? wrote:maybe one day i try again some psychological science at my home? i have ridiculous couch already!
No, I think you should leave that to the experts, dear....they do the thinking for ya.
I often go to the supermarket, and unless I do not have a biochemist or an expert in produce to tell me what looks like an orange and which one is ripe.
Yesterday morning I saw a bright sphere in the horizon, I rushed to the computer and googled an astrophysicist who told me it was the sun.
? wrote: do you believe so?
Of course not.
Still stuck on the word "believe" huh little girl?
? wrote: earth is center of the gods universe? crazy to even think other way? bigger fishes will eat heretical ones outside the flock of fishes?
What if?
? wrote:tasty words? have you heard that modern science started to flourish when it started to question smaller question? and started to get bigger answers? bigger words?
Interesting story, I had no idea.
Did you believe it?
Here's another story: Have you heard that science has reached down to the miniscule and up to the grand, so far that it now resorts to poetics to describe what does not fit into its previous models?
Unless your religion produces a particle, dear, an indivisible one...you know the end to the universe, I'll consider it a metaphor. A useful one, no doubt, and one which is superior to a God, but still... a word, a symbol, representing a generalized simplification.
? wrote:sounds like presumptions? or a coherent self-fulfilling prophecies?
the more i hear, the more i have questions?
That's odd, because the more i see and hear the more I have answers.
You should consider the "self-fulfilling" aspect in regards to yourself.
? wrote:is she your patient in your psychological clinic for ladies? using common words? a case study, filed in i like idiots?
Your penchant to be impressed with big words and credentials is your affair.
If I meet a retard who claims to have a masters in Philosophy and all he says is regurgitated or stupid, then I take my judgment as superior to his paperwork.
You, of course, can seek guidance in an expert...given that you have little judgment of your own and little confidence in it.
But it takes integrity to live with the consequences of your judgment.
? wrote:
maybe in psychology but in philosophy there seems to be lots of other truths, books and questionings about those you see that way like your own eyes?
Then you should stay with your proxies. They have on motive and no failings, other than the desire to keep you safe and sound, dear woman.
? wrote:
i see that you keep repeating the same seeings you have seen? no change in your views? any fluidity or what ever in that same river? have you tried some philosophy instead? any new books from nietzche or ancient geeks? sorry, greeks? i give you two more years if you quit smoking. big cigars doesnt count.
Dear woman, when I speak of fluidity I do not speak of one where chaos reigns.
If the past disturbs you, you keep to the
New Age gurus.
To explain things further would be more wasted time...so I will finish my essay and perhaps you can read the reply there....one day.
Otherwise, you keep flailing along.
Should I change my mind ever day, to meet your stringent standards of open-mindedness, or does patters and intelligent and the insight they offer, have anything to do with this?
I'm sure that amongst other things the ancients had something to say about the oceans which still hold true today and for many million of years to come...but in a billion, in a trillion years?
? wrote:it helps if you rise your nose up more?
Nah, 'cause this tends to make me want to vomit.
I'm feeling the vertigo already...and so this will be my final reply.
? wrote:should you be lying in the couch now? do i have to wave the clock or write or draw or something down?
Oh sweetie, do you think i exclude myself form my views?
Your judgments, either adopted or your own, are yours to live by.
Be happy that they are common and mediocre enough to not cause too much of a stir in the herd.
This is about who is more normal is it not?
And what does your psychology text tell you?
Read it like a devout Christian would scripture: verbatim, true to the word, and never in doubt.
Sing a hymn afterward.
? wrote:outside your mind? have you heard that there are lots of isms? like that solipsism? is your solipsism dead yet like nietzches god? what isms do you favor and is that fair or some kind of favoritism?
As far as I know, solipsism is about living inside your skull, which constant sensual interpretations prevent; Nietzsche was a man...a brilliant and sensitive man; and my only ism, my ideal, is realism....and....the rest is none of your concern.
What a little girl should think about is that all interpretations must refer to phenomena outside the skull otherwise they turn self-referential...like modern cultures do.
This leads to narcissism and schizophrenia///or some variation of the two.
These phenomena and their interactions are called reality....and this constant referencing of them is a constant updating of the mental models in your skull.
And one last thing, little princess...all minds have ideals...as was implied in my essay and in everything I've ever posted...because all awareness is based no projecting.
Whether these projections, these ideals, are sophisticated or not, is what is the question and towards what kind of individual they produce is the better question.
The nuance of the projected
absent absolute determines the individual projecting it, and the man striving towards an ideal is defined by the ideal itself, without having to attain it.
For instance a christian striving towards God, his particular brand of God,is defined and shaped by this striving and the particular characteristics this God, this ideal, is given with this projection.
So a man strives towards the ideal so as to deal with the real, which confronts him.
Some added considerations:
The more detached this projected ideal is from the real, the more delusional or solipsistic the mind becomes.
The more attached this ideal is, the more reference points it has to reality, the more realistic it is.
The further ahead, the more ambitious the projected ideal is, the more riskier it is and so all the more importable it is.
Another word for
absent absolute is "ideal", retard.
Another word for belief, is conviction, opinion, retard.
Another word for actual is real, you imbecile.
Another word for absolute is perfect, one, God, free, now, here, self, particle, singularity, universe, etc. all human symbols representing the projected
absent absolute. Tools, like all language is.
Truth, is a term given to a particular belief, opinion, conviction. It is a judgment concerning the belief itself.
So, if belief is a judgment, then truth is a judgment of the judgment. It has no meaning outside your tiny empty skull.
Another word for dependent is unfree, dimwit.
Language is binary and so it is simplistic as it is simplifying.
It's like trying to paint a sunset with only white and black.
You must use artistry. It requires the same artistry as when using static models and symbols to explain and to express and to define a fluid reality.
Much of language implies the same concept with different symbols and words. Each with a slight variation in mixture, between the binary balances of 1/0, positive/negative, good/bad etc., but still with the same underlying concept in mind.
If I say
one and I say
God I am refereeing to the same shit, an absence...only in one the anthropomorphic element offers it an image, which makes one feel more intimate with the notion. One is more abstract and so more open to further interpretations - it is more useful. God is too restrictive, too dogmatic, even if just as ambiguous and just as absent.
The differences in the terms is owed to the particular contexts they are used in, to denote the same concept, and the particular hues they invoke.
For example, you stupid fuck, when I say
something and when I say
nothing, I am using the same concept of thing, only adding a positive or a negative flavor or coming to it from a different direction.
The common term "thing" is another word for absolute.
The flavor a word acquires is not only based on the codified definition but also on the conventional current emotional baggage it sometimes acquires historically or what emotional connections have been made with the term.
I can say
race, and immediately the mind of most are flooded with particular sensations and imagery and reactions.
I can say Hitler or Nazi or Stalin or Communist and the same happens. This is domestication at work.
humans are trained with repetition and with reward punishment methods to display a particular behavior at the mere mention of a word or the mere sight of a symbol or an image. This is conditioning. If it persists for generations and breeding is based on it, then we have social engineering, human husbandry, domestication, institutionalization.
Try this, you imbecile...when trying to describe how refined taste leads to a particular demeanor or attitudes towards food and drink or when wanting to describe how a sensitive palate might lead to a more refined sense of taste, use the term
discriminate. See how many morons jump up and down and holler like chimps or salivate like when Pavlov rang his bell.
Or instead of saying "I despise you" say "I hate you".
Given that you offer nothing for my efforts, I will bid you a hearty farewell and a guileful...
Ta, Ta,
