Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Oops - sorry - that's something that gets picked up in the threads. QRS = Quinn, Rowden, and Solway (Dan always calls it QSR instead - same thing). Those are the 3 admins on this website. QRS is referred to here and on a few other websites as their particular philosophy, even though the 3 of them have some different beliefs, 3 very different personalities, and manifest their beliefs quite differently. Where their ideals overlap and where they have at least an understanding of definitions that are fairly unique to the rest of society (such as the definition of woman, as described in David's writing) is considered QRS philosophy.
Ah---gotcha.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Your earlier reference was to Spock's mind being "sterile" - or devoid of emotion. David and Kevin explain the benefits of non-emotionality at great length in their works, and if you go through Dan's posts explaining the characteristics of a sage, you will see that he concurs.
No, no---the environment (a space-going vessel---"floating box"---with artificial air, food, water, climate, et cetera) I said was sterile; nothing to which to adapt except the intellectual and occasionally some physical threat. Realistically, if we ventured out there, it would mostly wandering around obviously, not the every day uber-exciting adventure-n-alien-ridden schlock Trek portrays. (I know, I know, no one would watch it if they were actually doing dull, normal scientific astronaut stuff...)
[The most utterly, completely assinine concept in Trek is the absence of all immune system realities of being in that environment; not only continuing to lose what little natural immunity humans have to Earth-bound disease (unrealistic enough), but also the myriad varities of diseases and organisms that will
inevitably be encountered on any world with life forms, whether populated with "intelligent" life or not. Entire tribes and cultures were wiped out when whites landed in the New World---"first contact" with the Vulcans would have resulted in exposure to untold types of micro-organisms. We're barely able to contain the bugs we have on this world, nevermind god-know-what kinds of strains of exo-species.]
However, "sterile" does seem apt for Spock's brain as well. I see the benefits of not being at the whim of emotion---but to pathologically repress, stifle, all feeling and emotions...? That's a ticket to Loonyville, guaranteed, return trip optional. Just like trying to stop REM sleep = insanity. We have these things for a reason (but again, life in a box, motionless, head vastly disproportionate to the remainder of its body's skrawny mass, passionless, solely cerebral, soulless, uncreative...yeah, non-emotionality might be just peachy in this case; I don't think so, but it's possible it could work).
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
The entire ebook of David's that I linked for you was the definition of "woman." The definition wasn't in the work - it was the work.
Ah.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
You can not see that this is a belief? Okay, here's an example that won't be so personal to you, so you can see the definition of "belief" better.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I do not consider that females are angels. I've met more female monsters than I can count - including my own mother.
By that reasoning, yours too is a belief---as was the belief that you were abused, or that the earth is round.
I maintain it's empirical data---my observations of some compared with observations of others. Had I documented every single person I've met who I considered a monster, I'd then have evidence for my
"The Majority of Female Persons Nord Has Met Are Monsters" thesis, but of course I haven't done that.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
I believe that the 3 primary colors are red, yellow, and blue. Some people believe that the moon walk in 1969 was staged on a movie set. These are both beliefs. Truth and belief do not necessarily have anything to do with each other, but they could.
1. Red, blue, yellow as three primary colours =
fact. It is testable in countless ways (all sorts of spectrum tests---from prisms to rainbows to astrological observations of light from stars); every sane person on the planet agrees with this. And---most importantly---no one can conceive of a colour not coming from these primary three; it is not possible. Belief isn't a part of it.
2. This one's trickier because it's possible that it was faked---not bloody likely, but still possible. Short of intense psychological testing (lie-detectors, hypnosis, et cetera) of astronauts still alive who've gone there...how can I
prove that men landed on the moon? I was age 2 when the last human stepped foot on the moon. How can I prove it was faked, either? One has to trust the science that gives us the consensus of the truth of these events, and then either agree with them as facts or disagree.
(A person once asked me a silly question:
"Do you believe in evolution?" After I stopped laughing, I replied: "Believe in? Once you understand the scientific method, you either agree with the facts or don't agree, hopefully with a sensible counter-argument as to why you disgree. Belief has nothing to do with it." I didn't mention my own personal work with some animals, studying it first-hand, but that made sense as it was.)
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Most people were raised on many kinds of lies. The thing I like about philosophy is it works to sort out lies from truth.
Aye.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
(1) I grew up in a very abusive household, and I mean that to an extent that most can’t imagine – not just the type of “abuse†that Kelly refers to. (2) People who were abused as children give off subconscious signals that are easily read by predators. Predators know that these are easy targets because they have been conditioned by their childhoods to be good victims. That is how people who were abused as children often end up being revictimized so much throughout their lives. Predators make themselves invisible (more like a wolf in sheep’s clothing) except when they have to reveal themselves during the attack. The prey can not see them until it is too late, and those who are not prey may never see them at all.
(1) Same here. Very abusive.
(2) I think that's true, but I wonder what sort of signals are actually given---the abused child usually "ends up" in more abusive relationships, in what seems like uncanny coincidence, which could be due to
"I'm-a-victim signals" or-and
"abuse-me-some-more-please-I-need-to-be-a-victim signals." (Four of my first five relationships were with women nearly as---and one much, much more---unbalanced as my mother, who had psychotic episodes until the divorce, when I was 12.
I grew aware of all this in my mid-20s and changed the pattern (and actually had several good relationships later which weren't abusive at all). Anyway, it's important to be aware of what messages you're sending to "predators," who were likely abused, as well, as children, re-living that shit with another and being in the "powerful" role instead of the "powerless" one, which as I'm sure you know creates this "cycle of abuse" thing. These so-called predators recognize weakness in others because it's something with which they have plenty of familiarity.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Barely. People with higher IQs are more resistant to PTSD, and usually only get milder cases of it and only after bigger traumas. Despite that my IQ puts me in a genius range, I have severe PTSD. If I were so-called less intelligent, I would have cracked long before experiencing most of what I’ve been through. Staying sane does not sound like the most intelligent option to me.
I doubt "intelligence"---the IQ variety, which can be increased through mere memorization and isn't a really good indicator of intelligence---is as much a factor here as desensitization. It's the soft shell of an egg that breaks most easily; minds can be tempered, hardened, growing resistant to shock and horror (it's been a personal interest of mine, pretty much a fact in my mind through self-experimentation); it all depends how bad the very first trauma was, perhaps. And I think imagination and adaptability (early independence maybe) play another part, but I've not yet been able to put into words exactly why I think this.
Generally, I go with "the more intelligent, the less sane." Depends on one's defintion of insanity and sanity, though.
Anyway, do you recall how old you were when this began?
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
I was never admitted for that, but I do have a broken ankle that will never heal because I was not taken to the hospital for it, and by the time I got to a doctor for it, other bones had grown around it, so it is inoperable. It's ignorable, and I don't even limp that often. Beyond that, only one hospital visit and one doctor's office visit.
Oh, okay.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Only during my marriage.
You too, huh? Yeah, those death threats are great; at least the girlfriend of mine, who swore she'd run me over, couldn't get to me because I was in jail at the time, facing phony theft charges she'd invented because I left her; and a year after I got out, she stalked me for another year and then killed herself, so I suppose it all worked out. (No, really; no sarcasm---I don't regret a second of any of it. It was hugely beneficial in ways which took years to comprehend and fully appreciate; often the worst experiences provide you with experiences that help you in many constructive ways over the long run. So, I no longer attach "good" or "bad" to any experience anymore.)
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Does an SN on a message board while being very careful to not reveal identifying details count?
Nope, not so much.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
When I was younger, I did abuse dextromethorphan rather frequently. The first time I did, I spent some time with my parents. Most of it I don't remember, but I do remember after hours of my mother egging me on and not getting me upset, my mother asked "Why can't you be like this more often?" and I reasoned Why not? I also developed my own religion (which I have since abandoned) revolving around the Great Fairies (hey, just another term for angels, right?)... but I have since decided that I prefer logic.
Well, sure. I'd never say 'delusion is better than logic'---I simply don't dig the idea of having Logic as a substitute religion, because I came close to that (and if there's more than one way to a solution, it's limiting using logic as a crutch), but that's me. Instead I'd say, "Logic isn't everything," but that's an unpopular saying around here ;)
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Good. I described above how the predators come out. There are probably plenty of predators all around you, but since you are not prey, they keep their civilized faces on.
Oh, could be---female or male. I look so scruffy and rough these days, I tend to scare most people away; plus, I've been into martial arts (well, not as regularly as I'd like) for a long while, have carried around a knife since my teens (back when I began my survivalist stuff), and really don't fear death anyway, so no worries.
I think young girls should be instructed in martial arts as soon as they can walk---it could teach them so many things (like self-reliance, responsibility, self-discipline, confidence, self-respect, self-awareness), not the least of which being how to not be a victim and how to protect themselves (perhaps the absurd "protector instinct" and this prosaic chivalry crap in men will finally fade away, also).
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
No. My father was primarily physically abusive, and my mother was primarily emotionally abusive (although it was my mother who broke my ankle, and there were other instances where my mother was physically abusive and my father was emotionally abusive) - but I thoroughly recognize that and how emotional abuse is actually much worse than physical abuse.
Yeah, sounds like the same for me, only in reverse; my mother was the main physically abusive one (her "psychological abuse" consisted of screaming, guilt-trips, shame, mind-games, and random insults---this last three was the extent of my father's "psychological abuse," though in moderation).
I can't say my father was physically "abusive" per se---he was a
very strict bastard, his punishments were rather severe, and I hated him for many years, but both of these I never really minded later on (I don't regard them as traumatic---instead, very helpful, assisting my "toughness" which really came in handy later on). I don't have any ill feeling towards either of them anymore; stopped having disturbing dreams involving my mother back when I was 14 or so (we lived with my father after the divorce, thankfully).
The difference between them: my father hit me when I screwed up, punishing me, which didn't work very often but helped me in other ways; my mother hit me when she was angry, or whenever she felt like hurting someone---if she was psychotic or not---sometimes when I messed up (and I was a little trouble-maker, always), but she mostly left the punishments for my father to dish out when he got home from work; her usual drunkenness probably added to her viciousness---far worse than my father, who at least showed restraint.
[Neither of them matched my sister in "psychological abuse, though"---she was a fucking Grand Master at that.]
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Lets just say that none of this is exclusive to either gender.
Indeed.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
I consider it only by chance that he did not shoot me. Although the physical result was equal (I did not get shot) the mental outcome was realizing that I was too stupid to run out the door when someone had a gun on me, and actually cornered myself rather than getting away.
Huh. Well, I can't say anyone's ever pointed a gun at me---I had the pleasure of being shot when I was 20, but that was an incredibly stupid drunken accident.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Perhaps you are right on this. I had forgotten that I should not use myself as an example when trying to evaluate instincts. I had forgotten that even researchers have found on people who have survived extensive torture that instincts become extinguished.
Really? Interesting. Where did you hear this? Sounds precisely contrary to my own experiments with desensitization-suffering (I'm quite numb to shit that seems to cripple others around me in a crisis---I've been in a few, and I was calm and rational, taking action before I realized what I was doing). Well, there are other factors that might explain that, and as you mention it's not wise to only use yourself as an example.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
I still believe there is more to logic than to instinct, even based on the example of throwing something at a toddler's head vs at an adult's head.
Ah, not a bad point. But are you taking into consideration the poor reflexes, under-developed motor skills, and rather slow perceptual processing of the toddler? (Instinct is nothing without the body and mental capacity to carry out action.)
Compare to a newborn gazelle: within a short period, it's fully aware, alert, and able to run. In humans, "natural" instinct is there, like raw material, needing only the body and mind to develop sufficiently to act---compare the toddler to a 6-year-old that's been raised on a farm, for example. Other types of instinct, from repetitive action, causing the deepest creases in our grey matter, develop as we grow.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
I had failed to follow proper procedure for unloading the car because one box was too heavy for me to hold and close the car door properly before entering the house. I thought I could set the box down inside and get back out there to get the next load and close the door properly without getting caught, but I was wrong.
When I was a little kid, he would just hit me. As I got older he used what I later learned were military combat techniques on me. When he was old and fragile (he was already 50 when I was born), he probably got scared that I'd fight back, so that is probably why he went for a gun.
What was your father's childhood like?---I gather he was in the US Army as well...?
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Logic is the foundation of the Universe. Just because a component of the Universe, such as an ant, may not be able to consciously make a logical deduction like a human could does not mean that logic does not function here. Besides, we were talking about humans and “Vulcans†– not about simple animals.
Hmm---I'll have to dig up the posts I made for this subject in the other thread with Kelly (don't feel like typing all that out again).
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Because reflex is too random. Instinct/reflex may be good enough because of similar enough situations that might not register consciously, but untrained reflex is no different than randomness. (*) Your example of a moment in a hockey game illustrates that which happened amongst a bunch of guys that practiced together. I’m rather certain that would not have happened if none of you had practiced together before. I’m positive that would not have happened if I had been in one of those positions because I am a novice skater. Various levels of training had to go in before “instinct†developed.
Actually reflex is different from instinct---reflex is just a physical reaction, a physical effect for a physical cause. Patients in comas (and of course people who are asleep) still maintain their stimulus response (depending on the severity of brain damage, if any at all), but if you toss a ball at their skulls, they won't move out of the way ;)
[Ever see the movie
Awakenings? It's quite relevant to this subject in that
Dr. Oliver Sacksdid extensive work with patients in the 1960s suffering a "sleepy sickness," and despite the lack of consciousness, the patients displayed normal reflexes. More to it, of course, than just reflex. Not a bad flick, actually, with Robert De Niro and Robin Williams, who plays Dr. Sacks; if you haven't already, check it out sometime, and you'll see what I'm talking about.]
(*) Sure, that played a part---obviously you develop chemistry with players with whom you've played over a period of time (anywhere from a few months to a couple years it usually takes to develop that), but that's part of what I mean, too: it's not spoken, it's intuitive and instinctual, non-verbal, not planned; adapting to them and anticipating how they move and act, every strength and weakness you can depend on or suppliment with your own strengths...a million intangibles (things I've never even thought about before this moment) you pick up and never consciously consider. Logic plays no part in chemistry or instinct.
Plus, we'd have games at the local rink on weekends and there'd always be new guys joining in---hardly ever did you even speak a word to them, let alone practice; we all picked teams randomly and jumped in it and started adapting to each other. I'm not saying logic played absolutely no part in
any of this; of course it did, but it was marginal, and usually after a whistle went and you had time to stop and think (hockey's the fastest sport on the planet), or after the game, going over it, or before the game, envisioning what you'll need to do, practicing a move in your mind, and such.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Wild animals are trained by their pack. You can not take a wolf pup, raise it to adulthood amongst humans, reintroduce it to its pack, and expect it to hunt “on instinct.â€
1. They are not "trained"---at most, they learn experientially (play is also the basis for future preparation), but not directly how to hunt as a pack. Most reptiles are left at birth, or after a year of being protected by a pod; they have neither training nor experiential knowledge of what to do---they just do it, they know it. (The salmon finding their way up alien rivers is cliched, but it still fits here.)
2. No, you couldn't do that with a wolf pup and expect a fully "adjusted" adult wolf because (a) it will be domesticated, if only in part, and (b) it will not be accepted by any wolf pack because of its human scent, for one thing. They need social play with their pack to develop proper "pack" survival skills.
However, while it would not be immediately accepted into any pack (possibly after a while, depending---there are no orphans among wolves), it will still be able to hunt for itself (as a lone wolf); hell, even dogs, having been domesticated for over ten thousand years (since Sumer), can go feral if abandoned in the wild and survive (depending on the breed . . . fluffy poodles?---not so much).
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Humans are not designed to be conscious of their every thought – but that does not mean that the brain does not think them logically. Yes, here I am reporting that unconscious and subconscious logic are as possible as conscious logic, and all of that is a function of the underlying logic of the Universe..
It's an interesting notion. I think the will affects each hemisphere differently---the split-brain experiment subjects reveal strong evidence for dual-brain theory as well as dual-consciousness...such as:
Perhaps the most intriguing split brain research was with a patient of another pair of split brain researcher, Michael Gazzaniga and Joseph LeDoux, who had some limited language facilities in his right brain. This patient show marked preferences in responses from the two hemispheres. When asked, “What do you want to do?†the left hemisphere replied “draftsmanâ€, but the right hemisphere (using scrabble letters) replied “automobile race.â€
(I don't have the link handy, but if you search either of those names, you'll find it.) Although it's not that common for the right hemisphere to have much grasp of language (usually only a few words at best), this implies dual-will, also, each hemisphere wanting to do something completely different---: the left: sitting and doing technical work, controlled, detailed (exactly to character); the right? Hop in a fast car and hit the gas---do something, move; action (exactly to character). Two hundred years ago, it might have answered "Ride my horse." Two thousand?
"Go hunting?" Hmm.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
“Good art†shows balance or purposeful use of imbalance, purpose, and structure. IMO, for art to be truly good, it must also have function, but that is not a requisite of the art community – of which I gather you may be a part.
Well, I guess the only way to prove this would be to have an experiment in which the left hemisphere is impaired and the patient is (an artist) allowed to draw something. Of course, skill-talent and detail itself, are dependent on the left hemisphere. It would need to be something that 'retards' the reasoning ability only.
I think both sides are needed for "good" or "bad" or any type of art; I just maintain that creativity requires little in the way of logic or reason. What I see in my illogical dreams every night proves this---to me---over and over.
As for---
"art community – of which I gather you may be a part"---nope. I kinda-sorta was way back when I did representational art (animals and crap; copying), but I moved into watercolour, and then finally black ink/leads and abstract stuff and did my own thing, giving most of it away or losing or destroying the rest. I started making cartoon strips when I was about 6 years old, but I never took a course or anything. Just learned shit on my own.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
I took some college-level art courses, and one guest instructor went on for an hour that faeces is not only art, but it is the only art we can truly create for ourselves. He encouraged us to look in the toilet after every bowel movement and appreciate the art we have created. I was amazed that I was the only one of the students who found that to be a truly shitty lecture. The other students thought I wasn’t open-minded enough. If this is standard of what they teach at college level art courses, I don’t mind that you consider that I am not an artist.
Ha! Christ, you have to be joking! (?) Far out anyway. When I was 22, I wrote a short story about an old weird guy who lived in tunnels and kidnapped people, using their blood to paint his masterpieces. Never did finish that one (I ran out of blood!). Frankly, I'd rather use my own blood than my dung.
This instructor didn't happen to carry around a picture of Marquis de Sade, did he? ;)
Well, of course one can be an artist and not be creative---you didn't strike me as a creative type (I might be wrong, I don't know you; it was just a sense)---in fact, uncreative art is by far the norm. I mentioned the not being an artist bit because I've never heard any creative person judging art as good or bad.
Poo art isn't bad art---it's just
fucking nasty! =P
[Anyway, as for your last post---yeah, Florida. Damn, you have my sympathies. Me---I'm from Canuckistan, born in Alberta, moving west soon, back to the Coast (BC) in less than two months.]