From: rotflol2@hotmail.com
On 2025-04-13, Richmond wrote:
> 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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> < * SNIP * >
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
Indeed there is a difference, and guidance can be as simple as making
someone aware of behavioural characteristics that they are displaying,
that may be deleterious.
>>
>> 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
>> sometimes NOT accept things that you think are part of your "core
>> identity", and seek to change them instead.
>
> I think somone who goes through transition has very likely considered
> every other alternative, because going through it must be quite
> traumatic. And anyway, who is to judge what the standards are? It must
> ultimately be between the individual and their psychiatrist what the
> best course of action is, just as in the old days confession was between
> the parishioner and the priest.
>
I'm not so convinced. In my state, the government decided that it
should be illegal not to affirm, or go along with someones choice of
gender identity. That effectively makes it very risky to promote a form
of treatment which does not affirm the delusion. Can you trust the
psychiatrist who is not free to choose a form of treatment which does
not affirm their choice? And if rates of self-described "non-binary"
and "Trans" people has gone up, this suggests something else, social
contagion perhaps. Again, leaving it ONLY to the psychiatrist is not a
wise move, as they are not considering wider social and philosophical
implications.
> If there is such a thing as a soul which goes to heaven, then surely the
> soul is not dependent on any bodily characteristics.
I don't believe that there is a seperate soul, independent of the body.
You ARE your body, you cannot be anyone or anything else.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
