Have you personally achieved anything you feel pride in?

I have. You call it "projection" or "passive aggressive" or whatever other jargon from the world of the psych branch of modern medicine provides a defense in the moment so that you don't have to hear it. That's a problem that seems insurmountable in this medium, but I continue to try.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. You implied that I was depressed and defending my own depression. I am not depressed and not suffering from my own depression.

I really, genuinely want to know how you managed to "reprogram" your reward center specifically. Please read my post again, I think I was being very clear. I am not trying to defend, just to clarify what I was saying. My post was not meant in a hostile way at all, I think you just misinterpreted it. Keep in mind I am no native speaker and have a poor grasp of the English language,
 
There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

I'm just saying.

And by "I'm" . . .
 
There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

I'm just saying.

And by "I'm" . . .

That sounds very profound but can you tell why is that that thinking makes it so?
 
There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

I'm just saying.

And by "I'm" . . .

While the notions for good or bad (and anything else) are parts of thinking (and sensing), that by itself doesn't have to mean there aren't any archetype-like external ties to such (obviously nor does it mean there are) :)

Yet, even if all our notions only are meaningful in the context of the human mind, it still is an issue just what they consist of, and why we do have very stark distinctions here and there (and good and bad is a good example of such distinctions; eg the pythagoreans included it along with even/odd and some other ones, large/small is another core antithesis that is relative in regards to particulars, but more specific as an overarching division).
 
That sounds very profound but can you tell why is that that thinking makes it so?


Because that is what thinking does. That is its fundamental purpose.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. You implied that I was depressed and defending my own depression. I am not depressed and not suffering from my own depression.

Where in the heck did I imply that?

I really, genuinely want to know how you managed to "reprogram" your reward center specifically. Please read my post again, I think I was being very clear. I am not trying to defend, just to clarify what I was saying. My post was not meant in a hostile way at all, I think you just misinterpreted it. Keep in mind I am no native speaker and have a poor grasp of the English language,

I'm concerned with neither defense nor hostility. The key point of "reprogramming the reward center" comes in recognizing who programmed it in the first place. People do NOT want to do that. It takes an inordinate amount of boxing them in, and a clever debater like me will, and did, try to squirrel through every nook and cranny to get out of it. People find distractions; you'd be amazed at how many people I've seen develop intense fascinations with the weave of the carpet, and literally everyone at some point goes on a diatribe tangent about the room being too hot, or too cold. Others will just go along and be very convincing about having 'a new understanding' so that they can slip away.
 
I think impure thoughts when the ol noggin is ringing with a little echo, of course. Either way, I'm backing out until something of substance is posted again.


How about this:

Give a boy a hammer and watch the number of things he finds that can be improved with a little pounding. The surprising part about these improvements is that he can and will make strong coherent arguments for how the dents in your coffee table are better and the artistic quality of broken glass. His apparatus for interpreting the world will provide him with all the evidence he needs to support his opening belief; that a little pounding is good for most anything.

Now make the boy spend a lifetime earning the hammer. How many things do you think he will find that need a good pounding then?
 
How about this:

Give a boy a hammer and watch the number of things he finds that can be improved with a little pounding. The surprising part about these improvements is that he can and will make strong coherent arguments for how the dents in your coffee table are better and the artistic quality of broken glass. His apparatus for interpreting the world will provide him with all the evidence he needs to support his opening belief; that a little pounding is good for most anything.

Now make the boy spend a lifetime earning the hammer. How many things do you think he will find that need a good pounding then?

He will just use the hammer on his oppressor :(
 
Because that is what thinking does. That is its fundamental purpose.
Not necessarily. Science which is the one of the most prominent intelectual fields doesnt primarily deal with reality in that way and in those terms. Its only when ethics enter the picture.
 
How about this:

Give a boy a hammer and watch the number of things he finds that can be improved with a little pounding. The surprising part about these improvements is that he can and will make strong coherent arguments for how the dents in your coffee table are better and the artistic quality of broken glass. His apparatus for interpreting the world will provide him with all the evidence he needs to support his opening belief; that a little pounding is good for most anything.

Now make the boy spend a lifetime earning the hammer. How many things do you think he will find that need a good pounding then?

I reckon the boy will just use something else to do the pounding if someone holds a hammer out of reach.
 
I reckon the boy will just use something else to do the pounding if someone holds a hammer out of reach.

Actually boys are pretty good at determining what things are for. Give them a wheel they see everything as a track, not something in need of a pounding. Now, when you give them a degree in medicine hardly anything seems to need a pounding.
 
Actually boys are pretty good at determining what things are for. Give them a wheel they see everything as a track, not something in need of a pounding. Now, when you give them a degree in medicine hardly anything seems to need a pounding.

Not really sure why this is turning into a weird pseudo-science perspective on gender. Your scenario assumes the boy wants to pound things because of the hammer. What if he uses the hammer because he wants to pound things?
 
The quest can be its own defense.
 
Not really sure why this is turning into a weird pseudo-science perspective on gender. Your scenario assumes the boy wants to pound things because of the hammer. What if he uses the hammer because he wants to pound things?
It's turning into a weird perspective on gender in your mind.
 
Not really sure why this is turning into a weird pseudo-science perspective on gender. Your scenario assumes the boy wants to pound things because of the hammer. What if he uses the hammer because he wants to pound things?

Here's a perfect example of what I said about finding distractions. Because I said "boy" instead of the gender neutral term "child" this rabbit hole opens up and off he (or she) goes. Anything to get away from the point that he (or she) complained that I didn't try hard enough to make.
 
It's okay if they don't want to grow their own food. It's not smart to justify that with "because I can't do it myself."
 
Top Bottom