BrainMeta'                 

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Soul and the Soul-less, Philosophers
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 18, 2004, 08:53 AM
Post #1


Unregistered









The soul exists but not as simply or with personality continuance past this plane and the limbo state associated with it.

Descartes, Locke and Hume were sadly ineffective though thought highly of in the anti-religion phase of their society. The mystics always had a better handle on these things and modern MRI/Spect research at Harvard or other brain research has proven many things along with the Quantum or what were called 'atom-mysticists'.

I do think Descartes contributed mightily to theory and existential reality and there is little room for religion and following the thought of ecclesiasts whose need for power and ignorance has been well demonstrated in the annals of history.

Here is some of what an Indian philosopher of today says from a book I have just edited (first edit of a person whose native tongue is not English). His name is Dr. Abdul Lathief and the book is Philosophical Reflections.

Rationalists are those who believe reason is the primary source of knowledge. Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza were known as rationalists.

a. Descartes:

Descartes believed in two eternal substances or realities. One homogenous substance underlies all forms of mind as he sees it. This is unextended and indivisible and he called it thinking substance. The second is an homogenous substance underlying all form of matter. This is extended and divisible. So he was a dualist.


Descartes started his theory from absolute doubt. According to him sensory knowledge sometimes goes wrong so they cannot be relied. But “cogito ergo sum” “I think, there for I am” means the existence of the thinking I is real. This is certain knowledge and he identified the thinking I with mind. He believed abstract ideas or universals exist in mind as thought independent of sensory knowledge. This is known as innate ideas. So mind must know itself before it knows other things.


Then he argued that there is an idea of perfect existence in our mind. This idea cannot be separated from a real perfect being. As we are not perfect the cause of this idea must be God. So God exists. Then God gave us senses and it reports the existence of an external world. So world is also real. So starting from the existential truth he was convinced about both God and world.


According to him the perception of the external world is by impressions of the objects on the mind. Mind is not only different from body but it can think and exist independently of body.


Descartes was a determinist. He considered body as a machine. According to him all non mental bodies act mathematically and mechanically. This action in the body is by the mind and in the world by God. He believed mind and body interact with each other through the pineal gland {See the Thalami in Appendix One} in the brain and this is the seat of soul or mind.

b. Spinoza:

Unlike Descartes Spinoza believed in a single ultimate reality, which he called Substance or God. So he was a monist. According to him finite human mind can understand only two attributes or aspects of this substance. One is thinking substance or mind the other is extended substance or matter. So mind and matter are two attributes of one substance. Individual particular things he called modes. Ideas are thinking modes and objects are extended modes. Now the relation between substance and attributes is like different name for the one and same thing. So mind and body are not two entities but mental and physical law describes the same event in two different and independent ways. So they are two aspects of one reality. He also divided reality in to an eternal order and a temporal order.


The eternal order is world of law and structure and the world revealed by thought. This he called natura naturans or active nature.
The temporal order is the world of things and incidents, which is perceived by senses, and he called this nature naturata (begotten) or passive nature. According to him nature exists by itself and is the cause of itself. God and nature one and the same. God is one nature many and nature is the face of God. He also believed world is in the mind of God and he was a pantheist in the sense he considered world as an aspect of God himself.


Spinoza also was a determinist. He thought everything is explicable. According to him nature and man are acting by invariable law and necessity. Nature is the inner controller of everything.
According to Spinoza will is not a separate thing. Like intellect which is a set of ideas, will is a set of volition, which produce action. Will is a form of desire and desire is nothing but conscious instinct. According to him will is the essence of man and it is due to a cause and motive. According to him we do not will or desire because it gives us pleasure or avoid pain but something gives us pleasure or pain due to our desires. So they are the result of our desire not cause of it.
According to him passions are natural and they can be only regulated by reason. There is no such thing as free will. We are free in the sense of actions being self-determined and mastery of passions through a life of reason. Reason regulates desires and passion and it is the total response to the whole stimulus. So freedom is possible only as behaviour based on necessity or freedom is recognised necessity. Even in this sense only a sage can be free.
Virtue, he identified with intellectual life and more perfection and preservation of one’s being hence having more power.
Spinoza identified highest knowledge with direct perception and immediate deduction. This intuitive knowledge is better than reason and sensory knowledge. It is perception of things in their eternal aspect which he called 'sub specie aeternitatis' means seeing everything from the perspective of eternity. According to him greatest good is also this knowledge of the union, which the mind has with the whole nature.

c. Leibniz:

Leibniz postulated instead of one or two substances, an infinite number of eternal substances. So he was a pluralist. Each substance is single and without parts and he called them monads. Every thing consists of groups of monads.


The monads are simple substances without parts and form compounds. Each monad can be called entelechy because there is self sufficiency and perfection in them. They have no extension or form and they are the elements of every thing. It cannot come into being naturally and it cannot be destroyed naturally. It came into being by creation and end by annihilation. Monads have no windows, so neither substance can enter it nor accident can go out of it. So the quality of monad cannot be altered by anything out side it.


Each monad is equal in quantity but differs in quality so every monad is different. Each monad is subject to change by its nature. There is an internal principle of change called perception and particular series of change called appetition. So there is multiplicity in every monad.
Monads are immaterial and mind consists of conscious immaterial monads and matter is unconscious immaterial monads. Material monads have only perception while souls are monads with memory.


Each monad is wound up from the beginning of its existence and contains potentially everything up to its end. Each monad is a complete concept. So from one of its state we can predict other states of it. Each monad acts to its natural end, which he called appetition.


Each monad express the whole others but they are independent and there is no interaction between them. Mind monads and body monads work by pre established harmony between them. So from the state of one monad we can infer the state of other monads.


The influence of one monad on another is ideal and through the mediation of God. Each monad has relations which express all. All monads unto each and each to all; which humorously could be likened to the Three Musketeers. So each monad represents the whole universe. They are limited not regards to their object but the different ways in which they have knowledge of their object. They are limited and differentiated through the degree of their distinct perceptions. A monad with matter constitutes a body. A body and entelechy (monad) constitute living being. Living being and soul called animal. In human beings souls are raised to reason (mind).


The soul follows its own laws which are the laws of final causes through appetitions, ends and means. Bodies follow their own laws of efficient causes or motions. They agree with each other in virtue of the pre established harmony between all substances. So both souls and body act as if independent and act as if each is influenced by the other. There is also pre-established harmony between physical realm of nature and moral realm of grace. So things lead to grace by the ways of nature.


Animal souls are the images of the whole universe, but human souls (mind) is the image of both God and world. So mind enters in to a type of fellowship with God. Our true happiness consists in making the aim of our will's object attachment to God.
Even though everything is hypothetically necessary due to determined monads they are logically not necessary. So according to him man has free will.


There are two types of truths Necessary (eternal truths) truths and Contingent (fact) truths. Necessary truths arrived by primary principles and contingent truth by efficient cause. Efficient cause also leads to final cause. So final resides in a necessary substance and this absolutely perfect and sufficient substance is God. So both the essence and existence of created being is derived from God. In God essence involves existence. In God there is power, knowledge and will. Power forms the ground or basis of monad, knowledge perception and will appetition.

Analysis:

Spinoza’s one eternal substance is first logos, Descartes two eternal substances are second logos and Leibniz multiple monads are eternal spirits in spiritual existence. Leibniz’s immaterial conscious monads are sentient or animate spirits and unconscious monads are inanimate or insentient spirits.


All the rationalists were determinists in the sense that everything is expressing their own nature. This nature is its internal reality or spirit. Everything can become only what is its internal nature or essential nature.


What Spinoza says is intuition is spiritual nature, which is more reliable than reason and sensory experience. And subspecia aeternitatis is the self realised state.

Chapter 5: Empiricists

Empiricism is the doctrine that sensory experience is the primary source of knowledge. The well known empiricists are Locke, Berkeley and David Hume.

a. John Locke:

Locke believed that there is nothing in the mind, which is not first in the senses, and the mind is blank at birth. Experience is the primary source of knowledge. Simple ideas are produced by sensations and complex ideas by reflections. Reflections are thought produced by the mind using sensations.


Locke identified two types of qualities in things. Primary qualities are physical or quantitative properties like weight, height, size etc. The ideas of primary qualities resemble their cause so they belong to the object.


The secondary qualities like sensory qualities of colour, taste, smell etc. are the effect of the object on our senses. They do not resemble their cause. There can be difference concerning secondary qualities because they are subjective and do not belongs to the object.

b. Berkeley:

Berkeley believed that all our knowledge is our sensations and idea derived from sensations. We have no knowledge of external matter but only experience sensations. So matter and objects really do not exist. Matter is a mental condition or imagination. The objective world is our imagination of it. To be is to be perceived by us or by God. According to him as there was no object both primary and secondary qualities belonged to the subject. According to some of his writings this does not mean world exists in individual mind but in the mind of God. His views were both of subjective and objective idealisms.

c. David Hume:

Like Berkeley David Hume also believed that we cannot have objective knowledge of an external world from our sense experience. We experience sense impression, which he called primary impressions. We form ideas derived from this sense impressions and memories. In this way simple and complex ideas are formed. These he called secondary ideas. We can have only these primary impressions and secondary ideas. From sensory experience we cannot derive cause and effect. By association of ideas we make law of cause and effect and then project it into the external world.


Not only we have no knowledge of substance or matter but only sense impressions there is also no experience of a perceiving self or mind. As matter is only external perception so mind is also only a set of ideas and internal perception. So there is neither substance nor mind. So events are without cause, effect and necessity.


According to Hume moral value has no objectivity. It is not a result of reason but feelings. Feelings are really behind all moral judgments.

Analysis:

Both primary and secondary qualities really belong to the object. All qualities are inherent in the essential nature of the object. The only difference is some qualities are derived from mental essences while others from astral essences. The primary qualities or those derived from mental essences are not entirely depends on the senses so they can be judged independent of senses. Secondary qualities are derived from astral essences so they entirely depend on the senses. As human essence contain all the essences but differs in the degree or quantity of the essences so the secondary qualities differs due to the difference in the senses of the subject. In this sense mental essence are more objective than astral essence because they are rational knowledge. Still astral essences are also objective in the sense that sweet never becomes sour or red becomes blue. Only the intensity varies from person to person.


Locke was also unable to explain the existence of substance. Sensation never informs us about substance. The thing in which quality subsists and which is independent of our senses.


Berkeley’s theory saying matter does not exist but only sensation of the subject is almost similar to our theory of world as active imagination. It is true that we cannot have the true nature of an external world independent of our senses and mind. But the notion of substances and essences in our mind itself mean there is an objective external reality. The world does not depend on our spirit for their existence. Similarly the world is not in the mind of God in the sense God is something external to it. The world only depends on their own spirits. They are the active imagination of their own spirits. What we call mind is the mental existence of the human spirit. Mind or spirit is the active thought directed towards the spirit itself. So mind and body are different aspect of the human spirit, which is a real entity. Mind is also a real aspect of this spirit like body. What Hume says is ideas and internal perceptions are spiritual and mental existence of the spirit, which are real aspects of the spirit.


There are two causes. One is the primary cause, which is inherent in the essential nature of the thing itself. The secondary cause is other beings, which are responsible for initiation of change in the primary being. But this secondary cause is relevant only if the essential nature of the primary being yield to its influence. In this sense the real cause is the being itself. Hume is right that we cannot predict cause from sense impression. This is mainly because cause and effect are mental essences or primary qualities. As human spirit contains all essences cause has also an a priori element independent of sense impressions.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shawn
post Apr 18, 2004, 11:28 AM
Post #2


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 22, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9




this is a nice concise intro to some rationalist and empiricist philosophy, but I don't see the connection with soul vs soul-less. What do you think MRI/Spect studies say about the soul or mysticism? What can it say?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 18, 2004, 11:54 AM
Post #3


Unregistered









The Logos or Hrmonic of Light and the vital essences in all things are part and parcel of the soul and collective state (JUng) some might call at-one-ment.

MRI/SPECT proves the mystics were right - have you read the research Mr. Neuroscientist?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shawn
post Apr 18, 2004, 12:09 PM
Post #4


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 22, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9



QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 18, 02:54 PM)
MRI/SPECT proves the mystics were right - have you read the research Mr. Neuroscientist?

I have read many things but have found nothing which supports your claim that "MRI/SPECT proves the mystics were right". Maybe you can clarify what you mean or provide more details.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 19, 2004, 07:38 AM
Post #5


Unregistered









I have only read reviews of the book oon the study by Harvard. It is out there - look further and you will see it. Also check out the University of Illinois work with Hank Wesslmann on an evolving brian state.

Here is one of many studies being done that relate to the kinds of things done at Duke or the J. B. Rhine Institute (FRNM) where a woman I once dated was one of the top six control subject researchers.


I can see there is litttle chance that people who have closed minds will do more than ridicule and attack. On the Third Eye thread I put someone else's words but I can assure you I have many personal experiences and I was offerred my own radio call in show in the mid 70s when I lived in Virginia.



http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/inter...onalitystudies/

'Personality studies' - never mind the euphimism, as home page states the following:

General Information

The Division of Personality Studies (DOPS) is a unit of the Department of Psychiatric Medicine at the University of Virginia. Utilizing scientific methods, we investigate apparent paranormal phenomena, especially:

Children Who Claim to Remember Previous Lives (reincarnation)
Near-Death Experiences
Out of Body Experiences
Apparitions and After-Death Communications
Deathbed Visions
We welcome written accounts of experiences of these kinds. See What We Study and Contacting Us.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Apr 19, 2004, 04:03 PM
Post #6


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



guys like 'bruce' are the ones who create 'new-age' pseudo-science that is then taken as actual scientific fact by the less critically-minded. I am always impressed with the complexity of the arguments regardless of their pseudofactual basis, although ultimately I am merely amused at the spectacle of it all
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 20, 2004, 05:57 AM
Post #7


Unregistered









'Merely amused' or bemused and clueless?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Apr 20, 2004, 06:09 AM
Post #8


Unregistered









I have a confession to make: I was very amused!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Apr 20, 2004, 06:52 PM
Post #9


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



'bruce', all I know is you came into this place and started calling Shawn some kind of fake in the field of neuroscience. Either you were making knee-jerk assumptions due to a poor sample of Shawn's knowledge or you have no sound basis from which to make any such judgment. I'm guessing a combination of both, as it seems that you have developed a 'defense mechanism' against people who question your knowledge base by simply assuming them to be 'closeminded establishment-ites' and dismissing them offhand
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 21, 2004, 07:29 AM
Post #10


Unregistered









He attacked me without even reading the post (by his own admission) and arrogantly stated he is an expert. Then he used words (which he has admitted now are convention) and acted as if neuroscience is the only field or discipline which has the necessary insight. Then he and others called me pseudo-scientific. I have provided TOP accredited scholars from many disciplines that address the points.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Apr 21, 2004, 03:22 PM
Post #11


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



he also went back and reread your post and, based on his real expertise (he is completing a Ph.D. in neuroscience), reiterated his initial reaction. I am a 'keep it simple, stupid' kind of guy, and hate reading lengthy tomes, so I generally despise wading through seas of information in order to locate the salient points of an argument. I would much prefer if you could just simply state your assumptions and conclusions rather than giving a thousand pages of reference and expecting me to wade through it. You can still reference what you are saying, but only as a way to validate up your argument rather than to generate it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 21, 2004, 03:29 PM
Post #12


Unregistered









Dan says

he also went back and reread your post and, based on his real expertise (he is completing a Ph.D. in neuroscience), reiterated his initial reaction. I am a 'keep it simple, stupid' kind of guy, and hate reading lengthy tomes, so I generally despise wading through seas of information in order to locate the salient points of an argument. I would much prefer if you could just simply state your assumptions and conclusions rather than giving a thousand pages of reference and expecting me to wade through it. You can still reference what you are saying, but only as a way to validate up your argument rather than to generate it.

Yes, keep it simple and proclaim your guru who is still a student knows more that Dovtorate people who were Ph. D's before he was a glint in his father's eye.

My initial post does indeed include much of my premise on the functioning of the mind-brain-universe. But of course to answer all questions and deal with debunkers in fields which are many requires addressing each of those fields. Microbiology and Morowitz is salient to say the least. In fact if I could do a half-assed job in a thousand page book I would have achieved more than any have done so far.

But you can accept sound byte input of self-proclaimed experts from one field of endeavour alone - that is your perogative. We are all able to exclude thinking and the real work of study - but we should not engage those who do the work and ridicule them.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Apr 21, 2004, 03:35 PM
Post #13


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



I think you really can't do it, that's why you rely completely on authority and argue that only reference to such authority can do the subject justice. All I'm asking is that you lay down the logical framework of your argument directly without deluging me with needless speculation and hyperbole. Is that asking for 'soundbites'? I think not, I think it is simply asking for you to generate an original explanation that is distilled to the salient points of the argument.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shawn
post Apr 21, 2004, 05:48 PM
Post #14


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 22, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9



QUOTE (Robert the Bruce)
Yes, keep it simple and proclaim your guru who is still a student knows more that Dovtorate people who were Ph. D's before he was a glint in his father's eye.


This is completely irrelevant. You cannot meet me on my own ground which is why you need to fall back on "unquestionable authority". Your authorities, with few exceptions, I do not respect and I certainly do not take any of them at their word. You are so naive Bruce. You have no idea how much falsity resides in authority, and here you are placing your unquestionable faith in it. How lame, how weak! You, who boast of your intelligence on your site, and here you are submitting to "unquestionable authority" because you are unable of critical or penetrating thought. I do not doubt that you have breadth of knowledge, and no doubt are also a mystery priest in some cult like the OTO or freemasons or the equivalent, but you lack depth and penetrating thought. You do not fully understand science, which is why you rely on authority. But authority is something I and others do not need to rely on, so do not expect your "unquestionable authorities" to carry much weight around here. If you have something worthwhile to say, do us all a favor and do not appeal to your "unquestionable authorities", but rather appeal to our experience and to our understanding.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 21, 2004, 07:36 PM
Post #15


Unregistered









I am a great proponent of 'wuestioning authority' as were the sages I am connected with through what schoold of thought has been my honor to be recognized among. Long before you were born I was questioning authority of all sorts. You are projecting the paradigm and doing it in the clinical term oriented manner - check projection in the paranoia definition of the nosology according to psychiatry.

But Yes, you have ridiculaed the Nobel Laureates and other disciplines that I have quoted (in full knowledge that you are what you are) because I know how the debunking process or educational milieu operates.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Apr 21, 2004, 07:58 PM
Post #16


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



I bet you did a lot of drugs in the 60's, too, and probably believe in all sorts of strange 'new-age'-style mythology

don't get me wrong, I've had a good time with new-agers in trying to understand the meaning of their intent, I've just come to prefer the ones who are more interested in understanding and dealing with the truth of reality rather than simply generating large amounts of 'intuitively determined' pseudoscientific claims that instantly gratify their need to feel competent
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 21, 2004, 08:30 PM
Post #17


Unregistered









Wrong again - looking in the mirror are you?

I was an officer in the military and I did not do drugs. I also am not New Age as I have explained - New Age is a plagiarization of a far more complex system which I am into and in that manner I have exposed the abuse of the ancient knowledge by those who program you to be the knee-jerk fool-ower you are.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Apr 21, 2004, 08:37 PM
Post #18


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



well I am surprised, that's for sure. I was assuming your 'unorthodox' mentality was due to 'chemical intervention' considering your ideology, but maybe you're just organically disposed. As for the comparison to 'new-age'-types, I'll let the evidence speak for itself
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Laz
post Apr 22, 2004, 04:22 AM
Post #19


Demi-God
*****

Group: Full Member
Posts: 665
Joined: Jun 17, 2003
Member No.: 255



Robert Baird,

Do you believe that the truth will be seen regardless of context, tone, and attitude. As such no attempt need be made to relate, respect, or address your audience properly?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Apr 22, 2004, 04:42 AM
Post #20


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



QUOTE
I am a great proponent of 'wuestioning authority' as were the sages I am connected with through what schoold of thought has been my honor to be recognized among.

Can I ask what school or teaching you follow?
When you speak of sages, I am not so familiar with those that are as aggressive as you seem to be in making ignorance so much an enemy as a choice.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Laz
post Apr 22, 2004, 04:55 AM
Post #21


Demi-God
*****

Group: Full Member
Posts: 665
Joined: Jun 17, 2003
Member No.: 255



Nice to see us on the same side for a change Joe smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Apr 22, 2004, 07:53 AM
Post #22


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



You still take sides?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 22, 2004, 08:27 AM
Post #23


Unregistered









They are called Sages and Philosophers and are humanists like Socrates. The paradigm has purposefully whitewashed their system and told lies about the system but they include Aristotle, Da Vinci, Socrates and many more that you might be surprised to hear about. I have already said what I am and what my last name is - a Baird. But few in history of the last millennium would know what they are. I only learned it in the last dozen years through many serious researches. I had been studying it long before that.

If you look at an anthology of Aristotle you will not find one of his books about the system that some categorize me as - it is not a belief system or a following. That book is The Secretum Secretorum. And I assure you Socrates and his like have indeed confronted people with the other side of what they think they know.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 22, 2004, 08:31 AM
Post #24


Unregistered









I believe that political correctness and back-slapping is not LOVE. I think we have been asked and raised to think respect is lying and now we see War on Terra or Terror. The questioning of people's ideas or thoughts should not be a personal thing and people must learn to get over themself.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Laz
post Apr 22, 2004, 11:30 PM
Post #25


Demi-God
*****

Group: Full Member
Posts: 665
Joined: Jun 17, 2003
Member No.: 255



QUOTE
people must learn to get over themself


I understand what you are saying, and agree in the large part, but you cannot expect it. Unless you become a preacher and try to convert them they are all going to have their own insecurities, fears, ego centric view of the world that you cannot change. To be able to get along with them, you must talk with them in their terms, regardless of your beliefs.

I would guess that from your words and your background in life you tend to treat people like sh*t because it works for you, and has always worked. They're either with you or they're not. I would say that you know a lot about who you are and you have mastered the basics of your ego, trouble is you've gone the wrong way with it, for you its an angle, a weapon?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 23, 2004, 06:41 AM
Post #26


Unregistered









A reasonable response - for a student or beginer who has not tried all the modalities of psychology. I have lived with Doctors of Psychology and I outperformed her on all occasions. She was a top expert and had an agent setting up large convention hall attendance to listen to her speak about Stress Management. She was many other things, including a 'twin' of mine who I decreed into my life.

I can hosestly say that being a punk in a pack of dogs or being PC and nice - will only get you what you think you want and friends that are real will not be found that way.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Apr 23, 2004, 07:00 AM
Post #27


Unregistered









QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 23, 06:41 AM)
I have lived with Doctors of Psychology and I outperformed her on all occasions.

sounds like a bitter break-up. You are single, right? Is that because you've deluded yourself into thinking that no-one is worthy or because no-one would want to live with you?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Laz
post Apr 23, 2004, 07:02 AM
Post #28


Demi-God
*****

Group: Full Member
Posts: 665
Joined: Jun 17, 2003
Member No.: 255



quit the psychobabble guest!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Apr 23, 2004, 07:06 AM
Post #29


Unregistered









QUOTE (Laz @ Apr 23, 07:02 AM)
quit the psychobabble guest!

oh Fine! just having a little fun.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 23, 2004, 07:40 AM
Post #30


Unregistered









Dear G

Not that it is any of your business or important to what I am doing.

I was married twice since living with her. I had a lady who wanted to marry me last year that had to leave Canada to get away from a abusive person like you and take her kid to safety far away.

I am not looking to marry because I have a purpose and committment to change the world before your generation ends all life on earth.

When I lived in Las Vegas less than a decade ago - I was quite the personality. There was one 6 month period when 200 women hit on me overtly (There were 50 men who did the same). When it comes to been there done that -it could be my epitaph.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th November 2014 - 05:43 AM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog