From: dnomhcir@gmx.com
Borax Man writes:
> 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.
How did you decide that it is a delusion? Or how would the psychiatrist?
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/07/18/caster-semenya-won-her-case-
ot-right-compete
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
