Psychology

[sue hindmarsh]

Matt wrote:

People just kill themselves with their own thoughts and it's painful to witness.

What's wrong with telling someone that they are insane and/or stupid to their face?

Some people have potential for a spiritual life; most others do not. The idea is to weed out those with potential from those that have no potential whatsoever. You of course give each person the benefit of the doubt about which category they fit into. But it doesn't really take long to uncover a person's potential once you've spoken about, for example, that love causes hate. You'll very quickly get an insight into a person's mind once you've heard their response.

Potential for spirituality may take many years to bud in some people, as they need many years to think things through. You may meet them again and again over the years as they mature and grow in their thinking. But with a few individuals their is an immediate recognition, and they progress in their thinking quickly.

Judging people's strengths and weaknesses this way is the same judging we constantly put our own minds through. Judging our thoughts and actions so as to weed out false concepts and beliefs. Knowledge of your's and other people's strengths and weaknesses aid your ability to know how to develop your's and other people's thinking further. But, of course, the bottom line is that everyone has to judge what is true themselves.

-

[Carico]

What's wrong with telling someone that they are insane and/or stupid to their face?

It depends on who's telling him. Those who think that reality is subjective are on the road to psychosis already.

[Dan Rowden]

What is objective about reality?

[Imadrongo]

What is objective about reality?

The "hidden void"?

[Matt Gregory]

Cory,

MG: It can also be born out of the desire for the survival of wisdom.

CD: Ok, I agree, but for arguments sake: if you're functioning on that level, perhaps you no longer desire.

MG: Perhaps, but there's nothing saying that you can't desire the survival of wisdom before reaching that level, is there?

CD: But doesn't functioning on that level imply that one is 'being wise?'

Can you be wise if you are not on that level?

And thus, if you are not on that level, is it even possible to value the survival of wisdom, despite proclaiming to yourself that you do?

You don't have to be perfectly wise to know what wisdom is and to value it.

MG: It could go like this but I don't think it necessarily has to. Anger and depression are signs of rejection of truth. Someone could accept it right off the bat without any hangups.

CD: Right, but wouldn't such a person appear strong to you, based on his propensity to question you, passionately discuss his views, combined with the nature of his conversation ability overall?

If someone can see a piece of reasoning that you give them right off the bat then none of this would come into play because there would be nothing to discuss. He would be busy thinking about it.

CD: And if that is indeed the case, then there would be no inhibitions about whether or not you are doing harm to them by exposing them to truth. It would be apparent that they were strong enough to handle it, just by their appearance.

Yeah.

MG: Even if they were to get all angry and defensive, they could repeat what you said to someone else with more potential and spread wisdom indirectly.

CD: I don't think they would repeat what you said unless they liked it, and I don't think they could like it if they didn't allow their anger to yield to depression, and their depression fade away. Anger leads to rebellion, which leads to illusion, which leads to more anger.

MG: They would repeat it if it disturbed them, although they might not repeat the interaction perfectly word-for-word. But it could still stimulate thought even if it's not perfect.

CD: I just can't imagine under what circumstances a person would dislike what was said to them, yet go onto preach it to others. I don't think it's wise to conclude that such strange behavior is possible without actually observing it. I can't recall seeing anything like that in my own experience.

Well, people gossip about bad experiences they have and some people go into great detail.

MG: Thought stimulation is really what we're after here, not necessarily thoughts about specific things.

CD: I think if thought is to be wise, it does need to be specific. For instance, a young person who was raised in an environment that encouraged atheism, resistance to marijuana use, and sex differences, might encounter someone who gives them all sorts of thought-stimulating reasons for believing in God, equality and drug use - but that doesn't mean the survival of wisdom has been aided in anyway.

It could if the person has the right attitude. There's nothing wrong with considering possibilities. A person who is deaf to them is screwed no matter what positions they hold because habituated thought is belief. The more times people say "Atheism is not a belief", the more of a belief it becomes.

MG: It's just that certain things like cause and effect and the sexes and so forth are more stimulating to think about than most other things.

CD: Right. But I think we need to decide whether or not all thought-stimulation supports wisdom, or only specific thought stimulation supports wisdom. The way I see it currently, is that only specific thought stimulation supports wisdom, as there is a great deal of thought stimulation that doesn't support wisdom.

I think all mental stimulation supports wisdom. The mind has to be stimulated in a variety of ways in order for it to stay active. You can take any type of thoughtful activity, find a bunch of people who do it, and see that most people who do it are completely ignorant. I think a single activity, no matter how good it is or how much a person does it, isn't going to make a person wise because the more you do one thing the more unconscious and habituated it becomes. But I think a variety of mental activities do support wisdom because keeping the mind out of patterns of habit is stimulating. Of course, effort is needed, too. You have to make your best effort at everything you do in my opinion.

[Tomas]

-mr. helm-
Matt Gregory - What's wrong with telling someone that they are insane


-tomas-
You can do so, only if -you- were insane sometime in your own past.
However!, if -you- are presently insane, cool your jets.


-mr. helm-
and/or stupid to their face?



-tomas-
I'd suggest you practice it on a mirror first. Perhaps then, on a two-way mirror with your best friend (as the field test dummy).
Then, depends if you know the person well enough that you won't get your ass kicked for being an absolute ass....

That said, if you've been (or are) on psychiatric meds... all bets are off.

And then, walk into the rowdiest bar in the seediest neighborhood... and practice (your bullshit) on the biggest and meanest fellow there... complete strangers will love taking their turns beating you for this admonition (of) calling them insane and/or stupid. You'll see it in their faces (expressions).

ps- beware the pool cue upside your left temple.



Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971


.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

MG: It can also be born out of the desire for the survival of wisdom.

CD: Ok, I agree, but for arguments sake: if you're functioning on that level, perhaps you no longer desire.

MG: Perhaps, but there's nothing saying that you can't desire the survival of wisdom before reaching that level, is there?

CD: But doesn't functioning on that level imply that one is 'being wise?'

Can you be wise if you are not on that level?

And thus, if you are not on that level, is it even possible to value the survival of wisdom, despite proclaiming to yourself that you do?

You don't have to be perfectly wise to know what wisdom is and to value it.

Hmm. I think one day I might like to start a thread on this, to explore the factors preventing someone who knows what wisdom is, from being perfectly wise.

MG: Even if they were to get all angry and defensive, they could repeat what you said to someone else with more potential and spread wisdom indirectly.

CD: I don't think they would repeat what you said unless they liked it, and I don't think they could like it if they didn't allow their anger to yield to depression, and their depression fade away. Anger leads to rebellion, which leads to illusion, which leads to more anger.

MG: They would repeat it if it disturbed them, although they might not repeat the interaction perfectly word-for-word. But it could still stimulate thought even if it's not perfect.

CD: I just can't imagine under what circumstances a person would dislike what was said to them, yet go onto preach it to others. I don't think it's wise to conclude that such strange behavior is possible without actually observing it. I can't recall seeing anything like that in my own experience.

Well, people gossip about bad experiences they have and some people go into great detail.

Ha. Well played. I'll admit, you've cast light on an area I guess I've never thought much about.

MG: It's just that certain things like cause and effect and the sexes and so forth are more stimulating to think about than most other things.

CD: Right. But I think we need to decide whether or not all thought-stimulation supports wisdom, or only specific thought stimulation supports wisdom. The way I see it currently, is that only specific thought stimulation supports wisdom, as there is a great deal of thought stimulation that doesn't support wisdom.

I think all mental stimulation supports wisdom. The mind has to be stimulated in a variety of ways in order for it to stay active. You can take any type of thoughtful activity, find a bunch of people who do it, and see that most people who do it are completely ignorant. I think a single activity, no matter how good it is or how much a person does it, isn't going to make a person wise because the more you do one thing the more unconscious and habituated it becomes. But I think a variety of mental activities do support wisdom because keeping the mind out of patterns of habit is stimulating.

Yes, I see what you mean. Despite these people aren't wise, they are being stimulated in a way that leaves them in a position where they might be more experienced, flexible and thus more readily become wise, or if not that, still, they will be more likely to behave in a way that is less apt to make others as stupid. A very indirect supporting of wisdom.

[RalphPL]

What's wrong with telling someone that they are insane and/or stupid to their face?

It's an interesting question and brings up many points. Firstly, in and of itself, nothing is wrong with this. You are within your power to do so. You have "freewill", and can chose to do so, no matter what the consequences, are. Whether, it's against your morals, humanity, or even the law, it's ultimately up to you. Are your choices based on personal negative effects (conscience) , or positive ones, what are your motives? For example:

Robbing a bank is a crime and goes against good. Criminals do this for many reasons, such as--Money, thrill, publicity (etc)--sometimes all of theses put together (however the varying degrees). The act of doing so, has many negative effects (jail, lose of life and so on.). Nevertheless, people have the "freedom", to act in anyway they want to, there is nothing wrong with this...Unless it hurts someone. This is also interesting, because sometimes negative effects are required for the "greater good". For instance:

A man has a family which is very poor, in order to feed his family, the man resorts to stealing, or robbing a bank (I know, I know). No one gets hurt and the man gets away with enough money to feed his family and start a new life. The dual side of this, is, the man kills someone or is killed, himself. Which would be the opposite of his originally, well-meaning motives and therefore the family is, in effect, worse off. One of the points in this are, the man had other (safer, in some sense more effective ) options.

People just kill themselves with their own thoughts and it's painful to witness.

Wouldn't you say this stems from selfishness?

[Carl G]

RalphPL,

Congrats, you are only the third person ever to post his first message here in an existing thread. All others have commenced by starting their own threads, either just to say "hi" or to promote an agenda.

Well done, and welcome to Genius.

[RalphPL]

Thank you, Carl G. I appreciate the warm welcome...Even if, I have to share it with a, "publicity stunt";).

[Matt Gregory]

Ralph,

MG: What's wrong with telling someone that they are insane and/or stupid to their face?

RP: It's an interesting question and brings up many points. Firstly, in and of itself, nothing is wrong with this. You are within your power to do so. You have "freewill", and can chose to do so, no matter what the consequences, are. Whether, it's against your morals, humanity, or even the law, it's ultimately up to you.

Of course.

Are your choices based on personal negative effects (conscience) , or positive ones, what are your motives? For example:

Robbing a bank is a crime and goes against good.

Against good what?

Criminals do this for many reasons, such as--Money, thrill, publicity (etc)--sometimes all of theses put together (however the varying degrees). The act of doing so, has many negative effects (jail, lose of life and so on.). Nevertheless, people have the "freedom", to act in anyway they want to, there is nothing wrong with this...Unless it hurts someone. This is also interesting, because sometimes negative effects are required for the "greater good". For instance:

A man has a family which is very poor, in order to feed his family, the man resorts to stealing, or robbing a bank (I know, I know). No one gets hurt and the man gets away with enough money to feed his family and start a new life. The dual side of this, is, the man kills someone or is killed, himself. Which would be the opposite of his originally, well-meaning motives and therefore the family is, in effect, worse off. One of the points in this are, the man had other (safer, in some sense more effective ) options.

Right.

MG: People just kill themselves with their own thoughts and it's painful to witness.

RP: Wouldn't you say this stems from selfishness?

I'm not sure which clause of that quote you're referring to, but if you're referring to the first clause then the answer is yes because generally speaking people's thoughts are so self-absorbed and confined in scope that they don't see that being kind to others would actually benefit themselves just as much, and if you're referring to the second clause then the answer is yes because I don't like being attacked by these people, I don't like other people being attacked, and I don't like people attacking themselves. Sometimes people do things that just have no good outcome whatsoever and it's incredible that their behavior is like this, but people don't examine anything and they pit the world against themselves and kill themselves with it and take everybody else with them. It's just absurd and it makes me want to say, "Just be kind, man. Do no harm!" or "Wake up you fucking idiot!" but either extreme is useless.

I was actually more curious about the effect on the person doing the admonishing. If you went around telling everyone exactly what you thought at all times, even if it was ridiculously harsh, I wonder how it would affect you. Like Tomas said, you might of course get your lights punched out, but I'm wondering about the internal psychological effects. I think there's some degree of correctness in our immediate reaction in that it's good to want to take action to make a situation better, but a complicated situation really needs an impulse to think rather than an outward impulse. It seems like you could train yourself to have a reaction like that.

[RalphPL]

Are your choices based on personal negative effects (conscience) , or positive ones, what are your motives? For example:

Robbing a bank is a crime and goes against good.

Against good what?

Against the right thing to do. In other words, it's evil, wrong, ...selfish.

I'm not sure which clause of that quote you're referring to, but if you're referring to the first clause then the answer is yes because generally speaking people's thoughts are so self-absorbed and confined in scope that they don't see that being kind to others would actually benefit themselves just as much, and if you're referring to the second clause then the answer is yes because I don't like being attacked by these people, I don't like other people being attacked, and I don't like people attacking themselves.

I think you've got your clauses mixed up. The first one seems to fit much better with the second one's meaning and vice versa. Though, I'm beginning to think the whole thing is about selfishness...

It seems like all good stems from selfishness (is this not evil?). Whether we help others, because: it's the way we'd like to be treated, or it's a loved one, that we don't want to see suffer, or whether is makes us feel superior (in that, we have the power and others don't type of way).
It all seems selfish...LOVE seems selfish, which in turn is evil. Heh, I've never thought about it that way!

I was actually more curious about the effect on the person doing the admonishing. If you went around telling everyone exactly what you thought at all times, even if it was ridiculously harsh, I wonder how it would affect you. Like Tomas said, you might of course get your lights punched out, but I'm wondering about the internal psychological effects. I think there's some degree of correctness in our immediate reaction in that it's good to want to take action to make a situation better, but a complicated situation really needs an impulse to think rather than an outward impulse. It seems like you could train yourself to have a reaction like that.

Definitely, it's all selfish! I'm sure it would make you feel less stressed, to tell people to basically "fuck off!" (that's what it is, essentially).

So, what's the point of this post? What have you learned from "others", which you didn't know. So, in what way do your thoughts differ from when you first posted this question. Again, it's all about motives.

[Matt Gregory]

Judging people's strengths and weaknesses this way is the same judging we constantly put our own minds through. Judging our thoughts and actions so as to weed out false concepts and beliefs. Knowledge of your's and other people's strengths and weaknesses aid your ability to know how to develop your's and other people's thinking further. But, of course, the bottom line is that everyone has to judge what is true themselves.

Agreed, but taking it further brings us to the problem of no-self and of causing each person to make their own true judgment.

[Matt Gregory]

Cory,

MG: You don't have to be perfectly wise to know what wisdom is and to value it.

CD: Hmm. I think one day I might like to start a thread on this, to explore the factors preventing someone who knows what wisdom is, from being perfectly wise.

I think it boils down to physical limitations. All it really takes to become enlightened is to drop all of your anxieties, but an anxiety is a thought habit that's been built over time and it takes time to identify a habit and it takes time to learn to stop falling into it. And we find most of our comfort in habit so that makes it take even longer.

MG: It's just that certain things like cause and effect and the sexes and so forth are more stimulating to think about than most other things.

CD: Right. But I think we need to decide whether or not all thought-stimulation supports wisdom, or only specific thought stimulation supports wisdom. The way I see it currently, is that only specific thought stimulation supports wisdom, as there is a great deal of thought stimulation that doesn't support wisdom.

MG: I think all mental stimulation supports wisdom. The mind has to be stimulated in a variety of ways in order for it to stay active. You can take any type of thoughtful activity, find a bunch of people who do it, and see that most people who do it are completely ignorant. I think a single activity, no matter how good it is or how much a person does it, isn't going to make a person wise because the more you do one thing the more unconscious and habituated it becomes. But I think a variety of mental activities do support wisdom because keeping the mind out of patterns of habit is stimulating.

CD: Yes, I see what you mean. Despite these people aren't wise, they are being stimulated in a way that leaves them in a position where they might be more experienced, flexible and thus more readily become wise, or if not that, still, they will be more likely to behave in a way that is less apt to make others as stupid. A very indirect supporting of wisdom.

Actually, what I mean is the stimulation itself is wisdom. Wisdom isn't the result of learning any particular set of truths, but of a heightened level of mental stimulation that enables one to generate his own truths spontaneously.

[Matt Gregory]

Ralph,

RPL: Are your choices based on personal negative effects (conscience) , or positive ones, what are your motives? For example:

Robbing a bank is a crime and goes against good.

MG: Against good what?

RPL: Against the right thing to do. In other words, it's evil, wrong, ...selfish.

Well, who or what determines what the right thing is? The government? I mean, should we always follow the authorities?

MG: I'm not sure which clause of that quote you're referring to, but if you're referring to the first clause then the answer is yes because generally speaking people's thoughts are so self-absorbed and confined in scope that they don't see that being kind to others would actually benefit themselves just as much, and if you're referring to the second clause then the answer is yes because I don't like being attacked by these people, I don't like other people being attacked, and I don't like people attacking themselves.

RPL: I think you've got your clauses mixed up. The first one seems to fit much better with the second one's meaning and vice versa.

Well, whatever. If you were saying that other people are selfish then I gave the reason why and if you were saying that I am selfish then I gave the reason why.

RPL: Though, I'm beginning to think the whole thing is about selfishness...

It seems like all good stems from selfishness (is this not evil?). Whether we help others, because: it's the way we'd like to be treated, or it's a loved one, that we don't want to see suffer, or whether is makes us feel superior (in that, we have the power and others don't type of way).
It all seems selfish...LOVE seems selfish, which in turn is evil. Heh, I've never thought about it that way!

Yeah, selfishness is not a good criteria of good and evil because we're all selfish by logical necessity! There's no way around it.

MG: I was actually more curious about the effect on the person doing the admonishing. If you went around telling everyone exactly what you thought at all times, even if it was ridiculously harsh, I wonder how it would affect you. Like Tomas said, you might of course get your lights punched out, but I'm wondering about the internal psychological effects. I think there's some degree of correctness in our immediate reaction in that it's good to want to take action to make a situation better, but a complicated situation really needs an impulse to think rather than an outward impulse. It seems like you could train yourself to have a reaction like that.

RPL: Definitely, it's all selfish! I'm sure it would make you feel less stressed, to tell people to basically "fuck off!" (that's what it is, essentially).

I guess if that made everyone avoid you it would relieve stress.

So, what's the point of this post? What have you learned from "others", which you didn't know. So, in what way do your thoughts differ from when you first posted this question. Again, it's all about motives.

Well, I've been posting my thoughts on the thread. I don't know what else to say about it.

[RalphPL]

Think what you want.

Yeah, selfishness is not a good criteria of good and evil because we're all selfish by logical necessity! There's no way around it.

I never said selfishness was a criteria, for evil. It's like saying murder, is a criteria for evil. No.

What about Mother Theresa? Was she delusional?

[Matt Gregory]

Actually, what I mean is the stimulation itself is wisdom. Wisdom isn't the result of learning any particular set of truths, but of a heightened level of mental stimulation that enables one to generate his own truths spontaneously.

Perhaps for the record I should clarify that by "mental stimulation" I mean a mind stimulated by thought, as opposed to anxiety, fear, excitement or other emotions.

[Katy]

I just can't imagine under what circumstances a person would dislike what was said to them, yet go onto preach it to others. I don't think it's wise to conclude that such strange behavior is possible without actually observing it. I can't recall seeing anything like that in my own experience.

I don't see this as improbable. I've done it myself, if someone accuses me of something negative I do not see in myself, I will ask someone else whether they see it too. Admittedly, this scenario requires that the person you're calling insane actually cares enough to double check... but then again, what is the point of telling someone who doesn't care anything at all?

[Cory Duchesne]

Matt,

CD: I just can't imagine under what circumstances a person would dislike what was said to them, yet go onto preach it to others. I don't think it's wise to conclude that such strange behavior is possible without actually observing it. I can't recall seeing anything like that in my own experience.

Matt: Well, people gossip about bad experiences they have and some people go into great detail. Thought stimulation is really what we're after here, not necessarily thoughts about specific things.

Cory: I think if thought is to be wise, it does need to be specific. For instance, a young person who was raised in an environment that encouraged atheism, resistance to marijuana use, and sex differences, might encounter someone who gives them all sorts of thought-stimulating reasons for believing in God, equality and drug use - but that doesn't mean the survival of wisdom has been aided in anyway.

MG: I think all mental stimulation supports wisdom. The mind has to be stimulated in a variety of ways in order for it to stay active. You can take any type of thoughtful activity, find a bunch of people who do it, and see that most people who do it are completely ignorant. I think a single activity, no matter how good it is or how much a person does it, isn't going to make a person wise because the more you do one thing the more unconscious and habituated it becomes. But I think a variety of mental activities do support wisdom because keeping the mind out of patterns of habit is stimulating.

CD: Yes, I see what you mean. Despite these people aren't wise, they are being stimulated in a way that leaves them in a position where they might become more experienced, flexible and thus more readily become wise, or if not that, still, they will be more likely to behave in a way that is less apt to make others as stupid. A very indirect supporting of wisdom.

MG: Actually, what I mean is the stimulation itself is wisdom. Wisdom isn't the result of learning any particular set of truths, but of a heightened level of mental stimulation that enables one to generate his own truths spontaneously.

Ok, then it seems the mental stimulation is specific then. Not all mental stimulation is wisdom, but only a heightened level of mental stimulation.

Perhaps for the record I should clarify that by "mental stimulation" I mean a mind stimulated by thought, as opposed to anxiety, fear, excitement or other emotions.

Is anxiety, fear, or excitement possible without thought? I don't think it is. Thought is actually a necessary trigger. Therefore, not all mental stimulation is wisdom.

Although, it seems like you're trying to make a distinction here. On the one hand you say there is the mental stimulation that supports wisdom, and according to you, all mental stimulation supports wisdom. For instance, a man may be angerd by your wise words, and he retreats from you with anger, however, his retelling of the event, despite he doesn't understand it himself, may cause wise stimulation in the person listening to him - and thus his angry remembrance of your words may support wisdom.

On the other hand, in contrast to the sort of stimulation that may support wisdom (unhappiness) there is the mental stimulation that actually is wisdom - and in that case, you seem to think the stimulation must be specific (e.g. the stimulation can't cause fear, anxiety, pleasurable arousal, etc)

Are you meaning to make this distinction?

I just can't imagine under what circumstances a person would dislike what was said to them, yet go onto preach it to others. I don't think it's wise to conclude that such strange behavior is possible without actually observing it. I can't recall seeing anything like that in my own experience.

I don't see this as improbable. I've done it myself, if someone accuses me of something negative I do not see in myself, I will ask someone else whether they see it too.

Yeah, I was being a bit indolent in my inability to imagine such a case. I do now.

I agree that an angry or anxious denial of someone else's wise opinion, despite the opinion is angrily or fearfully rejected, might lead to an act of confiding or retelling this unpleasant event to another person, and this retelling may stimulate the listener into a heightened awareness where they spontaneously generate wise truths. Fair enough.


This 'supporting of wisdom' reminds me of something Schopenhauer wrote:

Just as a stream flows smoothly on as long as it encounters no obstruction, so the nature of the ignorant is such that they never really notice or become conscious of what is agreeable to their will; if they are to notice something, their will has to have been thwarted, has to have experienced a shock or unhappiness of some kind.

Of course, being wise is not being shocked or unhappy. But stimulation which supports wisdom may very well shock or cause unhappiness.

Therefore, Matt, I don't think all stimulation supports wisdom. It is only either a) stimulation which causes shock, anger, unhappiness and anxiety or b) or stimulation which is wisdom.

[Matt Gregory]

Okay, Cory, fair enough. It's just that I think of mental stimulation as actual thought. It didn't occur to me at first that someone would think of anger or whatever as mental stimulation. To me emotions indicate a lack of stimulation; a passivity that allows the body to influence the mind.