That one only lives one life, in exactly the way that one lives it, is no argument against the infinite.cosmic prostitute:It appears the more wise one becomes, the greater conviction one has that there is only one way to live.
suergaz: In actuality, the wiser one becomes, the greater understanding one has that there is an infinite number of ways to live.
Jason: On the contrary, in actuality there is only one way you can live your life: exactly the way you live it.
The Flaws of Sigmund Freud
- Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
Suergaz wrote:
However as I was saying to Jason, Because your circumstances/conditioning/personality/environment are different than mine, the end result is that both our forms are unique, but fundamentally we are living our lives quite similar.
What I find interesting is that because the universe is infinite the number of unique individuals created has no limit. Thinking about this makes one feel rather small, infinitely small and unimportant.
Agreed. But my point is that a wise person realizes that there is not an infinite amount of feasible options that they have to choose from, the gate through heaven is very narrow.That one only lives one life, in exactly the way that one lives it, is no argument against the infinite.
However as I was saying to Jason, Because your circumstances/conditioning/personality/environment are different than mine, the end result is that both our forms are unique, but fundamentally we are living our lives quite similar.
What I find interesting is that because the universe is infinite the number of unique individuals created has no limit. Thinking about this makes one feel rather small, infinitely small and unimportant.
suergaz: That one only lives one life, in exactly the way that one lives it, is no argument against the infinite.
Cos: Agreed. But my point is that a wise person realizes that there is not an infinite amount of feasible options that they have to choose from, the gate through heaven is very narrow.
Sure. In one way, the point of everything I've so far written in this thread was to encourage lingual rigour, as opposed to pedantry.
- Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
suergaz wrote:
You say self, I say no self.
No self = self.
You say tomato and I say tomato.
At the end of the day, its wise to see the fact that we are just throwing around words here.
The signifier is not the signified.
PS: I still don’t like the word commander though, but perhaps it is my conditioning. You wouldn’t believe the amount of war movies I had to sit through as a kid with my father.
Real father/son bonding time. If I ever have to watch another war movie with good guys and bad guys, I think I’m gonna commit suicide.
Yes, I noticed that many of our statements were both true based the paradoxical nature of truth.Sure. In one way, the point of everything I've so far written in this thread was to encourage lingual rigour, as opposed to pedantry.
You say self, I say no self.
No self = self.
You say tomato and I say tomato.
At the end of the day, its wise to see the fact that we are just throwing around words here.
The signifier is not the signified.
PS: I still don’t like the word commander though, but perhaps it is my conditioning. You wouldn’t believe the amount of war movies I had to sit through as a kid with my father.
Real father/son bonding time. If I ever have to watch another war movie with good guys and bad guys, I think I’m gonna commit suicide.
- sue hindmarsh
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
- Location: Sous Le Soleil
Suergaz wrote:
“The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.†Job 1:21
Sue
Jason wrote:In actuality, the wiser one becomes, the greater understanding one has that there is an infinite number of ways to live.
The Universe is infinite, so there is infinite possibility. We can never know all the causes that bring us into being, but we can at least know that we are caused. Understanding that you are caused and therefore do not have inherent existence means that you also understand that there is no such thing as Free Will, because ‘choices’ are also caused. Therefore, as you say Jason, the only way you can live your life is “the way you live it†– at the whim of the Infinite.On the contrary, in actuality there is only one way you can live your life: exactly the way you live it.
“The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.†Job 1:21
Sue
Sue:
Leyla hasn't yet answered me, so perhaps you can since you seem to be a christian. What is it to be 'of the christ'?
That all things are caused means all existence is inherent.Understanding that you are caused and therefore do not have inherent existence means that you also understand that there is no such thing as Free Will, because ‘choices’ are also caused.
Leyla hasn't yet answered me, so perhaps you can since you seem to be a christian. What is it to be 'of the christ'?
- sue hindmarsh
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
- Location: Sous Le Soleil
Suergaz wrote:
For a thing to exist inherently it would have to be bounded in some way, but because all things are caused, there are no bounds to be found, as things have neither a beginning, nor an end.
Sue
Sue: Understanding that you are caused and therefore do not have inherent existence means that you also understand that there is no such thing as Free Will, because ‘choices’ are also caused.
How do you figure that?That all things are caused means all existence is inherent.
For a thing to exist inherently it would have to be bounded in some way, but because all things are caused, there are no bounds to be found, as things have neither a beginning, nor an end.
Leyla made it clear that to be “of†Christ is very different from following blindly the Christ figure as most Christians do.Leyla hasn't yet answered me, so perhaps you can since you seem to be a christian. What is it to be 'of the christ'?
I can’t say for sure what Leyla is thinking here, but it may be that she is talking about how a true Christian is one who knows God directly in the same way Jesus did.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.
Sue
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
sue wrote:
From the dictionary:
3 -- used as a function word to indicate the component material, parts, or elements or the contents <throne of gold> <cup of water>
NB: Some dictionaries are better than others. I think the "cup of water" example is incorrect for this definition of "of." The same dictionary provides another more appropriate definition, as follows:
4 a -- used as a function word to indicate the whole that includes the part denoted by the preceding word <most of the army> b -- used as a function word to indicate a whole or quantity from which a part is removed or expended <gave of his time>
Yes, that's right. In hindsight, I think the latter part of my sentence made the overall meaning rather ambiguous.I can’t say for sure what Leyla is thinking here, but it may be that she is talking about how a true Christian is one who knows God directly in the same way Jesus did.
From the dictionary:
3 -- used as a function word to indicate the component material, parts, or elements or the contents <throne of gold> <cup of water>
NB: Some dictionaries are better than others. I think the "cup of water" example is incorrect for this definition of "of." The same dictionary provides another more appropriate definition, as follows:
4 a -- used as a function word to indicate the whole that includes the part denoted by the preceding word <most of the army> b -- used as a function word to indicate a whole or quantity from which a part is removed or expended <gave of his time>
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Steven,
I really have no idea what you are trying to say.
If Freud has done anything with this so-called “primary problem of ego mastery in humans†(and I’d like to see anyone demonstrate logically or empirically the existence of an ego in animals on the same or similar order of magnitude as man) -- the terror of death -- he has, in fact, “mastered it egoisticallyâ€; his own questioned need for analysis notwithstanding.
Insofar as “basic repressions†go, who but a creationist would consider such an idea -- a primary/first cause?
Which brings me to something Freud had to say on the subject of science and religion:
It’s a hypothesis -- and a very influential one, at that. Why else would you be using his terminology to describe his faults.
The issue is not that Freud was attached to his libidinal theory -- he just saw and scientifically explored a marked difference between humans and animals: much deeper than the likes of a cosmic_prostitute can fathom (so ironic). But, you have to look deeper into Freud to see it.
Such a turn-off to consider a drive/desire to fuck your mother or father, ain’t it? That’s about the general level of understanding and extent of interest in Freud -- never mind the fact that since time immemorial humans have been the only ones to verbalise things such as this for analysis.
Therapy is therapy. Absolute truth is absolute truth.
PS: the correct spelling for “grammer†is “grammar.†(I had a very healthy anal [power] stage.)
I really have no idea what you are trying to say.
The Id doesn’t discover anything, nor does it benevolently or unbenevolently, knowingly or unknowingly “support†anything: it is not the Ego or the Superego. The Id comprises what Freud has called the death and pleasure drives/principles/instincts/wishes. The Ego is that aspect of human which develops from a speck as a baby (which could be said to be “pure†Id) through physical sensation/s and identifies objects to satisfy desire (motivated initially by the Id drives, of course) until it meets with opposition in the real (objective) world. Then, voila, Superego, which could rightly be called “social conscience.â€Freud's Id, after discovering the "terror of death" principle, began to unknowingly, and unbenevolently support his Superego.
If Freud has done anything with this so-called “primary problem of ego mastery in humans†(and I’d like to see anyone demonstrate logically or empirically the existence of an ego in animals on the same or similar order of magnitude as man) -- the terror of death -- he has, in fact, “mastered it egoisticallyâ€; his own questioned need for analysis notwithstanding.
Insofar as “basic repressions†go, who but a creationist would consider such an idea -- a primary/first cause?
Which brings me to something Freud had to say on the subject of science and religion:
Indeed, they were on a completely different page to Freud, in my view -- or, were they on the same page but just so egoistic that they couldn‘t see it?It is a mistake to believe that a science consists in nothing but conclusively proved propositions, and it is unjust to demand that it should. It is a demand only made by those who feel a craving for authority in some form and a need to replace the religious catechism by something else, even if it be a scientific one. Science in its catechism has but few apodictic precepts; it consists mainly of statements which it has developed to varying degrees of probability. The capacity to be content with these approximations to certainty and the ability to carry on constructive work despite the lack of final confirmation are actually a mark of the scientific habit of mind.
His conception of the "death principle" as the one salvation of humanity, wrecked havoc upon his transconfigured Superego -- producing a deep chasm, and forcing the need for repression.
It’s a hypothesis -- and a very influential one, at that. Why else would you be using his terminology to describe his faults.
Immortality of the idea? What do you mean?The ego that produced the principle, lead Freud to deny his attachment to the immortality of the idea. Ironically, subjugating him to the very thing he set out to abolish.
The issue is not that Freud was attached to his libidinal theory -- he just saw and scientifically explored a marked difference between humans and animals: much deeper than the likes of a cosmic_prostitute can fathom (so ironic). But, you have to look deeper into Freud to see it.
Such a turn-off to consider a drive/desire to fuck your mother or father, ain’t it? That’s about the general level of understanding and extent of interest in Freud -- never mind the fact that since time immemorial humans have been the only ones to verbalise things such as this for analysis.
Therapy is therapy. Absolute truth is absolute truth.
PS: the correct spelling for “grammer†is “grammar.†(I had a very healthy anal [power] stage.)
For a thing to exist inherently, it only has to exist. All things are caused, but things have the bounds that make them 'things' within boundlessness.Sue: Understanding that you are caused and therefore do not have inherent existence means that you also understand that there is no such thing as Free Will, because ‘choices’ are also caused.
suergaz: That all things are caused means all existence is inherent.
Sue:How do you figure that?
For a thing to exist inherently it would have to be bounded in some way, but because all things are caused, there are no bounds to be found, as things have neither a beginning, nor an end.
There are beginnings and ends within infinity.
I really am out in the cold here! You strange christian women! Do you know how Jesus smiled? Do you know how he laughed?suergaz: Leyla hasn't yet answered me, so perhaps you can since you seem to be a christian. What is it to be 'of the christ'?
Sue:Leyla made it clear that to be “of†Christ is very different from following blindly the Christ figure as most Christians do. [
Quote:
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.
I can’t say for sure what Leyla is thinking here, but it may be that she is talking about how a true Christian is one who knows God directly in the same way Jesus did.
:D
- Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
Leyla wrote:
Many of the psychologists in relationship to him such as Carl Jung and Otto Rank claim that he was a dreadful man to cooperate with because he always had be the leader, he had to be king Kong. Moreover he was severely emotionally attached to many of his theories and ideas.
This is the only point I’m making.
You cannot see this because you are blindly staring at his body of work as a means to understand the man “Freudâ€, but this will not fully help you.
Some of his observations were helpful, but overall there are holes everywhere in his work. He dissected and made divisions where he didn’t need only as a means to cover up many areas that he did not totally understand.
Leyla, you still don’t get my point. If you forget about all the spew that Freud coughed up during his lifetime, and simply observe how he lived his life then you will clearly see that he was unable to end the fear of death…The issue is not that Freud was attached to his libidinal theory -- he just saw and scientifically explored a marked difference between humans and animals: much deeper than the likes of a cosmic_prostitute can fathom (so ironic). But, you have to look deeper into Freud to see it.
Many of the psychologists in relationship to him such as Carl Jung and Otto Rank claim that he was a dreadful man to cooperate with because he always had be the leader, he had to be king Kong. Moreover he was severely emotionally attached to many of his theories and ideas.
This is the only point I’m making.
You cannot see this because you are blindly staring at his body of work as a means to understand the man “Freudâ€, but this will not fully help you.
Some of his observations were helpful, but overall there are holes everywhere in his work. He dissected and made divisions where he didn’t need only as a means to cover up many areas that he did not totally understand.
-
- Posts: 413
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
- Location: Australia
- sue hindmarsh
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
- Location: Sous Le Soleil
Suergaz wrote:
"If those who lead you say to you, `See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, `It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you." Thomas: 3
* * *
There is no excuse for ignorance, for as Jesus says above: the Truth is everywhere. All you need do is open yourself up to it.
Sue
Sue: For a thing to exist inherently it would have to be bounded in some way, but because all things are caused, there are no bounds to be found, as things have neither a beginning, nor an end.
You are being perverse in this matter. You’re not really interested in understanding Nature, you’re just grasping at ways to make yourself comfortable. You are like the birds and the fish spoken of in the passage below: stuck in your own little world, unable to see the bigger picture.For a thing to exist inherently, it only has to exist. All things are caused, but things have the bounds that make them things' within boundlessness.
There are beginnings and ends within infinity.
"If those who lead you say to you, `See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, `It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you." Thomas: 3
* * *
Sue: …it may be that she is talking about how a true Christian is one who knows God directly in the same way Jesus did.
I know what he smiled and laughed at: the absurdity of man's desire to remain blind, deaf and dumb.Do you know how Jesus smiled? Do you know how he laughed?
There is no excuse for ignorance, for as Jesus says above: the Truth is everywhere. All you need do is open yourself up to it.
Sue
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Ryan wrote:
Since you never knew Freud, I suppose you believe in time travel, as well as telepathy. You are telepathically connected to the dead men whose positions on Freud you have decided to uphold for God knows what reason -- apart from my supposed "in-aweness of his intellect." How do you know how he lived -- because Jung said so, or because you understand the man (and his works) himself?
Be a man and back up your gossip-mongering with more than how you "feel" about what he said.
What a load of shit -- and a really poor excuse for your femininity. Your problem is, you don't have a point. You just don't like your understanding of Freud. So fucking what? I'm not interested in what you do and don't like!Leyla, you still don’t get my point. If you forget about all the spew that Freud coughed up during his lifetime, and simply observe how he lived his life then you will clearly see that he was unable to end the fear of death…
Since you never knew Freud, I suppose you believe in time travel, as well as telepathy. You are telepathically connected to the dead men whose positions on Freud you have decided to uphold for God knows what reason -- apart from my supposed "in-aweness of his intellect." How do you know how he lived -- because Jung said so, or because you understand the man (and his works) himself?
Be a man and back up your gossip-mongering with more than how you "feel" about what he said.
There is nothing perverse in stating the truth. What is perverse is your 'telling' me what I am interested in.Sue: For a thing to exist inherently it would have to be bounded in some way, but because all things are caused, there are no bounds to be found, as things have neither a beginning, nor an end.
Suergaz:For a thing to exist inherently, it only has to exist. All things are caused, but things have the bounds that make them things' within boundlessness.
There are beginnings and ends within infinity.
Sue:You are being perverse in this matter. You’re not really interested in understanding Nature, you’re just grasping at ways to make yourself comfortable. You are like the birds and the fish spoken of in the passage below: stuck in your own little world, unable to see the bigger picture.
"If those who lead you say to you, `See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, `It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you." Thomas: 3
"For me--how could there be an outside-of-me? There is no outside! But we forget that, when we hear music; how sweet it is, that we forget!"
-Zarathustra
He smiled and laughed at mans absurdity out of love for man. Yes there is no excuse for ignorance.Sue: …it may be that she is talking about how a true Christian is one who knows God directly in the same way Jesus did.
Suergaz: Do you know how Jesus smiled? Do you know how he laughed?
Sue:I know what he smiled and laughed at: the absurdity of man's desire to remain blind, deaf and dumb.
There is no excuse for ignorance, for as Jesus says above: the Truth is everywhere. All you need do is open yourself up to it.
Jason wrote:On the contrary, in actuality there is only one way you can live your life: exactly the way you live it.
My comment was not intended to suggest that there is a lack of free-will. All I was saying was that there is only one way to live life, not an infinite number.cosmic_prostitute wrote: Like Dhodges has pointed out, free will is nonsense.
Philosophy is about finding certainty to me. I think it is uncertain as to whether you could dive off a cliff and fly. So that idea is philosophically quite worthless as far as I am concerned. Basing the idea that free will does not exist on that idea is thus also rendered philosophically quite worthless.cosmic_prostitute wrote: 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 they’ve been watching too many disney movies.
If there is only one way to live life, doesn't that negate there being an infinite number of ways to live life?suergaz: In actuality, the wiser one becomes, the greater understanding one has that there is an infinite number of ways to live.
Jason: On the contrary, in actuality there is only one way you can live your life: exactly the way you live it.
suergaz: That one only lives one life, in exactly the way that one lives it, is no argument against the infinite.
Last edited by Jason on Mon May 22, 2006 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
suergaz: In actuality, the wiser one becomes, the greater understanding one has that there is an infinite number of ways to live.
Jason: On the contrary, in actuality there is only one way you can live your life: exactly the way you live it.
The universe is infinite, but "possibility" is a particular thing/quality thus finite. There is only one infinite, or do you propose breaking it in two, with one part being simply "infinite" and the other part being "infinite possibility"? Perhaps we could break it into three parts and add infinite penguins to the collection?sue hindmarsh wrote: The Universe is infinite, so there is infinite possibility.
Since every thing is an appearance of the moment, every thing is always known/perceived in full - thus all causes are known.sue hindmarsh wrote: We can never know all the causes that bring us into being, but we can at least know that we are caused.
Do you realize that my choices are responsible for causing the entire rest of the universe? Pretty powerful eh? Makes me all egotistical. I think I'll hang on to my self for the foreseeable future.sue hindmarsh wrote:Understanding that you are caused and therefore do not have inherent existence means that you also understand that there is no such thing as Free Will, because ‘choices’ are also caused.
As with "possibility", "whim" is a finite quality, so it does not apply to the Infinite.sue hindmarsh wrote:Therefore, as you say Jason, the only way you can live your life is “the way you live it†– at the whim of the Infinite.
Last edited by Jason on Mon May 22, 2006 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
zag:
Then how can you possibly know how Jesus laughed or smiled.
“Oh my ears and whiskers! My watch is one day late!†stressed the rabbit, running a round in straight circles.
I was never christened.
Then how can you possibly know how Jesus laughed or smiled.
Yes, yes -- I know.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.
“Oh my ears and whiskers! My watch is one day late!†stressed the rabbit, running a round in straight circles.
Jason:
Leyla:
No, as there is only one way to live ones own life.suergaz: In actuality, the wiser one becomes, the greater understanding one has that there is an infinite number of ways to live.
Jason: On the contrary, in actuality there is only one way you can live your life: exactly the way you live it.
suergaz: That one only lives one life, in exactly the way that one lives it, is no argument against the infinite.
Jason:If there is only one way to live life, doesn't that negate there being an infinite number of ways to live life?
Leyla:
It must be in the water.zag: I was never christened.
Leyla: Then how can you possibly know how Jesus laughed or smiled.
-
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
So when you said there is an infinite number of ways to live, were you talking about an infinite number of people each living a single life?suergaz: In actuality, the wiser one becomes, the greater understanding one has that there is an infinite number of ways to live.
Jason: On the contrary, in actuality there is only one way you can live your life: exactly the way you live it.
suergaz: That one only lives one life, in exactly the way that one lives it, is no argument against the infinite.
Jason:If there is only one way to live life, doesn't that negate there being an infinite number of ways to live life?
suergaz: No, as there is only one way to live ones own life.
Jason,
No. An infinite singularity to the ways of life.suergaz: In actuality, the wiser one becomes, the greater understanding one has that there is an infinite number of ways to live.
Jason: On the contrary, in actuality there is only one way you can live your life: exactly the way you live it.
suergaz: That one only lives one life, in exactly the way that one lives it, is no argument against the infinite.
Jason:If there is only one way to live life, doesn't that negate there being an infinite number of ways to live life?
suergaz: No, as there is only one way to live ones own life.
Jason: So when you said there is an infinite number of ways to live, were you talking about an infinite number of people each living a single life?
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:55 pm
- Location: England, UK
- Contact:
Not entirely if you follow Chaos Theory with the Butterfly effect and so on, because while you may be infinitely small you may have far reaching impacts so from that, your infinitely small by size however not infinitely small in terms of impact upon life/the universe per se however the trouble with this is that, as in the title its a theory so the lack of empirical evidence makes it flop, so it really depends on your perception/belief, I thinkWhat I find interesting is that because the universe is infinite the number of unique individuals created has no limit. Thinking about this makes one feel rather small, infinitely small and unimportant.
Trouble with rationality is that we live in an irrational world and the path of rationality merely glosses over the unanswered questions which are in life, so it makes life more tolerable and '' understandable '' in a rational person because of this pseudo-belief, however entertaining such an idea like the supernatural could be targeted as illogical depending on your perceptionGenerally what I find is that people are afraid of believing in the supernatural because there has been so much stigma centered around it, and it has been associated with irrational thinking