The Flaws of Sigmund Freud

suergaz · Post by **suergaz** » Tue May 16, 2006 2:43 am

There is a form of communication beyond the spoken word, beyond the symbol. Why is telepathy a useless term to use as a means to describe this process?

Because it has become associated with the superstition surrounding this process. I wouldn't say it's entirely useless, but it limits what one might convey, what one might say about it.

bert · Post by **bert** » Tue May 16, 2006 3:00 am

I like the Prostitute his post.
Generally,to go around with the word telepathy,there may not be a direct contact of your senses with the situation.
but the Prostitute takes examples from the phenomenal world and tells about things we recognize ,and does not loose himself in the gibberish of Knowledge,and guesses his Ideas.
A small victory for the geocentricist.
Something I appreciate.

bert · Post by **bert** » Tue May 16, 2006 4:03 am

suergaz wrote:
There is a form of communication beyond the spoken word, beyond the symbol. Why is telepathy a useless term to use as a means to describe this process?
Because it has become associated with the superstition surrounding this process. I wouldn't say it's entirely useless, but it limits what one might convey, what one might say about it.

first:if our in-breathings are of purity,then our out-breathings are not foul.
remember that what we as humans absorb - psychically or bodily - forms its own excretion.

second:we cannot fathom more than the believable ,but it does not preclude our feeling more.

third:whence we take a grasp of wisdom,it is beyond the articulation of word-flood,but may express itself in some resounding word-graph to cipher a mystic meaning.

example:when I tried to get a 'bigger catch' of the meaning essence,it ended up like this:
I saw a virtual world with water and everywhere out of the water raised vulcanoes.
the magma came from the deep depths under the see (representative as the subconscious and unconscious) and raised up above the water to the conscious.The red threath of the magma can be seen as the 'responsible essence' that awakens in us.the lava(hardened magma when it reaches surface) we see is the 'realised essence' that we have gathered from our('real' world) experiences of the phenomenal world.
many vulcanoes,and each are representative as a part of the realisation for the whole of our multiple-related state of being.

one can also further develop such maps,but it is better to invent your own.

extra:any part of the whole derives its ethos from the whole.
the whole virtual world that I presented is inwardly connected with each other,it is the body of Self,which we can never realise.

4:intermingle 1,2 and 3

suergaz · Post by **suergaz** » Tue May 16, 2006 9:55 am

extra:any part of the whole derives its ethos from the whole.
the whole virtual world that I presented is inwardly connected with each other,it is the body of Self,which we can never realise.

The imagery you presented is self only in part. Self may be realized.

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Tue May 16, 2006 10:06 am

Allow me to translate your poetic expressions into mediocre CP language:

Bert wrote:

first:if our in-breathings are of purity,then our out-breathings are not foul. remember that what we as humans absorb - psychically or bodily - forms its own excretion.

Are you saying that what we consume affects us either negatively or neutrally depending on the quality of what is consumed?

Eg:// I eat a chocolate bar, and my teeth rot.

Or:// I eat a bowl of organic oats, and my body remains in a state of happy neutrality.

------------------------------------------------------------

Eg://. I attack Bert emotionally calling him a cryptic bastard, and my mind is occupied with these thoughts. In other words, emptiness is momentarily lost because of childish behavior.

Or:// I make an objective comment, and my mind remains in a state of emptiness.

------------------------------------------------------------

Morever you seem to be suggesting that when you get caught between yin and yang, that emptiness is lost. In other words if I become emotional over something then â€˜thoughtsâ€™ are the consequence which actually prevent emptiness; Keeping the mind clouded.

This word excretion simply implies the â€˜thoughtsâ€™ that occur in consciousness as a result of foolish action.

Bert wrote:

second:we cannot fathom more than the believable ,but it does not preclude our feeling more.

Are you suggesting that the body/mind can become so sensitive that our faith is not based on knowledge/belief, but rather on the depths of inexpressible emptiness?

Bert wrote:

example:when I tried to get a 'bigger catch' of the meaning essence,it ended up like this:
I saw a virtual world with water and everywhere out of the water raised vulcanoes.
the magma came from the deep depths under the see (representative as the subconscious and unconscious) and raised up above the water to the conscious.The red threath of the magma can be seen as the 'responsible essence' that awakens in us.the lava(hardened magma when it reaches surface) we see is the 'realised essence' that we have gathered from our('real' world) experiences of the phenomenal world.
many vulcanoes,and each are representative as a part of the realisation for the whole of our multiple-related state of being.

Interesting metaphor.

Suergaz wrote:

the imagery you presented is self only in part. Self may be realized.

This is something I have encountered before, Some philosophers suggest that there is no self to realize and others suggest that there is a self to realize.

It seems to me that deluded people have selves and when one is in a state of emptiness then there is nothing there at all. So there is no self to realize because nothing inherently exists including the self. Self implies an experiencer, but when one is alligned with the absolute truth the experiencer dies.

if the experiencer dies then there was no self there to begin with, the self was an illusion.

bert · Post by **bert** » Tue May 16, 2006 3:53 pm

suergaz wrote:
extra:any part of the whole derives its ethos from the whole.
the whole virtual world that I presented is inwardly connected with each other,it is the body of Self,which we can never realise.
The imagery you presented is self only in part. Self may be realized.

yes,we have never seen self,I mean.
stupid mistake of me.

no time to answer more.

bert · Post by **bert** » Wed May 17, 2006 3:09 am

@cosmic prostitute:

1st:1)I do not suggest that one should look for pure in-breathings.just realise what I've said,and you're close I think.
2)having comprehended it,one can 'play' with it.you can indrawn lots of foulness and see how your exhalations are.It tells something about your metabolism.

I talk a lot in the abstract and give nuances.This does not preclude poetry.

2nd:

Quote:
second:we cannot fathom more than the believable ,but it does not preclude our feeling more.

Are you suggesting that the body/mind can become so sensitive that our faith is not based on knowledge/belief, but rather on the depths of inexpressible emptiness?

mmm,not exactly.
the fathoming of the believable is our level of ability.but we can feel that there is more going on than we are able to let sound or articulate.

Quote:
the imagery you presented is self only in part. Self may be realized.

This is something I have encountered before, Some philosophers suggest that there is no self to realize and others suggest that there is a self to realize.

It seems to me that deluded people have selves and when one is in a state of emptiness then there is nothing there at all. So there is no self to realize because nothing inherently exists including the self. Self implies an experiencer, but when one is alligned with the absolute truth the experiencer dies.

if the experiencer dies then there was no self there to begin with, the self was an illusion.

Self is the negation of completeness as reality.
no man has seen self at any time.
we are what we believe and what it implies by a process of time in the conception:creation is caused by this bondage to formula.
who can transgress the law of conception?
to much to say about belief...

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Wed May 17, 2006 5:58 am

zag:

I think we may have had different fathers.

Leyla, the title 'Christ' is really irrelevant. He who had it, Jesus, followed himself before any other. His followers ultimately could not follow him.

The title is not irrelevant.

A Christian is one who is of (the) "Christ."

To be "of" something is not the same as following it: which happens to be what most "Christians" think.

Nor do I see that its possible for anyone to "follow" themselves.

Do you find yourself running around in circles?

suergaz · Post by **suergaz** » Wed May 17, 2006 9:47 am

Leyla:

A Christian is one who is of (the) "Christ."

To be "of" something is not the same as following it: which happens to be what most "Christians" think.

Nor do I see that its possible for anyone to "follow" themselves.

Do you find yourself running around in circles?

I was never christened. What is it to be 'of' the christ? You follow yourself whenever you lead yourself to something, I'm sure you know the expression is not to be taken literally. I like to run, but not in circles.

Bert:

Self is the negation of completeness as reality.
no man has seen self at any time.
we are what we believe and what it implies by a process of time in the conception:creation is caused by this bondage to formula.
who can transgress the law of conception?
to much to say about belief...

:D

bert · Post by **bert** » Wed May 17, 2006 3:50 pm

suergaz wrote:
:D

meaning?

suergaz · Post by **suergaz** » Thu May 18, 2006 12:15 am

Meaning, I like Bert his post.

:D

suergaz · Post by **suergaz** » Thu May 18, 2006 1:27 am

The cosmic prostitute:

It seems to me that deluded people have selves and when one is in a state of emptiness then there is nothing there at all.

Everyone has self. When one is in a 'state of emptiness', whatever that may mean, one is there nonetheless.

So there is no self to realize because nothing inherently exists including the self.

Everything inherently exists, which does not mean a thing may exist in and of itself, unless this 'thing' be everything, ie. the universe.

Self implies an experiencer, but when one is alligned with the absolute truth the experiencer dies.

Self is an experiencer. a commander, a realization.

if the experiencer dies then there was no self there to begin with, the self was an illusion.

Not in an eternity, and an eternity is the inherency we happen to have inherited.

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:59 am

suergaz wrote:

Self is an experiencer. a commander, a realization.

But if there is no choice, then there is nothing to command, the commanding is done for you, one just has to live according to this law. Moreover there is no commander because all commanding is ultimately caused anyhow.

So the commander is an illusion, along with the self, and that is the realization.

If you observe a palm tree flowing in the wind, there is no commander there. It just moves along with natureâ€™s rhythms. Nature is in control, the commander is defeated by the wrath of Nature's law.

suergaz · Post by **suergaz** » Thu May 18, 2006 4:29 pm

But if there is no choice, then there is nothing to command, the commanding is done for you, one just has to live according to this law.

There is choice.

Moreover there is no commander because all commanding is ultimately caused anyhow.

That commanding is caused does not make it non-existent.

So the commander is an illusion, along with the self, and that is the realization.

Nothing is an illusion.

If you observe a palm tree flowing in the wind, there is no commander there. It just moves along with natureâ€™s rhythms. Nature is in control, the commander is defeated by the wrath of Nature's law.

Nature is inexorable.

Wrath is of consciousness, nature is not conscious.

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:48 pm

Suergaz wrote:

nature is not conscious.

Are you sure nature is not conscious? How do you know? What evidence do you have that nature is not conscious?

Suergaz wrote:

Nothing is an illusion.

Incredibly deluded people donâ€™t exist. There is nothing there. There is a girl Iâ€™m forced to work with from university and she has the mind of a chickadee bird. The girl is one big illusion, there is nothing there,but flesh.

Suergaz wrote:

That commanding is caused does not make it non-existent.

There is commanding, but the commander is an illusion. My father is an example of someone who has a strong commander within. He drinks, gambles, is addicted to television, attached to my mother and all the rest of it. He believes there is a commander who is free to choose, but he is a fool.

Perhaps you are saying that when someone is wise that the commander becomes increasingly refined/minimal/wise/non-existent.

However a commander implies that you have some control over your life, which is quite debatable. A commander implies free will does it not?

Suergaz wrote:

There is choice.

What are you free to choose? Very little. Your life up to this point has not been based on personal choices by you.

suergaz · Post by **suergaz** » Fri May 19, 2006 12:45 am

cosmic prostitute:

Are you sure nature is not conscious? How do you know? What evidence do you have that nature is not conscious?

The universe, nature, is not (completely)conscious of itself. It is infinite.

Incredibly deluded people donâ€™t exist. There is nothing there. There is a girl Iâ€™m forced to work with from university and she has the mind of a chickadee bird. The girl is one big illusion, there is nothing there,but flesh.

Incredibly deluded people exist. Flesh is no illusion.

There is commanding, but the commander is an illusion.

How, if there is commanding?

Perhaps you are saying that when someone is wise that the commander becomes increasingly refined/minimal/wise/non-existent.

I said what I said.

However a commander implies that you have some control over your life, which is quite debatable. A commander implies free will does it not?

A commander implies will.

What are you free to choose? Very little.

Very little is not nothing at all.

Your life up to this point has not been based on personal choices by you.

Not entirely, no, but personal choice exists, no matter how impersonal its origins.

DHodges · Post by **DHodges** » Fri May 19, 2006 5:48 am

cosmic_prostitute wrote:However a commander implies that you have some control over your life, which is quite debatable. A commander implies free will does it not?

Man, what is the big deal with free will?

The way I see it, free will has to do with decision making. When you make a decision, ideally you take into account everything that you know that is relevant to the decision you make. In that way you make the best decision possible for you at that time.

So, under free will, I could, if I want to, throw out that decision and do something else instead. In other words, I can ignore everything I know and make a bad decision. I can go ahead and order pistacchio ice cream, even though I know I don't like it.

I just don't see what free will gets you, other than the ability to make bad decisions, and frankly, that's not really so great.

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Fri May 19, 2006 6:35 am

Dhodges wrote:

I just don't see what free will gets you, other than the ability to make bad decisions, and frankly, that's not really so great.

Agreed. It appears the more wise one becomes, the greater conviction one has that there is only one way to live.

Suergaz wrote:

A commander implies will.

I see what youâ€™re getting at, but the will of the wise person operates much differently than the will of a deluded person. My major beef is that commander is such a bad decision as a word, it sounds incredibly shoddy.

Root meanings:

1. military officer: an officer commanding a military unit

2. naval or Coast Guard rank: an officer in the U.S., Canadian, or British navies or the U.S. Coast Guard of a rank above lieutenant commander.

3. police officer in charge: a police officer who leads a shift, precinct, or unit.

4. member with high rank: a high-ranking member of a knightly and fraternal order

Two words for you Suergaz: Come onâ€¦.(sarcastic)

suergaz · Post by **suergaz** » Fri May 19, 2006 10:49 am

cosmic prostitute

It appears the more wise one becomes, the greater conviction one has that there is only one way to live.

In actuality, the wiser one becomes, the greater understanding one has that there is an infinite number of ways to live.

My major beef is that commander is such a bad decision as a word, it sounds incredibly shoddy.

Root meanings:

1. military officer: an officer commanding a military unit

2. naval or Coast Guard rank: an officer in the U.S., Canadian, or British navies or the U.S. Coast Guard of a rank above lieutenant commander.

3. police officer in charge: a police officer who leads a shift, precinct, or unit.

4. member with high rank: a high-ranking member of a knightly and fraternal order

Two words for you Suergaz: Come onâ€¦.(sarcastic)

The root meaning? One who commands. I could have said creator, ruler, etc. Three words for you Cos: Eat more beef.

Jason · Post by **Jason** » Fri May 19, 2006 2:13 pm

In actuality, the wiser one becomes, the greater understanding one has that there is an infinite number of ways to live.

On the contrary, in actuality there is only one way you can live your life: exactly the way you live it.

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 am

Suergaz wrote:

Eat more beef.

Sorry bud, no can do. I donâ€™t eat meat these days, and not because the animals make me feel all warm and fuzzy. If one is a true minimalist philosopher one sees how inefficient it is to eat meat.

Eg:// one can either eat a slab of beef, which originates from a cow that has been grain-fed for years or you can simply eat the grain yourself. Itâ€™s a no brainer.

Eat as low in the food chain as possible. Meat is rather feminine if you ask me. It slows down the metabolism, and is only consumed to derive self-gratification.

I donâ€™t know about these words your using suergaz, commander, beef, ruler, creator, self as an experiencer. You sound like quite the dude to me.

â€œAnd thereâ€™s only one thing worse than a dude, a dude who thinks he isnâ€™t a dude.â€
Cosmic Prostitute

Jason wrote:

On the contrary, in actuality there is only one way you can live your life: exactly the way you live it.

Agreed. Of course because you and I come from different environments with slightly different frictions, our lives will not be the same, but fundamentally there is only one way for each person to live their life.

Like Dhodges has pointed out, free will is nonsense. The new age flakeys are the first ones to enthusiastically preach the good news that â€œthere are an infinite number of ways to live ones life, anything and everything is possible.â€ What rot!

The human body has tremendous restrictions and limitations, not to mention the environment where one is born and one intellectual disposition dictates how ones entire life will unfold. They make it sound like I could just dive off a cliff and fly if I wanted to; I think theyâ€™ve been watching too many disney movies.

DHodges · Post by **DHodges** » Sat May 20, 2006 3:45 am

cosmic_prostitute wrote: They make it sound like I could just dive off a cliff and fly if I wanted to; I think theyâ€™ve been watching too many disney movies.

But you can! You just have to believe in yourself!

Sorry.

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Sat May 20, 2006 4:46 am

ya know what!? Dhodges is right! We just need to believe Suergaz.

Come brother take my hand and Iâ€™ll show you a whole new world.

Weâ€™ll go on infinite adventures togetherâ€¦.

Anything and everything is possible.

Join me at this link:
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/aladdinworld.htm

DHodges · Post by **DHodges** » Sat May 20, 2006 6:28 am

I was thinking of the song Anything, which is track 14 here:

http://cdbaby.com/cd/hardnphirm

It's just a sample, so they cut it off before the punchline.

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Sat May 20, 2006 7:00 am

The song â€œanythingâ€ reminds me of compulsive pep talks I used to hear from my grade three teacher Mrs Tordan. She would constantly tell me as a child that I could do anything and be anything if I believed in myself.

Looking back, the woman was a cross between Mary Poppins, Puff the Magic Dragon and one of the Care Bears.

Very sad. She was a nice woman, but just not the type of woman that should be allowed within a 10 mile radius of a child.

GENIUS FORUMS

The Flaws of Sigmund Freud

Free Will

Is that a monkey flying out of my ass?

Positive Thinking