Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/26/2019 in Posts

  1. 1 point
    Every politician you have ever heard of, they are NOT at odds with one another. They are all in one big lying, cheating, thieving club.
  2. 1 point
    Here a video of Greta without a script to read from:
  3. 1 point
    Tony, I was talking about how a person who believes any one of those statements will define all the rest for himself, not how he will define all the rest for all of us in terms of a different perception of reality. The power of premise and all... My point is, if your premise is not based on reality, how good will your definitions be? But I agree with you that you will have strong definitions. For instance, if your premise is that emotions are only reactions, you will develop a line of thinking where the mind works one particular way and only that way. But if you later discover your premise is not reality, that this is an error, that it is wrong, what will that do to the rest of your thinking about the mind? The trouble is, when one looks at the facts, measurable, repeatable and testable facts that anyone can learn, easily in fact, one actually does discover that the statement, emotions are only reactions, is false. Of course self-aware means your are conscious of yourself, which is something. But you are now trying to deduce reality from a principle by imagining a corollary and so on. Why not look at reality and correctly identify it? Emotions have different causes. I could talk about emotional hijacks, which actually are reactions but have nothing to do with integration and more to do with an amygdala shortcut in the brain, or about automatic changes in mood from gut processing, even processing feces, which can be called a reaction only by stretching Rand's meaning of emotion beyond recognition, but that goes off into neuroscience. So here is a simple example in plain language. Some emotions, like curiosity, have to be present before most conceptual integrations can take place. Curiosity can move you to act--out of thin air so to speak--which means it is a cause to observe, just as much as it can be a reaction to something you observe (internally or externally). This is a fact, not an opinion. I am discussing this because I would like to entice you into looking at something other than Rand and early Branden about the mind. They got a lot right, but they got a lot wrong. And in no way do I want to diminish what they got right. Speaking of curiosity, have you noticed how holding hard to an ideology or core story is a curiosity-killer? You just don't have any gumption or energy to look at anything else. The very idea shuts you down inside. I know that hump because I had to get over it. I even denied I was shutting down for the longest time, but after a while, I did start looking. Let's say my curiosity got the better of me. (Which is where I believe you are at a lot of the time--the clam opening the shell a tiny bit to take a peek before shutting back .) And what I found bothered me--I resisted it at first. Man, did I resist it. Then I got pissed, mostly at myself. Then really, really curious, which is where I am now. In fact, I'm in the soaking it up stage. There is a world of information out here that answers so many of my former questions, I now wonder what in hell I was thinking before. In my own thinking, I can't see any future or benefit in holding to wrong ideas--not when looking just to test a premise is so easy and ubiquitous in today's book market. But I do understand why one does not look. I myself didn't. Michael