It’s complicated, you see, they will show decent level of knowledge, at times making you doubt your position that they are fags, but they always fuck up somewhere thus proving they really are fags.
That has its costs that you have to accept if you are going to go down that route, but if you are finding yourself rethinking whether they really are fags or not, this means you are incapable of accepting the costs.
You seem to have a bit of a fixation on homosexuality. Just an observation.
That is a symptom of my fixation on reality.
I am harsh, or I can be harsh, precisely because I am harsh towards myself. I am not just a bully who is unable to accept his reality.
Fags all people are and I am a fag myself but not as much of a fag as most other people are.
That’s just it. I recognize my own limitations, I cannot save the universe all on my own. That is why I must create these lifeforms as proxy. After the spark of life is created, they can create other lifeforms, and create other lifeforms. With their wisdom they can even save me as well.
It doesn’t violate the law of entropy, because the process of DNA creation is educated guess. Each iteration can make better DNA than before, and just by switching a few codons here and there, and making some educated guesses, they will get lucky and run into the code for the super being. Its easier than it sounds, since Neanderthals had larger brains than Sapiens we already have the template for a slightly superior primate. Each stage relying less and less on educated guesses and eventually so smart it can crack the ultimate DNA code and create a superbeing.
Once the ultimate DNA machine is created (by them) I can walk into it and become one of them, more powerful than ever. DNA machine 1.0 will be made by the humans, machine 2.0 will be created by the ubers. But don’t worry I will also upgrade myself with DNA machine 1.0. DNA machine 2.0 will grant access to the god realms. And it was stupid of me to relinquish power now that I think about it. I shall oversee the DNA experiment in all stages, making sure my DNA is on par with the latest upgrades.
I want to replicate myself, I do not want to replicate abstract (data?) types.
I believe the machine will keep your memory intact. So it will just upgrade your capabilities but keep your essence.
Read this:
darvsmith.com/dox/codependency_book.html
It’s magnificent at first but half way down you will see what I mean when I say that psychologists, no matter how much they try to keep their eyes open in the face of reality, will always manage to falsify it.
It’s all rather elementary friends, modern psychology and psychiatry exists to keep this status quo Stockholm Syndrome society of ours controlled by tyrannical governments as a form of behavioral modification induced to control populations in order to toe the line.
Anything else is bullshit.
If not modern psychologists, then what? What non-modern psychologists are there to appreciate in your opinion?
There may be modern psychologists who aren’t in denial, how can I know? Just because I haven’t come across one does not mean there isn’t one. But the ones I’ve seen, they all appear to be in denial. Theorizing about denial while themselves being in denial.
Take a look at that link I posted. This one: darvsmith.com/dox/codependency_book.html
If he’s not in denial, then why does he say that one should “love one’s neighbour”? Does he perhaps mean something other than what I understand by that phrase? It’s strange, because it is not possible for a honest individual to love everyone. It’s “emotionally dishonest”, to use his term. I am not saying you should kill your neighbour, I’m just saying you can’t love every neighbour.
The problem with conquering denial is that it’s easy to simply replace one form of denial with another while thinking you are no longer in denial. You cease denying one set of emotions, but end up denying another. The psychologist I linked appears to be on the feminine side, denying his masculine emotions. This is supported by the fact that he considers modern age to be predominantly masculine. But modern age is perverted in multiple directions, it is both hyper-masculine and hyper-feminine.
Sure, being at war with your neighbour for no reason is hyper-masculine, a self-denial, but loving him unconditionally is just as bad. Of course, if you tone down your exaggerated masculinity, you will end up being more friendly toward your neighbour, but not THAT friendly.
I meant to ask specifically what psychologists you recommend as being good, to give me/us something to measure moderns by. Just asking for your opinion of what a few good psychologists are and what they should be like, for reference against moderns.
philosophical underpinnigs are fairly new, and if psychology is a joke, surely, philosophy is too. But, if it is, then the joke is too recent, as well, and no one is lauhing, (yet), and if they do, it usually assumed, that the last laugh is on them. And no one really wants that.
Hey, Orbie.
But what if just the reverse is true? …:
“Psychological underpinnigs are fairly new, and if philosophical is a joke, surely, psychology is too. But, if it is, then the joke is too recent, as well, and no one is lauhing, (yet), and if they do, it usually assumed, that the last laugh is on them. And no one really wants that.”
I think this is more true …
Modern psychology is merely useless, if it is as it was: a subdiscipline of philosophy and not more.
The chemical industry and other industries want to sell their “products”. First they selled them only on physicians, then they started to sell them also on psychyatrists or even psychologists. And the next step is alraedy achieved, isn’t it? If yes: what will be the after next step?
I think I answered that question, didn’t I? All I want is a honest psychologist. I am not aware of anyone specific.
Honesty is a complex subject, worthy of its own thread.
You might want to copy and paste over where he said that and what he said before and after that.
Loving one’s neighbor may be as simple as wishing them well, not wishing them harm, being helpful when you can. It doesn’t necessarily have to mean what is usually meant by many christians.
Mother Teresta had her way of loving her neighbor but even her neighbor wasn’t everyone though I’m sure that globally speaking she felt love for all - but we don’t have the time and energy to love everyone. We need to decide who is going to be our neighbor.
That phrase means different things to different people, Magnus Anderson.
What do you really think he meant by it? Re-read it and please copy and paste it over. I would be interested to know what he meant.
If all you want is an honest psychologist, Magnus, you may just get one who is completely abrupt and almost abusive.
You might actually want one who shows he cares and is interested by paying attention, who allows his patient or client to speak, doesn’t interrupt and doesn’t tell him how he really “should” think and “should” feel, and how he “should” live his life.
You might also want want who is quite aware of how transference works between psychologist and patient and vica versa and who is balanced enough and understanding enough to juggle that knowledge and experience between the two and help the patient to work through it.
What’s the difference between psychiatry and state reeducation exactly in behavioural modifications of entire populations?