From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   Borax Man  writes:   
      
   > On 2025-04-12, Richmond  wrote:   
   >> Borax Man  writes:   
   >>   
   >>> On 2025-04-11, Richmond  wrote:   
   >>>> Borax Man  writes:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 2025-04-08, Richmond  wrote:   
   >>>>>> Borax Man  writes:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 2025-04-07, x  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 4/7/25 13:24, oldernow wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> In Christian nomenclature, a sinner isn't a person that does   
   >>>>>>>>> bad things.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> It's a person, period - where personhood implies a separation   
   >>>>>>>>> equipped with a will free to act apart from all not-person   
   >>>>>>>>> person is seemingly separate from.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> And pride is simply the conceit that such is so.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> And suffering is ongoing attachment said delusion, which plays   
   >>>>>>>>> out as an ongoing war between the illusory free-willed being   
   >>>>>>>>> and ineffable reality.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> It's a mental illness, clear and simple.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> For all mental is illness inasmuch as it requires a person to   
   >>>>>>>>> possess it.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> So are 'minds' capable of being 'possessed' by 'angels',   
   >>>>>>>> 'spirits', 'daemons', or 'demons'?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Are 'lesser gods' in 'polytheist' religions the same as   
   >>>>>>>> 'angels' in some Abrahamic religions or is that totally   
   >>>>>>>> different?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Are the 'memes' of Dawkins the same as 'angels' or 'spirits'   
   >>>>>>>> for various religions?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> If several exorcists were to try to 'expel the demon of   
   >>>>>>>> atheism' from Dawkins could he fight back with a 'vast barrage   
   >>>>>>>> of memes', and would that be pretty much the same thing?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Who can really know, who can understand?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I think minds can be possessed, in some way or another.  If not   
   >>>>>>> necessarily by demonic spirits, but by ideas, or thought   
   >>>>>>> processes which can take over and short circuit other parts of   
   >>>>>>> the brain.  Possession is an apt description, and I'm sure many   
   >>>>>>> of us have seen people who do appear to have been overcome by   
   >>>>>>> "something else" from time to time.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Whether they are or are not literall demons, I don't think makes   
   >>>>>>> a huge practical difference.  That person is detached from   
   >>>>>>> themselves, and operating to something external (a cult, a   
   >>>>>>> political idea, hedonism), which much be purged (exorcised).   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Jung said the unconscious contains autonomous entities. At the   
   >>>>>> time the bible was written people didn't know about the   
   >>>>>> unconscious, so they would have projected it onto the world.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> But as we are not consciously in control of our unconscious, it is   
   >>>>> effectively, another entity inside us. It is "us", but something   
   >>>>> we cannot control.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I think it is more useful to treat the unconscious as something   
   >>>>> outside of us, that we can shape, influence, exorcise, or the   
   >>>>> like, as that means we aren't just accepting our bad habits and   
   >>>>> behaviours, but treating them as something that can be modified,   
   >>>>> fixed.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That supposes you recognise it as unconscious content. But if you   
   >>>> didn't you wouldn't have any control and would probably end up   
   >>>> putting tin foil on the walls to keep it out.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If it is unconscious, how do you recognise it?   
   >>>   
   >>> My point is that it doesn't really matter, but when people viewed   
   >>> their thoughts as being externally influenced (ie, being guided by   
   >>> spirits/demons/God), then they make take measures to seek a   
   >>> direction.  You hear of people 'walking into sin' and praying, and   
   >>> seeking to be guided by God.  This is in a way, shaping your OWN   
   >>> thoughts.  If you pray for forgiveness, for salvation, and endeavour   
   >>> not to sin, you are changing your unconscious mind, even though you   
   >>> may believe that you are choosing God over Satan.   
   >>   
   >> Yes you are shaping your own thoughts, but...   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> But if you are a rationalist, and simply view the unconscious mind   
   >>> as just that, then you'll probably ignore the consequences and   
   >>> simply treat it as part of "you" that your behaviour is just the way   
   >>> you are, and thats how it is.  Look at how young people simply   
   >>> accept their mental confusion, depression, or whatever ilness or   
   >>> deviation as simply their own personality that others must accept.   
   >>   
   >> Jung's purpose was not to ignore the unconscious but to integrate it   
   >> through the process of what he called 'individuation', using dreams   
   >> and active imagination.   
   >>   
   >> So there are two questions here: How to solve a problem when you see   
   >> it as a problem, to which there are religous answers and   
   >> psychological answers. And how to determine whether there is a   
   >> problem or not. If the subject doesn't see it as a problem then it   
   >> isn't a problem for the subject.   
   >>   
   >> I think most people would not consider depression as something to   
   >> ignore. But the other things you list, like "mental confusion" I am   
   >> not sure. Who is to say who is confused?   
   >   
   >   
   > I disagree with the statement that if a subject doesn't see a problem,   
   > then it isn't a problem for the subject.  The subject may not be aware   
   > of the problem, or have no frame of reference to see how what they are   
   > dealing with is a problem in the first place.  A problem is defined   
   > against a standard, and the subjects "standard" may itself be a   
   > problem.  Think of anorexics who don't see themselves as underweight.   
   > They don't see the problem, but are nevertheless impacted by it.  Some   
   > may not think their gambling addiction is a problem, as they've   
   > filtered out the negative economic effects it has on them and thers.   
      
   Yes but there is a difference between guiding people and dictating to   
   them. Anarexics do eventually become aware of their problem and will   
   probably have received hints about it before that point. As so with   
   addiction.   
      
   >   
   > By "mental confusion", I think one recent and well publicised example   
   > is gender dysphoria.  We are required, through Political Correctness,   
   > to view this as the subjects *correct* interpretation of their mental   
   > state and body image, even though it is, for most others, incorrect   
   > (i.e., you are NOT non-binary, there is no such thing).  Even though I   
   > don't believe that it has anything to do with God, one could either   
   > accept that they are indeed of no-gender, or they could alternatively   
   > see this as a malign influence and seek to expel it.  Cases like this,   
   > are akin to having depression, but choosing to ignore it, or accept it   
   > as part of your personality, rather than treat it.  This might sound   
   > harsh, but I have learned from personal experience the need to   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)