GENIUS FORUMS

Unidian wrote:When we are discussing emotion and the lack thereof, why is discussing a disorder which causes a lack of emotional response out of bounds? Other than the fact that it potentially embarrasses the whole "QRS" edifice by reducing David's views on emotion to psychopathology rather than the result of "spiritual wisdom" or the like, on what basis can you disqualify it?

I agree here with Unidian somewhat. It's not out of bounds.

The expected response to his question would be to question sharply the methodology and philosophy behind the mainstream research into personality disorders and schizophrenia or depression as a whole.

Problem is Unidian, that the whole DSM determination for mental disorders is based on determining the amount of trouble that is associated with the symptoms, as it's using basically a symptom-based diagnostic criteria. It's going by stress levels or establishment how well does someone function or not in their environment. An environment which is not part of the evaluation of course.

It means that 'disorder' here means at the core that one finds it hard to participate in an orderly fashion. The reason for that could be many. Medical, psychological, traumatic but as well philosophical. There's no good way to distinguish unless in cases where there are clear somatic responses, like nervous twitches, body posture, disordered thoughts, memory impairment and so on.

Personally I've no problem to accept the possibility many great thinkers of the past suffered from one or two severe 'disorders' as a result (or cause) of the unusual mental activities they were involved in for an extended period. Lots of suffering is needed to produce a good thing or two. You can read all about it in the history books.

Sapius wrote: I don’t know about that, but I’m quite weak when it comes to the truth that I do not inherently exist, and hence am obliged to all else that is not me which I am dependent on, and I do know that that depends on my reasoning and values, but judging values necessarily require an “Ego” (”I”) to judge them, (no doubt about that), but what makes any value inherently valuable over another would be the question in an ultimate sense? Any logical justifications for that?

It is the truth that the self is separate, as this is a necessary outcome of awareness itself. Like all dualities, there can be an outcome of "One" though. Enlightenment is the "oneness" formed by sufficiently unifying one's awareness with what is not that awareness.

It is not about becoming "one with nature", as that has too many emotional connotations, but about becoming "one with reality" by the act of understanding it. Reality is the awareness that arises by the merging of one's reasoning-self with nature, as opposed to one's emotional self.

Emotions prevent one from fully merging one's awareness with what is opposite to that awareness, namely everything else, as they lead to falsely conceptualising the reasoning-self as separate, they keep one's identify separate.

Emotions reacting dualistically with nature do cause a considerable degree of reasoning to occur, they are essential, one seeks joy and seeks to avoid suffering by reasoning, but to gain enlightenment these emotions must be let go of, in order for one's mind to be capable of using reason to form a consistent unity with the Totality. Emotions create and maintain one's mental values of different things as they relate to oneself. With the truth-clues provided by past sages and enough thinking practice about reality one can learn to remove much of the personal identity involved in one's reasoning, and should begin to see the real valuelessness in everything. From this point one's unity with reality has so much greater an opportunity to arise anew in a manner that encompasses a far more holistic or godly non-identity value system. This is the stage where the person chops wood again.

A self is still retained, as it must be. Only the manner in which one reasons is changed, which in turn provides for different outcomes than would otherwise have occurred. Seeking enlightenment would be irrational if the outcome was some form of subservience to chance. You'd soon be destroyed by the whims of nature or others.

You know enough about reality to not be concerned about the so called weakness of thinking you inherently exist. At any time you are thinking or feeling emotions ot being aware in some fashion, then you do inherently exist - at the time you are aware there is nothing at all that could be otherwise, nature is inherently causing you to think, so you must have a form of inherency. It is just that your inherent existence is constantly flowing into some other pattern with some other outcome, and this change will eventually cause the destruction of the causes that allow your awareness to arise out of the totality, and your awarenes will be no more. No thing is permanent (but universal processes are), so the word inherent applied to things is automatically a delusionary concept, really only applicable to what manifests at any point of observation. What ever is, is. But I know you already know this stuff.

Jamesh wrote:It is just that your inherent existence is constantly flowing into some other pattern with some other outcome, and this change will eventually cause the destruction of the causes that allow your awareness to arise out of the totality, and your awarenes will be no more. No thing is permanent (but universal processes are), so the word inherent applied to things is automatically a delusionary concept, really only applicable to what manifests at any point of observation. What ever is, is. But I know you already know this stuff.

"Things" may not be inherent, but you are not a thing. You, in your awareness, were not caused, and your existence cannot be threatened. You are no different than the "univeral processes." They not only apply to the totality but to each individual "thing," which is not a thing.

Sapius, listen up!

;-)

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Unidian wrote:When we are discussing emotion and the lack thereof, why is discussing a disorder which causes a lack of emotional response out of bounds? Other than the fact that it potentially embarrasses the whole "QRS" edifice by reducing David's views on emotion to psychopathology rather than the result of "spiritual wisdom" or the like, on what basis can you disqualify it?

I agree here with Unidian somewhat. It's not out of bounds.

The expected response to his question would be to question sharply the methodology and philosophy behind the mainstream research into personality disorders and schizophrenia or depression as a whole.

Problem is Unidian, that the whole DSM determination for mental disorders is based on determining the amount of trouble that is associated with the symptoms, as it's using basically a symptom-based diagnostic criteria. It's going by stress levels or establishment how well does someone function or not in their environment. An environment which is not part of the evaluation of course.

It means that 'disorder' here means at the core that one finds it hard to participate in an orderly fashion. The reason for that could be many. Medical, psychological, traumatic but as well philosophical.

Exactly right. Dan was simply objecting to Unidian's obvious attempt at mud-slinging.

As you say, a personality disorder is simply a deviancy away from the norm. It could be in the direction illness and debilitation, or it could be in the direction of genius, philosophic commitment, artistic temperament, etc. If a person thinks the latter kind of deviancy is a problem to be derided, then there is obviously something wrong with him.

-

I've responded in part to the opening post of this thread in the opening post of my own thread, Arbitrary absolutism: the values of the house philosophy. Just a heads-up.

As you say, a personality disorder is simply a deviancy away from the norm.

No it isn't. It is a condition which prevents or inhibits the expression or experience of things deemed necessary to healthy human functioning. In the case of SPD, normal emotional response and the ability to form functional social relationships is what is inhibited.

It is only because modern society supports individuals afflicted with such disorders that they are able to imagine there is nothing detrimental about their condition. At any point in human history before the most recent times, the problems would have been obvious.

Since you want to talk about normal social attitudes, namely, what the majority experience, as if they are not detrimental to themselves, then what do you make of these things:

- falling in love with someone who excites your own sense of what is attractive, ideal, and sexy, and regarding everyone else as a bit contemptuous by contrast;
- getting angry if someone you love decides to find someone else more interesting than you;
- becoming depressed if no one wants to promise to you they'll spend the rest of their life with you only - and remaining depressed and less-than-functional;
- getting offended if someone tells you to shut up when you're talking about what you find amazing;
- rubbishing the character of someone in authority when they make a simple mistake;
- spending months, if not years, unable to think clearly or concentrate, from wanting someone who has died, not to have died;

Is normal free from detrimental social attitudes? Clearly not.


...

falling in love with someone who excites your own sense of what is attractive, ideal, and sexy

Sounds like a winner.

and regarding everyone else as a bit contemptuous by contrast

Umm, no. Just no.

Therapy?

getting angry if someone you love decides to find someone else more interesting than you

Someone who loves me wouldn't do that. And besides, who's more interesting than me? Please.

becoming depressed if no one wants to promise to you they'll spend the rest of their life with you only

Nope, not at all. I have no thought of "the rest of my life." She can just spend today with me, and that's good enough for today.

and remaining depressed and less-than-functional

I've always been 'less than functional," but not for this reason. I simply don't care about most "functional" things.

getting offended if someone tells you to shut up when you're talking about what you find amazing

Do you get offended when someone asks you to stop yammering on about Quinnology?

Meh, I suppose not. More likely you just dismiss them as hopeless. It's the standard egotistical guru response.

rubbishing the character of someone in authority when they make a simple mistake

Huh? "Authority" issues, eh? Fascinating...

spending months, if not years, unable to think clearly or concentrate, from wanting someone who has died, not to have died

Nope, I'm on reasonably good terms with death. Almost met him a few months back, great fun.

Is normal free from detrimental social attitudes? Clearly not.

I'm no advocate of "normal." Far from it. The trouble is, that doesn't make me an advocate of "batshit nuts," either.

Why did you take all those ideas personally? I wasn't talking about you.


..

Are you sure I took them "personally?"

Or perhaps I simply addressed them from a personal point of view, since I have no other vantage point from which to address them.

I wasn't upset, angered, or threatened by them, if that's what you're suggesting.

You interpreted them all as if they were addressed to you. It makes it impossible to follow up on a response, since I was talking of social attitudes common among people, which are detrimental. I was talking of what people generally go through. You're not typical.

Grieving over the death of loved persons, worrying over a lover's waning interest (well, you are typical there), being jealous of the lover's new favourite, rubbishing politicians or bosses when they make simple mistakes, and all the rest, are very common human experiences. They're normal. Yet they're all quite harmful, because they inflict unnecessary suffering on oneself and others.


...

You did ask if I was offended if asked to "stop yammering about Quinnology".

I would respond by saying that I don't know what Quinnology is. I only know the primal Mother, and am delighted by all the ways She hides me. I'm a simple person. Or, perhaps I would respond by making up something on the oboe.


...