that I don't believe that many know, as much as they believe they do.

I'm not necessarily saying that Bill doesn't know what he's saying. I'm saying that Bill knows better than either one of us, and obviously your take and mine differ, such that one should ask themselves if they could really know exactly what it is that he is in fact saying.

I believe that most of the time you see Bill as only a disruptor of peace, not taking this place seriously, because he's different, with his gif's, some actually distasteful. And I agree that I hate some of them, as they remind me of some of the truths of humankind that I wish to ignore/forget because they are some of the worst of mankind, and then there are those which I 'fear' to acknowledge.

Regardless of how anyone feels about them, they are in fact the truth of mankind, distasteful or not. And I for one don't believe that philosophy should fear anything, as topic, or else it's doomed.

No avoidance anymore than you or anyone else, as we each selectively address that which we see as more important. Though 'some' do it for other reasons, I'm sure; you! Oh, and did I say that your branding matters not?

Explain to me where I have avoided whatever it is you think I'm avoiding?
I'm saying that we both, as well as most others, are selective as to that which we respond, and that just because a particular item is ignored, maybe one that you are looking forward to seeing answered, doesn't mean that one is necessarily avoiding it. Sure it's a good way to dig your spurs into ones hide, if they're susceptible to such prodding, (goading). But your characterization, of the act is not necessarily indicative of the truth of things.

For that matter explain what it is you think I'm avoiding?
See above!

Whilst you are there explain what you mean by "branding"?
Nothing special or profound. Just to say that your labeling of my understanding of psychology, so as to pigeon hole, and thus discount it, matters not. Neither of us being experts in psychology renders neither of us able to make any necessarily 100% truthful commentary of the others understanding. You only believe you know of my understanding, yet I'm a student of no single source, so how could you possibly label it, as it has none, and it doesn't have to.

Just remember that when I took a 'personality' test, written by PhD's in psychology, it labeled me an 'observer,' one that angers people, having relatively few friends as consequence, because I can often know what people are going to say before they do so, such that I often superseded their doing so, hence their anger, then I, the lone cowboy, or as John Lennon sang, "The Fool on the Hill."

Then I consider man's history as well, which paints a clearer picture.

Take the word 'pop' off and add 'true' as the prefix and you'll get it.

My wife is attending service in her traditional sanctuary - a church.
I am choosing a gym.

As what you are doing is obviously not working.

A couple divided, yet it takes two to tango! More condescension, as if you could 'know' that Bill is the problem. It could be a manifestation rather than a causal. A charlatan indeed!! Looking for 'anything' to take a pot shot? Twisting and turning to serve ones condescending purpose! Ploys to serve ones need to do harm! Need I go on? What am I thinking right now! As surely you would claim to 'know.'

What are you wittering on about!?
The same that you're wittering on about, albeit, obviously a different perspective.

That Bill's wife goes to church and he doesn't implies in no way that they are divided
Two different "sanctuaries!" It would seem you've missed the boat.

nor that there is any problem that Bill is responsible for.
Agreed, so why insinuate he's responsible, that he should join her in church instead of her joining him at the gym.

My statement was simple, Bill seeks a goal, essentially peace and enlightenment from his existential angst and the voices in his head.
Where has he stated this? Not this thread! Or are you putting words in his mouth?
Voices in his head? Schizophrenia?

My take is that his wife has it right and Bill should return to his church to find what he seeks by engaging with the techniques available to the believer.
Apparently, he's not the believer that some may think, if his sanctuary is a gym versus a church. Were you always a atheist or did you cross over?

As to the GIF:

Outstanding example of your subconscious homo-eroticism Bill. I can just see you as a muscle mary, tache an' all.

Or that men pay far to much homage to their libido, or so it might seem. Especially in light of:

and to fight EVERYTHING inside me

I clearly see "Mein Führer" in the image. And yet it's true that men are subject to their chemistry. An internal conflict indeed!

Yup! Mein Fuhrer saluting his penis and in all the glory of the over-blown male body.
Neither Bill, you or I created that gif, so our view of it is not necessarily what the artist envisioned. But I see it like this: Both the man and his penis are saluting the same entity, not one another, as both salutes are in fact facing the same direction. It'd be more accurate to say that: Such that the penis worships, so does the man, or visa verse. Considering the chemistry of testosterone, of course. Which totally changes your projection of homosexuality. The fact that it's an idealized example of a man, is in keeping with the Greeks sculptures, as they were all idealized. Why the ideal? That's obvious, isn't it?

Bill must be suffering very badly then as pretty much every gif is of tits, rape, bestiality, arses, etc, etc.
That could simply be because he's found a definite burr for under your, (as well as most of societies) saddle, or he's trying to say that he agrees with Freud, that largely many of mans problems are due to his sexual repression. Victorian values, indeed!

Your analysis that Bill has issues over his sexuality may be true
In this particular thread I get the impression that relations between him and his wife have slowed or come to a halt. Which would in fact be a problem for a male of much virility. His fault? For being as nature intended, subject to his chemistry. I think not! Of course I could be wrong, we should ask Bill for clarification, before jumping to conclusions.

and I think they probably are given his gifs but my take is that what is of importance is ones outcomes so I notice you ignored the advice I gave him?
No, I noticed it, and also where it was placed, i.e., after the belittling condescension. Which detracts, no? So which is it you're actually trying to do?

Advice based upon his own wishes and pointing-out that he cannot achieve what he proposes the way he's going about it and especially since it contradicts what he says he thinks about the 'ego' and the 'self'.
Obviously, these are thoughts of other encounters, (threads/PM's), that I'm unaware. Are they in fact related to this one?

The OP clearly crying out in pain and frustration caught between one's animal self and mans illusory dogma. Now go ahead and pit nature against illusion, you Darwinist; and then there was a 'big bang,' creating all 'nature.'

What are you on about now?
This thread of course! Why ask, oh yeah, to be a condescending smart ass! This is exactly what I'm talking about, as it implies that, "you only know," and that certainly, "I don't," or at least that there is no discernible indications that I know, yet it could be you that's in the dark.

Bill has what is known in philosophy as existential angst and holds a view of self based upon a mish-mash of Freud, Eastern religious thought, Ouspensky, Jaynes and his guru which does not appear to be achieving his goals. All I tell him is that there are ways to achieve them that he hasn't tried.
Your interpretations, or his direct statements!

Look, you know you have your favorite targets, which could indeed spell out complacency, with respect to a desire to fire; trigger happy?[/color]

No, this is a philosophy forum and I reserve the right to critique those who think they can promote a view of philosophy based upon little to no reading of the subject and who promote a 'philosophy' that obviously doesn't do what it says upon the tin.
Yet you often critique the man instead of his philosophy.

Since Bill first arrived here he has derided Philosophy, told us to stop reading it and that there is something bigger and better to be trying to achieve and yet his posts show that what he promotes as the solution to the issues he thinks assail everyone are apparently of no use to him so why should he be allowed to promote them without critique.
Just be sure you know what it is that he's actually saying, as sometimes it's definitely been otherwise, as he's said as much. I really don't think you get him as much as you think you do.

Especially since there are techniques and solutions within and without Philosophy that could give him what he seeks but he refuses to countenance even considering them let alone discussing them.
How could you know this, what it is that he needs, the solutions to his deepest darkest bit of doubt (fears). It's never quite that simple. Maybe it's well beyond what man has as answers, maybe that he always thinks he has all the answers. I'm amazed that you think you have bills subconscious in you hands, clear as day.

And please not the NLP stuff again, complete with it's homage to magic, illusion. It's not about trying to brainwash oneself to the traumas they've experienced, rather often it's about understanding what exactly they were and how it's affected them. Trying to cover them up, humans can do quite well on their own, it's called dissociative amnesia, which never undoes that which has been done, only understanding it completely contains any sort of long lasting effect.

[mickthinks]

SoB: ... I really like playing the part of a mirror...
SoB: I have no want or desire to treat them the way they treated another.
SoB: whatsoever!

Of course I sometimes feel obliged to do things I don't like doing. But we are talking about something you said you do like doing. What did you think "I really like ..." meant?

You have rejected the word "punishment" so I'll restate my clarification without it:-

SoB: Don't offend, then I won't, treat in kind. Yes, it's really that simple.
Mick: It's not quite that simple if you believe, as you clearly do, that "they deserve it" justifies your offence.
SoB: Not at all, you're speaking of grudges ...

No, I'm speaking about your attempt to justify yourself doing the same thing you criticised someone else for doing, on the grounds that it's not wrong to do it, if it's a return of harm for harm or wrong for wrong, in order to teach a lesson.


I'm beginning to believe that I'm much more complex (deeper) than some of you.
WTF? Are you trying to drown us in your condescension, SoB?

[SpheresOfBalance]

SoB: ... I really like playing the part of a mirror...
SoB: I have no want or desire to treat them the way they treated another.
SoB: whatsoever!

Of course I sometimes feel obliged to do things I don't like doing. But we are talking about something you said you do like doing. What did you think "I really like ..." meant?
Again, you seem to be having problems with the word "like," as I used it, contextually. Of all the possible choices in such a situation, I see all as distractors except for an "eye for an eye," "in kind," "mirrored." I 'like' (prefer) that solution as opposed to all the others.

Since you are having problems with a 3rd grade word (simply factual that it should be well below your education level):

Like [lahyk]
verb (used with object), liked, liking.
3. to wish or prefer:
"I like justice over injustice."

I recommend that you pick up a current dictionary, to refresh your memory/learn of new meanings of words, specifically "like."
I do hope you 'get' it this time, because I do get tired of repeating something to someone that is clearly being obstinate. Someone that ignores the "facts" in order to falsely maintain an arguments life.

You have rejected the word "punishment" so I'll restate my clarification without it:-

SoB: Don't offend, then I won't, treat in kind. Yes, it's really that simple.
Mick: It's not quite that simple if you believe, as you clearly do, that "they deserve it" justifies your offence.
SoB: Not at all, you're speaking of grudges ...

No, I'm speaking about your attempt to justify yourself doing the same thing you criticised someone else for doing, on the grounds that it's not wrong to do it, if it's a return of harm for harm or wrong for wrong, in order to teach a lesson.
I never attempted to justify "it," or mean to promote "it." 'Again,' I'm simply supplying a 'mirror,' so one can see 'themselves,' 'not' me. To believe that it's me that they see, indicates that their reflection in the mirror is blurred, hence their need to look again and again until their vision becomes clear. Their fault that they refuse to/cannot see their "true" reflection.

mirror [mir-er]
verb (used with object)
8. to reflect in or as if in a mirror.
9. to reflect as a mirror does.
10. to mimic or imitate (something) accurately.
11. to be or give a faithful representation, image, or idea of:
"My harsh words of Mick mirror his completely."

In other words, as you characterize it, I did nothing but supply the mirror, Arising did it to Arising; understand? If Arising did no wrong, then no wrong was done. If Arising did wrong then wrong was done. Don't shoot the messenger, as the messenger only reports what he was told, he is simply a mirror of he/she/they that said such a thing! They did "it" to themselves, however "it" can be characterized, by whomever. As such, "it's" only necessarily true for that particular individual.

I'm beginning to believe that I'm much more complex (deeper) than some of you.
WTF? Are you trying to drown us in your condescension, SoB?
Who is "us," do you have a mouse in your pocket? I only speak to those to whom it applies, they know who they are. Does it apply to you? If would seem that you have indicated that indeed it does, or why else be put off. And 'no,' just being factual, or so you're surely causing it to seem, with such obstinate behavior.

They were 'my' words, 'my' meaning, 'not' yours!!

[Arising_uk]

I'll give you the fact that it's a matter of opinion, largely based upon the ignorance/knowledge quotient, of the one judging.
But, here you go:

I do, the answer is no you won't. Mainly because you actually have no wish to as I've already given you two very good techniques...

First you act as if you could know him better than he does, while in the same breath placing yourself as an authority of the 'proper' techniques, that he should follow, as surely compared to him, you, in fact, know. ...

I act upon the description he gives of himself. Nowhere do I say these are the 'proper' techniques, I just say that these are techniques which if he tried would give him what he appears to want and I say this with authority as I have tried them and they work.

Really, you've got to be kidding me? Who died to make you an all seeing god of anything? I would imagine that most PhD's would wipe the floor with you, me and Bill, as to anything we could say about anybody/anything that's on topic for this forum, quite the wide range. ...

I disagree, as most PhD's have only one more qualification than me and in the general subject of Philosophy no more than me. In fact I find myself in the fairly rare situation of holding degrees in both Arts and Science and have met many PhD's and find I can hold conversations with them fairly well.

And I wouldn't necessarily give them absolute authority of their particular field either. ...

We differ then as in their particular speciality I would consider the PhD a very fair authority of their particular field.

Such is the doubt I have, as I consider the current limitations of humankind.

That's because you hold a ridiculous epistemology.

Do I really need to deliver my favorite quote from my favorite philosopher?

Let me give you one of mine, "Know thyself".

, yet you attack the man and not his argument. Sure with loaded words you give some supportive advice at the end, but only after attacking his person.

I 'attack' his behaviour and the contradictions in his words.

You've been very polite in this rebuttal, and I thank you for it. I sense restraint, and commend you for it. So I feel bad for specifically calling you out, saying that you don't know, yet you know that I don't believe that many know, as much as they believe they do.

Then you have been talking to the wrong people. That you think you have 'called me out' is due to your ridiculous epistemology.

I'm not necessarily saying that Bill doesn't know what he's saying. I'm saying that Bill knows better than either one of us, and obviously your take and mine differ, such that one should ask themselves if they could really know exactly what it is that he is in fact saying.

This is the difference between you and I and the difference between Philosophy and Psychology as I take what the person says them saying what they know.

I believe that most of the time you see Bill as only a disruptor of peace, not taking this place seriously, because he's different, with his gif's, some actually distasteful. And I agree that I hate some of them, as they remind me of some of the truths of humankind that I wish to ignore/forget because they are some of the worst of mankind, and then there are those which I 'fear' to acknowledge. ...

No, Bill can disrupt the peace as much as he likes. How I see Bill and treat him is as an interweeb gnu seeking approbation and acolytes, as one who peddles a mish-mash of confusion and contradiction and derides Western Philosophy even tho' he has never read any and claims the title of 'philosopher' when his philosophy avails him naught.

Regardless of how anyone feels about them, they are in fact the truth of mankind, distasteful or not. And I for one don't believe that philosophy should fear anything, as topic, or else it's doomed.

I don't fear his piccy's I just think them inane and on the whole a reflection of a sad and tawdry subconscious.

I'm saying that we both, as well as most others, are selective as to that which we respond, and that just because a particular item is ignored, maybe one that you are looking forward to seeing answered, doesn't mean that one is necessarily avoiding it. Sure it's a good way to dig your spurs into ones hide, if they're susceptible to such prodding, (goading). But your characterization, of the act is not necessarily indicative of the truth of things.

Did I say it was? I said in many cases I give my opinion and that's generally where there is no philosophical content to respond to.

See above!

Ditto.

Nothing special or profound. Just to say that your labeling of my understanding of psychology, so as to pigeon hole, and thus discount it, matters not. Neither of us being experts in psychology renders neither of us able to make any necessarily 100% truthful commentary of the others understanding. You only believe you know of my understanding, yet I'm a student of no single source, so how could you possibly label it, as it has none, and it doesn't have to.

And yet you just said you are not an expert in Psychology? So pop-psychology it is.

Just remember that when I took a 'personality' test, written by PhD's in psychology, it labeled me an 'observer,' one that angers people, having relatively few friends as consequence, because I can often know what people are going to say before they do so, such that I often superseded their doing so, hence their anger, then I, the lone cowboy, or as John Lennon sang, "The Fool on the Hill."

You don't bother me at all, one because I've studied Philosophy and as such have had much harder conversations and critique than one gets upon forums such as this, and two, because my test made me an ENTP Inventor.

Then I consider man's history as well, which paints a clearer picture.

What? One of co-operation and fantastic achievement.

Take the word 'pop' off and add 'true' as the prefix and you'll get it.

But you said you weren't an expert?

The same that you're wittering on about, albeit, obviously a different perspective.

Not the same as you look for the hidden and I look at whats said.

Two different "sanctuaries!" It would seem you've missed the boat.

Why would this imply any schism or unhappiness in their marriage? My take is simple, Bill's wife probably finds solace and fulfilment in her Church going, it meets her needs and aims and as such is a sanctuary. Bill's sanctuary on the other hand does not meet what he claims he wishes and as such is not a sanctuary.

Agreed, so why insinuate he's responsible, that he should join her in church instead of her joining him at the gym.

Because then there'd be two frustrated and confused people rather than one.

Where has he stated this? Not this thread! Or are you putting words in his mouth?
Voices in his head? Schizophrenia?

Did you not read his OP? "the internal chatter of my own narration" or if you want more conformation - viewtopic.php?f=10&t=13441

Apparently, he's not the believer that some may think, if his sanctuary is a gym versus a church. Were you always a atheist or did you cross over?

Always an Atheist but have flirted with Agnostic. Bill is clearly an ex-theist.

Neither Bill, you or I created that gif, so our view of it is not necessarily what the artist envisioned. ...

True but Bill chose it to represent him at his sanctuary.

I see it like this: Both the man and his penis are saluting the same entity, not one another, as both salutes are in fact facing the same direction. It'd be more accurate to say that: Such that the penis worships, so does the man, or visa verse. Considering the chemistry of testosterone, of course. Which totally changes your projection of homosexuality. The fact that it's an idealized example of a man, is in keeping with the Greeks sculptures, as they were all idealized. Why the ideal? That's obvious, isn't it?

It's not an idealised example of a man, it's an actual man. Greek sculptures were also pretty much actual men, did you know that they were painted originally? Why the 'ideal'? Because the Greeks loved men.

That could simply be because he's found a definite burr for under your, (as well as most of societies) saddle, or he's trying to say that he agrees with Freud, that largely many of mans problems are due to his sexual repression. Victorian values, indeed!

I'm with Jeffrey Masson on this and think Freud a fraud who wanted an academic career so altered his first discoveries to fit the mores of his culture. The Victorians were very raunchy.

Bill's piccys do not bother me personally as I find them an inane reflection of his subconscious not mine.

In this particular thread I get the impression that relations between him and his wife have slowed or come to a halt. Which would in fact be a problem for a male of much virility. His fault? For being as nature intended, subject to his chemistry. I think not! Of course I could be wrong, we should ask Bill for clarification, before jumping to conclusions.

You've just jumped to a huge one! And not one I would have leapt on.

No, I noticed it, and also where it was placed, i.e., after the belittling condescension. Which detracts, no? So which is it you're actually trying to do?

Stop others following this gnus path. Along the way if he truly wishes to achieve what he says then I find it behooves me to give him some techniques that may help him achieve his stated goals but them I'm just christian like that.

Obviously, these are thoughts of other encounters, (threads/PM's), that I'm unaware. Are they in fact related to this one?

Yes.

This thread of course! Why ask, oh yeah, to be a condescending smart ass! This is exactly what I'm talking about, as it implies that, "you only know," and that certainly, "I don't," or at least that there is no discernible indications that I know, yet it could be you that's in the dark.

No, what it says is that I didn't understand all your pop-psychology and especially the stuff about Darwin, etc.

Your interpretations, or his direct statements!

His direct statements. I told you, upon the whole I address peoples philosophical statements, when they give them that is.

Just be sure you know what it is that he's actually saying, as sometimes it's definitely been otherwise, as he's said as much. I really don't think you get him as much as you think you do.

I disagree but it could be the case but I really don't care much as upon the whole I address what he calls his 'philosophy'.

How could you know this, what it is that he needs, the solutions to his deepest darkest bit of doubt (fears). It's never quite that simple. Maybe it's well beyond what man has as answers, maybe that he always thinks he has all the answers. I'm amazed that you think you have bills subconscious in you hands, clear as day.

Given that he posts them as gifs of his feelings(his words) I'm amazed you think differently. But then this is not quite what I say to him, what I say is that I find them sad and tawdry, now he may not but what I say to him is that he ought to line them all up and take a good look at what he thinks they might be saying to him.

And please not the NLP stuff again, complete with it's homage to magic, illusion. It's not about trying to brainwash oneself to the traumas they've experienced, rather often it's about understanding what exactly they were and how it's affected them. Trying to cover them up, humans can do quite well on their own, it's called dissociative amnesia, which never undoes that which has been done, only understanding it completely contains any sort of long lasting effect.

And just like Bill you talk about something you've not bothered to experience, as evidenced by your words. So NLP is exactly about "understanding what exactly they were and how it's affected them" and nothing to do with "brainwashing" or covering them up. It's nothing to do with "dissociative amnesia" and everything to do with integrating memory. Its nothing to do with undoing whats been done, as one can't, and everything to do with understanding what was done and most importantly its about making a lasting change.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





.....................................





If it works for you, I certainly support you. It's your sanctuary.






.

[Arising_uk]

I have no need of sanctuaries as I like the world.

Shouldn't you be pumping iron somewhere Mary?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




Pumping life giving blood into my soul is more like it.


Pumping consciousness into my being.


Pumping nutrition-like properties into the philosophical fabric of our lives.





.

[Arising_uk]

.
Pumping life giving blood into my soul is more like it.

Pumping consciousness into my being.

Pumping nutrition-like properties into the philosophical fabric of our lives..

And yet it appears to not be giving you the result you claim you wish for?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Integrating our lives into a philosophical discipline is the most difficult thing in life to do.

Yet, for some of us, there is nothing else to do...


A philosophical breakthrough is so difficult that not only is luck a factor - luck is a major factor.



In philosophy we are are the same and equally we are all beggars.





.

[Arising_uk]

.
Integrating our lives into a philosophical discipline is the most difficult thing in life to do.

Especially if you don't have one but take the easier route and integrate a philosophical discipline into ones life.

Yet, for some of us, there is nothing else to do...

Fair play to you for having the time.

A philosophical breakthrough is so difficult that not only is luck a factor - luck is a major factor.

Not if you used Philosophy's greatest tools, Logic and Reason but then it's not a philosophical breakthrough you are looking for because, one, you have no idea what Western Philosophy has done and achieved and, two, you are seeking a psychological breakthrough.

In philosophy we are are the same and equally we are all beggars..

Not all the same Bill, as some of us know what Western Philosophy has actually said and done. Who are you pleading to?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





Actually, philosophy, when done as a journeyman takes no time at all...Living philosophy; REAL philosophy is done at all times.




So, you can be doing anything, like playing pool and you aren't really outwardly distracted by your philosophical discipline - you become lost in it...



Hope that helps.




.

[Arising_uk]

.Actually, philosophy, when done as a journeyman takes no time at all...Living philosophy; REAL philosophy is done at all times.

Integrating our lives into a philosophical discipline is the most difficult thing in life to do.

Amazing! Contradicting your own self within one post, a record.

So, you can be doing anything, like playing pool and you aren't really outwardly distracted by your philosophical discipline - you become lost in it...

And play a shit game of pool like the dupe in your little picky. It's about state control and congruence in ones thoughts and actions Bill.

Hope that helps..

Doesn't appear to help you, so why on earth do you think it would help me?

[SpheresOfBalance]

...I can hold conversations with them fairly well

As they that you've held conversations with, think to themselves,

...them saying what they know

, regarding you.

And you'd never necessarily know.

That's because you hold a ridiculous epistemology.

Your condescension rearing it's ugly head as usual, as you do not know of my epistemology, otherwise you could state it.

Let me give you one of mine, "Know thyself".

An impossibility for any human, those that believe so are simply deceiving themselves.

This is the difference between you and I and the difference between Philosophy and Psychology as I take what the person says them saying what they know.

I expect this kind of absolutism from one that believes "the meaning of ones words is the response they get." You're only so sure of yourself, because you believe such falsehoods. Anyone's full meaning is only ever contained in their head alone, and only fools are certain they can necessarily know what it is, such is the nature of communication breakdown, and it's easily seen on any particular day, in any particular circle.

Did I say it was? I said in many cases I give my opinion and that's generally where there is no philosophical content to respond to.

Then you admit that you often say things as if they're a cattle prod, to stir the pot?

And yet you just said you are not an expert in Psychology? So pop-psychology it is.

Then by your lackluster reasoning, and your own admission, your philosophy is simply a cod philosophy. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

What? One of co-operation and fantastic achievement.

Not at all, rather the basic needs of the archaic human animal that has since run-a-muck in the light of a much larger understanding.

But you said you weren't an expert?

It simply means a different thing to me than it does to you.

Not the same as you look for the hidden and I look at whats said.

As you supply your 'own,' not necessarily the, meaning to it. It then makes it so easy to be 'sure', doesn't it?

Why would this imply any schism or unhappiness in their marriage?

Easy I took the entire OP together, all it's pieces coming together to form a whole, a singular idea.

Because then there'd be two frustrated and confused people rather than one.

Funny coming from an atheist. I'd expect the opposite, and I would agree, as the church serves no necessary truth.

Did you not read his OP? "the internal chatter of my own narration" or if you want more conformation.

Thanks for the link, I read a bit of it. But in truth I see that Bill speaks of real things that he's trying to make sense of, not assuming that the common explanation is necessarily correct. Some of his observations, I understand, while others I don't. When I do get catch a glimpse of what he's meaning, sometimes it's obvious that your commentary is quite lost by comparison, or so it surely seems. You and I have talked about communication, and while your long winded version I agree with, I don't see that you observe it in practice, as surely as your shorter version doesn't really exemplify it.

Always an Atheist but have flirted with Agnostic. Bill is clearly an ex-theist.

And so he's flirting with what, that physical fitness can offer? Make no mistake, a stronger fitter body definitely sharpens the mind.

True but Bill chose it to represent him at his sanctuary.

No, he chose the best representation that he could find, which is not necessarily definitive of this meaning. I just showed that it can be taken several ways.

It's not an idealised example of a man, it's an actual man. Greek sculptures were also pretty much actual men, did you know that they were painted originally? Why the 'ideal'? Because the Greeks loved men.

No, Arnold Schwarzenegger represents an idealized man, you need to look in the mirror, compare it to Arnold, and the majority of humans. No all Greek sculptures were idealized, so says my Art History Professor, (I got really good grades in that class). No, why did Bill choose an idealized figure of a man?

I'm with Jeffrey Masson on this and think Freud a fraud who wanted an academic career so altered his first discoveries to fit the mores of his culture. The Victorians were very raunchy.
Are you kidding, in almost every culture gays have been persecuted. No, man's problems dealing with his sexuality has been a major problem for his psyche, it's only obvious, as you listen to the news about, problems with nudity, rape, gay bashing, women breast feeding in public, prostitution, etc. Man fears as he denies his sexuality, one of the most natural things, the reason for the sex's to begin with. It's bound to cause problems, (it's a no brainer).

Bill's piccys do not bother me personally as I find them an inane reflection of his subconscious not mine.

I have known Bill to use them only for their shock value, at least it's obvious to me.

And just like Bill you talk about something you've not bothered to experience,...

No, but I've read a bit about it. Here's a quote from Wikipedia: "The balance of scientific evidence reveals NLP to be a largely discredited pseudoscience. Scientific reviews show it contains numerous factual errors,[14][16] and fails to produce the results asserted by proponents." You're gonna have to deal with it, you've been duped!


Bill, like all of us, is surely no genius, but I've watched him dupe individuals, and there is in fact some truth to some of what he stands for. That some people take credentials, status symbols, officiated statures, and the status quo verbatim, swallowing them, hook, line and sinker sometimes speaks more of their willingness to believe, in something, anything, than it does any sort of universal truth, of the current human condition, as a logical untangled process, containing no contradictions; quite the contrary. And I believe that is what Bill struggles with, as he try's to expose the truth of the current human construct.

It is in fact my quest as well. Not necessarily learning what it is that any particular man says, much like a minor bird, though like most, I have done that too, rather truly understanding the web of deceit that man weaves, some knowingly, some unknowingly, forming this current human construct, the who's, why's, how's, and where's (the reasoning for it all), so I can reach the true life, the one that should be, without the threat to non conformance, the truly free life that the universe has allowed for, if only there were no fear, no reason to fear your fellow life travelers.

The one where the only thing considered is the miraculousness of this life amongst the currently balanced spheres of influence, while the possibility of catastrophic chaos is so clear, the power not of man, yet the universe, that which was mans creator, and in the end his destroyer, no matter what he thinks he can do, as it pales by comparison.

The life of nothing to prove, yet just to live it, as 'all' the spheres finally truly balance, if only for this fleeting moment, the life of a truly 'perfect' blue sphere.

[Arising_uk]

...I can hold conversations with them fairly well

As they that you've held conversations with, think to themselves,

...them saying what they know

, regarding you.

And you'd never necessarily know. ...

Could you explain this another way please.

Your condescension rearing it's ugly head as usual, as you do not know of my epistemology, otherwise you could state it. ...

You believe that because we do not know everything we cannot know anything.

An impossibility for any human, those that believe so are simply deceiving themselves.

I disagree. Now life may throw things at us that teach us that we are not who we thought we were but on the whole if one is philosophical then these things are rare. Hence the Greek philosophical injunction to 'Know Thyself'.

I expect this kind of absolutism from one that believes "the meaning of ones words is the response they get." You're only so sure of yourself, because you believe such falsehoods. ...

You believe this because you make the mistake in thinking that thinking in language is the same as 'thoughting', it can be but one has to be very careful when one thinks with language and then uses it to communicate ones thoughts as language is not ones private invention and as such the meaning that you make in thought with voice may and is often not the meaning that others will make upon hearing your words. As such a good dictum when communicating with language is, 'The meaning of one's words is the response they get', this means that if you don't get the response to the meaning that you intended then if you wish to communicate that meaning you ought to notice the response and reword your meaning util you get the response you expected.

Anyone's full meaning is only ever contained in their head alone, and only fools are certain they can necessarily know what it is, such is the nature of communication breakdown, and it's easily seen on any particular day, in any particular circle. ...

Remember this bit, "An impossibility for any human, those that believe so are simply deceiving themselves.", so how are you having a full-meaning if you don't know yourself?

Then you admit that you often say things as if they're a cattle prod, to stir the pot?

No, to express my feelings.

]Then by your lackluster reasoning, and your own admission, your philosophy is simply a cod philosophy. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

I can if I hold an academic or professional qualification.

Not at all, rather the basic needs of the archaic human animal that has since run-a-muck in the light of a much larger understanding.

Meaning?

It simply means a different thing to me than it does to you.

So you do think yourself an expert?

As you supply your 'own,' not necessarily the, meaning to it. It then makes it so easy to be 'sure', doesn't it?

Not sure, just conversing. If I'm wrong then I'd expect to be corrected.

Easy I took the entire OP together, all it's pieces coming together to form a whole, a singular idea.

So just supplying your own then?

Funny coming from an atheist. I'd expect the opposite, and I would agree, as the church serves no necessary truth.

But his wife appears happy with her route and Bill not with his, or at least she gets what she seeks and Bill appears not to, so her going to the gym would appear a lose/lose situation whereas Bill returning to his faith may make it a win/win.

Thanks for the link, I read a bit of it. But in truth I see that Bill speaks of real things that he's trying to make sense of, not assuming that the common explanation is necessarily correct. Some of his observations, I understand, while others I don't. When I do get catch a glimpse of what he's meaning, sometimes it's obvious that your commentary is quite lost by comparison, or so it surely seems. ...

How so? Or I look forward to your comments upon the relevant thread.

You and I have talked about communication, and while your long winded version I agree with, I don't see that you observe it in practice, as surely as your shorter version doesn't really exemplify it.

Thats because I'm not using it as in the main it works best when communicating in person as a large chunk involves observation.

And so he's flirting with what, that physical fitness can offer? Make no mistake, a stronger fitter body definitely sharpens the mind.

Mens sana in corpora sano, has long been a thought in philosophy.

"You should pray for a healthy mind in a healthy body.
Ask for a stout heart that has no fear of death,
and deems length of days the least of Nature's gifts
that can endure any kind of toil,
that knows neither wrath nor desire and thinks
the woes and hard labors of Hercules better than
the loves and banquets and downy cushions of Sardanapalus.
What I commend to you, you can give to yourself;
For assuredly, the only road to a life of peace is virtue."
Juvenal.

But Bill seeks the 'empty-mind' of Zen or the 'voiceless thought' which is achieved by physical exercise like Yoga not by pumping-iron

No, he chose the best representation that he could find, which is not necessarily definitive of this meaning. I just showed that it can be taken several ways.

Sure but given he was talking about a gym and he used Arnie with a rising phallic symbol as his salute I'll go with mine thanks.

No, Arnold Schwarzenegger represents an idealized man, you need to look in the mirror, compare it to Arnold, and the majority of humans. ...

Fair point but he's an actualised example so not idealised at all.

No all Greek sculptures were idealized, so says my Art History Professor, (I got really good grades in that class). No, why did Bill choose an idealized figure of a man?

I see, so when you need it Professors and grades cut-the-mustard do they? I accept that the proportions may be ideal but I think that the average young Greek of the time would not be a fat slob and much closer to the ripped body represented by the sculpture, as a phalanx is no place for the lardy and especially when one has to run when it breaks. Think about those sculptures painted flesh-tone, with eyes and hair all painted in, would we think them so idealised?

Are you kidding, in almost every culture gays have been persecuted. No, man's problems dealing with his sexuality has been a major problem for his psyche, it's only obvious, as you listen to the news about, problems with nudity, rape, gay bashing, women breast feeding in public, prostitution, etc. Man fears as he denies his sexuality, one of the most natural things, the reason for the sex's to begin with. It's bound to cause problems, (it's a no brainer).

Not in Greek, nor Spartan, nor Persian, nor Roman cultures, the main persecution appears to have occurred in later times with the advent of Christianity. As Masson discovered, Freud's first papers on the effects of sexual abuse upon women and minors in Paris was not even panned when he published it back in his home-town, it didn't even get reviewed, so he re-wrote his theories to make them more acceptable.

I have known Bill to use them only for their shock value, at least it's obvious to me.

Really? Then people are easily shocked.

No, but I've read a bit about it. Here's a quote from Wikipedia: "The balance of scientific evidence reveals NLP to be a largely discredited pseudoscience. Scientific reviews show it contains numerous factual errors,[14][16] and fails to produce the results asserted by proponents." You're gonna have to deal with it, you've been duped!

Bill posted the same quote and my reply is on the forum somewhere but I'll give you the short version. NLP made no claims to be scientific so the discredit is pointless. Such a discredit could be applied exactly to the profession of those who raised it, i.e. Psychoanalysis and Psychology are pseudo-sciences. NLP was created by a Mathematician and a Linguist who were studying to be psychoanalysts and along the way they asked themselves why, when they qualified, the would be practicing analysts who would have to practice upon their patients to discover how to apply their theories. They also had the insight that it may be fruitful to look at those who got better to see what worked for them. To cut a long story short they created a grab-bag of the techniques from psychoanalysis that appeared to work and along the way came up with an epistemology and phenomenology about learning and communication. You say duped based upon a wiki entry, I base what I think about NLP upon experience of the techniques and the results they have given.

Bill, like all of us, is surely no genius, but I've watched him dupe individuals, and there is in fact some truth to some of what he stands for. That some people take credentials, status symbols, officiated statures, and the status quo verbatim, swallowing them, hook, line and sinker sometimes speaks more of their willingness to believe, in something, anything, than it does any sort of universal truth, of the current human condition, as a logical untangled process, containing no contradictions; quite the contrary. And I believe that is what Bill struggles with, as he try's to expose the truth of the current human construct. ...

Fair enough, I think him a gnu struggling with to much time upon his hands.

It is in fact my quest as well. Not necessarily learning what it is that any particular man says, much like a minor bird, though like most, I have done that too, rather truly understanding the web of deceit that man weaves, some knowingly, some unknowingly, forming this current human construct, the who's, why's, how's, and where's (the reasoning for it all), so I can reach the true life, the one that should be, without the threat to non conformance, the truly free life that the universe has allowed for, if only there were no fear, no reason to fear your fellow life travellers. ...

Like him you seek an ephemera. You want the world to be a better place? Become a scientist or a politician and make a difference.

The one where the only thing considered is the miraculousness of this life amongst the currently balanced spheres of influence, while the possibility of catastrophic chaos is so clear, the power not of man, yet the universe, that which was mans creator, and in the end his destroyer, no matter what he thinks he can do, as it pales by comparison. ...

Except none of that makes any difference when the problem is scarce resources and unequal distribution.

The life of nothing to prove, yet just to live it, as 'all' the spheres finally truly balance, if only for this fleeting moment, the life of a truly 'perfect' blue sphere.

Dream on.